Craig

Hi Maxwell. You say that you are not yet decided on this topic, and you seem to be wanting to find out what the scriptures teach. This was the same situation I was in a year or two ago.
Are there any particular aspects of this subject that you are thinking about at the moment and wondering whether complementarians are correct or not? I am sure that there are some people who contribute here who would be willing to discuss the scriptures with you. I have personally found them very helpful.

Just thought some here may be interested in a comment I just read at equality central.
http://equalitycentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=2439.msg27968#msg27968
Concerning Gene Edward’s book The Christian Woman… Set Free.

In Chapter 20 Gene says that authentein means “to dominate” and that the present tense of epitrepô means the situation he was addressing was “something specific, timely and temporary.” (p. 117)

“In a specific situation, a woman was teaching. She was unqualified to teach, by reason that she was domineering a man. Timothy was there to put an end to this and to do so at the instruction of Paul.

“The problem was not that women were teaching and should not, nor even that a woman was teaching a man. Rather, it was that someone was domineering a specific man and therefore had no business teaching.” (p. 117)

Thanks Cheryl @23. Passive would certainly make more sense. I was surprised to see it called active. It looks like your source is correct. I just clicked on the Strong’s number above this Greek word where it says it is active, and it took me to http://concordance.biblos.com/exapate_theisa.htm where it says it is passive!

“Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;
Verb: Aorist Passive Participle Nominative Singular Feminine”

It is good that it makes more sense, but I was hoping to be able to rely on this sort of information on Greek things. It seems you have to double check everything 🙁 .

In contrast, Adam’s non-deception is in the passive voice. I don’t know if these things are significant. I’m just pointing them out in case someone may know.

I just noticed that in 1 Tim 2:14b the Greek word translated “was deceived” in the NIV (exapatetheisa) is called an “aorist active participle” here http://interlinearbible.org/1_timothy/2.htm

Does this mean that the woman was not actually the one who was deceived (passive), but rather the one who deceived one or more other people (active)? Should it be translated as “having deceived” rather than “was deceived” or “being deceived”. Is any of this significant?

I may not be understanding you properly Charis. Are you suggesting that Paul is saying “I do not permit women to teach men, because the church is deceived, but shall be saved, if those in the church continue in faith?
Besides the typology questions, does this make sense to you? For example, how does the bit after “because” give the reason for the bit before the “because”? Maybe I have misunderstood, but I don’t yet follow how this explanation could be likely.

Just looking over those examples a bit more I may be showing my ignorance and too eager to put something out there for your thoughts. Sorry about that.
Lord (kurion) in 1:1 is only in some Greek texts and the “the” is only in my interlinear translation- not in the NIV.
“Only God” in 1:17 may be definite enough in Greek without adding a “the”.
Some of the others as I think about them don’t seem really good examples either 🙁
Does anyone see anything here worth pursuing or am I on the wrong track?
Thanks for letting me toss out my thinking in a friendly environment so that I can learn and hopefully help others.

I just thought it would be an interesting exercise to actually try and find some of these nouns that do not have the definite  article in Greek and yet are generally considered to be definite and so can be translated as “the ….” rather than “a ….” in English.
I thought I would have to look for a while, and I thought it may only occur when the noun is at the beginning of the sentence as the text book quoted in #12 says.
I thought I would begin in 1 Timothy.
So far, after just reading through Ch 1 & 2, I have found  at least 12 examples – and that doesn’t include 1 Tim 2:11,12! Also these examples aren’t even at the beginning of the sentence for emphasis!
1 Tim1:1 “the command”, “the Lord”
1 Tim 1:9 “the ungodly”, “the unholy”
1 Tim 1:15 “the worst (first)”
1 Tim 1:16 “the worst (first)”
1 Tim 1:17 “the only God”
1 Tim 2:4 “the truth”
1 Tim 2:5 “the man Christ Jesus”
1 Tim 2:7 “the truth”, “the true faith”, “the Gentiles”
Those who have some knowledge of Greek please correct me if I am wrong. But all these examples seem to me to have no article in Greek, and yet are translated as “the …” in the NIV.
I have been told by comps in the past, that because there is no article in v11,12, Paul is referring to an indefinite woman, and so should be translated as “a woman”.
If I am understanding these examples properly, they contradict what the comps are saying. There are in fact many examples of nouns without the article translated as “the ….” and according to the text book, this would be even more true if the noun begins the sentence like “woman” does in 1 Tim 2:11.
Surely Paul is not referring to “a Lord” rather than “the Lord”!
Any thoughts? Am I just showing my ignorance or am I making sense?

Yes it is very interesting to me. I have been able to grasp how v14b, 15 seem to definitely refer to a particular Ephesian woman, and how “the woman” could refer back anaphorically to v11,12 – but it still didn’t quite sound right. V11,12 still sounded more generic than passages like Jn4. If “woman”, because it is at the beginning of the sentence should be translated “the woman” then it all makes a lot more sense to me.

I just found something that may be significant. Others of you may already know this, but I am a real novice in Greek and it was news to me.
I was aware that in Greek there is no indefinite article.
I have been told by several comp friends that “woman” in 1 Tim 2:11 was indefinite. If Paul had meant a definite woman he would have used the definite article and said “the woman” and not just “woman”.
In “Learn to read the Greek NT” by Ward Powers on p32, it says “the beginning of a sentence is an emphatic position, and the most important word in a sentence may be placed first to give it emphasis. Often a word in this position is considered definite enough not to be given the article in Greek.”
“Woman” begins the sentence in v11, and “but woman” begins a clause in v12.
This to me gives more weight to the idea that Paul is speaking of a definite woman, and not speaking generically of “any woman” in v11,12.
Am I on the right track? Is this common knowledge?

That’s about it TL. Thanks for taking the time to follow my ramblings. 🙂
I’m just pondering away here, thinking about what can be known with reasonable certainty and I can therefore argue/teach with real conviction, and what I think is a reasonable guess but I can’t be sure of, and thinking of any implications there might or might not be from what I’m thinking.

Hi TL,
I hope you are recovering well from your operation.
The issue I am thinking about here is not whether the woman is alive or dead, but rather whether the future tense indicates whether she is a believer or not at the time of writing.
The way I read it, there is a sense in which a believer who is currently alive, like Timothy at the time of writing, or you or I today, “will be saved” in the future (1 Tim 4:16) and also a sense that we “have been saved” (Eph 2:8,9).
I think you expressed it well by saying “we are saved at the moment of belief, and we are saved daily from ourselves and sin, and finally if we persevere until death we will be ‘finally’ saved.”
So I am not sure that we can know for sure that “the woman” is not a believer simply from the fact that the future tense is used of her salvation.

So my question is only a very small one. If this whole passage is dealing with a particular Ephesian woman, can we know for sure whether she is a) an unbeliever or b) a believer, belonging to the church, who has been deceived by Satan (cf Paul’s concern that this not happen to those in the church at Corinth 2 Cor 11:3) and also, what part does the future tense of v15a play in that decision.
This is only a small point in the overall scheme of things, but I am just thinking that the future tense alone cannot decide this issue. We have to look at other things like the commandment for her to learn, and that she is not permitted to teach, and that she is in transgression through being deceived. Also that Paul says “BUT” she will be saved, if they persevere. The “but” to me would indicate that all these other factors cast doubt upon her salvation. So he is saying “but, in contrast to the way it looks now, she will be saved, if….”
We need the context to decide these things. The future tense alone (because of the way it is used in 1 Tim 4:16) doesn’t decide it by itself.

I was just thinking more about 1 Tim 4:16 when Paul tells Tim to persevere, “because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers”. I was wondering if this has any more implications for 1 Tim 2:11-15.
In 1 Tim 4:16 Tim’s salvation is spoken of as future, and yet he is obviously a believer at the time of writing. Perhaps this suggests that although it is reasonable to conclude from the rest of v11-15 that “the woman” is not yet a believer, the future tense of v15 does not absolutely prove this in and of itself. The future tense would be consistent with this and goes along well with this view, but does not absolutely prove it, if you can follow my point.
When I make statements to people, I just like to be accurate, because if I am not, then they have a habit of coming back to bite me!

I am very unskilled at this, but in my amateur way, I looked up all twelve of Paul’s references to “has become” v14b (“genonen” Verb: Third Person Perfect Active Indicative Singular). As far as I can see, all of them are consistent with what the traditional Greek text books say and back up your view Cheryl. All of them refer to something he, she or it “has become” and “still is” at the time of writing. 1 Tim 2:14b would be the odd one out if it meant something different to this.

Cheryl @254

Craig,
I will be interested to see what your friend says to your email>/blockquote>

I have a reply now from my friend about verbal aspect theory and v14b, but he wants to check its accuracy with others before I pass it on to you. I will pass it on when he gives me the OK.

Just continuing on from 261. If the principal wanted to say 1 above (and not 2), but not mention Jane and Tarzan’s names, instead of writing
“a girl needs to learn quietly. I do not permit a girl to punch a boy. The girl has become very naughty. But she can remain in the class, if they continue to behave appropriately”, wouldn’t he have written something like,
“the girl needs to learn quietly. I do not permit her to punch a boy. She has become very naughty. But she can remain in the class, if they continue to behave appropriately”.
In other passages in the bible that I know of (eg John 4, 1 Cor 5, 2 Cor 12) that speak of “woman” or “man” and refer to an individual, these other passages still sound like an individual is being referred to when translated into English as “a woman” or “a man”. 1 Tim 2 when translated into English doesn’t sound quite right if this was what Paul was really meaning. Any thoughts?
Just thought I would get these questions out before your next post Cheryl in case they are helpful for things you may want to write about.

Kristen @253

The issue I would have, then, is that if I were reading a letter from the principal to this teacher, I would expect the principal to make some transitionary phrase such as, “Now, with regards to the student you wrote me about,” and not just tack it onto the end of a general section about all students, with no transitionary words. That’s where my difficulty with this interpretation comes in, as you all know by now. 😉

I think this is an excellent question and I am looking forward to more discussion on it. Thanks Kristen for raising it, and thanks Cheryl for all your hard work.

I’d like to try and clarify something please if possible.
Kristen said @252

Craig, one example that comes to mind would the case of a principal of a school explaining to a teacher how he might deal with one specific student (with an implication that any student in this specific situation would be subject to the same treatment; ie., that he is not singling this student out, but this student is the only one in this particular situation, so the action is being applied specifically to this one student).
Something like: “I do not permit a student to sell personal items to another student on school property The student should keep items she wishes to sell in her backpack and not make her transaction with the boy until they are off campus after school hours.”

Thanks very much for this Kristen. It gives me a better idea of how you see that the language could work. I think this seems very similar to an example I gave 10 days ago @163, when I said,

v11,12 sound like a general comment, but v15 indicates that Paul has a particular woman and man in mind.?
A school principal writes to a teacher, “a girl needs to learn quietly. I do not permit a girl to punch a boy. But she can remain in the class, if they continue to behave appropriately”.
It sounds like he is stating a general principle, but his conclusion indicates that he has a particular girl and boy in mind.

After the last 10 days, with more discussion about v14b, I am happier to now give as an example
A school principal writes to a teacher, “a girl needs to learn quietly. I do not permit a girl to punch a boy. The girl has become very naughty. But she can remain in the class, if they continue to behave appropriately”
When I used this example before, Cheryl @171 correctly pointed out that

remaining in the class is not akin to salvation being dependent on any boy who is being punched.

I am simply using this example, and I think Kristen’s example is similar, to try and better understand how the language is working here, not to understand the meaning of other things in the passage.

I am wondering whether these examples properly express what Cheryl, gengwall, and pinklight (and others who seem quite convinced of Cheryl’s 2011 view) are saying or not.

There seems to me to be a slight difference between the principal saying to the teacher
1 “Jane needs to learn quietly. I do not permit Jane to punch Tarzan. Jane has become very naughty. But she can remain in the class, if they continue to behave appropriately” and
2 “a girl needs to learn quietly. I do not permit a girl to punch a boy. The girl has become very naughty. But she can remain in the class, if they continue to behave appropriately”.
In 1 The whole passage is very obviously about Jane and Tarzan. It does not sound anything like any general principle is being given.
In 2, as I stated above, “it sounds like he is stating a general principle, but as he continues, it becomes clear that he has a particular girl and boy in mind.” This girl and boy are the ones known to the principal and teacher, and are the ones who are presently involved, but the principal is writing a bit more generally at first so that the teacher is equipped to handle any similar situation that may arise. Or as Kristen put it, he is dealing “with one specific student (with an implication that any student in this specific situation would be subject to the same treatment; ie., that he is not singling this student out, but this student is the only one in this particular situation, so the action is being applied specifically to this one student).
So, is Cheryl’s view more similar to 1, or 2, above? If it is more like 1, can you think of an English equivalent, or is it difficult because English is different to Greek? If it is 2, are you OK with this example, or would you want to improve it? I hope my question makes sense. Thanks

I was wondering if anyone may be able to help me with an example from everyday English where a statement about “a woman” sounds generic, (like 1 Tim 2:11,12) but a following statement about “the woman” and “she” (like 1 Tim 2:14,15) clarifies that a particular woman is being referred to and the first statement is not generic.
As there is no indefinite article (”a”) in Greek, and v11 just begins with “Woman ….”, my daughter suggested that the woman’s actual name may have been “woman” 🙂 .

I “have done” (perfect tense 🙂 ) a bit of “homework” on the perfect tense in Greek. I have found that the definitions generally match what Gengwall said @182,
“The perfect tense expresses perfective action. Perfective action involves a present state which has resulted from a past action. The present state is a continuing state; the past action is a completed action.”

For example
http://www.preceptaustin.org/new_page_40.htm
“In short, the perfect tense is very expressive for it speaks of an action that took place in the past, which was completed in past time, and existence of its finished results. For instance one might say “I have closed the door” which speaks of a past completed action. But the implication is that as a result the door is still closed. Thus, the entire meaning is, “I have closed the door and it is closed at present.”

http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gtense.html
“The force of the perfect indicative is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past, has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker).”

J.W. Wenham – The Elements of NT Greek
“The perfect represents a present state resulting from a past action”

Ward Powers -Learn To Read the Greek NT
“Perfective or accomplished action where the present state or present consequences of a past action are being stressed; the meaning of the perfect is ‘I am in the position of having done’.

This leaves me in no doubt that with the understanding of the traditional Greek text books “the woman” of v14b would have to be alive at the time of writing.

What I gather from this is that if we read v12 all by itself, the words themselves don’t tell us for sure whether “a man” applies just to “authentein” or to both “teach” and “authentein”. It is difficult to prove one view over the other just from v12 alone. Our view of what is happening from the overall context will determine what we think on this issue.

And remember that we are trying to express Greek thought in English. I am not a Greek speaker, especially ancient Greek. It may be that such a transition is much less clumsy to a Greek speaker. At any rate, I don’t agree that “it still doesn’t seem to me to be a particularly natural way for Paul to talk”. Who are we to say what a natural way for Paul to talk is?

Just thinking some more about a similar sort of thing.
I’ve got a fairly Maths/Science type brain- not so much English/Arty.
Could it be true I wonder, that the English/Arty ones could see the way Paul has expressed this and exclaim, “how brilliant, how profound! To so unexpectedly refer to Jane, when we were expecting a comment about Eve, and yet to allude back to Eve in her deception when calling Jane ‘the woman’ – amazing.”
I remember thinking at times at school during English – while others were commenting “how clever”, I was thinking ”I’m lost. I wish the author could have just spoken a bit more plainly so that I could understand”. I didn’t appreciate the brilliance back then. Perhaps history is repeating itself! 🙂
It encourages me that even Peter found Paul a bit hard to follow sometimes 2 Pet 3:16.

Sorry about your rough couple of days pinklight. May God be with you and all those involved, and be your strength and encouragement.

Thanks Cheryl for your encouragement @241. 🙂

I am planning to write an email something along these lines to one of my comp friends at Theological College to clarify what he thinks. He may also be able to ask his Greek lecturer. Does this sound a reasonable way to put the question?

From the normal way 1 Tim 2:14b reads in Greek, would you say it is reasonable to conclude that “the woman” refers to someone who is
1 Definitely alive at the time of writing
2 Probably alive but could possibly be dead
3 Probably dead but could possibly be alive
4 Definitely dead
5 Either alive or dead. Impossible to tell. Greek tenses have no bearing on the issue.

If you are able to give reasons for your answer, it would be very helpful. Thanks.

Just wondering if the “like Eve” comment that would help to clarify things for me is actually there in a slightly cryptic way.
In 14b, if Paul was referring to the Ephesian woman but wishing to preserve her anonymity he would naturally call her “the woman”.
If he was referring to Eve in v14b you would think he would naturally call her “Eve” in v14b as well, like he called Adam “Adam” in both v13, and 14. It seems strange that he would call her “the woman” after he has just called her “Eve”. So this information is a positive for the view that v14b is not about Eve.
But Eve is called “the woman” in Genesis.
So could Paul be referring to the Ephesian woman in 14b, but because he has just mentioned Eve in v13, and Eve was also called “the woman” in Gen, the term “the woman” would remind Tim of Eve as well, and be like saying “like Eve”?
So this would back up the Cheryl/Gengwall view.
Can anyone follow what I am trying to say? Thoughts?

Now I admit that is a little clumsy. But I don’t think it is utterly confusing. A person may have to read it twice because the switch to Jane is abrupt. But still….

Great stuff gengwall! I was just trying to illustrate one small point of the passage to illustrate that the “switch to Jane is abrupt”, “sounds clumsy in English”, but is not “utterly confusing”. You have dealt with the whole passage and created a whole new Flintstones movie! 🙂
It seems like you can understand the points that I am making.
I can also agree with your point that even though “it still doesn’t seem to me to be a particularly natural way for Paul to talk”, “who am to say what a natural way for Paul to talk is”, because it “may be much less clumsy to a Greek speaker”.
I have seen these points as a slight weakness to Cheryl’s 2011 view for a while now. I think you have faced that weakness really well and come up with some really great points and illustrations to help our understanding. At the moment I see it as a strong possibility, and one day I may be totally convinced that this is the true and only possible view of the passage. Either way, you have helped my understanding of this view and equipped me much better to be able to convey this meaning to others. Thanks heaps.

I am planning to write an email along these lines to one of my comp friends at Theological College. He may also be able to ask his Greek lecturer. Any thoughts?

1 Tim 2:14b
Just from the normal way it reads in Greek, would you say it is reasonable to conclude that “the woman” refers to someone who is
1 Definitely alive at the time of writing
2 Most likely alive but could possibly be dead
3 Most likely dead but could possibly be alive
4 Definitely dead
5 Could be either alive or dead. Impossible to tell. Greek tenses have no bearing on the issue.
Why?

My apologies to those who are sick of my illustrations.

My friend Barney and I are talking about a mutual friend Jane who is confused about how rocks are formed and needs to learn.
Barney tells me about a night at his place a few years ago where he had an expert on rock formation give a talk on how it all happens.
He said that Fred listened to the whole talk. Wilma arrived late. Fred knew everything about rocks, but Jane is still confused.

1 My first reaction would be “huh? Don’t you mean Wilma rather than Jane?
2 If Barney assured me he definitely meant Jane, I would think to myself “What on earth do you mean by that Barney, and why did you say it that way?
3 Then as I thought about it, I could probably work out that Wilma would have been confused, because she arrived late. That would be a reasonable conclusion, especially if I had heard this from Barney’s wife Betty as well.
4 I could possibly also figure out that Barney is making a connection between Wilma being confused and Jane being confused.
5 So I could probably work it all out, but I think you others must be a bit smarter than me, because I would still have liked a few more words for extra clarity. 🙂

So do I think it is possible that v14b is about the Ephesian woman? Yes, definitely, especially in light of the other evidence from the passage, but it still doesn’t seem to me to be a particularly natural way for Paul to talk. I think Gengwall’s explanation may well be the best possible (if 14b is definitely not about Eve, and if Paul is not referring to some local Gnostic heresies about Adam and Eve). So thank you.

Hi Elaine,

“Craig,
LOL – Is it past your bedtime? 😉 ”

It is actually. Good night everyone. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.