Craig

I have read things like “the situation between this husband and wife is just like an Adam and Eve situation”. Just clarifying in what way the situation is the same.
In mentioning Adam and Eve Paul is NOT (emphasis, not shouting) saying
“This woman shouldn’t teach because Eve taught Adam and this caused the fall.” In fact, Eve didn’t teach Adam at all in Gen 3:1-6.
Paul is also NOT saying
“This woman shouldn’t exercise authority over her husband because this is what Eve did and this caused the fall”. In fact Eve did not exercise authority over Adam at all in Gen 3:1-6.
Paul is not referring to Adam and Eve in relation to the teaching or exercising authority of v12, but rather the need for learning v11 to prevent deception.
Is this the same or different to what you are saying?

Likewise, Gengwall, my prayers have been with you and your SIL’s family in this difficult time.
I have been able to follow the main argument being presented here about 1 Tim 2:11-15 for a couple of months now, but the discussion over the last couple of weeks has been very helpful in clarifying the little details.
I think I feel quite comfortable now with v11,12,14b,15. I still have some details of v13,14a that you may be able to help me with- no pressure on anyone and no hurry- just as you are able.
There has been a fair bit of discussion on this blog about how bad Adam was (treachery, rebellion) and how good Eve was (not rebellious, just deceived). This may well be true, but I wonder whether that may not be what Paul is emphasizing here. He seems to be using Adam as a positive example, not a negative one. He seems to be saying “this deceived woman needs to learn (v11,12), because Adam was formed first (v13) (and thus learned a lot- seeing God at work in creation, naming the animals etc) and so was not deceived (v14a). This lack of deception is a good thing. The woman needs to learn doctrine just like Adam did so that she won’t be deceived.
Is this the same or different to what you are saying?

Cheryl, you said @ 156
“I do believe that the teaching that the woman of verse 12 did with the man was private and not public, but I also believe that her learning in verse 11 (which is giving the solution before the problem is even mentioned) is to be public within the body of Christ.”
This perfectly answers the question I was trying to ask in #139 and #145.
The detail you give in #150 really help in making the whole situation come alive. Superb.

Thanks again everyone for all the time and effort you put into your comments in answering my questions in such a helpful way. I appreciate it very much.

If v11-15 are not about church meetings at all, and it is all about what is going on at home, then who is the woman to learn from- only from her husband. I had assumed she possibly attended the church gatherings, had some interest in Christian things, but was deceived in certain things and not yet a Christian. Does it seem strange that Paul would not see the role of the whole body in helping this woman? The responsibility for teaching her lies with just her husband at home?
Or are you saying she is totally outside the church. If so, why would she accept the apostle Paul telling her what to do?

Thanks Cheryl for your very thorough response. It was very helpful.
Next question- I only just thought of this one now.
1 Tim 2:11 “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.”
1 Tim 2:12a “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man”
1 Tim 2:12b “She must be silent.” (NIV)
Your view Cheryl is that 1 Tim 2:12a is referring to a particular wife and husband (in the home).
I just wanted to check whether you think that v 11, 12b also refer to just this wife and husband at home? (Or do v11, 12b refer to what should occur in the church meeting?)

Elastigirl @ 125,
“this issue, which concerns primarily the welfare of women in general.”
I know what you mean, but men also suffer (although they may not realize it) if women are not allowed to contribute to the marriage or the church in the way God intends.
Also the world suffers because “the harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few”.

Elastigirl @ 107,
You asked,
“How is it you have to come to genuinely care about this issue?”
For me, it has mainly been a search for truth. There was obviously more to the man/woman issue in the bible than I had been taught. I have wanted to find out what the bible really teaches, so that I know how God wants me to live.

3. Also Holly, if the barring was for speaking to men “in public” that would make Cheryl’s interpretation of just a husband/wife issue at home more likely.

Holly @ 110,
You said
“Given the cultural barring of women from learning or speaking to men in public, why do we assume that women teachers are included within the deceived teachers of 1 Tim 1?”

I am just thinking aloud, and I will mention a couple of points in case they are helpful.
1. If the logic of your question is like this?
The culture barred women from speaking to men in public.
Therefore women couldn’t have been false teachers.
Therefore Paul couldn’t have been referring to them in 1 Tim 1.

It would then be just as logical to say
The culture barred women from speaking to men in public.
Therefore women couldn’t have been teachers.
Therefore Paul couldn’t have been referring to them in 1 Tim 2:11-15.

Both are not valid, because there obviously was some form of teaching going on (comps say correct teaching, egals say false reaching) for Paul to need to write 1 Tim 2:11-15.

2. Also, as far as I am aware, 1 Tim 1:3 uses the Greek term for people, not just men.

Feel free anyone to correct me anyone if needed.

Holly @ 92,
Thanks very much in helping to clarify my question. Us men really do need you women to help us out 🙂

I can see the context of false teaching in ch1 and 2 and clearly relate this to 2:11-15. Your argument from v14,15 concerning a particular woman and man seems conclusive to me.
How would you relate 3:14,15 to 2:11-15?

Cheryl @ 96,
Thanks so much for all your work in this response. It answers my question exactly and helps me to much better understand what you are saying. Unfortunately it means that I was wrong in my suggested solution 🙁 and
I will now have to deal further with my friend’s next question. So I will cheat a bit and get your help if I may 🙂
He views the context from 2:1 to 3:16 as all about the church gathering (3:15). He thinks that a private matter between husband and wife in 2:11-15 would not fit the context.

Yes.

Thanks TL.
Thanks for your reply. I know that Cheryl is convinced that the “a man” is the woman’s husband. You have now mentioned two other possibilities for who the “a man” is. All that you have said seems good and true, but I am sorry to say that it still doesn’t answer my specific question. I am not sure that I can express it any more clearly. My question is not “who is the ‘a man”? But can the false teaching according to the Greek be to a different group or does the Greek only allow for the false teaching to be be directed to the “a man”? And what is Cheryl’s view? Sorry if I am not being clear.

Just clarifying my question a bit.
My comp friend seems to think that the way Paul has written v12, “to teach” and “to have authority over” both need to be directed toward “a man”. If “a man” is interpreted as a particular woman’s husband then my friend thinks that would mean that the false teaching must only be towards the husband. This my friend thinks would be unlikely.
I have said that I think the false teaching could be directed to many people while the “authority over” was to her husband. Am I correct? Is this what you are saying Cheryl or am I totally mixed up? I hope my question is clear and not mixed up 🙂

I am looking forward to your book, Cheryl.
Sorry if this question seems a bit obvious or repetitive but I just want to sure I understand your view properly.
I have asked this question before, because I know there are some different views amongst egals on it. Gengwall has mentioned a book he is reading which may have a slightly different view.
Am I correct in thinking that in your view Cheryl,
“teach” refers to false teaching by a particular Ephesian woman that may have been directed toward and influencing many people in the church – not just her husband.
“to have authority over” (NIV) is just directed to her husband.
In other words “to teach” and “to have authority over” don’t necessarily have to have the same target group.
In discussing this passage with one comp fellow, he said to me that if it is just referring to a particular wife and her husband, it would be strange for a “false teacher” to be just “false teaching” her husband and no one else. He thought the “teach” and “authority over” would need to be directed just to the husband.
But I don’t think you are saying that are you?

Thanks Cheryl for #82. This answered my question.
“I do not allow” does seem an unusual way for Paul to begin the prohibition and you have given a good explanation of why he may have said this. Thanks.

Holly #75,
“Where is the best place for me to ask any questions I might have about them so that I’m not putting this post off topic?”
I have a suggestion (but I am only new here so others may differ). If you look on the right hand column at the top of most pages there is a list of topics or categories. Click on the appropriate topic and then find the most recent post and discussion that is related to what you are wanting to ask or say. That is where I would put my question. And as a bonus, if you read the discussion already there, you may find some helpful material that answers your question (and raises more questions 🙂 ).

It sounds like you are agreeing now and confirming my own conclusions so I am glad I rephrased my question.
Next question. Cheryl @45,
“Timothy who Paul has encouraged before not to be timid must bypass the woman’s husband in order to silence her. Think about the culture of that time and how that culture gave a husband full authority over his wife. If the husband was the perceived “master” of his wife, it should not be hard to understand how sensitive this situation would be when Timothy needed to walk past the “master” to silence the wife’s teaching. It is no wonder that Paul specifically lists this one deceived teacher as a problem as he gives Timothy wise counsel on how to deal with this sticky situation.”
I have heard you say this sort of thing on several occasions. I am not sure that I fully understand the importance of it. What part of the passage are you addressing? What difficulty in interpretation are you addressing?
(Questions addressed to anyone, not just Cheryl.)

I keep noticing things after I have sent a message. I noticed I forgot to thank you too TL- sorry about that.
Don’t feel pressured anyone to answer my questions if you are too busy. I still have more stored away and I am thinking of more as I go. But I don’t want to make you push yourselves to exhaustion because you feel as though you have to answer straight away.

Gengwall and Cheryl,
Thanks for your replies. From your responses I think I may have been a bit unclear in my comments/questions.
I am thinking of a conversation I had recently with a comp friend after he had just preached a sermon on 1 Tim 2. He stated that it was unwise to base a doctrine ( or view of a passage) on a word that is used only once in the bible. He said that this is what egals do with “authentein” in 1 Tim 2. I replied that I thought comps did exactly what he said not to do because his view required a certain meaning of this word also. He had no answer to that, so that part of the discussion was “tied”.
As I have thought about that more, it seems to me it shouldn’t be “tied” but egals should actually “win” this part of the debate. The egal view of women in ministry doesn’t depend at all on a particular meaning of “authentein”. If it were somehow proved that “authentein” meant what comps claim, there may be a slight alteration in the way 1 Tim 2 is interpreted but it would still be perfectly consistent with egalitarianism.

Sorry, I meant that as a question to check my understanding. I should have finished with -am I correct?

Another question just for clarification.
For comps, their explanation seems to stand or fall on the word “authentein” (spelling?) in v 12 meaning what they call normal “authority” (in contrast to domineering, or lording it over) that is OK for men to have over women, but not women over men, in the church and home.
For egals, their explanation doesn’t depend on the meaning of this word because their is no legitimate authority. Any type of “authority” would be bad- for either men or women to exercise over the other. All the discussion about the meaning of “authentein” may be interesting but not critical to their position.

Thanks very much Cheryl and Gengwall for your helpful explanations and your encouragement. I really appreciate the time and effort you put into your answers, especially when there are many other pressures on your time.
Kay, I hope and pray God’s blessing and grace for the whole family as your new grand daughter arrives.
Holly, it is very interesting to hear your questions also- you seem to be on the same journey as me.

Just thinking out loud about my own question.
In v13, Paul mentions Adam and Eve by name. In v14 he mentions only Adam by name. If he had meant Eve, it would seem more natural to have mentioned Eve by name, just as he did Adam, rather than calling her “the woman”.
This point seems to favor v14 being about the Ephesian woman.
Does anyone agree/disagree?

Just to clarify my question. I can understand how the “she” of v15 is the “woman” of v11,12. I am just wondering about “the woman” of v14 – is she Eve or the Ephesian woman? Thanks.

Thanks Gengwall.
I would be interested in your thoughts after reading this book. Thanks for your honesty in acknowledging what you are sure about and what is more difficult to be sure about.
You said
“To me, the evidence is clear that “the woman” and “she” in verse 14 and 15 can not be Eve, so I reject their notion”.
The thought that the Greek of v14 means that “the woman” is currently still sinning and therefore can’t be Eve seems relatively new to me. I don’t remember it from the DVDs (although I may have missed it) but I have seen it in comments dated over the past year or so. I don’t know much Greek, but it would seem a fairly significant fact if it is clear and unarguable. Do you know if comps acknowledge this from the Greek or not?
If “the woman” of v 14 is not Eve, does Paul’s argument of v13,14 seem to be missing its ending?
A lot of the comments about this passage relate to Adam not being deceived while Eve was deceived. This passage wouldn’t actually say that if v14 doesn’t refer to Eve. We would have to turn to 2 Cor 11:3 to get that information and the argument doesn’t seem to flow as well.
Any thoughts?

Thanks Kay.
Do you think the passage is indicating that she was teaching things like you have mentioned just to her husband or was her influence more widespread? The grammar seems to indicate that it was just to her husband. Would this have been at home, or at church?
If it was just to her husband alone, would Paul have expressed v12 like he does? Vs 12 sounds more like she was having a widespread influence- but how does this fit with the singular “wife” and “husband”.
Confused as always 🙂

Thanks Gengwall for your helpful research into all the translations.
I noted that you said @27
“In my opinion, the true Greek of the rest of the passage makes it perfectly clear that Paul is speaking of a particular woman and a particular man or set of men that she is engaged with in false teaching”.
This reminded me of a question I had in relation to this passage.
The specific woman is a false teacher. Vs 12, as translated says
“But I do not allow the wife to teach or to be domineering over the husband”, – this sounds like both the false teaching and the domineering would be confined to the wife and her husband. This fits well with the “she” and “they” of v15.
However, some of the discussion in these messages seems to suggest her false teaching was more widespread and more of a problem for the whole church. Any thoughts?
Would anyone be able to give any example of the type of thing she may have been doing?