Don

It is the so-called Oral Law of the Pharisees as later recorded in the Mishnah that said women are to shut up.

P.S.

Payne concludes that he thinks it is one thing that Paul is not allowing.  He points out that IF it is 2 things, then the non-egal interpretation is STILL wrong as then “a man” only modified authentein and not “to teach”.

Kostenberger gives a very weak response here.
http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=200#comment-78514

http://www.linguistsoftware.com/Payne2008NTS-oude1Tim2_12.pdf
My take is that Payne has given a masterful analysis given our limited knowledge of the situation at Ephesus with Timothy. The only way a non-egal interpretation holds is if it is the ONLY one possible, which Payne and others show is far from the case.

Jesus was about 2.  It happens some time after the birth.

It is quite possible.

1. Daniel was the leader of the magi in Babylon.
2. Babylon is considered east of the Holy Land.
3. We know that only remnants of Jews returned to the Holy Land in waves, many Jews stayed in Babylon.

One aspect to this is that it takes both knowledge of how Greek works with the male plural form AND cultural knowledge that female magi were possible.  If you do not know both, then one might think that the answer is at least 2 males.

It is not even 3 gifts, it is 3 TYPES of gifts, it might be more than 3 gifts, altho again tradition shows 3 wise men giving 3 gifts, and this tradition influences us.

I will send my how many wise men answer by email to you, as it is a little long to post.

Here is a very tricky question.  JUST from the Bible, what can we say about how many wise men there were?  Tradition says there were 3 wise men, but that is tradition.

Knowledge is like what is inside a circle with the circle representing the limit of what we know.  As we know more, the more we realize what we do not know, as our circle grows.

Another aspect is that sigao/be silent is repeated 3 times in this pericope and it means the same thing each time, namely shut up.  Some translations do not show this.  The 3rd time is a quote from Corinth, but the first 2 are Paul.  My take is Paul is showing that anyone might need to shut up, but to tell women they cannot speak simply becasue they are women is wrong, so he repudiates it.

Jesus and Paul did not necessarily reject all of the oral law, they rejected that part which negated Scripture.  Paul was a Pharisee so he certainly knew how to refer to the oral law in the way it was done at that time, namely as “the law says” that is because it was oral during the 1st century.  The Tanakh was referred to as “It is written…” or similar.

I agree that “the law” can refer to many things.  My point was that “the law says” refers to the oral torah of the Pharisees.  This was the standard convention of the 1st century to refer to it.  One needs to read Paul with 1st century context.

What Greek text are you using? I use UBS 4.

Are you aware that the term “the law says” refers to the oral law of the Pharisees?

John,

You are using a translation that inserts some words into the verse, specifically the “submit to” in verse 22 is from verse 21, where believers are to submit to one another.  Yes, it is valid to say that the verb in verse 22 is implied, but it is not valid to decouple this verse from v. 21, as then it has no verb.

John,

My suggestion is you need to learn how to understand these verses are they would have been understood by the original readers, else you end up siding with Judaizers.

2Pe 3:15

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16

as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

are the verses about “twisting Scripture”.  There are a few points:

1. Peter says that Paul’s letters can be hard to understand.  This was a person that knew Paul in the 1st century and knew what Paul meant.  HOW MUCH MORE is this caution appropriate for us in the 21st century, especially with Paul’s letters.

2. Who is susceptible to twisting Paul?  The ignorant or unstable or both.  We can do our best to stand firm in Christ and be stable, but we MIGHT be ignorant!  I mean specifically ignorant about the context of a letter that an original reader would know.  We do our best, but our best is limited.

I believe that believers have rights, but they can also choose to decline to use them for a greater good.  But this does not say that they do not have them in the first place.
Understanding that 1 Cor 14:34-35 are from Judaizers is partly based on the term the “law says”.  This term is what is used to refer to the so-called Oral Law of the Pharisees, as it was said, being oral.  The Written Law, what we call the OT, is what was written or read, it never “says” anything.  One needs to read the NT in 1st century cultural context.

Do it say somewhere that only “back door” women are allowed in church?

Yes, I am AMAZED that some of the non-egal leaders SPEND SO MUCH TIME to keep women in their place, as they see it.

Wait!  (To paraphrase Sayers) do you mean women are human?

This changes everything!

A question to ask Podles and co.:

Given that Jesus and Paul went out of their way to give feminine images as one of the ways to describe themselves, why do even have your concern?

Podles has no credibility with me.

Cheryl,

Yes in 1st century culture a wife needed to cover her head when out in public (like a required wedding ring) and could not bare her arms or let down her hair.  If she did any of those things it could be considered adultery and I agree this was not right.

Jesus and Paul corrected all these asymmetries that were unfair to a wife, assuming she was married to a believer.  In every culture there are some things that are considered very risque’ for a woman to do, it is just that in 1st century culture what was considered risque’ is very tame for today.  We think nothing of a woman walking outside without a hat or with bare arms or talking to a male that is not a relative.

Lin,

My point is that the Hebrew and Greek for what is usually translated as sons can include females and also in some cases the singular form can be a female.  It is like 1950s English, where a woman might be called a man (inclusive, but understood and not specified).

So my understanding ends up in the same place as Cheryl, but gets there slightly differently.  For me, Christ is THE seed of the woman, Abraham, etc. and all IN Christ inherit, gender does not matter, neither does ethnicity, nor economics, etc.

The only way a wife might lose her dowry was thru evidence proving adultery as decided by 3 judges or over time repeatedly not preparing food and clothes or marital rights as decided again by 3 judges.  The husband could also lose his money this latter way if he neglected his responsibilities.

Almost all the divorces in the time of Jesus were Hillel “Any Matter” divorces as these did not need any proof of anything, but the wife kept her dowry in this case.  Only a man could divorce this way.

I agree there was an asymmetry in favor of the husband and Jesus corrected that.

I agree we are all legal hiers thru adoption, just that there does not need to be any mapping of a woman to a legal son, what counts is being a legal heir.

The fact that sons inherited when their dads died in ancient Judaism I see as God working in that time and culture, which was very patriarchical.  The daughters got their inheritance when they married in that culture, as the ketubah or dowry, it is not the case that they received no inheritance.  The first son got a double portion, as he represented the family in that culture.

In different cultures different inheritance rules apply.

I agree that all humans can inherit by faith.

I just do not think a woman becomes a man in any sense to achieve that.  Rather, the distinctions do not exist in a spiritual sense, not the ethnic, not economic, not gender, etc.  However, they still exist in a physical sense, a Jew does not become a gentile when she becomes a believer, she is still a jew, it is just that it does not matter in Christ.

http://www.answers.com/topic/inheritance has an entry on Jewish inheritance.  It is simplistic to say only sons as males inherited.  In Galatia there would also be Roman and Greek law and Roman law was more favorable to women in general.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T371 mentions the 3 possibilities which were different.

This is not an area I have studied, but to assert what you have claimed you would need to have statements about how it worked for all 3 types.

Nyland translates Gal 4:7 as “Consequently, you are no longer a slave but legally adopted, and since you are legally adopted, then by God’s act you are an heir.”

She seems to be saying the point of the verse is adoption and being an heir and not being a son, that is incidental words to express the big idea.  Or another way of looking at it is similar to 1950’s English, sometimes in Greek (and 1950s English) a singular man can be a woman, it depends on whether it is a man inclusive or a man exclusive.

The masculine plural is used in Hebrew and Greek when a group is composed of at least 1 male, all the way up to all males.  So the context is important to see whether a term is best translated as sons or children.

IF the culture was such that only males inherited, then it might be important to translate as sons.  We see with the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 36 in a very patriarchical culture.  But the culture shifts, it did not stay that way in Roman areas, for example.

Here is the way I would word it, gentiles are not capable of keeping the Noah covenant Torah and Israel is not capable of keeping the Mosaic covenant Torah by themselves.  ALL have sinned, ALL need Jesus.

Jesus perfectly kept the Mosaic covenant Torah, which is a superset of the Noah covenant Torah.  So both those not in the Mosaic covenant and those in it can be declared righteous in faith, not for following the rules of their covenants.  The REASON to follow the rules in any covenant is for the blessings of that covenant, but not to be saved by that covenant, as it is not the way to be saved, only faith in Messiah is the way to be saved.