Marg Mowczko

The Greek letters came out as ???. (Just in case you’re wondering what that is about.)

Hi Cheryl,

Lot’s of compelling arguments here. I also am inclined to believe that the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 was “a woman”. (Which is what it says in the Greek of 2:12.)

Have you read “A Semantic Study of ???????? and its Derivatives” by
Albert Wolters. It’s actually a paper on the CBMW site but it links authentein, or more precisely the cognate noun authentes, to Gnosticism. Even Wolters makes a comment in his footnotes about his surprise at the frequency of references to authentes and its Gnostic use in Greek literature.
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-11-No-1/A-Semantic-Study-of-authentes-and-its-Derivatives

Hi Craig,
I’m on the Central Coast (NSW), but born and bred in Sydney suburbs. 🙂

Merry Christmas from me too, another Aussie “down under”.
So just how many Aussies are regular readers and posters here?
🙂

Hi Cheryl,

As you know I am not convinved that “the woman” is an anaphoric reference, but I’ve just come across the idea that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 may have been written as a chiasm, with Eve as the climax. (A.C. Perriman,Tyndale Bulletin 44.1, 1993, p129-142.)

If these verses do form a chiasm then “the woman” is an anaphoric reference. (Chiasm is a common literary device in the scriptures.)

A 11 Let a woman in quietness learn in all submission. . .
B 13 For Adam was formed first,
C then Eve,
B’ 14 and Adam was not deceived.
A’ But the woman, having been deceived, has come into
transgression.

Interesting!

When I first heard that the word “authentein” may have had sexual connotations I thought that egals were going too far. However the more I read early church Greek writings, the more I see that sexual promiscuity was a HUGE problem in the church. Especially in the churches that were surrounded by a culture where cultic prostitution was a normal part of life.

“Licentious doctrines continued to vex the church for several centuries, to the dismay of the church fathers. Clement of Alexandria wrote a detailed refutation of the various groups who endorsed fornication as accepted Christian behavior. He complained of those who had turned love-feasts into sex orgies, of those who taught women to ‘give to every man that asketh of thee’, and of those who found in physical intercourse a ‘mystical communion’. He branded one such lewd group authentai (the plural of authentes).” (Kroeger 1979)

Also, the conjunction “oude” invariably links words conveying a similar idea to form a single concept. This is very plain when reading the NT.

Hi Cheryl,

So nice to hear from you.
Your site has been buzzing along and continues to be a blessing. <3

Mark,
I’ve been trying to find the Kostenberger quote where he gives two possible translations for 1 Tim 2:12. Could you please give me the reference?

Thanks

Mark @138

You quoted Kostenberger as saying: “. . . for 1 Tim 2:12 is . . . there are only two acceptable ways of rendering that passage: (1) “I do not permit a woman to teach (error) or to domineer over a man,” or (2) “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man. . . ”

So why can’t it be (1)? This fits the context of 1 Timothy, where false teaching was a huge issue. You obviously believe that the correct rendering is (2); otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

As for liberal hermenetics. Christians of all theological persuasions have been ignoring, avoiding or explaining away different bits of scripture from its earliest days.

Mark, Do you raise your hands when you pray? Do the women in your church wear their hair up, or have their heads covered? Do you allow [or forbid] speaking in tongues in your church gatherings? Do you encourage your people to be zealous for the spiritual gifts, especially prophecy? Does you church baptise by full immersion?
All of these practises are all Biblical. Which ones are cultural? Which ones are universal? Which ones are timeless commands? Which ones are optimum options? Which ones can be safely ignored?

Some churches who see themselves as the opposite of liberal do NONE of the above!

Mark @ 129 “Now considering ‘teach’ must be positive to be consistent with the rest of the NT, authentein must also be. This is the only possible syntactical possibility.”

I am genuinely aghast that anyone can think that “authentein” is positive!!!

As to “didaskein” being positive:
There are at least 3 instances in the Pastoral letters alone where the cognates of didasko are used for evil and corrupt teaching: 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:11; and I believe 1 Timothy 2:12.

In fact false teaching was such a problem at Ephesus and Crete, that Paul often used adjectives such as “sound”, “fine”, “godly”, etc, to distinguish the good teaching he was encouraging in Timothy and Titus from the prevalent false teaching.

Hi Kay, I’d love to contact you. Perhaps you can contact me through my website.

Dave @123 said:

“The Bible does not teach the responsibilities of Elders . . . (1 Tim 3), but rather what a person who aspires to being an Elder should already be able to do, or rather already be doing. An Elder should be someone who is already ‘apt to teach’ before they are an Elder.”

This is a very nice point, Dave!

@ Mark 119
I do not think that the apostle Paul, or anyone, should be above learning or being helped by another person. So I don’t have a problem with Paul’s comment that Phoebe had been a patroness to him or had ministered in a way that can be construed as leadership.

King Josiah [and his delegation which included the High Priest (Hilkiah), the father of the future governor (Ahikam), the secretary of state (Shaphan) and the king’s officer (Asaiah)], had no problem with seeking Huldah for spiritually authoritative and important advice. Barak, (an army leader) had no problem with Deborah’s assistance and leadership, and in fact relied upon it (Judges 4:8). King David did not think he was above heeding good advice given by women; in Abigail’s case he was even very grateful for it. (e.g. 1 Sam 25:23-35.)

Martha’s “serving” is actually one of the very few examples when a cognate of diakonew is not used in the context of Christian ministry. Perhaps the word is intentional to highlight Mary’s better choice of activity. As I’ve said, the cognates of diakonos (and diakonew) are overwhelmingly used in the context of service-ministry to God and in Christian service-ministry.

Prisiclla and Aquila were Paul’s co-workers but they also led their own house church in Ephesus (acts 18:19) and later Rome (1 Cor 16:19).

As I’ve said previously, I believe that the “order of deacon” evolved after the New Testament was written. However extra-Biblical evidence after 100AD clearly shows that women were deacons in an official capacity. There are catacomb drawings of female deacons ministering the sacraments, and there are intructions in extra-biblical writings to women deacons. Chrysostom, in writing about women deacons, said, “. . . for that order is necessary and useful and honourable in the Church”. (Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily XI)
Pliny wrote that he tortured two women because of their Christian faith. He described these women as “two female slaves who were styled deaconesses [latin- ministrae]” Pliny, Letters 2:404.

I don’t think that anyone is arguing that women can’t be deacons. I just don’t think that Phoebe was an official deacon, because there were no offical deacons yet. However Phoebe’s ministry may have pioneered the way for later female deacons.

That’s it from me today . . .

@ Mark “As I understand 1 Tim 2:8-15, the teaching restricted is that linked with authority in the public congregational setting. That is, the preaching from the pulpit so to speak. This is the responsibility of the elders.”

Firstly, there is nothing in 1 Timothy that hints that 1 Tim 2:8-15 is speaking about public teaching. And pulpits have nothing whatsoever to do with New Testament Christianity or early church-life!!!

1 Timothy 3:14-15 about “how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household” (which is sometimes used to argue your case) comes immediately after Paul’s instructions about how church leaders/elders and ministers/deacons should behave in God’s household – the Church. Paul could hardly have been saying that the moral behaviour he requires of church leaders and ministers is only applicable during church services or meetings. Church leaders, and (of course) all true believers and followers of Christ, are part of God’s household, the church, 24/7, even when it is not assembled for a meeting. I very much doubt that Paul’s prohibition to a woman not to teach a man in the Ephesian congregation was limited to a church meeting setting; especially as the false teaching was being spread “door to door”. (See 1 Tim 5:13 and15).

Secondly, I agree that the NT states that a qualification of elders is that they must have teaching ability. This however does not mean that diakonoi did not teach or preach. The Didache 15:1 (as I mentioned previously) says that both episkopoi and didaskoi in the early church prophesied and taught. (Most modern church elders that I know seem to function as board members rather than true gospel ministers.)

Stephen (who is never actually called a deacon-diakonos in NT scripture) has had his very public speech immortalised as scripture – scripture having, arguably, one of the highest levels of spiritual authority. There is no reason at all to assume that some diakonoi did not teach or preach.

Lastly the Greek indefinite pronoun -tis – which can be translated as “somebody” or “anyone” or “a certain one”, is one of those rare Greek words that is identical in form in both masculine and feminine contexts. It is the exact same word used in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “If anyone is in Christ . . .”

“. . . If anyone (masc or fem) aspires (no gender specified) to overseership (feminine noun), he/she/it desires (no gender specified) a noble/fine task (neuter adjective and noun).” A very literal translation of 1 Timothy 3:1b showing grammatical gender.

Mark, with genuine respect, I sincerely do not believe that you have a case. The qualifications for elders and overseers do not exclude women. We know that women were church leaders: Nympha, Chloe, Priscilla, etc; women loved and valued by Paul. And Phoebe, as well as being a minister, was more than likely a church leader also. I cannot see how anyone can think otherwise from reading Romans 16:1-2 in the Greek, unless they allow other views to cloud their comprehension of these 2 verses.

@ Dave Hi! 100 yay! 😀

@ Mark 91 In New Testament parlance a servant (diakonos) IS a minister, and vice versa! So I agree with you on that. I only diasagree with your conclusions about Phoebe, and I am genuinely sad that you have singled her out from the rest of the diakonoi named by Paul simply because of her gender. 🙁

NT authors used different words (other than diakonos) for “real” servants, such as Rhoda (Acts 12:13) and the woman in the courtyard (Mark 14:66). The numerous cognates of diakonos are used OVERWHELMINGLY in the context of Christian service-ministry throughout the NT. The only time cognates of diakonos are used for “real” servants are for the wedding attendents in John 2:5,9. And as I’ve said previously you can’t be a “real” servant and a prostatis (Rom 16:2). The two are at opposite ends of the social spectrum.

In the plainest reading of Romans 16:1-2 in the Greek we can see that Phoebe was a minister of the congregation of Cenchrea and a leader (or possibly patron) of many, including Paul. Paul is emphasising Phoebe’s credentials. Paul commends Phoebe to the Roman church. He asks them to receive her in a manner worthy of the saints, and to assist her in whatever she may need. Phoebe sounds like a serious minister involved in significant ministry.

Furthermore, there is little doubt that Phoebe did not travel to Rome alone. She would have had travelling companions for safety, etc. But only Phoebe is mentioned by Paul. To argue that Phoebe was not a leader in Christian service-ministry is to view Romans 16:1-2 with bias.

BTW, here are some feminine Greek words:
“exousia”: authority, power;
“basileia” reign, kingdom;
“hegemonia”: reign, rule;
“oikonomia”: administration, management, etc.

As for “a one woman man” not excluding women: people from both sides of the women in ministry debate (people with much more knowledge, and who have done much more research than myself) take this position. I have written about this also at http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/pauls-qualifications-for-church-leaders/

@Kristen 86
Thank you so much for your excellent link regarding “a one woman man” typically translated as “the husband of one wife”! I love it!

Here is an excerpt:
“Two of the most prominent complementarians acknowledge this phrase does not clearly exclude women. Douglas Moo acknowledges that this phrase need not exclude “unmarried men or females from the office … it would be going too far to argue that the phrase clearly excludes women….” Douglas J. Moo, “The Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15: A Rejoinder,” TJ 2 NS (1981): 198–222, 211. Thomas Schreiner acknowledges, “The requirements for elders in 1 Tim 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9, including the statement that they are to be one-woman men, does not necessarily in and of itself preclude women from serving as elders….” Thomas R. Schreiner’s “Philip Payne on Familiar Ground: A Review of Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.” JBMW (Spring 2010): 33–46, 35.
The closest English equivalent to “one-woman man” is “monogamous,” and it applies to both men and women.”

May I reiterated what Danker has written on this idiomatic phrase also:

“mias gunaikos aner, a husband married only once (numerous sepulchral [gravesite] inscriptions celebrate the virtue of a surviving spouse by noting that HE OR SHE was married only once, thereby suggesting the virtue of extraordinary fidelity.)” from A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, Walter Bauer, revised & edited by F.W. Danker, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p292. My emphasis.

I am not convinced of the traditional understanding of the “office of deacon”. I believe that this office was a later church development. The men in Acts 6 were never referred to as “deacons” (diakonoi) in the Bible. Also, the understanding of the role of “deacon” varies between denominations. Because of these factors, I avoid using the English word “deacon” in my writings. I also avoid translating diakonos as “servant” when commenting on Paul, because Paul clearly only used diakonos in the context of ministers.

The New Testament tells us that episkopoi (bishops/overseers) and presbuteroi (elders) were people who had oversight responsibilities over a congregation – they were senior ministers. Paul and Timothy obviously had leadership and oversight over congregations, however they were also referred to as diakonoi. Paul frequently described himself as both an apostolos and a diakonos. Diakonos is really just a generic term for minister. This means that bishops/overseers, elders, and even apostles, were also diakonoi, that is, ministers.

Many diakonoi-ministers did not have oversight ministries. However, the Didache 15:1 tells us that both episkopoi and diakonoi functioned as prophets and teachers in early church times.

I can see no reason to assume that Phoebe’s ministry was any less significant than the ministries of Epaphras or Tychicus. Certainly the ministry of Paul, and in particular the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, were exceptional!

Mark, I am surprised by your suggestion that I may be comparing Phoebe with Paul or Jesus. I simply provided an impartial list of scriptures that used the word diakonos or diakonoi. I did not leave anything out; I did not include anything I shouldn’t have. You have made your own observations (perhaps based on your own views of the word “deacon”.)

The fact that Paul mentions Phoebe, and other women, personally, by name in his letters, indicates that these women had significant “real” ministries. Paul is hardly going to bother with mentioning the names of men and women in his letters who were involved in minor ministries, or who were not well known to the church.

Mark, you say, “Now in regards to Phoebe I can grant that she was a servant of the church . . . “ “Minister” and “servant” is the same word – diakonos! And we can see by Paul’s use of the word in the list (comment 69), that when he specifically names a person as being a diakonos, he always and only uses it in the context of a person with a real, significant ministry. Why should Phoebe be the only exception?

*Moreover, Phoebe simply cannot have been both a servant, in the common sense of the word, and a leader-patron-benefactor (prostatis) (Rom 16:1-2)!*

Phoebe is undisputedly a diakonos. It was Paul’s choice of word to describe her. Paul also called her a prostatis which literally means “stand before”. This indicates that Phoebe was a leader (cf Young’s Literal Translation and the CEV). At the very least, prostatis can mean that Phoebe was “a patron-benefactor of many, including me [Paul]” (Rom 16:2.)

As I’ve said, I see no reason at all to assume that Phoebe’s ministry was in any way less significant than the ministries of Tychicus or Epaphras. For anyone to single out Phoebe from the list of ministers (in comment 69), and suggest that her ministry was somehow not on par with some of the other ministers, seems to me to show unaccountable prejudice.

@Ramon

“Speak where the Bible speaks and where the Bible is silent then so should we.”

If you follow this precept then how is it that you believe that the husband is the head of the family. I do not know of any scripture that teaches this. (I expect that we have a different understanding of the meaning of “head” also.)

God gave families a father and a mother to lead together and share the responsibilites and chores of family life. (It is very hard and lonely to lead a family on your own. Just ask any single parent.) I sincerely hope that Cheryl doesn’t mind if I post another link. http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/leading-together-in-the-home/

@Mark
Here is EVERY instance where Paul uses the word diakonos (sg) or diakonoi (pl) in all the grammatical cases that are used in his New Testament letters:

Romans 13:4 twice (civil ministers/leaders/authorities); Romans 15:8 (Jesus); Romans 16:1 (Phoebe);
1 Corinthians 3:5 (Apollos, Paul);
2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4 (Paul, etc); 2 Corinthians 11:15 twice (Satan’s ministers/servants);
Galatians 2:17 (Jesus Christ);
Ephesians 3:7 (Paul); Ephesians 6:21 (Tychicus);
Philippians 1:1 (traditionally translated as deacons);
Colossians 1:7 (Epaphras); Colossians 1:23 and 25 (Paul); Colossians 4:7 (Tychicus);
1 Timothy 3:8 and 12 (traditionally translated as deacon); 1 Timothy 4:6 (Timothy).

Perhaps this will show you just how unjustified it is to think that Phoebe was not a genuine minister (in the fullest sense of the word). All the other occasions of the word in Paul’s letters are in the context of ministers, even ministry leaders – even of Jesus Christ.

Phoebe was a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea, and also a leader/patroness (prostatis) of many (Romans 16:1-2). Prostatis literally means “stands before”. To translate this word as “helper” or “assistant” is another injustice.

@Ramon I didn’t answer your question.

Marriage is the union between the husband and wife. I wouldn’t say that “family is the union between the husband and wife”.

A family can include many more people than just a husband and wife. It can include children and other relatives and dependents. In New Testament times, a household could also include slaves.

@Mark
While the Greek word diakonos literally means “servant”, Paul only ever used diakonos in his letters in the context of a minister. It is blatant bias to change the translation from “minister” or “deacon” to “servant” just because it applies to a woman – Phoebe.

It is not clear at all, either from New Testament scripture or early church history, that women were never permitted to be overseers or to teach publicly. As well as Priscilla, other women are mentioned by name who obviously were leaders of house churches. Women such as Chloe (1 Cor 1:11) and Nympha (Col 4:15). If they were not the leader, why did Paul mention these women, and not the men?

Other women such as Junia (Rom 16:7), Euodia and Syntyche (Php 4:2-3) obviously had significant ministries too. As did several other women mentioned in Romans chapter 16.

[I have provided a link to my article on New Testament Women Church Leaders at the end of comment 48.]

What is the difference between a women teaching publicly or privately? Do you think it is permissible for a woman to teach men privately? As a church leader, along with her husband, Priscilla would have had many opportunities to teach; whether that was privately or publicly, formally or informally. It may well have been that Priscilla’s ministry was more prominent than her husband’s. (Acts 18:18-19, 26; Rom 16:3-4; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tim 4:19)

My article about Priscilla is here: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/did-priscilla-teach-apollos/

@Ramon All I am saying is that you seem to think I am twisting scriptures. I am just pointing out that if you think the scriptures say that the husband is the head of the family then you are twisting scripture. (Or adding to it, or interpreting it, etc.) The scriptures only teach that the husband is the head of the wife.

Some people interpret that to mean that the husband has spiritual authority over his wife. However the scriptures NEVER actually say that either. There are more than a few examples where God bypassed husbands and male guardians to speak directly to women. I have written an article about these women here: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/bible-women-with-spiritual-authority/

@Ramon I agree that God’s word transcends time and culture. As I’ve mentioned there were women ministers in the New Testament church. This is not something new. In fact women were later prevented from being allowed to be ministers because of male-dominated culture, not because of plain Biblical teaching. How can you account for Bible women such as Priscilla, Nympha, Phoebe or Chloe, etc?

Also, just because the passages I have mentioned are gender neutral in the Greek, it does not mean that other passages that mention men and women are gender neutral. I am actually not twisting the scriptures at all. The phrase “a one woman man” really is an idiomatic expression, but I can fully understand that that may be difficult to accept.

Also, almost all statements about the infallability of scripture specify that scipture is infallible only in its original languages. English translations, simply because they are translations, do not always convey the Greek meaning with complete accuracy.

Jesus received his humanity from a woman, he was part of the line of King David through Mary.

The Bible never says that the husband is the head of the family. It says that the husband is the head of the wife. To say that the husband is the head of the family is adding to scripture, or twisting scripture, or making assumptions that cannot be backed up by scripture.

Anyway, I’ve said all I want to on this subject.
Warmest regards, Ramon.

@Ramon The only time that the word “man” is used in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 is in the phrase “a one woman man”. This is often translated into English as “the husband of one wife”.

While this may sound like a cop out, “a one woman man” really was a common Greek idiom.

If someone said that they were “so hungry they could eat a horse”, most English speaking people would know not to take this idiom literally.

This phrase, “a one woman man”, is an idiom found on numerous sepulchral [gravesite] inscriptions celebrating the virtue of a surviving spouse that had not remarried. By noting that he or she was married only once, it suggests the virtue of extraordinary fidelity. (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, Walter Bauer, revised & edited by F.W. Danker, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p292.) Paul uses the phrase “a one man woman” in this context when writing about widows in 1 Timothy 5:9. These women had been married only once, their husband had died, and they were now single and celibate. The New Revised Standard Version somewhat captures this meaning in their translation of this phrase as “married only once” in 1 Timothy 3:2 and 5:9. However the idiom, “a one women man”, has a broader context than that. The real implication being marital fidelity.

The phrase, “a one woman man”, may actually be generically applied to a group of both men and women as can be seen from its use, for example, in 1 Timothy 3:12. 1 Timothy 3:8-10 is about men ministers; 3:11 is about women ministers; and 3:12-13 is about both men and women ministers. Chrysostom wrote that the phrase a one woman man in 1 Timothy 3: 12 ”. . . must be understood therefore to relate to Deaconesses [women ministers]. For that order is necessary and useful and honourable in the Church”. (Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily XI)

I fully respect and acknowledge the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures, however the Scriptures were written during times that were very different from ours, to cultures that were very different to ours, and using languages that are different from ours. It is dangerous (and unwise) to ignore good scholarship that sheds light on culture, history and language that can help us to understand the meaning and intent of the Bible authors.

Moreover, several women are mentioned by name in the New Testament who were house church leaders: Chloe, Nympha, Priscilla (with her husband Aquila) etc. Other female ministers include Phoebe, Junia, Euodia and Syntyche, etc. Paul had no problem with women being ministers.
http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/new-testament-women-church-leaders/

@Ramon (just in case you come back to this article and its comments)

The qualifications for elders and deacons in the Greek New testament are by no means for men only. In fact they are completely gender neutral.

(If you are interested in this, click on my name which will take you to my site where there is an article about Paul’s qualifications for church leader.)

I very much enjoyed reading this insightful article.

The story of Mary of Bethany choosing the (literally) “necessary” and “good” activity of learning as a disciple at Jesus’ feet, compared with Martha’s activity of providing hospitality (in a culture that highly valued hospitality) is a story that has significant meaning for me.

The only thing that I disagree with is the title. I do not think that it is just men who have taken, and continue to take away, a woman’s “good portion”. I know of many women who also believe that the Biblical ideal of womanhood is primarily one of being a full-time homemaker and subservient wife, and that spiritual knowledge and spiritual authority is primarily for men.

I love Luke 10:42 because I sometimes feel that I should be doing more practical activities, rather than spending much of my time learning about the scriptures and spending time with God. Especially because, as a women, I still have limited avenues to share my knowledge. However I am comforted and reassured by Jesus statement, “Mary has chosen the good part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:42)

Men and women may try to hinder women from learning about God more deeply; but Jesus doesn’t hinder. Jesus welcomes both men and women as his students and as his friends . . . even as ministers.

Apart from this one incident, Martha did get it right too. I’ve written about Martha – a woman of great faith – here: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/bible-women-with-spiritual-authority/

@Craig

The Greek phrase “a one woman man” (usually translated into English as “the husband of one wife”) was a very common idiom and as Don mentioned was often found on gravesite inscriptions.

The idiom refers to marital faithfulness. BDAG (p292) mentions that it is used in numerous sepulchral inscriptions to “celebrate the the virtue of a surviving spouse by noting that he or she was married only once, thereby suggesting the virtue of extraordinary fidelity.” (cf Anna in Luke 2:36, and the widows in 1 Timothy 5:13-15.)

I have written a bit about this here: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/pauls-qualifications-for-church-leaders/

I found the following paper very useful. It takes an indepth look at the meaning and application of “a one woman man”. http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/15/15.pdf

Hi Cheryl,

An article on 1 Timothy 2:12ff would be great! These few verses are still a huge stumbling block for people who ban women from leadership ministry that involves public teaching.

I hope you will have a look at my efforts on this subject.
http://newlife.id.au/tag/1-timothy-212/

[My site was hacked on the 16-17 of July and some people are still experiencing virus alerts when they try to visit. My site has been cleaned however.]

Hi Cheryl,

The word used in 1 Timothy 2:15, tes teknogonias, is a (genitive, singular, feminine) noun meaning the “act of child birth”. It is definitely a noun. I am not for one second claiming that it is a verb. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something?

When I was saying what I DON’T think 1 Timothy 2:15 means, I was paraphrasing and I used the participle “giving birth” instead of the noun “childbirth”. (I apologise if this was the cause of confusion.)

I don’t have a problem with the noun used verse 15. (Although some people do, because it is only used once in the New Testament, and some people have queried its precise meaning.)

Also, I am very happy for people not to accept what I tend to believe about the fusion of Artemis mythology into a form of gnosticism that was plaguing the Ephesian church, however I still hold that 1 Timothy 2:15 can be translated as “She will be kept safe [or preserved] through childbirth.” (Childbirth being a noun.)

I am not trying to be contentious . . . just trying to understand . . . I sincerely value your articles. 🙂

Comment 20: absolutely! 😀

warm wishes

Hi Cheryl,

I don’t quite understand comment 16.

“She will be kept safe” is a (third person, future, passive, indicative, singular) verb.

And “child birth” is a noun. While it does have a definite article, it does not necessarily mean that it is a one-off occasion of childbirth. As you are very aware, the use and non-use of the definite article in Greek often follows very different rules in English!

I don’t believe that verse 15 is implying that the woman will be kept safe through giving birth to one child, or giving birth the one time. It just says she will be kept safe through childbirth.

When I view 1 Timothy 2:11-15 with the understanding that false doctrine was a serious problem in the church at Ephesus, and that there are several verses in 1 Timothy which significantly indicates that this false teaching was an early form of gnosticism; and that Ephesus was famous for it enthusiastic devotion to the fertility goddess Artemis, Paul’s instructions become coherent and make complete sense.

BTW I think the anarthrous (without a definite article) woman in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is most likely one woman. (The Samaritan woman at the well is also anarthrous in the Greek John 4:7, and she was definitely one particular woman. She did not represent all women from Samaria. Thus in English we say THE woman of Samaria.)

Kristen:
I believe that the reason Paul mentions Adam and Eve in the way he does, is because he is addressing a gnostic heresy that was being taught by the woman being discussed in this blog post.

Gnostics loved to reintepret Bible narratives. In many gnostic writings Eve came first, and even created Adam; and Adam was the one deceived. (In some writings the serpent is viewed as a heroic figure.) Gnostics also loved to combine Biblical accounts with pagan beliefs.

Gnosticism would become a huge threat to the Christian chuch in the second and third centuries, but it is clear from some of Paul’s references in 1 Timothy 2:12f and elsewhere that an early form of Gnosticism was already being introduced into the church.

Paul corrects the gnostic heresy by saying that it is Adam who was created first, and then Eve, and it was not Adam who was deceived. Moreover the woman would be be kept safe through childbirth if she continues in faith, love, etc . . . [rather than by putting her faith in Artemis, the goddess of fertility and the ubiquitous deity of Ephesus.]

I have written about 1 Timothy 2 in the context of the Ephesian culture. http://newlife.id.au/tag/1-timothy-212/