TL

IMO that is a great question Craig

I don’t think I get his answer on #1. How can vs. 11 be referring to Eve. Eve is dead. How can she learn and be silent learning, etc.

praying for you sanity….. and mine. Life has been just wacky and sometimes in a somewhat painful way. 🙂

hugs around in Jesus!

quiet here. 🙂

Well researched Dave. Thanks….. now back to Saturday business!! 🙂

Trevor, you forgot the link:
http://blog.cbeinternational.org/

Excellent illustration, Craig. Spot on!

“I’ll take a breath now and wait for Cheryl to respond. I’m sure she’ll be typing furiously when she sees that I have not given up. (seems the right spot for an evil laugh – buwahahahahaha!)”

Actually, this was fun. You’ve been a good man to dialogue with.

Part of the problem with taking it as generic is that it is then even easier for the hierarchal minded person to step it up to ‘all women should be eternal learners, in ‘silence’ and submission and not ever teach or “lead” ‘men’.

catching up …..

“I suggest that we can NOT assume Timothy would take the instructions as generic if Paul had been exclusively specific. I suggest that Paul was letting Timothy know that his instructions absolutely could be expanded to other cases through the intentional use of the generic at first.”

hmmm. I didn’t think of Timothy taking the instructions as generic. I would think that Timothy would take them as specific to the situation. However, even for Timothy if a similar situation arose in the near future, I would think he could think back to Paul’s instructions and not feel he needed to ask Paul again but apply the same wisdom. This is the way we do it today. So, again, Timothy wouldn’t need a generic to know that if a similar situation arose, it is possible (though not absolute) that he could respond in a similar way.

” Is it not a legitimate reply for me to say “well, nobody should be doing ‘X’.”? Is it not also legitmate for me to say, “as for Cheryl, she can fix her record if she does ‘Y’.”?

I can agree with all of that. It’s just not what Paul did. !Shrug!

“EXACTLY! And that is why it does work. Paul is addressing the same subject in verses 11-15 and it is a different subject than verses 8-10. Just because it is the same subject doesn’t mean Paul can’t deal with it both generically and specifically. I’m not sure why y’all can’t see that.”

yes, but! 🙂

We all know that any subject, any Scripture, any event can be applied to a person or persons that fit the subject matter. It doesn’t need to be worded in a special way for that to happen. If a woman today were to do today what “the woman” referenced in 2:11-15 was doing, then it would be a good idea to consider telling her to learn, in quietness and submission, just as Paul is admonishing Timothy to do. So in effect, it CAN be dealt with both generically and specifically … even when Paul is addressing just one person. Which I still think he is.

🙂

Oh, and gengwall, I don’t think what you are saying is crazy or left wing. 🙂 It just doesn’t fit with what Paul is doing in 1 Tim. IMO.

Your example of George doesn’t work, because it’s regarding the same subject. Paul switched subjects from dress and modesty to one woman and teaching with dominance.

So, you see that since generic applies to all women, then it wouldn’t be necessary for Paul to switch to a generic, since he was already speaking generically to all women. He would have continued on saying let all women learn, and learn in quietness and submission without domineering men. But the fact that the switch is so out of place and obvious says to me that we cannot ignore it, that it has a purpose. To further that thought Paul CONTINUES with the singular, even citing a singular woman, Eve (with her husband Adam), as an example. Paul stays with this singular deliberately until the very end, when he switches deliberately into a plural.

From my view a generic person applies to all persons. Therefore in its application, it is plural. The way I read the section, Paul is addressing one specific woman and the application of what Paul is saying is to be applied ONLY to that one specific woman, not all women in a generic example.

I don’t know gengwall. That doesn’t make sense to me.

How can one go from plurals, to singular plurals? One CAN go from plurals to singular though. But to say Paul went from an obvious plural (read generic) to an obvious singular, but really still meaning generic plural doesn’t make sense.

The thing about the 1Tim. section is that it moves from a clear general note to all women about dress, into a very specific woman about a very specific thing. And that specific thing is that she is to be allowed to LEARN. Everything after that is subject to the facts of her learning and why. If we approach the section as a whole, I see it as quite clear.

Kay, final thought

“And therefore, mutualists and egals should not question or criticize the comp/hierarchist’s even though there is not one unquestioned flatly stated prohibition against women teaching men in all of Scripture?”

This is not a good argument. There is not one unquestioned prohibition on homosexuality either.

Not very good reasoning Mark. If there is no prohibition of women teaching and indeed there isn’t, then who are we to create one.

And BTW there are many illustrations of practicing homosexuality being sinful in both the Old and New Testaments. And let’s not distract by going there.

Mark,

with regards to kephale meaning authority here are some excellent resources.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/kephale-in-literature.html

As for the real meaning of kephale, as in all words there is a range of meanings going from head to beginning, origin, foremost, top, source, preeminent and others.

Context is of course most important. In Ephesians 5, what is commonly missed by hierarchalists is that the metephor is between the husband being thought of as head of by the wife AND the wife being thought of as body of by the husband. Thus the meaning there is simply ‘head’ because the metaphor is found in the comparison of ‘head of’ and ‘body of’, not the meaning of kephale itself.

SNIPET fr. McCarthy
“Would it surprise you to know that not even once is kephal? used in connection to any of the authority relationships which we believe God has ordained in the Hebrew scriptures?”

Oh my dear friend Cheryl, I’m shocked as well. How awful. I pray that somehow this is equalized out into something better.

Good question Mark. Context and culture I think will help. First, in that era a wife and the rest of the household was expected to follow the beliefs of the husband/father. This is why a married woman living with an unbeliever (1 Peter 3) was advised to witness by her behavior and not by her words. Secondly, it is possible that the husband contributed somehow to the wife’s behavior, perhaps by simply doing nothing, just like Adam with Eve. Then it would be proper for Paul to say “if they both continue in faith”.

craig, #4

It is impossible for it to be about Eve. Not only is she dead, but because she is dead, she can no longer continue life in faith, love and holiness with her husband.

It is difficult to fully separate the actions of one person of the Trinity with the supporting actions of the others. No matter what is being done, all are involved to some degree.

Craig, 5

I kinda got that impression also. But gengwall will have to let us know for sure.

Wow. I’ll have to digest that one. You do seem to have all your references in order. Thanks for sleuthing this out.

I think we must accept it as a quirk that Paul did not say ‘the’ or ‘a’ woman and instead just said woman. The thing is that regardless, one can still interpret it as generic if one was determined to, EVEN with the “the” included. The one thing that makes the difference in my mind is the deliberate shift from speaking in plural concerning all women, into speaking about a woman and a man. It is not a woman and all men, but rather a woman and a man. With or without the ‘a’, we can see the shift is deliberate and continues until verse 15.

hang in there, gengwall. Text only communication is always easy to misconstrue. I mistook you on something similar I think, as well. And it’s a confusing section of Scripture that has been so very messed with.

hugs IN Christ,
TL

We can only assume. My guess is that Paul wanted to give the woman opportunity to correct herself and learn, while not giving her identity to everyone where ever the letter was read. However, Paul gave enough information that the local community where she was would know what Paul’s thoughts and wishes were on the subject.

Cheryl, 248 & 249

LOL good way of putting it. It’s an exercise in logic. One woman taught wrong and even dominated others into doing so also. So, because she was a woman, her correction applies to all women. Bad logic. One cow is blue, thus all cows must be blue or they aren’t cows. 🙂 or some such……

I don’t see a generic woman either. The switch is too unusual. Plus, I don’t know of any other instance when Paul has used a generic person in this way. We can of course, take any situation, any real example and use it generically for anyone that fits the same circumstances. But that is a bit different than saying the example given is not a real person and the situation is not a real situation.