gengwall

“One other question that was posed to me was about why Paul did not lump the deceived woman in with the other deceived teachers in 1 Timothy 1.”

Another distinction is that Hymenaeus and Alexander were not decieved like Eve/The Woman. In fact, they were far more like Adam in that their actions were deliberate.

That is great Cheryl. Now I am even more bummed that I missed you in MN.

One of the things I find very difficult is getting people in mushy, soft-comp churches (like my own) to even realize there is a problem, let alone getting them introduced to materials such as yours that address it. *sigh*

BTW – they closed comments in that article. Looks like A. Amos was making the salsa too hot to handle.

Alternatively – salsa dancing (as with most Latin and ballroom dancing) is all about the woman and making her the centerpiece of the dance. Yes, the man leads, but he does not domineer. In fact, he should be nearly invisible. Not exactly the “lead from the front” type of male “headship” complementarians usually advocate.

My girls are both very accomplished salsa dancers who have danced with some outstanding partners. I asked for a one word description of the best salsa dancing leaders they have danced with, and they both agreed that it would be “humble”. Conversely, the worst salsa dancing leaders are ones who are arrogant and think the dance is about them and their leadership.

Another consideration. It is a lot easier to lead than to follow in dancing. Frankly, I don’t know how my wife does it. I know what I’m going to do before I do it but she has no idea. She is in the dark until the moment of the move and yet, she miraculously executes the moves as if she knew what was coming all along. That is really a cool thing…in dancing.

But are we to suggest that marriage should follow the same pattern? Does male leadership really entail keeping your wife in the dark about decisions until the very last second and then forcing compliance as if she were some puppet on strings? I hope not. My wife puts up with that when we dance (and yes, we both have a great time and she is happy to follow) but I wouldn’t last 2 seconds if I tried to pull something like that in real life.

The reality in dancing is that there is a leader, but there is no rule that it has to be the man. That is a societal norm, but not a life or death statute. I know couples where the wife leads and the man is happy to follow because, frankly, she is a better at it. I also know dance styles that are more free form and allow the woman to “do her own thing” (Lindy Hop and Tango come to mind). And then there are couples dances that are called like square dancing and round dancing where neither partner ever leads. All of these dances are great fun and if dance imitates life, as the article suggests, show a wide variety of allowable leadership paradigms in marriage.

BTW – has the author of the article ever heard the phrase “it takes two to Tango”? I hate to break it to him but whether it is Tango or Salsa, the dance is just as non-existent without the woman as it is without the man.

“The concept that a sentence or two can be understood clearly without reading before and after it is irresponsible reading. And from there one builds irresponsible doctrines with errors in them. And errors in doctrines will always hurt the people of God somewhere, somehow.”

Which is also why you can not possibly read vss. 11-12 without reading all the way through 15. If vss. 11-12 are related to 9 and 10, then 15, as the conclusion of the thought, also has to be. So where is the vs. 15 equivalent in your story, Patrick? It has to be there or you have proposed an incomplete comparison and argument. Where is the specific “she” in your home that will be “saved” or somehow otherwise be positively changed/redeemed by, I don’t know, continuing to remain downstairs?

The problem with trying to make vss. 11 and 12 an extension of the thought of 9 and 10 is that verses 13-15 turn the whole thing into gibberish. I suspect that is why Patrick is avoiding inclusion and consideration of those last verses.

Too many comments to get into them all. I’ll take just one.

Patrick – “I never said Paul was stopping the truth of the gospel in verse 12, that is your assumption. I did say Paul was putting some sort of prohibition on women teaching. I never said he was stopping the truth of the gospel. The two are not necessarily compatible.”

If Paul is “putting some sort of prohibition on women teaching” and the teaching Paul is putting said prohibition on is “truth of the gospel” teaching than Paul is “stopping the truth of the gospel”.

Your argument not only implies but directly declares that Paul is “putting some sort of prohibition” (i.e. “stopping”) “on women teaching” (“the truth of the gospel”, yes?) Unless, you do not believe the teaching in question is truth but false teaching. In your view, is the teaching in verse 12 true or false teaching? If it is true teaching, then “putting some prohibition on women teaching [truth]” and “stopping the truth of the gospel [from being taught by women]” are entirely synonymous phrases. The are not only compatible, they are identical.

“The NT’s depiction of the Church as the bride of Christ, together with Paul’s parallel between “the first man Adam” and Christ “the last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45), led to an explicit association in the writings of the Church Fathers between Eve, mother of the living, and “mother” church, mater ecclesia.”

Maybe so, but Paul never made such a leap.

Can’t wait to dig in. As you know, I am not completely averse to a generic woman at the beginning of the passage. This gives us the perfect platform to pursue the truth. Onward!

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….

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?

A slight correction to my paraphrase. And oh, BTW, don’t click the link that automatically gets generated. I will change it slightly to hopefully prevent the link.

Jane needs to chill out and submit herself to some legitimate geology teaching. I would not permit Jane to tell these lies about rocks to her husband and she certainly shouldn’t treat him abusively like she does. She really needs to chill. Remember Fred and Wilma. Fred took a real estate class before they were married, and Fred knew full well that that land deal was against the law. But Jane was hoodwinked by that internet course and has become this lying harpy. Still, she can straighten out by going to vvv.Jesusknowsrocks.com as long as they proceed with humility, mutual love, and a good DSL connection.

Hi Craig. It is a nice illustration but I think it errs on three points: it focuses on the created order and assumes the topic (rocks) is constant. Paul is not saying that Eve and the woman are deceived about the same thing, he is simply saying they are deceived (really, ignorant in your illustration). And the main issues isn’t created order between the two couples. At best, that is secondary. And finally, we are not ignorant about Eve’s deception. It is a know elemnet to the story that does not need repeating.

At any rate, none of that matters. The point isn’t whether or not your illustration is confusing, it only matters if the passage is confusing. Do you find the passage confusing if we put a name in the place of “the woman”? I sure don’t.

But let me see if I can rework your illustration so that it parallels the passage a little more closely.

My friend Barney and I are talking about a mutual friend Jane who is telling lies about rocks based on some internet course she took. Jane really needs to get some training before she shoots her mouth off. She is even influencing her husband, who should know better since he has some geology training. What’s worse, any time he even mentions rocks she berates him. She really needs to chill out.

Barney reminds me about another couple who are very familiar to us, saying maybe their situation can shed some light on how to both look at and handle Jane.

Here is the background – Barney and I know of a couple named Fred and Wilma. They got themselves in a little trouble a few years back. Seems Wilma got tricked into an illegal land deal by a slick con man. Fred went along with the deal even though he new he was breaking the law. Poor Wilma, not knowing anything about real estate, didn’t have any idea that what she was doing was wrong. In the eyes of the law she was just as guilty as Fred, but because of her ignorance, she received leniency from the court. Fred, on the other hand, got the book thrown at him.

Now Barney lets me in on a little insight that had not occured to me. Seems Fred took a real estate class before he was married to Wilma. That’s why he knew that the land deal was illegal while Wilma was clueless..

Anyway, Jane doesn’t know squat about rocks because that internet course was crap. As a result, she has found herself in this position where she is spreading these lies.

OK – that’s the story with a lot of exposition. Now let me see if I can paraphrase it along the lines of the passage. Remember that the background paragraph on Fred and Wilma is well know to Barney and me. Barney speaks:

Jane needs to chill out and submit herself to some legitimate geology teaching. I would not permit Jane to tell these lies about rocks to her husband and she certainly shouldn’t treat him abusively like she does. She really needs to chill. Remember Fred and Wilma. Fred took a real estate class before the were married, and Fred knew fully well that that land deal was against the law. But Jane was hoodwinked by that internet course. Still, she can straighten out by going to http://www.Jesusknowsrocks.com if they proceed with humility, mutual love, and a good DSL connection.

Make sense?

“It only does these with some assumptions unfortunately. Technically, all Paul tells us about Eve is that she was formed after Adam – that’s all.”

I disagree. I think Paul gives us enough to make the Eve-Ephesian woman connection. Let’s say we know the Ephesian woman’s name – we’ll call her Jane. Then, vss. 13-14 could have been written:

For Adam was created first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but Jane, having been deceived has fallen into transgression.

If I read that, I have no problem seeing the connection between Jane and Eve. Paul has simply substituted Jane for Eve in his second comparison, but Eve is still in the picture because of her inclusion in the first and the knowledge we have that she was deceived. Jane is like Eve. I don’t have to assume anything to come to that conclusion. (Unless you believe it is an assumption that Eve was deceived.)

Jane is “the woman”; “the woman” is Jane. The two are interchangeable. So I don’t need either of my prior parenthetical “helps” to come to the view I hold. Nor do I need to make any assumptions about Eve or read Eve into the second part of vs. 14. Paul brings up Eve for a reason. The reason becomes clear at “the woman…”.

Craig – “I’m still struggling though with understanding Paul’s reasoning if Eve is not in v14b. It sounds like Paul is saying that there is something about Adam being formed first that meant he was not deceived. But this Ephesian woman is not like Adam because she is deceived.
Paul’s emphasis seems to be in contrasting the Ephesian woman with Adam, rather than comparing her to Eve as we have usually understood it.”

I think you are correct, and Cheryl has mentioned this before, that there is something about the first couple’s created order that made it so Adam was not deceived. I don’t think the “something” is important here. What is important is that Adam was not deceived while Eve was.

But the comparison is still to Eve. It would have helped, I suppose, if Paul had said “but the woman, like Eve….” instead of just “but the woman….”. But it isn’t necessary. The entirety of vss. 13-14 make it read clear enough. Compare the two alternatives below, with extra biblical helping text in the brackets.

For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived. But the woman [in the same manner as Eve] was deceived and has fallen into transgression.

For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived. But the woman [who I have been discussing] was deceived and has fallen into transgression.

I see no difference between the two. Both compare the Ephesian woman to Eve. Given the entirety of vss. 11-15, especially the singular “she” of vs. 15, and the fact that Paul was discussing a situation Timothy was already well aware of, can you envision that Timothy would have needed either of the bracketed alternatives in order to understand what Paul was talking about? Do we need either of them? I certainly don’t. The passage is very clear to me with the plain reading:

For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived. But the woman was deceived and has fallen into transgression. Yet she will be saved through The Childbirth if…

YET, even if “the woman” is Eve, it doesn’t change the overall meaning of the passage or its subject – a single Ephesian woman. let’s render the passage as if the Genesis portion was parenthetical (and referenced Eve directly).

A woman should learn peacefully, in complete submission. For I do not permit a woman to teach or domineer the man, but to be at peace. (For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, But Eve, having been deceived, fell into transgression). Still, she will be saved through The Childbirth, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness.

If we remove the parenthetical part, the passage reads smoothly:

A woman should learn peacefully, in complete submission. For I do not permit a woman to teach or domineer the man, but to be at peace. Still, she will be saved through The Childbirth, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness.

But does anything really change? “She” is still not Eve and still not all women, and still connects back to “a woman” from vs. 11. “They” still can’t be all women or all men, so probably are the couple (note that “the man” is the actual rendering in vs. 12, meaning a specific man, most likely her husband). All that a parenthetical rendering does is make the Genesis reference confusing. It leaves us asking “what was the point of that Adam and Eve thing” since there is no way that “the woman” and “she” can be the same person if “the woman” is Eve.

This is the most important reason why we must reject such a rendering, because God is not the author of confusion and an inspired Paul, even in this personal letter, would not author gibberish.

Hi Craig. I have just a brief comment after reviewing your discussion with pinklight. Paul is referencing Eve’s deception, but Eve is not the current actor who has been deceived. I don’t mean to suggest that Eve is completely out of the picture at the end of vs. 14, but only that Eve is the example for the contemporary situation.

Now, as to some of your other questions.

Even if the verbal aspect theory was correct and we couldn’t be sure about vs. 14, there is nothing in that theory that affects the grammar of vs. 15 where “she” is a singular woman whose salvation is in the future. So the vs. 15 woman still can’t be Eve and also can’t be all women of even a subgroup of women because singular is singular. So, punting on vs. 14 still doesn’t support a comp view of vs. 15.

More importantly, the passage becomes more and more nonsensical the more “comp-ish” it becomes. The fact is that it makes perfect sense (at least to me) and flows smoothly all the way from vs 11-15 if vs. 14 and 15 say what we are saying they say.

I generally opt for the simple reading of a passage if it makes sense. Regardless of verbal aspect theories and comp wishful thinking, the passage makes the most sense if “the woman” of vs. 14 is not Eve. It fits the plain text (Adam is named twice but Eve is not named in the last part of the verse), it fits the plain understanding of the perfect tense (whereas the VAT leaves us hanging without a clear interpretation), it matches up “the woman” with “she” in vs. 15 and maintains the integrity of a contemporary woman interpretation, it holds up Eve as an individual example instead of making her some strange and otherwise unexplained representative of all women, and it shows how Adam and Eve both support Paul’s general commentary on deception, false teaching, and salvation. The only reason this passage is so “confusing” is that the English interpretations are all over the map. But the plain reading with focus on the Greek is very clear. Why would we reject the plain reading in favor of inconclusive, incoherent interpretations? Unless, of course, we had an agenda other than seekign the truth that we wanted to promote.

Paul has given us some glimpses prior to 2:14 into why he uses Adam and Eve to complete this section on false teaching. Paul speaks of the grace he received because he was ignorant in his transgressions against the Church (1:12-15). He also shows us the condemnation that comes to those who sin with full knowledge like Hymenaeus and Alexander (1:20). In chapter 2 he talks about how God wants all to be saved (2:1-4), and he speaks of Christ and his birth as the source of salvation (1:15). Throughout, false teaching and deception are primary themes. Finally we get to this woman who is “teaching” in an abusive and sinful way, but, who we will soon find out, was as deceived as Paul when he was equally as ruthless and abusive.

All of these themes, deception, false teaching, condemnation for blatant, “full knowledge” sin, salvation through Christ, with His birth as the initiating event, are played out in Genesis 3. Adam and Eve are the perfect examples not only for verses 11-15 of Chapter 2, but for all of the first two chapters of 1 Timothy. Adam and Eve are the examples, but Paul, Hymenaeus and Alexander, and this Ephesian woman are the contemporary actors whose situations and actions emulate either Adam or Eve.

Just one reference on the perfect tense in ancient Greek.

“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.”

(SYNTAX OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK, James A. Brooks, Carlton L. Winbery, University Press of America, Lanham, Md., 1988, pp. 104-5 as referenced on http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/new_testament_greek.htm)

In this case, the past action was the deception and the continuing state is the transgression (false teaching) which resulted from that deception.

Sorry – to sum up then – the quest to find problems with the passage if “the woman” is not Eve, or to try and fit Eve into the passage, while possibly interesting and envigorating, are of little lasting value because “the woman” simpy is not Eve. The grammar proves this. So our quest should be to understand why Paul introduced Adam and Eve and then brought the focus on (or really, back to) this particular Ephesian woman. What is it about Adam and Eve that Paul wants us to see and how does it relate to the situation in Ephesus. OK. Carry on…

Hi Craig. Just jumping in to give the ladies a break. THe Greek in vs. 14 and 15 prove conclusively that “the woman” and “she” are not Eve. In verse 14, the “to be” verb is in perfect tense. A correct translation (one of only a few) of the perfect tense in verse 14 can be found in The Concordant Literal New Testament: “yet the woman, being deluded, has come to be in the transgression”. While the deception is in the past, the transgression is STILL ONGOING at the time Paul wrote Timothy. It simply can not be Eve, although Eve is a model of the type of deception based transgression that this Ephesian woman has fallen into. Now, I know, most English bibles translate everything in the past. They are just flat out wrong. Go online and look at any Greek grammar source for the perfect tense in Koine Greek and you will see that the transgression is continuing at the present time. I hate to say almost all of our bible translators have made a huge mistake, but the evidence is clear.

Of course, verse 15 confirms this. “she” and verse 14’s “the woman” are the same person. Certainly this can’t be disputed. And, as many have mentioned, the salvation for the “she” of vs. 15 is in the future and therefore it can’t refer to Eve. If “she” can’t be Eve and “the woman” and “she” are the same (whether it is specific or generic), then “the woman” can’t be Eve. This is simple logic.

As for why Paul brought up Eve – I would say that Eve was the perfect example to contrast transgression from deception vs. transgression from full knowledge (like Adam’s). Adam and Eve are a reference that everyone (or at least every Jew) would clearly understand. In fact, I would say there was no better example that Paul could use.

As to the transgression – certainly the woman was a sinner before she was deceived, as was Paul and everyone else. The point is not that ALL her transgression began at her deception (she isn’t like Eve in that way), but only that the specific one dealing with her false teaching did. She always was a sinner, and would continue to be a sinner even after salvation, just like us all.

I was foreman on a jury one time and Ihad to keep minding one of the jurors that we were the judges of facts, not possibilities. The lawyers were responsible for giving us the facts and we had to restrain our analysis and conclusions on those facts alone (as well as our determination of how trustworthy they were). Paul is an excellent attorney AND a trustworthy witness. Although he is writing to a friend about circumstances that contain more detail and color than what we have been provided, he still has the inspiration of the Holy Spirit backing him up and his words still have been included in the canon of Scripture, all of which is beneficial to us. Therefore, we can trust we have what we need within the text provided. Although we certainly have to consider context and history to properly judge the facts, the facts are all we judge.

I agree Kristen, although I think this passage is still instructive in how Paul views the interrelation of body parts, whether applied to the church in toto or the Christ/Church relationship. Paul does not portray the head as “leading” or “in charge of” the body in any of his metaphors, nor does portray the body as subservient in any way to the head. Many commentators make two fundamental mistakes. You point out the first – they miss that it is a metaphor. But they also too often apply English language based definitions to “head”.

Moffet translates: “through childbirth”. I used to be good at grammer but maybe my skills are rusty. I interpret Moffet’s interpretation as saying in essense “through giving birth”, not “through a birth”. At best, that would make “childbirth” a gerund (a verb acting like a noun). The translation is not indicating an act (noun) which the women is saved via, but an action (verb) which she will be saved from the risks of. Again, I might be wrong. Still, the two translations stand in stark contrast to each other.

“the first clause of Moffat’s translation seems very natural.”

Except for the fact that it does not follow the grammer. Moffet presents “Childbirth” as a verb but the actual text is “the childbirth” – a definite noun. Plus, one can’t simply ignore that this passage is decidedly inside the theological sphere.

Young’s Literal Translation is more true to the grammer and presents quite a contrast from Moffet. “she shall be saved through the child-bearing”.

And then there is the context to consider. What could being brought physically safely through the child bearing process have to do with the rest of this passage? It would be completely out of the blue with no prior or subsequent text to warrant its inclusion.

Interesting perspective Rob. So let me see if I understand you. Women seeking to equally share their God given gifts with the Church are on a power-trip, but men who pull gender trump cards and try to squelch women’s gifts for their own agrandization are not. Yes. That about sums it up.

Now, if you really believe that the bible gives men exclusive teaching authority, why not engage in the discussion? Your claim the site is far from convincing is far from convincing.

That’s great Cheryl. I will check my schedule and see if I can make it. Lakeville is but a 30 min drive for me.

Or as a new boy in town correctly replies to Tom Sawyer: “Your saying so doesn’t make it so”.

Don’t get me wrong Kristen. I’m not saying there wasn’t a situation to which Paul was writing. What I’m saying is that such a situation is not confined to first century Ephesus. Paul’s instructions are universal. The mushy “situational” interpretation offered by many egalitarians is that the situation was confined to Ephesus and therefore no longer applicable to today. Such and interpretation gives ground to complementarians by basically accepting their argument about the passage.

I have not read Payne’s book so I can not comment conclusively. But from what Cheryl has related, it seems to strike a similar cord – “Paul may be sounding complementarian but that’s ok because he is dealing with an isolated, Ephesian, 1st century situation.” At least that is what it sounds like to me.

Payne’s argument flows along the same lines with the mushy middle egalitarian arguments about 1 Tim 2 being situational to Ephesis alone and not universal. Although it is a nice attempt to argue against complementarianism, or more specifically, male dominance, it is not supported in the verses in question, as Cheyl points out, or in the subsequent verses which complete Paul’s instruction.

Craig,

My response to Mark would be short and to the point. He continues to purposely ignore the voluntary, mutual submission in vs. 21, which also defies any “normal” sense of the Greek word. Paul is clearly going beyond the norm here. Marks “raft of problems” is made moot by vs. 21.

It is this errant blending of Jesus many relationships with the church that often lead to significant problems in our own inter-relational interactions. I will give one very disturbing example.

I once had a person advocate for domestic discipline (physically disciplining of the wife by the husband) by quoting Revelations Rev 3:19 (Jesus speaking to the church at Laodicia) “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” He coupled that with the Ephesians 5 command for husbands to “love” their wives and Jesus’ relatively violent cleansing of the temple in John 2:14-16 as example of a valid form of “rebuke and chasten”. In other words, in his thinking, a valid expression of Ephesians 5 “love” toward ones wife is to “rebuke and chasten her” with a switch to her back side when she is in sin to help her “repent”.

Does anyone here believe for one minute that this is what the Bible teaches? Yet the Revelations passage my friend began with did indeed involve, to a degree, Jesus relationship with the Church. Clearly though, it was a different relationship than Jesus as husband to his bride the Church, is it not?

I’m with Kristen on this one. Jesus relates to the Church in a variety of ways. In Ephesians, and in particular in the head/body metaphors, it is addressing just one of these relational paradigms. In that paradigm, there is no authority element. The mistake that people make is to ignore the metaphor and start to assign English meanings to the translated English word “head”. (I’m not saying anyone here is doing that, just that comps often do). But the actual relationship between Christ/husband/head and Church/wife/body within the context of the metaphor can not take on any elements outside of the anatomical head/body relationship. In that literal, physical relationship, authority is non-existent and symbiosis, unity, and equality are the fundimental characteristics. Yes, Christ has some relational paradigms with the church that involve a level of authority. But not this one.