gengwall

Another perspective for fun or discussion?

Verses 11-15 seem to share a progressive theme but also seem to have disconnects. It is almost as if Paul is breaking down a general issue thread into its bulleted components (as we often do in these threads when we quote back and deconstruct another person’s post). Although there is some common ground throughout the list, there are 4 distinct questions/problems being addressed.

Timothy: Women have never been taught before or allowed to be in the service with men. We all are kind of unsure how to proceed. Moreover, we have some trouble makers in the bunch. Right now, there is a lot of commotion.
Paul: A woman should receive teaching with a peaceful and submissive attitude (as should anyone) (vs 11).
Timothy: It gets worse. Some of the women in the congregation who have been influenced by the Dianic cult here in Ephesus are not only intermingling their false teachings with the gospel but are actually taking a domineering position over the men. This domination has even been violent at times, and I hear rumors about sexually perverse practices taking place [see definition of authenteo and research on Diana worship]. These are women in the congregation, not outsiders!
Paul: I do not allow such a woman to teach or to dominate a man (or anyone else for that matter), but maintain she should strive for peacefulness. (again, as we all should) (vs 12)
Timothy: I even have one of these Dianists who is claiming that Eve was created first and bore Adam, and that Eve and Diana are actually one in the same.
Paul: Adam was formed first, then Eve (duh). Now Adam was not deceived, but this woman, being deceived, has fallen into sin. (vs. 13-14)
Timothy: Is there any hope for this woman?
Paul: She will be saved through The Birth, if they [?still not sure who “they” is?] continue in all seriousness to act with faith, charity, and holiness. (vs. 15).

A great point on translation is made in an older post on the christian feminism blog titled The Mistranslation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12. The breakdown hesuchias in verse 11 (also occuring in vs. 12 and adjectivally in vs. 2):

Traditionalists normally translate this word as “silence” (at least in passages concerning women), but the word in all other places is translated as “peacefulness” “Peaceable” or “quietness.” …Hesuchios/hesuchia is translated as quiet/quietness in 1 Thess. 4:11, 2 Thess. 3:12, 1 Peter 3:4 [and 9 verses earlier in vs. 2 of 1 Tim 2]. None of these verses are about silence, as in the literal absence of speech, but a tranquil quietness or peaceable presence/environment.

Something to keep in mind whenever anyone says Paul is demanding that woemn keep “silent”.

….and so, I have a new paraphrase (*fanfare plays in background*)

vs. 11 (notwithstanding all I have just said) make sure a certain woman (you know who I am talking about) learns in silence and subjection. Yet, I do not allow such a woman to teach or to “Lord it over” a man, but to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve*. And Adam was not deceived. But this woman has been deceived and has fallen into sin. Still, she can be restored through The Birth! That is if they continue seriously in faith, charity, and holiness.

*One possible theory for the inclusion of the creative order is that the specific false teaching of this woman, influenced by the Dianic cult that was centered in Ephesus, was that Eve was created first or had priority over Adam.

Riddle me this Chris. You are correct that Paul is giving exhortations to men and women in vs. 8-10, but do you not recognize that those exhoratations are related to the corporate ministry of the whole congregation outlined in vs. 1-4; a ministry, btw, that can not be conducted “in silence”. Verses 1-10 call the church to action – make supplications, pray, intercede, give thanks, lift holy hands, “adorn” yourselves in good works, etc. – “for this is good and acceptable in sight of God our Savior, who desires all men [i.e. humans] to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (vs. 3-4). Your argument makes vs. 11-15 an extension of the exhortation! How can that be when 11-15 are recognized by all, I believe even you, to be a prohibition. If we are to follow your line of reasoning it leaves Paul saying “women – I exhort you to take action by prohibiting you from taking action”.

You are correct that there is a pattern here – but it is not the linear one you envision from verse 1 all the way through verse 15. Paul is employing a couplet. Here is the pattern

1 Tim 2:1-10 In General:
People are not living in truth ->
God wants them to be saved ->
the congregation is called to action to bring about what God wants for those people.

1 Tim 2:11-15 Specifically:
There is a woman not living in truth ->
God wants her to be saved ->
“they” are called to action to bring about what God wants for her.

Of course, it would be senseless to try and construct specific prohibitions for “kings and all who are in authority” and “all men” since everyone’s situation is different. Therefore, Paul does not bother going down that road in the first section. He simply tells the congregation what it must do in order to minister, and God will take care of the rest. But in the specific instance he turns to in the second section, there are specific actions Timothy must take to get the situation under control. Only then can this woman be properly ministered to in order to bring about her slavation (or restoration).

We may quibble over who “they” are but there is no doubt who “she” is – “the woman” that Timothy knows all too well.

Incidentally, the couplet pattern is repeated in chapter 1, although the situation for the named individuals there is much more dire and the consequences much more severe than it is for “the woman” in chapter 2.

There is, of course, a sense in which we both could be right. It would make sense that the narrow “they” you propose in verses 14-15 would be given similar instruction as the whole congregation was given since the issue is still false teaching, albiet limited to a household in this later section. Paul remains consistent, then, whether dealing with false teaching on a macro or micro level. Faith, love, and holiness, with self-control applies on any level.

lol – I got that. “Any cause” divorce is another one of my pet peeves.

Considering that vs. 14 is talking about a specific woman (no one argues this point) who can not be Eve, it seems absolutely clear who “she shall be saved” is pointing to – that very specific woman. There are clear precedents for “they” as well in the preceeding text – it is either the Ephesus congregation or the two people from vs. 12 (which include “she”).

I still lean toward the congregation (sorry Cheryl) because the instruction that Paul gives “they” in vs. 15 repeats the same actions and attitudes Paul has already directed toward the congregation in at least 3 places in the first two chapters. Paul hammers home three simultaneous themes throughout chapters 1 and 2: identifying false teachers, understanding the salvation that is in Christ, and directing the congregation’s behavior toward false teachers in light of that salvation. Verses 14 and 15 contain all three of these themes again, in language Paul has used repeatedly in the letter to this point.

I agree with Cheryl and Paula that it is hardly an issue of English grammar considering the strong evidence for the sensible, logical, and straightforward conclusion that “she” is not a group and “they” is. The text points right at “she”, and rounds up plenty of suspects for “they”.

arrrgggh. Reading these series of interviews is like watching Lost. I can’t wait for next week.

It just seemed to fit so neatly with stopping all women from teaching the bible to men and now you are telling me that I had it all wrong? Was I deceived?

Reviewing the translations of verses 14 and 15 I was struck by the irony – those translations seem to be just the kind of false teaching that Paul is instructing Timothy about in chapters 1 and 2 of this letter. How unfortunate for those translators that they have voluntarily named themselves for posterity. (I know I am being really harsh on the translators and leveling some pretty strong accusations, but I can’t help but see an agenda in all of this and it strikes me as being quite despicable).

I am chomping at the bit to read part 5 but I thought I would make one last comment here since Frank has raised, and Cheryl has endorsed, recognition of “the big picture”. Indeed, it seems to me, that the universal problem people run into when dealing with Paul’s teaching is that they take a micro view – focusing on one particular passage or even verse and building a supposed Pauline philosophy from there. Paul’s details can’t be understood without taking into consideration Paul’s corpus.

All of the argument over verses 14 and 15 is easily resolved by simply looking at the Greek at four critical points.

1. The “woman” in verse 14 is a specific, real woman, not a representative of a group. The noun has the definite article. I know there has been a lot of discussion over translation in absence of the definite article but when it is present, Greek is unambiguous – it relates a specific person, place, or thing. Verse 14 can’t correctly be translated as “a woman” and is utter nonsense as “women”. The only correct translation is “the woman”.[1]

2. The deception that “the woman” fell victim to was past but the resulting transgression is ongoing. The “to be” verb is in 2nd Perfect tense. It is very easily and consistently translated into English as “has become”. The only correct translation therefore is that “the woman…has become in transgression”. Any translation referring to a past state, subsequently concluded is just plain in error. Since the state is ongoing, “the woman” can not possibly be Eve.[2]

3. The childbirth is a specific childbirth. Again, the definite article is present. This can not be grammatically translated as generic child-bearing and certainly can not be turned arbitrarily into a verb (“through bearing children”, as in some translations).[3] Since, there is no possible child birth of Eve’s that could apply, nor can it possibly refer to child-bearing in general, nor is there any reference to a child born by “the woman”, this can only mean one possible thing – the birth of Jesus. This of course makes perfect sense, since “the child-bearing” is in direct relation to…

4. The redemption or salvation spoken of is in the future. “she shall be saved (or redeemed, restored, preserved)”. Technically, the verb is future indicative – “she shall be being saved”. Since the salvation that “the child-bearing” brings is in the future for “the woman”, again it can not possibly be Eve.

Regardless of what one thinks about the construction of “woman” in prior verses, the grammar in 14 and 15 is unambiguous in that: A) a specific woman is “in view”, B) it can not be Eve, C) it is not her bearing of children but the birth of Christ that makes her redemption possible. Although our translations get it right on point A, they almost universally distort, confuse, and misrepresent the text on points B and C. And considering the grammar is not at all complex, I am saddened to say that I am forced to believe the deception portrayed in the translations must be intentional. Let us hope that we have not “been deceived” and therefore “become in transgression”.

Versions….
[1]…that translate “the woman” correctly: all, (although some are worded to clearly identify Eve as the woman).
[2]…that translate “has become” correctly: ASV, Hebrew Names Version, Young’s Translation (possibly)
[3]…that translate “the childbirth” correctly: Young’s (Interestingly, the NLT gets it horribly wrong in their main text but lists it dead on as “by the birth of the Child” in the footnotes.)
[4]…that translate “shall be saved”: all.

Chirs said:

But consider Numbers 30:4-5 in the LXX (the Greek OT):
“4 And if *a woman* shall vow a vow to the Lord, or bind herself with an obligation in her youth in her father’s house; and her father should hear her vows and her obligations, wherewith *she* has bound her soul, and her father should hold his peace at her, then all her vows shall stand, 5 and all the obligations with which she has bound her soul, shall remain to her.”

Here a command is given to the congregation. The pronoun ‘she’ refers to ‘a woman’, but the command isn’t just for one specific woman, it is for all women. Apparently, the pronoun ‘she’ does not necessarily restrict the number of the antecedent to only one specific individual.

And yet, the word “they” is never used within this passage…thanks for proving the point that “they” and “she” cannot be analagous.

So, in context, Paul is giving instructions for women. He switches from plural to generic singular but is still giving instructions for women. The switch to generic singular anticipates his argument from the creation order. Adam and Eve stand as representatives of all men and all women in Paul’s argument. The woman in verse 14 is Eve. So, the woman is representative of all women. ‘She’ in verse 15 refers back to ‘the woman’ in verse 14. All women are still in view here. ‘[T]hey’, in verse 15, can have an inferred antecedent that refers distributively to all of the women in the church because the topic continues to be instruction to women and ‘the woman’ to which ‘she’ refers stands for all women.

Chris – If the entire passage continues to refer to all women, then explain this contradiction:

Verse 1 is addressed to all of the congregation and involves inter-church activities which inherently includes verbalization. As the group of posts and comments have also pointed out with due second witnesses from scripture, that activity also encompassed “teaching”. Verse 8 gives special instruction to the men of the congregation related to these activities, as do verses 9-10 for women. Conversely, the “command” in verses 11-12 requires, in your interpretation, all women, to remain silent in church and tend to strickly to their “role” of homemakers (a role never ever declared in scripture and specifically refuted in Proverbs 31 as well as Genesis 1) by remaining virtually on house arrest.

So, how can the “women” who are included in verses 1 and 9-10 engage in the activities that Paul “exhorts” (v. 1) them to engage in, if verses 11-12 are “commanding” all of them to alternately lock themselves in their home or remain silent and cowed in church? It makes no sense at all unless verses 11-12 are completely disconected from verses 1 and 9-10. Although in theory, they certainly might both pertain to “women”, they can’t both possibly pertain to the same group of women. The admonission in verses 11-12 has to refer to some other woman or women than those already exhorted by Paul in vs. 1 to raise their voices in “supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks”. Since Paul dramatically switched to the singular, as even recognized in the KJV (“the woman” in verse 11), and confirmed in verse 14b (“but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience – HNV, also equiv in ASV, YNG) it seems pretty clear he was not referring to another group of women but to a single soul. As has been pointed out repeatedly, that is the only conclusion that makes sense from Paul’s grammer.

Humans, of course, can make whatever sense they want out of a passage. I have seen the wildest explanations for Genesis 2 that are based not one wit on what is actually written there and the people who promote those fantasies are quite convinced they are being very holy and “bible based”. But, I have never seen anyone try to make a “she” into “they” before this. That is quite the, pardon the gender bias, “ballsy” leap to be sure.

Amazing! I presume that they associate the “role” that the woman is being restored to is described by vs. 11-12. Bascially, a role of house arrest. Do they completely miss that vs. 9-10 describe a role of vibrant ministry for women (“in like manner” to that of men in v. 8)?

This is all so clear now. Vs. 1-4 states what ALL Christians (men and women) should be doing. V. 8 deals with how men go about doing this ministry, addressing some generally male tendancies (wrath and doubting) that could hinder their effectiveness. Vs. 9-10 do the same thing for women, but women have a different potential hinderance (immodesty???). This is the “role” that the woman in 11-15 can be restored to. Vs. 11-12 instruct Timothy on what needs to be done with her until she is restored. It is not a role but a consequence of her continuing transgression.

Woah! It is almost too sensible to believe. Am I nuts?

The NIV has an interesting footnote regarding “saved” in v. 15. It says it can also mean “restored”. That seems to be the thrust of v. 15, that this woman can be restored to fellowship and ministry (as God wishes for all people – vs. 3-4) through the grace and intersession of Jesus (see vs. 5-6) if the church remains faithful, comes around her in love (vs. 1, 8), and leads her out of her transgression into proper holiness (like that described in vs. 9-10).

It’s a shame the NIV botches the rest of the translation so badly.

So the “they” in v. 15 is not the specific man and the woman from the passage but their brothers and sisters in the church who have the ability to lead her out of her deception…hmmmm. That makes more sense. Would it even be fair to say that v. 15 then wraps up all of 1 Tim 2, in that Paul now brings it back to the congregation he was speaking of and exhorting in vs. 1-10? In other words, vs. 15b, “if they continue…” is summarizing the instruction of vs. 1-10, now applied to this specific woman!

Thanks Don. There certainly is disagreement among scholars regarding vs. 11, although the vast majority translate it “a woman”*. Yet the determination on which is correct is crucial. I would think in such an important passage with such significant ramifications where no context is provided to guide us that there would be more grammatical clues.

Some might say, I suppose, that since Paul did use the definite article in vs. 14 and did not in the other instances in vs. 11-15 (for either “man” or “woman”), that he was being clear when “the” and “a” were to be used. But again, I suspect that is simplistic. At any rate, the question remains, especially amongst such scholarly disagreement.

One way to look at the passage would be to say that vs. 12 – 14a are kind of parenthetical. That the meat of the passage is “Let the/a woman learn in silence with all subjection…(14b) for that woman having been deceived has become sinful.” Then 14b provides the context to make 11 definite – since it is one continuous thought about the same woman. It may be that that is what our interviewee was getting at and I was just too dense to pick it up.

*It is ironic that two “old” translations, the KJV and Webster’s, which presumably would be the most patriarchal, are the only ones that translate vs. 11 as “the woman” – the least patriarchal translation. On another translational note, I have no remaining respect for the NLT, which completely butchers this entire passage.

I will thank Paul [;-)] for this revelation: the use of the perfect in vs. 14. My quick google on the Greek perfect yielded this explanation:

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.

How is it that almost all bible translations then put the transgression in the past as a completed action? Are they that biased, or that sloppy? A quick version review on blueletterbible.com yields only two translations that get it pretty right: the ASV (“has fallen into transgression”) and Hebrew Names version (“has fallen into disobedience”). (Young’s is also close.)

This is a huge deal because it sheds whole new light on the passage. Even my trusty NASB seemingly can’t be trusted too far when it comes to 1 Tim 2:11-15.

So, Cheryl, permit a paraphrase and let’s see if I got it right (not withstanding my questions in the previous post.)

Timothy had written Paul about a particular man and woman in the church. In particular, she had been deceived, like Eve, and was currently engaged in false teaching. In vs. 11, Paul addresses that issue, in what probably in the original letter was a new section. Here is what I think he is saying.

Let that woman learn in silence and all subjection, for I don’t permit a woman (so deceived) to teach, nor to (even) usurp her man, but to stay silent. You see, Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived. Now, this woman, having been deceived (like Eve), is being sinful. Never the less, she will be saved, because of the birth of The One, if she and he show faith, charity, holiness, and sobriety.

Cheryl,

I do have a question for Paul if you bump into him. I see the shift in grammer in vs. 11, but I am struggling with still identifying vs. 11 with a specific woman. Of course, unlike Doug, I would never try to lecture Paul on his Greek, so I need some help.

If I understand the analysis, “woman” in vs. 11 and 14 are both definite and both the same woman. Now, I see the definite article in vs. 14, so all is well there. But I don’t see it in vs. 11, lending the reading as “a woman”, i.e. a generic female which would be a straw person representing all females. What am I missing here (clearly a lot because even the KJV translates vs. 11’s woman as “the woman”)?

And definite article not withstanding, I struggle with the change from “the woman” (sans definite article) in vs. 11 to “a woman” in vs. 12 back to “the woman” in vs. 14. I’m afraid Paul has me more confused than before. Not that I disagree with the premise – that 11-15 is about a particular Ephesian issue. But I so want to understand the grammer better since Paul made a point of it.

Victorious,

I read it a little different in the garden: Adam’s mandate to protect Eve was not one of authority but of responsibility, at least in relationship to Eve. The authority would have been of Adam over the serpent, not Adam over Eve.

Incidentally, I believe Eve (and women) have a profound role in protecting us Adams as well. But, I think it manifests itself in a different way due to the gifts God has designed into women. That is another discussion, of course, but in summary I think protection goes both ways.

But in that incident in the garden, clearly Eve was the susceptible partner and Adam was the partner equiped (or immunized) to prevent the deception.

I can’t WAIT for Paul’s next journey back and his next interview. Cheryl, I really think you have the beginnings of a great book here. I hope you persue this format in an extented work.

On the interview itself – I had never investigated or even heard the grammatical argument before, although I have never had any trouble understanding 1 Timothy as dealing with isolated issues and saw no reason myself to dig too deep. Thanks again for another great surprise!

Have you ever read the book “What Paul Really Said About Women” by John Bristow? A good companion piece, IMO, to this series of posts.

You guys are typing too fast for me to keep up. I will have to read the entirety of the comments this weekend. But Paula’s early statement (#25) made me chuckle:

[blockquote]This same approach is commonly used by atheists/evolutionists who then return to their supporters to report their great victory and gloat over their superior intellect.[/blockquote]

I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing as I was reading through your post. It just goes to show that if one repeats a baseless presumption over and over to one’s self, almost anything can sound like fact.

Too much fun!!! But, I think, quite true to Paul’s teaching AND character.

I’ll say this last and then drop out of this one as I am just spinning my wheels. I understand what Cheryl and Paula are saying but it is naive to believe that such a utopian commune can exist in a fallen world. The presumption that those in authority can always operate in a bottom up, service mode requires that everyone they are serving a) knows exactly what they are supposed to do and how to do it, and b) never behaves badly. Neither of those are even remotely a reality. Therefore, even when the church is operating at its best, you still need rules and you still need rulers to enforce those rules – you still need some to “give order to the other parts of the Body”.

Paula,

Anarchy is not the absence of hierarchy, but the breakdown of all moral restraint

Ha. Now who is looking to dubious sources for their definitions. Anarchy has nothing to do with the presence or absence of morality. It is the absence of organizational structure and governance. American Heritage has – “from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, without a ruler”. Your suggestion that the church be a place where “no one…has the authority…to give order to the other parts of the Body” is indeed anarchy.

Cheryl #20
I totally agree but we are splitting semantical hairs here. It still remains that the existence of hierarchy and positions of authority in the early church is undeniable. Scripture’s instruction for those in authority, as you clearly point out, is that they are to exercise that authority in a new and radical way. But it doesn’t change the fact that hierarchy, organizational structure, and positions of authority existed and are necessary. Is that not what Burleson is saying?

I’ll add one more just because those reading this will support it. There is mouch argument over Phoebe and whether or not she was a deacon. What is often lost in the argument is the more important word that Paul uses to describe her – prostatis Most versions translate it very poorly (and very gender biased). Strongs again gets it right in definition.

1) a woman set over others

Digging into this word reveals that it is the feminine form of the word proistemi which literally means and is most often translatede “to rule over”. The verb is used, most notably, in 1 Tim 5:17 where the elders are that rule well are to be commended, and in 1 Thes 5:12 where it is clearly stated that in the church there are those who are “over (proistemi) you in the Lord, and admonish you.”

It is a simple reality – Phoebe was a ruler in her church; a person in authority over others.

Cheryl #11
Exactly what I was trying to say. Burleson is not advocating the complete destruction of all hierarchy and authority in the church. His assertion is that “authoritarian control” is misused and abused authority. He is still in a position of authority in his church, but he exercises his authority through humility, service, and love.

There are three words used in the NT for church authorities. Now, Strongs may have it wrong, but here is what they say about each specifically as it applies to the church.

presbyteros – elder
2) a term of rank or office
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably.

episkop? – bishop
b) oversight
1) overseership, office, charge, the office of an elder
2) the overseer or presiding officers of a Christian church

diakone? – deacon
1)) to be a servant, attendant, domestic, to serve, wait upon
c) to minister i.e. supply food and necessities of life
2) to take care of the poor and the sick, who administer the office of a deacon
3) in Christian churches to serve as deacons

Now – if people can’t see any hierarchy and authority in those definitions, I really can’t help them. even the position of deacon, while primarily a serving position, still required administration which involves authority. There simply is no way to wave a magic wand and pretend that even in the earliest days of the church that there was no authority structure.

Paula,

For the first 200 years of Christianity there were no temples, no props, no liturgical calendars, no elevated priests. And the Assembly was pure; it “turned the world upside down”– without committees, without boards of oversight, without fundraisers, without advertising, without youth programs, without nurseries, and without any of the other trappings of religion.

I would disagree with this quote to a degree. The 1st century church did indeed have committees (Acts 6:1-6) and boards of oversight (1 Peter 5:1-2 amongst others; Greek presbyteros is inherently authoritative and hierarchichal)

The church has always had hierarchies in place from the very beginning with the Apostles and Paul had no problem exercising his authority when the situation called for it.

Anarchy is an inclination of the fallen human heart, essentially the selfish nature within each of us to “rule” ourselves. As much as we would like to think we could operate in a authority free system it simply is not possible. Burleson is by no means advocating that we remove all authority and hierarchies within the church. What he is suggesting is that those who function within those structures need to operate out of love and humility, not greed for power. That is the apostolic way.

I should add, of course, that the opposite extreme of authoritarian control is anarchy. We certainly don’t want that either. I think Burleson’s approach is quite right – it isn’t the existence of authority that is the problem, it is the expression of it.

My wife and I have been labelled as “divisive” within our own church family for daring to ask questions about church policy and even, *gasp*, preaching. Luckily, neither of us was brought up to follow any human blindly.

It is funny how far we have strayed from the apostolic examples that were set for us in the new testament. Paul’s letters are nothing if not massive q&A sessions with the churches, and although Paul rightly claimed apostolic authority, and even “got into it” quite often with church leaders, he continued to lead through humble service to those church bodies. Sad that I rarely see a Paul amongst our pastors and
elders these days.

Although I happily concede that there were no children before A @ E left the garden. It hardly seems likely Seth was chronologically only the third son born. At this same time Cain was married and off building a city which certainly was inhabited by the people of Nod. There had to be at least serveral generations at work at this point in time, meaning A @ E had to have had other children, male and female, by the time Seth came along.