gengwall

I agree Craig. It is a very dangerous stretch on Grudem’s part just to cling to a hierarchical stand. But I also think it is flat out wrong. Grudem’s examples of God’s supposed subordination do not show subordination at all. They most often show God the mighty warrior coming to struggle at the side of we humans. It shows, if anything, partnership – which is exactly what Genesis 2 shows us in Eve coming alongside Adam to be his ‘ezer neged

“Now let me try once again with my brain more alert. While the Bible never directly says that words that wives are to agapao their husbands, yet it also directly says that all of us are to agapao one another. Romans 13:8, John 13:34 are just some examples and Eph 5:2 says that we are to walk in agape. Thus we know for sure that wives are to agapao their husbands because all of us are to agapao each other.”

Exactly. That was my point. Just because the bible doesn’t tell husbands directly to submit to their wives doesn’t mean the bible doesn’t include husbands in mutual submission. Remember the question was “why didn’t Ephesians 5 just say husbands submit directly?” I also doesn’t say wives agape directly. But wives and husbands are never-the-less still commanded along with everyone else to mutually agape and submit.

No problem. It is tough coming in at the end of one of these long posts. Sorry I sounded defensive – it was unintentional.

Anything I can help you with regarding the current discussion? It is primarily about Paul not using the definite article “the” in verse 11 (translated “a woman” in most bibles but actually just “woman” in the Greek), but then introducing it in verse 14 (“but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience” – Hebrew Names Version).

Cheryl and I agree about 99% of this passage but are quibbling over why the definite article was not introduced at the beginning. Neither of our positions alters our egal stance.

I am. I’m still not sure why that is in doubt, but…..moving on….

Lydia – “Can you imagine promoting the requirements of a pagan king for his haram to Christian women as something godly? (shakes head)”

You hit the nail on the head Lydia. The obsession with physical beauty, especially within certain Christian circles, is very ungodly. I wrote a whole series on it on my blog some time back.

I think the idea that “women should not practice false teaching/dominion over their husbands” is what we all believe, regardless of comp or egal. So I guess my answer is “yes”, although I feel like you are trying to get some kind of confession or concession out of me and I’m not sure what it is.

Now, as to your questions/rebuttal:

Are we to think that there could be many women who are teaching their husbands false doctrine and none of the husbands are correcting them yet none of them are still in the transgression but one?

I see no reason to make that leap. Timothy gave only one example. Paul shifts to speaking directly about that one example. Any other women who are still in transgression are still in need of the prohibition, and those that were deceived into that state are due mercy.

I think that Timothy is smart enough to take Paul’s way of dealing with the specific case and using that as a template to deal with any further issues that may come up in the future.

Really? If Timothy is so smart, why ask Paul at all. It seems to me that a great deal has been said about Timothy’s youth, lack of experience, need for guidance, and need for encouragement. I don’t picture him at all as being able to “take the ball and run with it”.

It would also seem odd if there were potential on-going problems with many women teaching false doctrine to their husbands and Paul is only convinced that one can be saved (verse 15). After all he made a huge point in chapter one that one who has been deceived and acted ignorantly with unbelief could obtain mercy. Why would Paul then say that only one woman who was doing what lots of others were doing in Ephesus would obtain mercy?

Because there is only one for which Timothy has provided specifics. Others may not have the very same circumstances. Even with chap 1, Do you believe that any other woman who might fall into transgression in a like manner to this woman will automatically receive salvation regardless of other extenuating circumstances? Paul is not proclaiming either a singular salvation or a global salvation. He is simply addressing the one case for which he has all the facts.

Your interpretation stands on its own. I see no reason to doubt it as a possibility or rebutt it.

First, to dispense with some #222 incidentals:

I think I failed to congratulate you on thinking outside the box……

hahaha. Buttering me up before you drop the hammer.

You made a mistake here. There isn’t an “indefinite” singular. It is just singular. There is no indefinite in the Greek. And the singular can be definite without the definite article. So there isn’t such a change from singular to definite singular since both can (and I believe does) mean the same thing.

LOL – toMAtoe; tomatoe. the point is there is a shift. If you want to call it from “singular” to “definite”, that’s fine with me.

I am not sure where you are getting this from other then this is typically what comp teachers say. Is the “correction” that Paul is giving a correction for behavior that is inhibiting the spread of the gospel, or is the correction the proper way to show their godliness through their inner character and not through expensive dresses and jewelry?

The answer to your either/or is “Yes”. The two things are intertwined.

It will take me a while to digest #222, so let me briefly address #223. In Titus, wives are instructed to philandros their husbands, not agapao. I’m afraid you have fallen into the “rely on the English translation” trap. So actually, my statement is quite true.

It still is ironic that Vashti is thought of so poorly when in fact she was the one who bucked the “male rule” tradition, while Esther, whether or not she was “collected”, followed the tradition and is seemingly praised for it.

But I’m not so sure. Why did Mordecai command that Esther hide that she was Jewish? Could it be that Jews were ineligible to be considered as Queen? Could it be that they were not collecting Jewish virgins and she was brought not by the collectors but by Mordecai himself and inserted into the “pool”? That’s how it reads to me. If that were the case, then Mordecai is no different than Ahasuerus, exercising “male rule” and abusing his adopted daughter’s beauty to “gain favor” and power. It sure worked out good for him in the end.

Here is the real question though. How much say did Esther have in entering the King’s little beauty pagent? Was she just as much a victim of the “male rule” paradigm as Vashti?

Mordecai was either her cousin or uncle, I can’t remember which. What are you getting at? What tradition did the bible contradict?

I agree. Either way, the prohibition stands on its own. And either way, there is still no way the passage is talking about the conduct of godly women in the worship service.

Think of it the other way. Had Paul used the definite article from the beginning, then ONLY this specific real couple are being addressed and we have no basis to make a general application. If Timothy had run into a similar but not exactly the same situation with another couple, a very likely possibility in Ephesus, he would have to write Paul all over again because he could not be certain that the specific prohibition for a specific couple would be applicable.

In judicial terms, Paul’s opinon would have to be considered very narrow, and Timothy would have to bring other cases, even very, very similar cases, in front of Paul again for more clarification and remedy. That is why, in America, we see case after case that seem almost identical being tried. It is because the court’s judgements are often so narrow that they literally can only be applied to the one specific case. On the other hand, a more general opinion, even though based on a specific case, gives the courts more guidance on how to proceed in the future.

Isn’t it possible that Paul wanted to provide Timothy with more than a narrow remedy for a specific case? Isn’t it possible that Paul recognized that conditions in Ephesus could bring about similar situations and therefore he wanted to provide Timothy with some general guidance as well as some encouragement about the specific case? Wouldn’t the grammar we are presented with be exactly the way to do that?

BTW – I’m not saying that Paul is giving a fictitious example. I am saying that Paul is using a specific example to address a generic issue. They are two very different things. Paul isn’t pulling his prohibition out of a hat to deal with some made up problem, and then, lo and behold, he remembers that Timothy wrote of a specific couple that just happen to work as an example. Paul has the specific couple in mind all along, but he begins by addressing the general issue of wives authentein’ing their husbands. Then, as it pertains to Timothy’s specific couple, he encourages Timothy that there is hope for them (and presumably some, but not all, others) because of their unique circumstances within the general realm of couples with this general issue.

Definately a possibility, but it doesn’t fit with the fact that Paul began without being definite about who he was speaking of. It is just as likely IMO that Paul would go from general to specific as it would be that he would go from specific to general, and the former fits the grammar.

I agree TL. But that conclusion begs two questions. First, why not start immediately with the definate article in vs. 11. Second, what should Timothy do with other couples who might be in the same boat? If we could be certain that there was ONLY this one couple in Ephesus that had this problem, I would say there is no reason to stray into a general prohibition. But I don’t believe we can be certain of that. In fact, I we can’t even be certain that Timothy wrote only about the one couple. Timothy could have said “we have some trouble in a few marriages in the congregation. One such troubled marriage is that of Jhn and Jane Doe, but they are simply emblimatic of several others. Here are Jane and John’s specifics…” I mean, we really don’t know whether or not Timothy wrote anything beyond of his specific couple. But we do know that Paul did not begin his instructions for this problem by clearly identifying a the specific couple.

Good questions Cheryl. Let me say first that I’m not “saying” anything really. I’m just suggesting a reason why Paul might have begun with indefinate singular nouns and ended with definite. So…

Are you saying that Timothy was to understand Paul in verse 11 that ‘any woman’…

Yes – I’m saying that maybe Paul wanted Timothy to understand vs. 11 and 12 to mean “any” couple who were in similar circumstances. That doesn’t mean that Timothy’s specific woman isn’t in view exactly. It just means that she isn’t the only one.

“Authentein” is a very rare word and with a specific meaning to Timothy. Are you saying that there would be many more women who were doing this to their husbands?…

Ephesus was a very pagan city with, female dominated cults. It isn’t too far of a stretch to believe that there might have been others involved in similar “authentein” behavior. Although I wouldn’t go as far as saying it was unique to Ephesus, it may be that it was predominant in Ephesus.

If this is what you are saying, then is there anyone in particular that Timothy is to stop from teaching per verse 12 or is this just in case there is anyone like this, this is what you are to do?

Timothy is to stop his example woman and any others he may run into per vs. 12. His specific woman certainly is not exempt from the prohibition. Nor may she be the only one needing prohibition.

If verse 11 is generic, would it not have been natural for Paul to continue with the term “women” instead of “woman”? And if verse 11 and 12 are generic “woman” and not a specific woman, then is the “they” of verse 15 also generic women who are deceived?

Paul could have continued in the plural but Timothy provided a specific example, and one that was taking place in a marriage setting, which necessitates a shift to singular. That also excludes the “they” of vs. 15 from referring to a group of deceived “women” because “women” have not been the object of the teaching, “a [generic] woman” has. As you have often pointed out, “she” can not be a “they”. The only “they” that has ever been in view is an individual wife and her husband, whether they are generic or Timothy’s example couple. Since the focus has shifted in vs. 14 away from the generic and to the specific couple, the most immediate “they” is that specific couple.

I want to emphasize that I am not insisting it has to be this way. But many people struggle with the lack of the definate article in vss. 11 and 12. This is a possible explanation for that grammar which doesn’t detract at all from Paul’s central instruction nor leave Timothy’s specific couple out in the cold.

Holly – “I’m sorry if my questions seem obvious and repetitive but I just have to ask until I can get my head around some of the answers. I realise that in Eph 5 all Christians are taught to be in submission to one another which would include a husband and wife relationship, but I still wonder how come it is that there are at least two places where a wife is directly told to be in submission, or obedience, to her husband, while there is never the same clear-cut directive for a husband to be in submission to, or obedient to, his wife?”

Keep in mind that wives are also never instructed in scripture to agape their husbands, yet we know they should and do. In Eph 5, as Cheryl points out, Paul is addressing each gender with the parts of Christian conduct that are most difficult for that gender within the relationship of marriage. Just because Paul doesn’t tell husbands to submit to their wives doesn’t exempt husbands from submission. It simply means that the mutual submission Paul describes in Eph 5:21 will be particularly hard to live out when it involves wives submitting to their husbands just as the mutual agape all Christians are repeatedly commanded to have for one another will be particularly hard to live out when it involves husbands selflessly loving their wives.

Cheryl – “I certainly could be wrong, but it seems to me that if we took verse 11 as a special group of women then we would have to take verse 12 as a special group of women too.”

I am not taking vs. 11 to be a plural special group of women but as a singular generic example of “the woman”. Certainly, there is potential that there were other marriages in Ephesus being conducted like that of “the woman”. But it also seems probable, if there were, that other such marriages may not have as positive of a prognosis as Paul has for “they” (the specific woman and her husband). So it would make sense for Paul to give a general prohibition but be specific about a potentially positive outcome.

“That would complicate the “a man” to another special group of men and the “she” and “they” in verse 15 would now be, she = a special group of women (thus generic plural) and they = ? (Perhaps a special group of women plus a special group of men or only just a special group of men or ???)”

Not at all. Vs. 12 would read “a wife…a husband” and we would presume that the generic husband is the husband of the generic wife. There are no groups. Yet we would read “they” in vs. 15 to be “the woman (from vs. 14 and earlier in vs. 15) and her husband”, the specific couple on whom the generic is based.

Let me say I am not relating an opinion that I have a strong conviction about. What I am trying to do is think through why Paul would not have used the definite article right off the bat. So, I’m responding just to pursue the intellectual exercise.

My reaction to vs. 12 in this light is that it also does not yet have to be about the specific man and woman. There is no reason why verse 12 couldn’t still be generic: “I do not permit a woman to teach [false doctrine] or exercise violent dominion over a husband”.

There are two things we know for sure. One is that there is a distinct and intentional change from plural to singular between vss. 10 and 11. But two, there is also a distinct (and also intentional???) change from indefinite singular to definite singular between vss. 12 and 14. As we know, the indefinite singular can refer to a generic. It is not a “set” of deceived women per se, but a single generic woman.

So why these shifts in grammar? It is clear that the first shift between 10 and 11 signifies a change in subjects (although not the overall topic of false teaching per se). The women in vs. 10 needed a correction for behavior in the worship service that was inhibiting the spread of the gospel. Vs. 11 has nothing to do with that at all. Verse 10 is a wrap up; vs. 11 is a beginning.

So vs. 11 starts a new section. But now Paul has a specific example (a “she” from Timothy) instead of a group (the women in the Ephesian church). But Paul still needs to address not only the “she” and her husband but any other couple who Timothy also might encounter who has a similar situation. So Paul begins by describing generally how to handle the situation in question by dealing with a generic woman and her husband who are based on the specific couple Timothy wrote about. Then he concludes by offering encouragement about that specific couple because unlike some couples similarly situated, they in particular have hope.

We can’t ignore the shift between 12 and 14 as if it doesn’t exist (well, we can, but I am choosing not to for this discussion). Vss. 11 and 12 simply do not say “the woman”, “this woman”, “that woman”, “a certain woman”, or any other such thing. So what if vss. 11 and 12 are indefinite not only grammatically but intentionally? Does that make the egal case fall apart…or support the comp case?

Not if “a woman” is a generic representation (of which there may have been many in Ephesus) of “the woman”. Not if “a woman” like “the woman” needs to have the same prohibition applied. And not if “a[nother] woman” like “the woman” may not have the same potentially positive outcome as “they” (“the woman” and her husband) do.

And why would Paul do this? Why wouldn’t he just deal with the specific case? Possibly because he wanted to empower Timothy to act on his own. Possibly becasue he didn’t want Timothy to keep writing him over and over about basically the same problems. Who knows? Or maybe it is much ado about nothing. All I’m saying is that the egal case stands strong even if we accept an interpretation of “a woman” that follows the indefinite grammar.

Thank you all for your prayers.

Kristen – There are others who are more educated on Greek articles so I will let them respond in depth about language issues. It may be too restrictive to look only for examples where a man or woman is the noun. I know that would be conclusive, but they are just nouns like any other, and so the focus should be on how any nouns can behave in Greek when the definate article is absent (there is no indefinite article in Koine Greek).

But I don’t think we need to turn “a woman” in verse 11 into the specific woman of vs. 14. What I mean is that the vs. 11 woman can be a generic example. Now, comps say that as well. But they want to make her a generic example of ALL women, or even worse, all Christian women in the worship service. It is clear, though, from the text, that she is a generic example of a specific kind of woman – a deceived false teacher who is exercising violent domineering over her husband and whose potential salvation is in the future. It is unimaginable that this kind of woman represents the entire female population of the Body.

Why the generic then? Why not just dive in by saying “this woman you wrote me about”? I believe the reason is two fold.

First, I believe Paul is giving Timothy a general policy for dealing with similar situations. False teaching and paganism was rampant in Ephesus. It is very likely that Timothy would run into the situation again. If Paul had stayed specific the whole time, Timothy may have felt like he had to write Paul every time for instructions. Paul wanted to encourage Timothy as much as he wanted to instruct him. By laying out the general approach to similar situations, Paul is kind of saying “I trust you to apply this teaching where you see fit”. It is very empowering.

But, and this is the second reason, the outcome may not always be the same as the potential positive outcome in Timothy’s specific test case. That wouldn’t change the prohibition. So Paul needs to deal with the problem generically first. But he then finishes with encouragement about the specific couple. At that point in the letter, Timothy could use some good news.

Does that make sense? The vs. 11 generic woman, and her husband, are a specific kind represented by the real life couple that Timothy wrote about. In essence, Paul was saying “here is how you deal with these situations, and in this specific case, there is even some light at the end of the tunnel”.

I appologize for a brief interuption but I would like to ask for prayer for my wife’s sister’s family. There will be breaking news today about 3 groups of climbers that had to be rescued from Grand Teton mountain after getting caught in a thunderstorm. My brother-in-law was in one of the climbing groups that got struck by lightning 5 times. One of their party is still missing and presumed dead after falling off a cliff. Although my BIL was one of the least injured, it is traumatic for him because he knows the kid (17yo I believe) who fell and it is even worse for my wife’s sister because she is in constant fear of her husband going on these risky adventures and potentially killing himself.

Let’s be perfectly clear about what is going on – the comp view hinges on an interpretation which has the passage actually begining in verse 9: “In like manner also, that women…”. Therefore, they believe that the entire passage is about “women” in the congregation and the “they” in verse 15 ties everything back to the “women” of verse 9. There are a lot of problems with this interpretation (which comps tend to ignore), but that is where they get their belief.

Craig – All of vs. 11 and 12 are singular. They form a distinct change in number from the preceeding verses which is not a mistake. Also, vss. 14b and 15 continue the instruction begun in vs. 11 and are directed at a specific woman (“THE woman was deceived…yet she will be saved”). Grammatically, vss. 11 and 12 simply can’t be about the congregation – they must be about a singal woman – or the whole passage is senseless.

The confusing point is the final use of the plural “they” in vs. 15. Those who believe that the passage is about all women and their conduct in the congregation see “they” as confirmation that the passage has been talking about women all along. But that makes jibberish out of the use of “a woman” and “the woman” and “she” that have preceeded “they”. Logically, “they” has only two possibilities: the entire congregation (who should continue in faith love and holiness to benefit the fallen woman and aid her restoration) or the small set of people intimately involved in the problem – the woman and her husband.

I originally was inclined to believe the former but now have more confidence that it is the latter after discussing this for over a year now on this blog. But either way, what is absolutely clear is that “the woman” of vss. 14 and 15 is the very same woman in vss. 11 and 12. Logically and gramatically that is the only conclusion that the text supports.

Regarding the teaching at issue. Cheryl has pointed out the other possibility – that the teaching of the woman in question was in private, not in public. Comps want to make this passage all about the corporate worship service. But the use of the singular points to a much more intimate setting.

Cheryl may also point out that gatherings of the NT church was different than the traditional Jewish ceremonies. Women were permitted to attend and participate in those gatehrings. And of course, some pagan ceremonies were either exclusively female or totally lead by females. So, it at least appears that all bets were off in Ephesus regarding any prohibitions of women spekaing and teaching.

The comp view is really unsupportable. In the comp view, Paul is trying to CORERCT a corporate problem and CHANGE the NT gathering to look more like the traditional Jewish ceremonies (where I believe males and females were physically separated) and even more, preventing women from uttering a peep in those gatherings. That goes against everything else Paul wrote about “church” and against everything Jesus did in engaging women in and through his ministry. It is, to refer back to our earlier “Princess Bride” distraction, inconceivable that Paul would be making such a radical lurch backward.

Holly – Cheryl will probably have a more in depth response when she has time. There is no specific “command” that women should teach per se. What we have in both the OT and NT are examples where women teach and lead where God has approved and even ordained that teaching and leadership coupled with no specific prohibition or “law” against women teaching (except, in the eyes of comps, in this passage).

Elastigirl @ 107 – “How is it you have to come to genuinely care about this issue?”

I have seen both sides of this issue acted out in the lives of married couples, mostly in my and my wife’s family, both in my generation and in two generations back (I was fortunate to have all of my grandparents live into their 90’s). Without exception, the comp mindset brings heartache and strife in the marriage, especially to the wife. It isn’t always demonstrative, but I, and especially my wife who is far more perceptive and intuitive than I, can see it in their eyes and on their faces.

That isn’t to say that the egals I have observed are without conflict. But at least the conflict isn’t about making wive’s “submissive” or elevating men to the authoritarian “head” of the family.

The issue has become even more important to me because I now have a daughter getting married in a few weeks. I was just at a wedding for a Nephew a few weeks ago where the comp message was preached fairly loud and clear. I see how this Nephew already treats his new bride (he has already called her “the wife” on a facebook post) and I observe the male pride and authoritarian air in his words and actions. It makes me bristle and it makes me vocal because I am darn sure going to do what I can to ensure my daughter doesn’t end up in a hierarchical marriage like this Nephew and his parents and his grandparents (well, not so much) and his great-grandparents.

I will give you an illustration. My wife could relate this better but I will do my best. My wife’s grandfather was the typical authoritarian “head of the family” through most of his marriage. His wife was the typical sweet, dutiful, supportive, “submissive” (in the comp sense of that word) wife. But inside, she was torn up and had some bitterness and heartache stored up. Now, keep in mind that these were loving Christians who were extreemly good willed and carign toward each other. But they were stuck in a comp paradigm built on the traditions of the conservative church and this misapplication of passages like 1 Tim 2. In other words, they simply didn’t know any better.

Very close to her death, my wife’s grandfather had a revelation. I don’t know where it came from, but it was life transforming. My wife observed this strong, proud, authoritarian man break down and weep at the realization of how poorly and dishonoring he had treated his wonderful wife all those years. Fortunately for him, he was able to make a change and the few remaining years they had together were some of their happiest. Most of all, a fire lit in her grandmother’s eyes that my wife says she had never seen before.

This is what complementarianism does to even the most dedicated and loving couples. Women have their spirits crushed and then told the lie that they should be happy about it because to push back is to rebel against God. Being a son, husband, and father of women, it gets my blood boiling to know that even some in my own family, and especially even in my own generation, have fallen to the lie.

Cheryl – I don’t know how you do it. I get in at night and I can hardly type let alone think to give thought provoking and instructive answers. Bravo!

Craig – Unfortunately I have not been able to dive into the book yet so I can’t tell you exactly where the authors are going to go. I am not sure that they believe the specific audience in 1 Timothy is multiple mne – time will tell. What I do know they are going to address is the types of false teaching that were prevalent in Ephesus at the time. So, it may turn out that they see the passage exactly as Cheryl does, but may also believe there is a broader application to Paul’s instruction than just this one couple. We shall see.

Having said that, I am on board with Cheryl’s interpretation of the passage (and I should note that I have come a long way since I first started reading this blog).

One more rather mundane reason to think that this is a husband and wife. The NORM in Greek when a man and woman are being discussed together in the same passage is for them to be related. (Greek had no words for “husband” and “wife”. The words for “man” and “woman” are used both for generic humans and for husbands and wives. Context determines which is being spoken of.) Since it seems sensible that this is not some parent child or other relational situation, husband and wife would be presumed. The exception, the ABNORMAL situation in Greek would be if this man and woman were not at all related.

“He stated that it was unwise to base a doctrine ( or view of a passage) on a word that is used only once in the bible. He said that this is what egals do with “authentein” in 1 Tim 2.”

Excuse my filpancy but I find this quite amusing. First and foremost, the egal view of 1 Tim 2 does not at all “hinge” on the one word authentein. And although it occurs only once in the NT, it should be noted that there are other occurances in Greek literature which paint a pretty clear picture of the type of authority the word describes.

This is actually a straw man argument on the part of comps. They claim that the egal argument relies on this one word. Then, rather conveniently, they say that you can’t base an argument on a word that only occurs once, thereby, supposedly, dismissing the egal argument in one mighty rhetorical flourish. Of course, the intial claim is completely false, hence the straw man.

What is lost in this little slight of hand is that they have absolutely no evidence that authentein means what they say it means. A point you brilliantly made in your reply to your friend.

Understood Cheryl! Our yard still looks like they have been testing missiles and our daughter’s wedding is now one month away. My wife and I are out there every night except tonight, which is my BD, so we are taking the day off.