Matt Slick She They

My take is that 1 Tim 2:15 is one of those verses that we will never by 100% sure what it means as we are not Timothy in 1st century Ephesus.  However, we can be assured that Timothy knew and therefore the word of God went forth and was effective.

For me, it is am important interpretation principle to say when I am not sure, then I am not sure and it would be wrong for me to claim to know more than I do.

I do think “tes teknogonias” is THE childbearing, namely the seed prophesied in Gen 3:15, which later is revealed as Jesus.  I believe the unusual way of phrasing it is due to Paul trying to use words used by pagans at the Artemision but in a faithful Scriptural way, in order to show that is could be done.  That is, this is Paul leaning over backwards trying to be redemptive.

I believe the “they” (3rd person plural in the verb meinosin/continue) is to be emended as “they each” as each person works out their own salvation.

Given this (assumed) emendation, I understand the “she” (3rd person singular in the verb sothesetai/saved) to be a dual reference, a dual she referring to both Eve who was deceived but later made faith statements indicating a saving faith and the un-named deceived woman at Ephesus who can be restored, if she accept the true teaching and acts in faith.  I see “saved” in this case refers mainly to the process of sanctification, which includes the steps of sinning and restoration.  In addition, Paul went thru this same process, so Paul is telling Timothy, JUST as I did it and Eve did it, so can this woman do it, as The Word is faithful (1 Tom 3:1 (pistos ho logos).

However, I agree that others can understand it differently.

The problem I see here is that “she will be saved…” is connected to “if they”.  How can her salvation or her sanctification be connected to generically everyone else and what they do?  However if “she will be saved…” “if they” is connected to the “a woman” and “a man” we can see him helping her to come out of her deception and it makes sense that a husband’s intimate connection with his wife would make him vital to her exit from deception.  It doesn’t make sense to me that every Christian’s actions have anything to do with a specific woman in Ephesus so it would be hard for me to see this application.  I am willing to be convinced of an alternative view if there is a view that fits the context without contradiction.  I believe that “a woman” as “she” and “a woman and a man” as they fits Paul’s concern about her salvation and the words that Paul’s uses for what needs to be done to bring her to truth are the exact same words as Paul had already used in chapter 1 when he said that some had left these things aside to follow error.

I love hearing other’s thoughts too.  It helps one to be stretched biblically!

This gets back to how one understands 1 Tim 2:12, certainly one way is to see specific refs to “a woman” and “a man” but that is not the only way.

1 Tim 2:12 meaning is dependent on what authentein means and no one is sure, they are not even sure if it has a negative or positive connotation. I have seen that the neither/nor contruction (as used here) everywhere else in the NT is used with either both negative or both positive connotations. The non-egals claims that as didaskein/teach is positive, then authentein is also (likely) positive. However, I think authentein is negative, as it originally meant to author the murder of someone a few hundred years before; and thyerefore the way didaskein is negative is because it is a decevied woman teaching that is being (temporarily) stopped from a distance by Paul.

So, assuming authentein is negative, I see “authentein andros” as possibly meaning something like “authoring man” ala the Gnostic teaching of the woman being first created; that is, ‘andros” in 1 Tim 2:12 does not refer to a specific man living in Ephesus.

This at least flows into 1 Tim 2:13 as Paul is then repudiating specific false teachings, not giving justifcations as the non-egals claim.
But we see thru a glass darkly in this case.

I see so many parallels in this passage and the Genesis account. Eve was deceived. We know that for a fact. I think it is interesting to read Genesis and see Eve admitting to God she was deceived.  Yet Adam blamed the woman.

Then we know that through her, the ‘seed’ would bring Messiah. Eve was even thinking Cain was that ‘seed’!

I just see clearly that Paul was making parallels here with Eve being deceived and the seed that came through a woman by the ‘The Childbearing’ which is a noun as you say, Cheryl.

Another parallel is there were 3 types of sinners in the garden:

1. a deceived sinner- the woman
2. a deliberate sinner- the man
3. a deceiving sinner- the serpent

There is a ranking in the sin/sinner in terms of consequences. The man/deliberate sinner is cast out of the garden; the 2 men in 1 Tim were cast out of the church.

Don,
Your list of the 3 types of sinners in the garden was just excellent.  It is also interesting that people like Matt Slick say that God doesn’t make a distinction regarding one’s motives, yet the list you give shows a definite distinction regarding how God treated the 3.  God cursed the serpent who was the deliberate deceiver.  Neither the man nor the woman was cursed although the serpent and the ground were.  Although the man and the woman got the same punishment – they both died because of eating the fruit – it was the man who received God’s actions against him as he was kicked out of the garden.  The women was not kicked out of the garden although she went willingly as she desired the man.  So we have the deliberate sinner receiving expulsion from the garden and the deceived woman receiving the greatest mercy.  She received God’s promise that the Messiah would come through her seed.

We belong to a mutal admiration society.

In Hebrew thought, a neither/nor contruction can refer to one thing.  For example, when Jesus in Mat 6:20 where thieves neither break in nor steal (in the Greek, see ISA, some translation do not show it this way).  Jesus is making it memorable but the concern is about the stealing, the breaking in is an adjunct to the main concern.

This is another reason why the meaning of authentein is pivotal.  We cannot be sure if it is one or two things.

If it is 2 things then didasko/teach has no direct object and is therefore unrestricted in scope, which we KNOW is not true in general as Paul in other places says for women to teach other women; so we KNOW there MUST be a scope limitation somewhere in the sentence, else there is a contradiction.  My take is that a scope limitation is that the command is in the present tense, as in I am not now permitting….  But besides that, it is possible that it is one thing that is being discussed, not two, as in I do not permit a woman to teach nor do X; but we need to know what X is.

However, given all the challenges of interpreting this verse, it seems crazy to claim it is clear and furthermore that it clearly forbids women from some ministry.

“Another parallel is there were 3 types of sinners in the garden:

1. a deceived sinner- the woman
2. a deliberate sinner- the man
3. a deceiving sinner- the serpent

There is a ranking in the sin/sinner in terms of consequences. The man/deliberate sinner is cast out of the garden; the 2 men in 1 Tim were cast out of the church.”

You know, With the above in mind, I was reading through Leviticus a while back and noticed that God had specific laws/rules for those who “broke the law” unintentionally. They were still guilty but He does acknowledge this. This jumped out at me as I had not noticed it before.

Here are few examples.
Leviticus 5:14-16
Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: If a person commits a trespass, and sins unintentionally in regard to the holy things of the LORD, then he shall bring to the LORD as his trespass offering a ram without blemish from the flocks, with your valuation in shekels of silver according to the shekel of the sanctuary, as a trespass offering. And he shall make restitution for the harm that he has done in regard to the holy thing, and shall add one-fifth to it and give it to the priest. So the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.
Leviticus 5:17
If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he does not know; yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity.

Goodness! Where did all the ‘code’ come from in that comment?

Lin,
I don’t know where all that ‘code’ came from.  Did you by any chance create the comment in another program and copy and paste?  I will see if I can fix it.

I have read (but have not verified for myself) that all the sin offerings were for unintential sins, there were no offerings for interntional sins.  But David speaks prophetically about that.

Nope, I wrote it right here and it was fine before I posted it. Strange. Thanks for fixing it….drives me crazy trying to read them when they show the code.

Don,
You said: “In Hebrew thought, a neither/nor contruction can refer to one thing. For example, when Jesus in Mat 6:20 where thieves neither break in nor steal”

I still don’t see this as one thing. There is a crime of breaking and entering. That is trespassing. You can do that without stealing. Or you can break in and steal which is two things.

You said: “This is another reason why the meaning of authentein is pivotal. We cannot be sure if it is one or two things.” I think we can be sure that it is two things unless the bible uses a similar wording that is clearly one thing. By law, breaking in is one crime and stealing is another. You can be guilty of only theft or only breaking in but you can also be guilty of both. I still don’t see it as one thing, but I may be dense. Perhaps I am a tough nut to crack or a “confounded skeptic” as I have been called.

You said: “If it is 2 things then didasko/teach has no direct object and is therefore unrestricted in scope, which we KNOW is not true in general as Paul in other places says for women to teach other women; so we KNOW there MUST be a scope limitation somewhere in the sentence, else there is a contradiction.”

I believe that there is a definite scope. I think that it is along the lines of “I do not allow my girls to kiss or hug boys.” Who are the girls not allowed to kiss? The word boys would be understood to go along with both “kiss” and “hug”. I think the same construction is found in “I do not allow a woman to teach or to authenteo a man”. Here “a man” would be one whom she is not allowed to teach or authenteo. It would also make sense that if she is deceived, that she should not teach women or children either. However from the sentence construction, I am convinced that she is only teaching one man privately and not everyone publicly. I am also convinced that the touchy issue of interfering in a marriage is why Paul make a special issue of commanding Timothy to get involved and to make sure that the woman learns and stops teaching. Most people would hesitate to instruct someone else’s wife when the husband is doing nothing to stop her. I believe that this is why Timothy needed a push by Paul.

You said: “But besides that, it is possible that it is one thing that is being discussed, not two, as in I do not permit a woman to teach nor do X; but we need to know what X is.”
I think it is very helpful for us to know what X is. But even without knowing what X is, I think that we can establish that it isn’t a good thing and it is not for all women.

It is just such a sad thing that people have used this passage to forbid women to speak in church, be a bible teacher in their home where men attend, give directions to a lost man on the street and on and on… So many men haven’t tried hard enough to think through this difficult passage so that their sisters in Christ are not stumbled or restricted. Yet for those men who have worked hard to think through the passage, I am so grateful for those who support women and risk being treated badly for doing so.

On 1 or 2 things, this is a challenging thing about interpreting text written by Hebrew thinkers in Greek in the 1st century when we are English speakers in the 21st century. Any part of a chain can simply be denied by those that do not want to agree or not seen even when one might want to agree. I did not make up the example from Matthew, but it was one that convinced me of the possibility so I incorprated it into my teaching; so I passed it on to you; if it does not convince you, it does not convince you.

There are quite a few places in the NT where there are various alternatives, including taking a Greek fork in the road or a Hebrew one; my preference is to take the Hebrew one unless there is evidence that the Greek one should be taken. But before I knew about the Hebrew fork, I found I just automatically took the Greek one, even tho I know think it is wrong in some cases.

On the scope of didasko, I have read this also, that it is unlimited in scope in the Greek. Just because ENGLISH may work one way does not mean GREEK works that way.

On whether didaskein and authentein are both positive or negative in connotation, I do not think the non-egals are being corrupt in reading them as both positive, just like I do not think the egals are being corrupt in reading them as both negative (assuming that is what they do [and is what I do]). It is because there is simply too much we do not know. There are some verses we need to put on the shelf and not claim too much knowledge about what they mean and this pericope has some famous ones, IMO. It is like these verses are a mirror, the interpretation shows more about the interpreter than about the text, as gaps get filled in based on the interpreter’s working assumptions.

Don,

“It is like these verses are a mirror, the interpretation shows more about the interpreter than about the text, as gaps get filled in based on the interpreter’s working assumptions.”

You are exactly right here.  We all have working assumptions and how we interpret certain texts is a big mirror to show these assumptions and sometimes eve our heart attitude.  I think sometimes it is just easier to take our assumptions and run with them than to push into the text to see past these assumptions.  For example if a person said to another person “You are not to smile” we can see this command in different ways.  Why are you not allowed to smile?  Is smiling a bad thing?  Smiling isn’t a bad thing so there must be something wrong with “you”.  This is where the assumptions can come in.  Maybe there is something wrong with you because you are the wrong color, or the wrong class or the wrong gender.  But maybe there is something else going on that we haven’t considered because we think there are only two options.  We think that either there is something wrong with smiling or there is something wrong with the person because they are told that they can’t smile.  But maybe, just maybe we have stopping thinking with two options when there is a third or fourth option that we haven’t considered.  Maybe it isn’t smiling that’s wrong or the person that is wrong by nature to smile, but maybe it is the circumstance where it is wrong for everyone to smile.  Maybe this instructing someone how to tell a person that their loved one has died.

Maybe 1 Timothy 2:12 is one of those cases.  Maybe it is okay to have Paul prohibiting two things because if a person is completely deceived there are several things that they must not do.  Sometimes I think we are afraid to say that a woman cannot teach, but I think that the prohibition would have been no different if it was a man who was deceived and a wife that was the one who was not deceived but who was allowing her husband to carry on in his error and teaching her things that are opposite of what she knows to be true.  Would Paul have said “I do not allow a man to teach or push his way onto a woman (or spiritually murder her by teaching her his error?)”  I think that he would have said that same things, but I think we would not have considered Paul stopping all men from teaching all women.  The reason we make this a general prohibition instead of a specific situation is because many of us have been raised to think that women are somehow less than a man.  So many of us immediately take the position that there must be something wrong with all women that make them not good enough to teach men.  When we come to the text with a preconceived notion that women are not good enough or the quality of their work is inferior to a man’s work, then we can read into the text an agreement with our internal values.

What I want to bring to the table is not to have to do anything about changing the two things that are prohibited into one negative thing, but allowing the context itself to determine the negative.  I want to propose that the negative meaning of the prohibition comes from the example that Paul gives for the reason for his prohibition.  Paul states that it is connected to the situation in the garden with the first marriage couple and the fact that one wasn’t deceived and the other one who was created second was deceived.  There is so much in that statement that needs to be explored but the very foundation is embedded in deception.  If the prohibition’s foundation is to be looked at through the lens of deception then we should be able to see that Paul’s prohibition has nothing to do with gender or with good teaching at all.  It has everything to do with spiritual death.  Someone who is spiritually dead is offering the “fruit” of what has caused their spiritual death to the person who they love but who is also the one who is still alive.

FWIIW, I think it probably IS 2 things that Paul is prohibiting, but I also mention that it might be 1 thing.  I see the reason he is temporaily prohibiting any and all teaching (as there is no direct object) from the woman is that he is in a remote position, he cannot fine tune the rule; the right thing is for her to learn the truth and in the meantime, not try to teach anything.  And as she acts in faith, she MIGHT be restored so that she can teach, ala 1 Tim 3:1 and following.

And I think authentein andros has some specific meaning that is related to Ephesus and almost certainly Artemis, but so far has been mostly lost to history.

Grudem claims these verses are clear when they are anything but clear.  Every article that CBE and others write puts the lie to that claim, even those by CBMW.  We do not baptize for the dead ala 1 Cor as we do not understand what Paul is referring to, similarly, we do not restrict women from ministry just because some verses MIGHT be interpreted to say that, as the verses are unclear, perhaps not as unclear as baptism for the dead, but certainly not clear enough to permanently prohibit something

Excellent thoughts, Don!  And thanks for clearing up some of my misunderstanding on your view.  We completely agree on the purpose of the prohibition.  It is good to keep pushing for understanding.  That is what I LOVE in this forum.  We can push and passionately talk about our views and there is no disrespect or dishonor or name-calling!  This is not the way of some who are steeped in the mandate of “men ruling women” who love to dominate and control.  I have never understood how some get their joy from demeaning other Christians who merely disagree on secondary doctrinal issues.  We may not agree on everything but I have great joy in learning from you and disagreeing with you in love, yet from pushing the edges finding more that we agree on.  It is such a pleasure for me and I love having ones like you visit my blog.  This is what makes this place a meeting place of brethren in Christ who follow Christ’s mandate to love one another.  I am so thankful to God for people, most of whom I have never met, but who have dialogged with me with love and respect.  What a tremendous blessing to me personally!!

On demeaning others, I used to think I was supposed to destroy other’s arguments and if they could not handle the “truth” that was their problem.  God has been changing me, and in fact gave me a direct word that “Love is more important than being right.”  As I let go, I see that my actions were driven by fear and were not as loving as they should have been.

Don, very good thoughts on love vs being right!