‘Besides you will notice that I didn’t say that “God doesn’t allow…” I said “I am not allowing a woman to teach or authentein a man”.’

By what power or authority does any mortal man have to create or give a universal law for God? God did not speak those words directly, Paul did not quote him and Paul did not say it was a command or law of God’s or the Lord’s. And by what kind of thinking and power or authority do any mortals have to give any mortal man such power and authority?

I know that many think that since Paul wrote it and his writings are inspired that therefore it must mean that what Paul wrote is a universal law of God’s. If this kind of logic were true then everything Paul wrote could be taken as universal law, but those who would say he wrote such a law in the 1 Tim 2 passage also pick and choose which other things that Paul wrote are universaly binding and which things are not.

‘It’s inspired therefore it is universal law’ is nonsense.

It wouldn’t matter even if Paul or anyone else stopped all women from teaching since mere mortals, including apostles do not have the power or authority to create universal law for God. And God’s laws are ALWAYS said to be his in the scriptures. If a law is God’s then we find him speaking, being quoted or the law is said to be his.

‘When ‘she’ in verse 15 refers back to ‘the woman’ in verse 14 it is not referring to the woman *as* Eve or *as* the woman herself but rather the woman as the representative of all women collectively.’

And this is because why? What is written IN the passage itself that indicates this? Absolutely nothing. These are mere assertions.

‘Using the singular ‘she’ is fine grammatically because ‘the woman’ in verse 14 is singular, but it should be understood that all women are meant because, conceptually, ‘the woman’ stands for all women. The plural ‘they’ in verse 15 refers to all women collectively.’

Conceptually ‘the woman’ should be understood to be standing for all women because why? What is actualy written in the passage to indicate this or what spells it out? What evidence is there for saying that ‘the woman’ represents all women and ‘they’ refers to all women? There is no evidence within the passage itself to support your assertions.

The assertions above come completely from the imagination and not the text itself. On the other hand, there is no way to deny the least number of women, which is 1, and there is no way to produce as a fact, a larger number than 1 from the passage itself. If you look over the passage with a careful eye and keep within it’s written boundaries, this fact cannot be missed.

Excellent points, Pink! I think I’m going to try and find time to look up ever NT instance of the singular that context requires to refer to a generic plural. Should be interesting.

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!

What are the reasons 1 Corin 14 could not be used as a second witness against women teaching men? Just curious.

BTW: I think these conversations are an excellent teaching tool

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.

gengwell, I have had so many seminary trained people tell me that saved in that verse means that she will be ‘restored’ if she stays in her role as wife and mother and not trying to teach men.

As if she was saved but would not be unless she did not stay in her proper role. Some also claim it is more about sanctification than salvation.

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?

Cheryl, an observation on 1 Tim. 2:12 based on 1 Cor. 7:17-31. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul talks about “the rule of conduct” for congregational relationships and practices that he lays down for all the churches (1 Cor. 7:17). Then in 7:25-31, he responds to the question as to what engaged couples should do in the light of the eschatological end in which the Church lives between now and the 2nd coming of Christ. When he addresses this issue, having stated his general rules, which are based in the teaching of Jesus himself, Paul says, “Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are…” (1 Cor 7:25-26, NIV). Since he is addressing a specific issue, limited to a certain place and time, and since no general command of the Lord Jesus exists to address, Paul, by the wisdom of the Lord granted him by the Spirit of Christ ” (i.e., “the mercy of the Lord” to which he refers), he gives an hoc rule that suits this issue and its attending circumstances.

Now, 1 Tim. 2:8-15, we have the same pattern of general rules for the churches, rooted in Paul’s own teaching and practices, with a specific situation considered and ruled on in vv. 11-15. In 2:1-10, such is the wording that the “rule of conduct for prophesying,” which we recognize in its full form in 1 Cor. 11-14, is here given in summary form, because it was teaching Timothy was well acquainted with and needed no further instruction on (Cf. 2 Tim. 3:14-4:5). But such is the subject and language in 1 Tim. 2:11-15, that it is clear that Paul is no longer focused on general rules arising out of the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, but is again, by the Spirit of Christ, giving a word of wisdom and a ruling that addresses the specific situation that Timothy is facing in Ephesus at the time and on which he sorely needs advice and counsel. So this something else we need to keep in mind regarding this passage.

I emend 1 Tim 2:15 to say if they (each) …, as salvation is by individuals, in community for sure, but by each individual’s choice.

Based on Wallace’s 3rd option for an anarthrous noun of it describing a group of at least 1 member, I see it as POSSIBLE that there were a (small) group of (deceived) women that Paul wants taught and while being taught to not teach. This possibility does not change the application for today, whether it was one woman or a small group of women.

The instances I found where singular and plural occur together had an important feature: another word such as “every” described the singular. Does Wallace show any examples of scripture where this is not the case? What I’m getting at is that Paul does not say “every she” or “all she” or anything like that (which would be nonsense). The phrase “if she will” would have to refer back to a generic woman already identified, such as if Paul had said “Women cannot teach men. If a woman teaches a man, she is in sin.”

“… Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are…” (1 Cor 7:25-26, NIV). Since he is addressing a specific issue, limited to a certain place and time, and since no general command of the Lord Jesus exists to address, Paul, by the wisdom of the Lord granted him by the Spirit of Christ ” (i.e., “the mercy of the Lord” to which he refers), he gives an hoc rule that suits this issue and its attending circumstances.”

Frank, I was just reading this last night and thinking the same thing about this whole passage.

4 gengwall,

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.

Verse 11 would deal with community teaching where all may teach (prophesy) so that all may learn (1 Cor. 14:31). But could “they” refer to the entire church community in verse 15? Paul will be back shortly to deal with the “they” part of this equation.

10 Frank,

You said:

Since he is addressing a specific issue, limited to a certain place and time, and since no general command of the Lord Jesus exists to address, Paul, by the wisdom of the Lord granted him by the Spirit of Christ ” (i.e., “the mercy of the Lord” to which he refers), he gives an hoc rule that suits this issue and its attending circumstances.

This is a very good example of a rule that is issued for a particular circumstance.

But such is the subject and language in 1 Tim. 2:11-15, that it is clear that Paul is no longer focused on general rules arising out of the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, but is again, by the Spirit of Christ, giving a word of wisdom and a ruling that addresses the specific situation that Timothy is facing in Ephesus at the time and on which he sorely needs advice and counsel. So this something else we need to keep in mind regarding this passage.

This is excellent! I couldn’t have worded it any better myself!

Lin,

BTW: I think these conversations are an excellent teaching tool

Thank you Lin! These kinds of encouraging words really keep me going and want to be even more productive.

5 Lin,

What are the reasons 1 Corin 14 could not be used as a second witness against women teaching men? Just curious.

There are two reasons that it cannot be used as a second witness. The first reason is that it would have to be Paul’s words not a quote from the Corinthians to make a second witness and since verse 36 refutes the previous position, the “second witness” cannot stand.

Secondly if we were to take 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 as Paul’s command, it still isn’t a second witness. There is nothing in that passage that forbids women to teach men. Can women teach men in groups outside the church? 1 Cor. 14 cannot be used to prohibit that.

Lastly if we were to take the passage as Paul’s command, everyone interprets it as allowing speech to some extent. Otherwise women wouldn’t even be able to say “hello” in the church. So if speech is allowed, what isn’t allowed? The passage in Corinthians says not one word about “teaching men” as something forbidden and since Paul has already told the Corinthians they all can prophesy so that all can learn, prophesying (teaching) to men could not possibly be forbidden in this passage by Paul.

Thanks for asking! I am sure that “Paul” will have more to say when we get to this passage.

13 Paula,

What I’m getting at is that Paul does not say “every she” or “all she” or anything like that (which would be nonsense).

Good point! “Everyone is hungry and they all want to eat” is acceptable grammar. However she is hungry and they want to eat does not equate “she” as the exact same thing as “they”. The grammar rules show that a singular must equate with another singular and a plural with a plural. I know of no way for the complementarians to get out of the grammar. If they think they can, I would like to see the biblical example provided. Where is the second witness?

“The reason Paul switches to the generic singular form is because he intends to connect his proscription in verse 12 to his argument from the creation order in verses 13-14 where the singulars ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ are used as representatives of all men and women. In verse 14, ‘the woman’ refers back to Eve and stands the representative of all women.”

This makes no sense from another point of view. Why would being deceived be a more important prohibition from teaching than sinning willfully and on purpose like Adam?

Are you saying that God prefers and trusts those that sin willfully and purposely?

‘There is no need to switch from plural to singular if he is still talking about women in general. This would confuse the matter instead of keeping it simple and understandable.’

There was no need indeed. And what would we read and how would it look if Paul had NOT made the switch from plural to singular? The NLT is an example of what the inspired Paul very simply could have wrote. If the NLT translators could write it, then so could Paul. ;P

NLT
9 And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do.
11 Women should learn quietly and submissively. 12 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. 13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

“But where is the documentation?”

Cheryl asked you to provide the documentation from scripture:

It is a violation of the rules of any grammar as I have already shown. It would be such a simple exercise to prove me wrong by bringing up a second witness.

The patri or comp interpretation of this passage argues for Paul teaching women to keep within their role which would include not teaching, not having authority AND having children. (I guess getting married is not part of their role) So wives are not in view yet women without husbands will be saved through CHILDBEARING? Maybe only umarried women who have children will be saved? ;P

‘Now, if one specific woman were in view, then I trust you will agree that the plural ‘they’ would more likely refer to a husband together with his wife than anything else. But, as I’ve already argued, husbands and wives are not in view here.’

Chris, why does it matter if wives and husbands in general are not in view since Paul is NOT talking about wives and husbands but rather a specific couple?

If Paul is talking about a specific couple, then yeah, all wives and husbands in general are NOT going to be in view because in view is the specific couple.

Chris is arguing that Paul does not have wiveS and husbandS, in general, in view therefore he is arguing AGAINST a plural and a general meaning.

He wants to argue against a plural meaning (wives and husbands) on one hand but on the other he wants to argue for it (women and men).

Now, if Paul had a specific woman and a specific man in mind then it doesn’t matter one way or the other if they are married, though as Chris has pointed out, ‘they’ are likely husband and wife and it doesn’t matter since the woman and man in the passage remain SPECIFIC persons rather than refer to women and men in general.

‘He wants to argue against a plural meaning (wives and husbands) on one hand but on the other he wants to argue for it (women and men).’

Chris, by saying that ‘a woman and a man’ cannot be refering to all wives and husbands (because the context isn’t about marriage) is to say that Paul did not necessarily use the singular ‘a woman and a man’ generaly for both sexes, MARRIED OR NOT. Therefore you’ve argued for my position and against your own.

When Paul said ‘I do not allow a gune to…’ he could be refering to all wives generaly, all women generaly, or just a specific woman or wife. Therefore to be able to argue against a general meaning (all wives or all women) shows the weakness of your own argument for a general meaning.

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.

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.

Those are some great insights. The Greek definite article is sometimes used in places where it is not considered good English when translated, and so is omitted in some cases, yet can be crucial to understanding. While an anarthous noun (one with no article) in Greek has a range of possibilities, a noun with the definite article does not.

“The meaning of this word is not related to Christian activity and this is why it is never used in scripture other than this one time where it is used as a prohibition.”

Excellent point, Cheryl. Nowhere is anyone in the whole of Scripture told to authenteo another person. It would be an activity that is ungodly behavior. Sometimes, its just amazing how legalism and gross literalism (i.e. not really thinking things through in context) leads people in the strangest places.

I see the discussion has moved on to a further discussion (Part 5) of the “grammatical issues” connected with “she” and “they” in 1 Tim. 2:15. And when I can do some further research, I may comment on this newest posting. But in this comment, in part a refocusing on the “big picture” (i.e., the historical, cultural and literary context) in response to comments made by Chris and Donald (20, 12)–some elements of which I agree with and some of which I do not–I would like to add to and expand upon my own (10), if I may.

As I had stated in my previous comment, as general rules and guidelines Paul had laid down for the churches he had founded, there are striking parallels between 1 Cor. 11:2-14:32 and 1 Tim. 2:1-15. Both passages, as revealed by commonalities in concerns, terms and phraseology, are examples of standard rules and guidelines designed to both define and regulate the proper conduct of men and women as they together engage in intercessory prayer, adoration of God, and in prophesying in the house church meetings. And by means of this mutual, cooperative ministry, everyone present was instructed, encouraged, and built up in their common union with their living and exalted Lord Jesus Christ, as well as being trained and equipped “for good works of service” (Cf. Gal. 3:26-4:7, 1 Cor. 12:1-13, and Eph. 4:1-16).

Moreover, on the basis of the principle of a legal pronouncement or a word of testimony requiring confirmation and validation by two or three witnesses, which Cheryl has argued so well from the Scriptures, we can firmly and without reservation state that Paul himself, as long as the standard rules and guidelines were followed, both approved and urged men and women to engage together in mutual, complementary prayer, adoration of God, and prophesying. For here is what Paul actually said about this:

1. “Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not put out the Spirit’s fire. Do not treat prophecies in contempt but test them all; hold to what is good, reject what is harmful” (1 Thess. 5:16-17, TNIV).

2. “What then shall we say brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two-or at most three-shall speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret…Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said…[Y]ou can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace-as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people” (1 Cor. 14:26-33, TNIV).

3. “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:15-17, TNIV).

Now you would think, in light of this clear, threefold testimony given by Paul himself, that when people read what he says in 1 Cor. 14:33b-40 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15, they would immediately recognize that these passages are clear departures from his regular rules and guidelines and that they must be Spirit-given, ad hoc rulings pertaining to special problematic situations arising in Corinth and Ephesus either 1) such was the nature of the problem that the standard regulations did not apply or 2) as the historical, cultural and literary context of both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy indicates, there were deliberate violations of these Pauline regulations due to certain rebellious factions, influenced by heretical teaching, that were to be found among the members of the congregations in Corinth and in Ephesus. And I would like to say some more on this. But it is getting late, and I must run some errands before bedtime. So this comment is to be continued…

28 pinklight,

Now, if Paul had a specific woman and a specific man in mind then it doesn’t matter one way or the other if they are married, though as Chris has pointed out, ‘they’ are likely husband and wife and it doesn’t matter since the woman and man in the passage remain SPECIFIC persons rather than refer to women and men in general.

Amen!

30 gengwall,

You said regarding Chris’ use of Numbers 30:

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

This is exactly what was going through my mind as I was reading his post. I can’t believe that he was actually tearing down his own argument.

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.

Very well said!!

But, I have never seen anyone try to make a “she” into “they” before this.

I have given this challenge out for years and no one yet has managed to find an example that makes “she” into “they”. If I was so clearly wrong then there is a problem with these hierarchical men who cannot find even one example to correct me. Clearly if I am in the wrong, these men are at fault for their failure to prove their point and correct a sister in Christ. They speak great swelling words against basic grammar structures but have no single piece of evidence to make Paul into a renegade self-created grammarian.

31 gengwall,

You said:

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]

Bravo! I greatly appreciate your wisdom and the way that you have expressed yourself in a very understandable way so that all of us should be able to catch it.

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]

Amen!

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…

I couldn’t have said it better myself!

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”.

Very well stated!! Although I am an eternal optimist, I do not know how much of the bad translation of this passage has been intentional by translators who want to input their hierarchical views. No doubt many wanted to translated the passage in a way that people could understand, but their mistranslation shows that they themselves didn’t understand. God’s word does not need to be corrected. The grammar will stand as it is written and when we find ourselves forced to face the grammar and the implications of that specific grammar, it forces us to have to reject a universal prohibition against women. I have been so blessed to see many pastor’s eyes opened by the inspired grammar. Many will fight tooth and nail not to see the implications of the grammar because their doctrine about women is based on a faulty mistranslation. They want to hold onto their doctrine so tightly whether out of loyalty to other male teachers, their own pride or because they find it hard to admit that they have been wrong about an issue that touches their sisters in Christ. My heart goes out to those who have humbled themselves to admit their error. I know it is hard for them, but I believe that God will honor their humility.

genwall, thank you for such great comments!

33 tiro,

Excellent point, Cheryl. Nowhere is anyone in the whole of Scripture told to authenteo another person. It would be an activity that is ungodly behavior.

People don’t always think this through. They understand that “a woman” is not allowed to “authentein” a man, but they seem to fail to pick up the point that no man is every given permission to “authentein” another man. There is not even one reference that I have ever found that makes “authenteo” a godly Christian activity.

34 Frank,

But in this comment, in part a refocusing on the “big picture” (i.e., the historical, cultural and literary context) in response to comments made by Chris and Donald (20, 12)–some elements of which I agree with and some of which I do not–I would like to add to and expand upon my own (10), if I may.

Thank you for coming onto my blog to offer the “big picture”. While I consider my gift to be seeing the tiny details that others may miss, I recognize that my brothers and sisters in Christ can add to my understanding of scripture by giving the “big picture” approach. Often I do not see the “big picture” until I have worked through every little detail of the text in my biblical “microscope”, so I always appreciate having a look outside my own box that brings me a fresh perspective of the “big picture”. Thanks!

As I had stated in my previous comment, as general rules and guidelines Paul had laid down for the churches he had founded, there are striking parallels between 1 Cor. 11:2-14:32 and 1 Tim. 2:1-15. Both passages, as revealed by commonalities in concerns, terms and phraseology, are examples of standard rules and guidelines designed to both define and regulate the proper conduct of men and women as they together engage in intercessory prayer, adoration of God, and in prophesying in the house church meetings.

Excellent point to remind us about recurring terms, concerns and phraseology!

Moreover, on the basis of the principle of a legal pronouncement or a word of testimony requiring confirmation and validation by two or three witnesses, which Cheryl has argued so well from the Scriptures, we can firmly and without reservation state that Paul himself, as long as the standard rules and guidelines were followed, both approved and urged men and women to engage together in mutual, complementary prayer, adoration of God, and prophesying.

Again a wonderful overview regarding the scriptures and my argument!

Now you would think, in light of this clear, threefold testimony given by Paul himself, that when people read what he says in 1 Cor. 14:33b-40 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15, they would immediately recognize that these passages are clear departures from his regular rules and guidelines and that they must be Spirit-given, ad hoc rulings pertaining to special problematic situations arising in Corinth and Ephesus either 1) such was the nature of the problem that the standard regulations did not apply or 2) as the historical, cultural and literary context of both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy indicates, there were deliberate violations of these Pauline regulations due to certain rebellious factions, influenced by heretical teaching, that were to be found among the members of the congregations in Corinth and in Ephesus.

I feel so blessed to read your review of these passages in such a clear and concise way and with that “big picture” view. Thank you for your contribution and your affirmation of the work that I have done to make this passage understandable to the common man. I am so blessed by the quality of people who visit my blog and who give me their insights. Truly the body of Christ is blessed when we work together. All of us are needed with our gifts. You have greatly blessed me with your gift that is definitely on a bigger view than mine typically is. Thank you so much!

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.

Cheryl, I would like to amend the first sentence, of the third paragraph in Comment 10 to read, “Now, in 1 Tim. 2:8-15, we again have the same pattern of general rules for the churches, rooted in Paul’s own teaching and practices…,” and not as “rooted in the Lord Jesus’ teaching and practices.” And the original error was due to a trick of eye or mind (I’m not sure which), I here now correct it. And as one who has translated and exegeted NT texts myself, I want to express my appreciation for the great care you have taken in navigating us through 1 Tim. 2:11-15. From what I have seen in consulting the various commentaries available, this is a very complex and difficult passage for any exegete to sail through without running aground somewhere. Yet, I think it is fair to say, if I may so put it, that you have done a fine job in piloting us around some of this text’s more dangerous shoals and reefs. So with your permission, I would like to finish my comments on the parallels between 1 Cor. 11:33b-40 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15, and the necessity, as gengell succinctly puts it (41), of setting them in their proper place within the entire Pauline corpus.

Most NT scholars acknowledge that 1 Corinthinans 11-14 is a subsection of a larger literary unit that begins in 7:1 and ends in 15:58. And in this section, as a result of both a letter and an oral report from Chloe’s house church, Paul finds himself again addressing problems that he had previously dealt with (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-17; 5:1-12; 7:1-16). Whether it has to do with sexual ethics, marriage and divorce (Ch 7); food offered to idols (Ch 8); the difference to be made between liberty and license (Chs 9-10), etc–Paul is constantly having to define and clarify, rebuke and correct, chastise and remind the Corinthians of teachings and rules and guidelines that he has reviewed with them several times, and which he had expected them to have learned and understood now before visiting them again (Cf. 2 Cor. 13:1-4, which indicates Paul is primarily referring to the second of three visits he was to make to Corinth in order to deal with these persistent disorders).

Now what I find most interesting about 1 Cor. 11:2-14:40, is what I would describe as the “stark contrast” between 11:2-16, which serves as the introduction of this literary section, and 14:33b-40, which serves as its conclusion. In 11:2-16, Paul “commends” the Corinthian congregation for praying and prophesying in compliance with “the traditions,” or authoritative teachings, he has passed on as regulating all Christian belief and practice. And in agreement with many NT schloars, I believe he is referring to the tradition of “the New Creation in Christ,” which he first sets forth in Gal. 3:26-4:7, and then further develops in 2 Cor. 5:11-6:4; Rom. 4:13-17; and Rom. 8:12-21. But in this passage, he gently rebukes a partial misunderstanding of this tradition. However, I will have to finish the rest of this comment tomorrow. I have some errands I must run now. To be continued…

Frank,
I have fixed the comment error. Funny I didn’t even catch that one myself. Thank you for your kind remarks about my piloting gifts! It took me a very long time to be able to even acknowledge my own gifts but my husband taught me that if I fail to acknowledge a word of praise then I fail the opportunity to give the glory back to the one who gives us our gifts. It is with deep gratitude that I acknowledge the Lord Jesus as the one who works in me and I look forward to reading more of the gift that He shares through you as you provide the needed gift of the big picture.