Neopatriarch Once Again Fails To Refute Cheryl Schatz
## Challenging my position that 1 Timothy 2:15 is a single woman
Date: 2009-09-30
URL: https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2009/09/30/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz/
Challenging my position that 1 Timothy 2:15 is a single woman
Neopatriarch has taken a second stab at trying to refute my teaching on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as he has rewritten his article. Once again he has failed to poke a hole in my argument, but this time, he has dropped the charge that I am exasperating. Good for Neopatriarch for taking a much kinder tone in his introduction! He now calls it his “canned response.” From reading the comments, it appears that Neopatriarch has come to the understanding that brothers and sisters in Christ can argue their position passionately without attacking the other person’s character and their motives. This is certainly a change in his approach, and I commend him for that.
I must also give Neopatriarch credit for trying to answer my interpretation when others who make their living off of promoting the complementarian message just run and hide. However, Neopatriarch has major flaws in his argument, and his argument fails to present contradictions or holes in my own argument, so I am very pleased to be able to present this second refutation of Neopatriarch’s attempt to tear down my argument.
I will start my response by saying that I have no doubt that Neopatriarch is a brother in Christ. However, on the issue of patriarchy, he is dead wrong. It is a loving thing to confront a brother in Christ with his errors so that he can learn from his mistakes. I am certain that Neopatriarch continues to read my blog, even though he doesn’t want to post here any longer, and since my blog seems to have a higher following, I am posting my response here.
At this time I would also like to commend Mike Seaver for his willingness to debate me in this public setting. I do not take this kind of bravery for granted. Although Mike’s answers were not very weighty, the fact that he was willing to work with me to bridge the gap between complementarians and egalitarians was truly a remarkable act on his part. Hats off to Mike for being brave, loving and kind!
Now back to Neopatriarch’s second attempt at refuting me. Neopatriarch writes:
Schatz’s view has cropped up in various discussion groups like CARM and Worthy Boards, and, you might see it in various blogs as well. If you’re thinking about engaging her in a debate or discussion, you might first want to listen to this debate between her and Matt Slick:
Neopatriarch linked to the audio with Matt Slick where Slick refused to allow me to finish my argument on 1 Timothy 2:15. I would recommend that Neopatriarch takes a more fair approach and link to my article where I give my full view which includes verse 15. I make this recommendation so that Neopatriarch doesn’t come across as being biased and merely seen as trying to stack the deck by only a partial view of my position. If Neo believes that he is right and I am wrong, it would only be fair to link to a proper and fair presentation of my view.
After giving a quote from John Calvin, Neo writes:
As Calvin explains, Paul continues on the topic of modest conduct by forbidding women to teach or exercise authority over men. From verses 9-10 we know that Paul is addressing the conduct of women (plural).
While John Calvin may have believed that teaching the truth of God’s word to men was immodest conduct, the context of this passage does not list it this way. Instead, we find a clear break in verse 10 where Paul is referencing women who have a claim to godliness. These godly women were to be encouraged to dress modestly so that their godliness would be shown from their good works rather than from their outward apparel. Would teaching the truth of God’s Word be a good work? Of course! There is not a single reference in the Scriptures instructing the church to stop the teaching and preaching of the truth of the gospel. So we have godly women referenced in verses 9 and 10. Does the reference to godly women continue? It does not. Here is where the break comes. Paul goes back to the theme of chapter one where he references the stopping of teaching and here in chapter two deception as the reason given for the stopping of teaching. In 1 Timothy 2:9-10, 11-12 not only does Paul go from plural to singular, but Paul goes from godly women (women who profess godliness) to the certain ungodliness in the issue of sin through deception. The two portions of this chapter do not go together in one flow. Godliness does not connect with transgression and deception no matter how much Neopatriarch would like to think it does.
Neopatriarch continues:
Since context determines the meaning of a word, the reasonable presumption here is that “a woman” refers to any of the women (plural) whom Paul is addressing.
Context certainly does determine the meaning of a word. A “woman” is connected to deception. Now tell me, are all women to be considered as deceived? Are all women continuing in the transgression (verse 14)? The context simply cannot fit all women.
Neopatriarch then quotes Rev. Lane Keister as writing:
I believe that Paul has in mind already the reasons in verses 13-14, which require a singular to connect with Eve as a representative. Therefore, Paul is using a generic singular to make his point. Mounce argues that a general principle is being stated here, and that the singular is most apropos. I think this is borne out further by Paul’s argument in verses 13-14, which speak of Adam and Eve as representative of male and female.
Let’s test this by the Scripture. Paul has already been using a generic form for women in verse 10 although he states that these are women who have a claim to godliness. Are they now to be included in verses 12-15? The claim that this is a “general principle” can only stand if it fits the context. Let’s continue to test the context.
Where does Paul speak of Adam and Eve as representative of male and female? Paul speaks of Adam as a man who was created first. Are all men now to be considered created first? Adam is said not to be deceived. Are all men now to be as Adam and not deceived? These facts of Paul’s do not fit generic men. How about Eve? Eve was created second and like Eve “the woman” in verse 14 was deceived. Is Eve representative of all women? In what way is Paul making Eve connected to all women? Unless Neo can show a representative nature in this passage, he cannot add to what God has inspired to make the passage say more than it is saying.
Neopatriarch then writes:
But Schatz interprets in a way that disrupts the flow and coherence that verses 11-15 have with the preceding verses. Indeed, she claims there is a “sharp” shift to the singular4, and thereby isolates verses 11-15 from the immediately preceding verses.
This is not true. Here is the coherence – in chapter one, Paul has reminded Timothy that he left him behind in Ephesus to stop the deceived teachers who are teaching error. The only teaching that is stopped according to Paul’s command in chapter one is that of the false teachers who are teaching strange doctrines. Paul continues in chapter one to describe his compassion for those who have been deceived by comparing them to his own actions done in ignorance. Paul says that he received mercy because he had done his wicked deeds ignorantly and in unbelief. Paul then moves on in chapter two to say that God desires all to be saved and this would have to include even the ignorance deceived teachers. Paul’s word to men about not praying with wrath and dissension fits in perfectly with the exasperation of the elders who were responsible for fixing the problems. They were “fixing the problem” by arguing, and this appeared even in their prayers. Paul says that this wrath and dissension should not be shown in their prayers.
The next group to be dealt with are the women who would be the mature believers and who have works of godliness. They are to reveal their godliness by their acts, not by their dress. They too would have been called on to deal with the error that had crept into the congregation especially if it was a problem with a woman. Paul connects the issue of the salvation of all men to the importance of godly leadership by saying “therefore” and “likewise.” But there is no connecting word in verse 11. Check it for yourself. The first word is “woman” and it is disconnected to the grammar of verses 9 & 10. The disconnection here cannot be ignored. Paul is not talking about the same group of women. The women in the previous verses are women with good works claiming godliness.
So how do verses 11-15 “flow” from the preceding verses? The beginning of Chapter 2 shows some of the problems in that the leadership is not handling the problem of the false teachers very well. The arguments are carrying into their prayers. Even the mature women are not relying on their godly character to handle the issue but setting forth their “class” or their right to be heard by their elaborate dress. Paul breaks from the instructions for Timothy regarding the leadership and goes back to the sore spot regarding deceived teachers. Paul lays out the solution for the one deceived teacher who has been a thorn in their side. She is to be stopped, but Paul is sure that with immersing her in sound doctrine she will be saved and come to know the truth of the gospel. Paul’s whole thought flows from deception to leadership dealing with deception back to the deception again, and the final solution is how to bring the deceived one to a solid foundation in salvation that was promised after the very first deception happened on this earth. The very first one who experienced being deceived would be used by God to bring forth the Messiah who would then make it His mission to destroy the deceiver and set the captives free.
Neopatriarch’s view, on the other hand, does not flow. Neopatriarch cannot successfully connect Adam and Eve to all men and women since he has no basis to make “a woman” to be generic because of Eve. Eve is not a representative of all women Neither can Neo make “a man” generic because of Adam as the reference to Adam’s first creation and his not being deceived is not applicable to all men. Neo also cannot connect all women to the deception of Eve nor can he connect the ongoing transgression of one woman as it does not fit in context with all women. Lastly, his position cannot connect all women to the key verse which is the result of the prohibition. Not all women are deceived, so it fails the text of context to question the salvation of all women.
Neopatriarch continues:
First, we normally read a pericope from start to finish so that contextual resources are provided to us as we move from one verse to the next. With Schatz’s approach, the reader must wait until he reaches verse 15 to decrypt what Paul meant by “a woman” in verses 11 and 12 because Schatz has made verse 15 the interpretive key for 11 and 12.
Neopatriarch has again failed to consider the context. Paul is writing directly to Timothy, not directly to us. Timothy didn’t need to wait until verse 15 to understand what verses 11 & 12 meant. Timothy knew all about the situation in Ephesus. We, on the other hand, have to do our homework before we can understand the passage. Some of Paul’s writing is difficult to understand and verse 15 is the verse that dismantles the complementarian argument because they cannot make it fit in their view that Paul is talking about all women.
Neopatriarch writes:
The conjunction, “for,” at the beginning of verse 13 could be understood in the causal or illustrative sense. The causal sense would mean that Paul is giving us reasons for his proscription. The illustrative sense would mean that Paul is simply giving us an example.
Paul is not simply giving us an example. The “for” must mean Paul’s reason for the prohibition otherwise the prohibition would not make sense in the Christian worldview that never had a law that prohibited a woman from teaching men. The only thing that makes sense is that “for” gives the “reason” for the prohibition. If there is no reason, then there cannot be a claim to a law since the Old Testament never carries such a law against a woman’s teaching abilities.
But if (the Greek) is used in the illustrative sense, then Paul did not ground his proscription in the order of creation. Instead, he appealed to Genesis 2-3 as an example of what happens when a woman teaches a man false doctrine.
This could not possibly be Paul’s meaning since Eve did not teach Adam “false doctrine.” In fact, not even a single one of Eve’s words to Adam is recorded. One cannot get the interpretation that Eve taught Adam “false doctrine” without doing violence to the Scriptures. We know for a fact that Adam was not deceived and we also know from Genesis that Adam was there with Eve when the serpent was speaking to her. Where is the doctrine that came from Eve’s mouth to Adam? It isn’t in the Scripture. Secondly if this an example, then Neopatriarch just spoiled his own case. He attempts to prove that Paul is stopping all women from teaching correct Biblical doctrine to men but with Neo’s admission is that the example Paul gives is about false doctrine. Which way is it? Is it a “reason” for the prohibition (false doctrine) or is it an “example” (false doctrine)? No matter which way Neopatriarch turns, he cannot make the passage say that Paul is stopping the teaching of true doctrine.
This could still be taken as justification for proscribing any woman from teaching any man false doctrine. After all, why would this example apply to only one woman?
But why should we stop with the men? With Neopatriarch’s view that it could also be taken as stopping any woman from teaching any man false doctrine, he refutes himself since he will now have to justify why Paul only stops all women from teaching all men false doctrine but doesn’t stop them from teaching false doctrine to other women and children. At every turn, Neo’s claim that this is generic women and generic men just doesn’t fit. Also, Neopatriarch has another dilemma. Why would Paul have to say anything about all women’s false teaching if he already stopped the false teachers in chapter one? If there wasn’t one sticky situation with one woman concerning false doctrine, verses 11-15 would not have needed to be written. Certainly, if there were multiple women teaching multiple men, women or children, Paul would have used the plural just as he did in the previous verses. There would be no need to change the plural women to singular woman.
Neopatriarch continues:
Also, how does the fact Adam was created first illustrate the claim that only one specific woman is not to teach false doctrine? The illustrative sense fails to explain verses 13-14 as well as the causal sense. Therefore, we should understand verses 13-14 as reasons for Paul’s proscription in verse 12.
So now Neopatriarch takes us right back to the “reasons” for the prohibition, the exact position that I have. Now the “example” fails the test, and we are back to square one. We must ask how does the fact that Adam was created first give us the reason for why she is stopped from teaching? Because the first one created, one had sound doctrine to immunize him against the deception of the serpent. Remember Paul started with verse 11 saying that she must learn? Learning sound doctrine is the key here. Adam knew the truth, and he was not deceived. But Adam failed to speak out and stop Eve’s deception, just like the woman’s husband in Ephesus. He was another Adam and Timothy had to go past her husband to command her to stop. The reason for the prohibition was because of deception and the non-involvement of the one who was not deceived fits perfectly with why Timothy was being pushed to step in and stop her himself.
Neopatriarch continues:
Since presumption favors our initial conclusion that any man and any woman are meant in verse 12 and verses 13-14 function as reasons in Paul’s argument, the most natural reading takes Adam and Eve as representatives of any man and any woman.
I ask if Neo’s admitted “presumption” favors his conclusion that any man and any woman are meant, then I ask him to please explain how any man is not deceived and any woman is deceived? Neopatriarch has failed to give any viable explanation for the connection to all of us as women. There is a very strong connection to a couple in the same condition as Adam and Eve were, but there is no connection to godly men and godly women who are not in error.
In his first reason, I submit that Paul is alluding to the steward-helper relationship between Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2:7, God created Adam and gave him the garden mandate not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (2:16-17). Adam was hereby entrusted with stewardship of God’s word and consequently of moral life in the garden.
Neopatriarch is alluding to the teaching that only Adam was entrusted with God’s word, but this cannot be proven since Genesis 1:26-29 describes the creation of the man and the woman and the prohibition is included within the list of what they could eat since they are given permission to eat from every tree except for the one tree that had no seed bearing fruit. Eve also describes God’s Word given to her, so there is no proof at all that only Adam was entrusted with God’s Word. There is also nothing that says that Adam was given the stewardship of the moral life in the garden. The Bible does say that he was entrusted with guarding the garden, but this is a far cry from being responsible for Eve’s sin. He was responsible for warning her but not responsible for her moral life.
Eve was not around when God gave Adam the garden mandate, but apparently he taught it to her because she repeated it, albeit not exactly, to the serpent (3:2-3).
As I wrote previously, Eve was given God’s Word about what she could eat, and it was her testimony that she was also told by God what she was not allowed to eat. Although Neopatriarch used the word “apparently” it is clear that he knows that there is no Scripture that says that Adam was responsible for teaching Eve the prohibition. Eve walked with God too, and her testimony counts as it came from a sinless woman before sin entered the world.
Consider an illustration of this idea: A father tells his first son to remove a boulder from the yard, but, seeing that his first son is unable to do it by himself, he sends his second son out to help. It is understood that the first son is still in charge of the boulder removing project and that the second son receives instruction from and is subordinate to the first. The second son does not take over the project. What this means for Paul’s proscription is that women are not to take over the teaching and leadership duties that belong specifically to the office of the steward of God’s word. Only other men are to be in the position of teaching and exercising authority over men.
What Neopatriarch has failed to do is to pay attention to what God said. While he can make up all the illustrations that he wants, these illustrations do not correspond to the Scriptures, because God said that they both were to rule. There was not one ruler and a subordinate helper. There were two rulers over God’s creation.
Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Gen 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Neopatriarch started with a false premise and continued on the wrong path when he writes:
In his second reason, we see the consequences of reversing the steward-helper relationship. The first part of verse 14 says, “Adam was not deceived.” He was not deceived by the serpent. Instead, he listened to wife, and God faulted him for it (Genesis 3:17).
There is no steward-helper relationship. There is a God-given ruler-ruler relationship. The helper then is defined by God as an equal ruler. How do we reverse the ruler-ruler relationship? Here it is: ruler-ruler. Does it look different? It can’t look different because God’s Word is what counts and He made them both rulers.
Secondly, God faulted Adam not for being nagged into eating the fruit (because there are no words recorded of Eve speaking to Adam) but God faulted Adam for remaining a silent watchman as his wife spoke to the serpent and was deceived. This is the serious issue. It isn’t an issue about a nagged husband but about treason. God says that a watchman who fails to sound the warning is a traitor and deserves death. Adam listened to the voice of his wife while she was speaking to the serpent. He heard the deception. He heard her as she was being deceived… and Adam did nothing. This is what God called treacherous (Hosea 6:7)
Neopatriarch continues:
The implication is that Adam should not have listened to his wife. Why? I think the best explanation is because she was not the proper steward of the garden mandate. She did not have the authority to instruct him.
Where is Neopatriarch’s proof that Eve spoke to Adam and instructed him on anything? It isn’t in the text. It is the tradition of complementarians, but it isn’t Scriptural. Where does God say that Eve took her own authority to instruct Adam? It doesn’t. Adam doesn’t blame Eve for “instructing” him. He blames her only for giving the fruit to him. Surely if she had sinned by “instructing” the man without proper authority, then someone would have said something about this sin. Where is Neopatriarch’s proof? He has none.
Neopatriarch now quotes Andreas Köstenberger:
Eve, Paul implies, was not kept safe at the Fall; she was deceived. Why? Because she left her proper domain under her husband’s care. What happened as a result? She became an easy prey for Satan. How can women under Timothy’s charge (and in churches everywhere) avoid repeating the same mistake? By “childbearing,” that is, by adhering to their God-ordained calling, including a focus on marriage, family, and the home. 1 Timothy 2:15 thus turns out to be Paul’s prescription for women as a lesson learned from the scenario of the Fall described in the preceding verse.7
I have already discussed with Andreas his position and I have given him the reasons why his view cannot be correct. His view has major holes in it. He was not to answer my questions because his view doesn’t fit.
The first problem is that there is no indication that Eve was given instruction to be under her husband’s care. Eve did not have to ask Adam to have a conversation with an animal. When Eve was fully convinced by the serpent that God was holding back on her and that she would not die but receive the ability to be like God, the fruit became to her not a prohibition, but a blessing. She did not have to ask Adam for his permission to eat any fruit. She was a free moral agent who fell into sin through deception. She did not leave her proper domain under her husband’s care. It was Adam who left his position as guardian of the garden, and he is the failure who did not speak out about the deception when he knew the truth. Noepatriarch’s position is an invalid charge of sin against Eve and a failure to charge Adam with his treason. The fact is that Eve became a prey for Satan because the man failed to speak out and expose the lie. Where did God ever blame Eve for stepping outside her “domain”? God did not blame her for this. He blamed Adam for listening to his wife while she was being deceived. This was a serious sin. It is an amazing thing to me that Neopatriarch continues to blame the deceived one and let the one who was the silent watchman go scot-free. In Neopatriarch’s quote below the Greek words do not show up as my blog is not able to show the Greek.
Neopatriarch writes:
Eve was tricked by the serpent. The consequence was that she became a transgressor. The identity of womankind with Eve is expressed by Paul’s switch to “the woman” and the perfect tense “has come into transgression.” So what is predicated of Eve is predicated of womankind, through the typology. That is, any woman who is typologically represented by Eve has become a transgressor through deception and continues in the state of transgression.
Neopatriarch wants all of us to think that the identity of all women (womankind) is first of all sure because Paul said “a woman” and now it is identified with Eve because all women (plural) are “the woman” (definite singular)? That is impossible. First of all the perfect tense is not the future tense here. The perfect tense shows that at the time of Paul’s writing “the woman” was in the transgression, however she will be saved (future tense) if… (verse 15) All of womankind is not alive at the time that Paul wrote this so the perfect tense cannot apply to them. Also, Paul could not have predicted that all of womankind would come into transgression through deception. He would have to say that all womankind will come into transgression (future tense) if they fall through deception. This is not even close to what Paul actually said.
Either Paul was inspired, and his grammar was inspired, or it wasn’t. Which is it? I choose to believe that Paul said exactly what the Holy Spirit inspired. “The woman” was a woman in the Ephesian congregation who had been deceived by the lie. She was like Eve in that the one who could protect her was sitting on his duff doing nothing. He was another silent Adam allowing his wife to continue in her deception. Timothy was to take Paul’s authority and stop her. Timothy can now go to the woman and bypass her husband and say that “Paul is the one who is not allowing this…” Timothy will have the courage to do this necessary work of stopping this woman, and he does so with Paul’s full authority and Paul’s encouragement.
Neopatriarch tries, to sum up my view by saying:
Now we come to the crux of Schatz’s argument. Essentially, I believe her argument is this: In verse 15, either “she” refers to the specific woman and “they” refers to the woman and her husband, or “she” and “they” have the same antecedent. But “she” and “they” cannot have the same antecedent because the antecedent cannot be both singular and plural. Pronouns must agree with their antecedents in number. Therefore, “she” must refer to the specific woman Paul is correcting, and “they” refers to the woman and her husband. She may further claim “she” refers to “the woman” in verse 14 because it is the nearest candidate for an antecedent.
This is correct. We cannot have hanging pronouns without the original nouns that they refer to. Let’s see how Neopatriarch tries to wiggle out of this one.
First, it should be recognized that the nature of Schatz’s argument as a disjunctive syllogism requires her to eliminate disjuncts to establish her own view. While she may have eliminated the disjunct she tries to pin on the patriarchalist, she presents us with a false dilemma. “[S]he” and “they” in verse 15 do not need to have the same antecedent in the patriarchalists’ view. Instead, the chiastic structure of verses 8-15 reveals the correct pronoun-antecedent relationships:
A (9-10) Christian “women” (plural)
B (11-12) “a woman” (singular indefinite noun) –it means any Christian woman.
C (13) “Eve” (generic / representative woman)
C’ (14) “the woman” (generic / representative woman)
B’ (15a) “she” has the antecedent “a woman”
A’ (15b) “they” has the antecedent “women,” Christian women in contextWomen are the topic of both “she” and “they,” but, grammatically, they have different antecedents. The pronoun “she” refers to “a woman”, and the pronoun “they” refers back to “women.” In other words, “she” refers to any woman, and “they” refers to every woman. Hence, “she” is not a specific woman, but any woman who is represented by the woman Eve. Schatz’s argument fails at least so long as this is a live alternative.
Let’s see if we can unravel this womanly mess. 🙂 What Neopatriarch is saying, is that all godly Christian women are to be clothed with good works (verses 9 & 10) however it is forbidden for any Christian woman to teach any Christian man (verse 12) because Eve was a representative of any Christian woman (verse 13.) This would mean that “the woman” meaning any Christian woman is in sin right now and is still in her transgression (verse 14) and has been deceived. Consequently, any Christian woman will be saved from her deception if all Christian women continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control. This is illogical. Paul cannot be talking about all Christian women in sin and all Christian women represented by Eve, but the thought that no Christian woman can be saved unless all Christian women continue in faith is untenable.
In essence, there is no difference between “any Christian woman” and “all Christian women.” It is by necessity that “any Christian woman” must be included within “all Christian women” and “all Christian women” can be broken down to “any Christian woman” so there is no difference between the two groups. For example, I would ask Neopatriarch which group his own your wife belongs to? Is she one of the “any Christian woman”? Or is she one of the “all Christian women”? She is by necessity a member of both, so the antecedent is of necessity the same. Not only does Neopatriarch’s explanation make a mockery of Paul’s words by attaching all women to the deception of Eve, but the Bible never uses Eve as a representative of all women. Also since the “any” and the “all” cannot be shown to exclude any particular Christian woman, by necessity the sides are equal and Neopatriarch’s own convoluted explanation “she” = “they.” This is illegal grammar.
If the reader has trouble figuring out Neopatriarch’s explanation, it is no wonder. His explanation is nothing more than double talk. He has no way to show that “any Christian woman” cannot fit both into the “she” group and the “they” group so although he tried to explain that these were different things, they are not. Neopatriarch has only succeeded in trying to make Paul look foolish with confusing words that mean the same thing and the questioning of all women’s salvation which surely would spark the thought that women are somehow spiritually inferior to men whose salvation is never questioned in the Scriptures as a group.
Also, I also ask Neopatriarch to show me how any Christian woman can be said to be in transgression right now because of her deception? His explanation doesn’t hold water. I would also like to ask how Timothy would have understood all of that “she” = “they” stuff? And how does all of this fit in with the specific deceived teachers at Ephesus? The thought that Paul would have connected all Christian women to the deceived Eve and said they were all in transgression in deception is so far-fetched that I can’t believe that Neopatriarch could think that his explanation would refute my straightforward interpretation of the passage that allows the grammar to be followed exactly as it was inspired?
Second, although the nearest candidate for a pronoun antecedent is often correct, we must remember that context is king. As I’ve argued above, we ought to understand (a woman) as an indefinite noun referring to any woman. Hence, we choose the antecedent for the pronoun “she” that makes the best sense in the context.
So “a woman” must mean any woman and “the woman” must mean any woman. That makes no sense at all. So why did Paul write these verses with what appears to be illegal grammar instead of staying with either “she” or “they”? He could have said “she will be saved if she…” or “they will be saved if they…” And what does a single Christian woman have to do with all Christian women? So I can’t be saved unless all Christian women stay in the faith? Or your wife cannot be saved unless all Christian women, (including me!) stays in the faith? And of course, that means all Christian women past, present and future!
Neopatriarch, your interpretation is nonsense. I think you had better try one more time to see if you can get it right. You have not found a way to poke a hole in my interpretation, but your own interpretation is so full of nonsense that we (all Christian women) could drive a Mac truck through it.
Let’s sum it up with Neopatriarch’s final words:
Third, Schatz’s view leads her to the untenable conclusion that a husband and wife are in view. But this conclusion has been answered by Michael R. Riley in his paper “The Proper Translation of Aner and une in the New Testament.”9
Riley’s paper is not about a particular woman and a particular man but about generic woman and generic man so my position about one particular couple has not been answered by Riley as Neopatriarch claims.
In conclusion, Schatz’s view has several problems. Among them:
- Schatz fails to take proper account of the context. Specifically, the verses that precede verses 11-12 where Paul is giving instructions for men and women (plural).
This is a false conclusion. I have shown from the context that Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers. Paul is also dealing with leadership and their improper way of handling opposition. Men are arguing with false teachers even in their public prayers, and the women are dealing with false teachers by asserting their godliness with the way that they are dressing. Neopatriarch has failed to show that Paul was stopping the deceived teachers AND the women. He has also failed to show that Eve’s deception had anything to do with the deception of all women.
- Schatz violates a basic principle of hermeneutics by making an interpretive key out of what many interpreters have recognized is an unclear verse (15). The clear verses should interpret the unclear.
It isn’t an “unclear verse” if one does not shoe-horn “all women” into verses 11, 12 and 14. When one just takes the grammar as it was written, verse 15 no longer remains “unclear.” However Neopatriarch’s view of what he calls “clear” verses makes verse 15 so “unclear” that we may as well round up all women and keep these deceived transgressing women away from the children. Oh, but that won’t do, because these deceived transgressing women are allowed to teach the children, right?
- Her conclusion that “she” refers to a specific woman and “they” refers to the woman and her husband follows from a false dilemma.
And what “false dilemma” would that be? That Timothy actually knows who the false teachers are and that Timothy knows that Paul is talking about? While we may have trouble with Paul’s writing to Timothy, surely it is a given that Timothy who lived in the situation knew exactly what Paul meant and Timothy was not confused by Paul’s words.
- Her explanation of the summary citation lacks the explanatory power of the patriarchalist interpretation, especially with respect to verse 13.
Oh my, since Neopatriarch has added to God’s Word throughout his explanation of verse 13 and made commands for Eve where no such commands exist and removed God’s ability to speak to Eve as well as Adam, I think that Neopatriarch is the one who lacks the explanatory power. His view has no foundation in Genesis, and it goes downhill from there.
- Her position naturally leads to an untenable conclusion that a wife and her husband are meant. Riley demonstrates that the grammatical and contextual clues necessary to establish this conclusion are absent.
There is no such thing as an “untenable conclusion” from my explanation. I assume that Neopatriarch read Riley’s paper. If he did he certainly should have known that Riley has not refuted my position. Riley does not deal with Paul talking about one couple.
Riley writes:
Those who spoke Greek did not think “Paul here is talking about wives not women, or husbands not men.”
This piece was written in 1993 and Riley was not refuting my position back in 1993. He was trying to refute a generic representation of all wives and all husbands which is not an uncommon position for some egalitarians to hold. This does not touch my argument. And for the record, I have no problem if there was a specific woman who was teaching a specific man who was not her husband. That just doesn’t seem realistic because single men didn’t normally talk to single women. But it doesn’t change my position at all about one particular man and one particular woman.
Neopatriarch, it is nice that you have tried once again to refute me but too bad that you have failed the second time. Next time you try, please email me so that I can get to your argument a little sooner. I have full confidence that you will not be able to come up with an argument that has any substance in it and my argument still stands strong and forceful by the fact that I use the inspired words and the inspired grammar as they are written without making “she” = “they.”
Back to the drawing board, my friend. I wish you well. Do keep me informed of your progress because it is always an interesting thing for me to watch what you will come up with next.
Cheryl Schatz
2009-10-01
Great point gengwall! He just “antecedent” himself past his own comfort zone and your point is well taken!
Cheryl Schatz
2009-10-01
Kay,
I think he should get some kind of award for that. I will see what I can do 🙂
Cheryl Schatz
2009-10-21
I would also recommend that when Neo posts another revision to his article that he notifies me here so that I can promptly address his concerns.
Thanks Neo!
Joey
2009-12-11
Hi Cheryl,
Yesterday I stumbled upon this discussion as I was surfing through http://www.christianinteldaily.com. This is very enlightening. I was intrigued by the fact that “childbearing” is a noun and not a verb! Research verifies this truth! I thought your interpretation of it was then helpful. Today I was preparing a sermon on Christmas and came across this:
“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against his Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word.”
-Irenaeus-
This seems to give credit to your understanding of what Paul is doing here. Eve was deceived but through the birth of a Child all are saved. Thanks for helping us come to terms with what is being said in these passages!
Joey
gengwall
2010-07-09
★
Holly – the KJV only debate is a whole ‘nother can of worms. It boils down to quantity vs. quality.
The Greek foundation of the KJV is called the “Received Text” because it was basically all we had “received” (very little) at the time of the translation. The term currently used for the same text with the addition of the many, many more manuscripts we now have available is “the Majority Text” because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts. Please note that the KJV has been updated a number of times since 1611 and we have a few other “Majority” based translations like the New King James.
The Greek foundation of almost all modern translations is based on just a few Greek manuscripts, but they are much older and more complete than what is used for the King James.
Now, three things you must know.
1) Even within a manuscript “family” there are variations. Not all of the King James based Greek manuscripts were completely in agreement which led to one of the major debates about the Greek leading up to the KJV, the inclusion of the so called (and extrabiblical IMO) “Johanine Comma” in 1 John 5:7-8. So, there are variations within and between families of manuscripts. That is why translators actually rely mostly on a consolodated Greek text to do their work, leaving the consolodation to other scholars. As mentioned above, that consolodated text for the KJV was the “Texus Receptus” (received text) which was compiled by Erasmus. Newer KJV-like bibles used the “Majority Text”. And all other modern translations use the Nestle-Aland text which uses those fewer but older and therefore presumably (in the view of the compilers at least) more reliable Greek sources. The bottom line is that no originals exist. Everything, even the oldest Greek manuscripts we have, are copies of copies of copies, often created hundreds of years after the original author penned his original gospel or letter.
2) Despite all of this variety, the manuscript evidence for the bible is far, far stronger than for any other ancient writting.
3) And even with the variation in the Greek sources, there is no variation in fundimental doctrines. It is not because of the Greek sources that we have these arguments, it is because of the introduction of cultural and editorial biases in the translation of those Greek sources.
That is why it is important to use a variety of translations – some literal (i.e. KJV or NASB), some semi-literal (i.e. NIV), and some paraphrase (i.e. NLT) when doing a deep study. If one finds discrepancies or even stark contradictions between translations, that is the time to go back to the Greek and, in essence, do some translating yourself.
There are many online resources that can help you, as well as hard copy resources. For hard copy translations of the NT, I have an 8 translation parallel bible (Get Here at Amazon). It includes KJV, NASB, NCV, CEV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, and The Message. For hard copy standard bible, I use the NASB, although as I noted above, it performs rather poorly on this passage. Online resources that many here use include http://www.blueletterbible.org which has really good multitranslation listings of verses, interlinear “view” (showing the Greek), and a great listing mechanism when you select a Greek or Hebrew word which shows all verses that use that word. Other people use http://www.studylight.org, which has an even better interlinear (Greek underneath English). For the best interlinear bible (both OT and NT) evah, we use http://www.scripture4all.org. You can also download thier interlinear bible as software with even greater functionality like a lexicon and search capabilities. It absolutely rocks and has been indispensible when it comes to understanding the underlying grammer (the Greek is fully parsed) and word order of a verse or passage. Oh, and this should make you happy, the current English translation being used is the good ole KJV (with the underlying Greek also being the “Received Text” which is the basis for the KJV).
gengwall
2010-07-09
Craig – I have just begun reading a book called “I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence” which basically is looking at the passage with the pagan situation in Ephesus that you refer to as the main focus. I have not read very far yet but I think that they are going to make the argument that Paul is dealing with bunches of people, not an individual couple. I’m not sure but that seems to be the direction they are heading. (BTW – anyone read this book?) That doesn’t necessarily preclude Paul from addressing one couple as an example of the larger group. (In essence, that is what comps say he is doing, although the “one” is Eve and the larger group is all women, or at least all Christian women within the setting of the church service. To me, the evidnece is clear that “the woman” and “she” in verse 14 and 15 can not be Eve, so I reject their notion).
The bottom line is we don’t have Timothy’s letter to Paul which prompted Paul to write. We simply can’t know for sure if there was only one couple involved or if one couple is emblematic of a broader problem. What we do know for sure is that “she” in verse 15 is a specific woman and she is not Eve, so the application of the prohibition of the passage to all women for all time is simply not supportable and the teaching that is involved must be false teaching.
Holly
2010-07-11
Thank you for the response Gengwell. Guess I’ve got much studying, reevaluating and praying to do.
God bless
Kay
2010-07-12
Cheryl,
Ditto gengwall@46!
Craig
2010-07-13
Sorry, I meant that as a question to check my understanding. I should have finished with -am I correct?
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-14
gengwall,
Happy Birthday!
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-14
Time for me to call it a night. My life has been turned upside down with the construction and I am exhausted. My whole yard now looks like this:
I am praying that we don’t get rain because we could have a giant mud bath.
Holly
2010-07-15
@71 TL
I have some excellent Bible research refuting the concept that Christ came in 70AD that I can dig out when I get home tonight.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-15
TL,
Looks like there are at least three of us without work being done on our yards that can be disruptive. Hopefully the mess will all turn out for the good for all.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-15
@75 Holly,
You said:
My “Women in Ministry – Silenced or Set Free” arrived yesterday! So excited *big grins*! I went to my parent’s home and got them both to watch the first DVD with me last night. That was an interesting experience. I’m taking it to my aunt’s place to watch again tonight… and then my sister’s tomorrow… I MIGHT get to the second DVD over the weekend! lol
I am happy that your DVDs arrived. Do you know how many people have told me that they watched the DVDs three times? More than I can count. It usually goes this way…they watch the first time to get the big picture. They watch the second time stopping and starting the DVDs so that they can look up each scripture I quote to make sure it is in context. Then the third time they watch again to pick up on all the things they missed the first time around. By the third time something just clicks and people tell me that they “get it”. I think it takes so many people three times because the DVDs are jam packed with information that it is difficult to absorb all of it at once.
One very precious lady wrote me how the first time she watched the DVDs she was angry. Then she watched again and she read all of the verses that we quoted in the NASB, in her KJV so that she could make sure that the quotes were accurate. The third time around she was in tears but joyful that she was finally released from what had bound her for so many years. She also shed tears for all the years that she had buried her calling knowing that it was too late for her. I cried when I read her testimony as I do when I read the testimony of those who had buried their calling and their heart felt purpose because they believe that God can’t use women to teach in public. When they write me how God used what I have written to set them free I feel so honored and humbled to be an instrument to touch people’s hearts. Only God can do that and He is still working today!
I would be interested to hear your story someday especially about the “interesting experience” watching the first DVD with your parents. I would venture to guess that they heard things that they had never considered before, but it may have been an uncomfortable experience for them.
Anyways I do encourage questions here or they can be placed on the DVD page at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/women-in-ministry-silenced-or-set-free-dvd/ which is also the tab at the very top which says DVD.
Blessings to you!
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-15
Oh and I got a break from being Bob(ette) the builder today so that I could catch up on some important ministry to-do’s. I still haven’t caught up, but I am working on it.
Craig
2010-07-17
Yes.
TL
2010-07-17
Holly, #91
That’s actually how I’ve always read it.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-17
Dave @90,
Sorry that your comment didn’t get posted right away. I just noticed it in my spam box. Not sure how it got there, but I can vouch for you. You are certainly not spam! 😉
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-17
Happy Belated Birthday Pastor Dave! And a graphic just for you:
Craig
2010-07-18
Holly @ 92,
Thanks very much in helping to clarify my question. Us men really do need you women to help us out 🙂
Holly
2010-07-18
Craig @ 104
It is a blessing to be of help 🙂
To everyone
This is a little off topic but I’ve just recently discovered a scientific fact that blew my mind.
It seems to me that a lot of these “authority” issues in Scripture come from the use of the term “head” and how we relate to the head in terms of the body. We assume that the “head” is the singular decision making organ of the body and by use of this head/body analogy the man who is the “head” must also be the decision maker in the one flesh unit.
The following is an excerpt from http://www.therealessentials.com/followyourheart.html
QUOTE:
Most of us have been taught that the heart is just a ten-ounce muscle that pumps blood and maintains circulation until we die. Medical science asserts that the brain rules all of the body’s organs, including the heart. However, it is interesting to note that the heart starts beating in the unborn fetus even before the brain has been formed.
Neuroscientists have recently discovered exciting new information about the heart that makes us realize it’s far more complex than we’d ever imagined. Instead of simply pumping blood, it may actually direct and align many systems in the body so that they can function in harmony with one another.
These scientists have found that the heart has its own independent nervous system – a complex system referred to as “the brain in the heart.” There are at least forty thousand neurons (nerve cells) in the heart – as many as are found in various subcortical centers of the brain.
The heart communicates with the brain and the rest of the body in three ways documented by solid scientific evidence: neurologically (through transmissions of nerve impulses), biochemically (through hormones and neurotransmitters), and biophysically (through pressure waves). In addition, growing scientific evidence suggests that the heart may communicate with the brain and body in a fourth way – energetically (through electromagnetic field interactions). Through these biological communication systems, the heart has a significant influence on the function of our brains and all our Systems.
This new scientific evidence shows that the heart uses these methods to send our brain extensive emotional and intuitive signals. Along with this understanding that the heart is in constant communication with the brain, scientists are discovering that our hearts may actually be the “intelligent force” behind the intuitive thoughts and feelings we all experience.
END QUOTE
I’ve always read verses such as Proverbs 23:7, “For as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he,” and not given it too much thought… until now!
Kay
2010-07-19
Holly@110,
A very quick response –
Titus 2:3 – “Older women (presbutidas)…”should teach (kalodidaskalous) that which is good”
Craig
2010-07-20
- Also Holly, if the barring was for speaking to men “in public” that would make Cheryl’s interpretation of just a husband/wife issue at home more likely.
Kay
2010-07-20
Craig & gengwall,
God bless your hearts!!
Holly
2010-07-20
TL @127
The Blue Letter Bible Lexicon says the word in that verse is “hypotasso” and not “hypotassomenas”?
TL
2010-07-20
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/tit2.pdf
The Blue Letter Bible is only giving you the root word. Hupotassomenas is a form of the word. Endings indicate things like tense. Check the Scripture 4 All link above.
Holly
2010-07-20
So how do I know whether the Greek words given in a Lexicon are the right word or not?
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-20
★
Craig @103
You said:
I can see the context of false teaching in ch1 and 2 and clearly relate this to 2:11-15. Your argument from v14,15 concerning a particular woman and man seems conclusive to me.
How would you relate 3:14,15 to 2:11-15?
I would relate 1 Timothy 3:14, 15 first of all back to chapter 1 verse 3. Timothy was left behind to stop the false teaching and the false teachers. The topic of deception is a major topic in 1 Timothy and Paul is concerned that he may be delayed in coming to Timothy’s aid and so he writes his instructions to Timothy so that he has them in case Paul is delayed. So Paul’s instructions are specifically to Timothy regarding situations in Ephesus which Paul had the intention of coming to help Timothy deal with regarding deception.
In 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul says that if he is delayed he has this letter so that “you” (Timothy) may know how to conduct himself (literally “yourself” singular) in the house of God which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
If the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, then this is the “hospital” where the “sick” (deceived) people are to get well. Deceived people need to learn the truth and the mature people in the church need to facilitate healing.
Notice that Paul didn’t say that he is writing so that “you” (plural) will know how to conduct yourselves. He said that he wrote so that Timothy may know how to conduct himself. With the instructions from the letter, Timothy should be able to understand that he is to make sure that the woman of verses 11 & 12 of chapter 2 is to learn and stop her private teaching. Timothy should also be aware that he is to command and teach that the living God is the Savior of all men (1 Tim. 4:10, 11) and thus Timothy is to teach that those who have been deceived are also able to be saved. It doesn’t appear that any of the leadership of Ephesus was doing anything to help the woman of 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 and it is possible that they believed that the deceived are not able to be saved. Timothy is to correct this mindset and Paul has encouraged Timothy to believe that even the one difficult case of the special false teacher who is a woman will result in her salvation with someone walking alongside her in the faith.
Timothy is also encouraged that in the body of Christ, he is not to let anyone look down on his youth. While he will be referring back to Paul’s will in the situation (Paul saying I am not allowing…) Timothy will still be acting in Christian maturity and no one should despise his mature actions in spite of his young age. Thus Timothy is to be an example to the believers in word, in conduct and in love (1 Tim 4:12).
Timothy is to conduct himself in the body of Christ by feeding the body who desperately needs the milk and meat of the Word to combat deception (1 Tim. 4:13) and Timothy is also to give of his special gift and give himself entirely to the body (1 Tim. 4:14, 15). Timothy is also supposed to pay attention to doctrine and to continue on this road for doing so will ensure salvation for himself and for all those who will hear him:
1 Timothy 4:16 (NAS)
16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.
Paul’s encouragement to Timothy regarding Paul’s instructions to him regarding the body of Christ and those who desperately need salvation because of their deception, keeps coming up again and again. It relates to the false deceived teachers of chapter 1 and to the specific problem teacher in chapter 2.
Unfortunately some have seen chapter 3 as a church manual telling all of us how we are to act in the church. Those who hold to this understanding have forgotten who the letter was written to and Paul’s specific inspired words that are in the singular not the plural in 1 Tim. 3:15. While we can learn a whole bunch of good truth in the book of 1 Timothy, we must understand that it was specifically written to Timothy and when people fail to realize this and they make universal applicatiosn out of this letter when Paul is giving specific instructions to Timothy about a specific situation in Ephesus, they open themselves up to confusion and bad doctrine that stifles and holds back God’s women.
Craig, I hope that I have answered this one the way that you need to hear it. If I have miss judged your question, please feel free to poke and prod until you get what you need.
It is important to remember for all here that questions are welcome on this blog and there are no stupid questions. In fact your questions help me to learn and understand where I need to dig deeper myself and say things that way others need to hear answers so that they too can understand.
Well, that was a longer answer than I anticipated. I will have to leave the rest of the comments until tomorrow. My mind is falling asleep fast. Getting older really is a pain.
Jennifer
2010-07-21
TL, you’re brilliant!
TL
2010-07-21
Jennifer, that is very sweet of you to say that. 🙂
Craig
2010-07-22
Thanks again everyone for all the time and effort you put into your comments in answering my questions in such a helpful way. I appreciate it very much.
Kay
2010-07-22
gengwall,
I’m so sorry to hear this. Please let your wife know that our prayers are with them.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-23
★
Craig,
Thanks for thinking out loud and answering your own question! Your answer is very good. I would only add an answer that is referenced in the passage but Paul saying (vs 14) And it was not Adam who was deceived…
Connect this together with the original account and you have God’s assessment of Adam’s non-deceptive state when God says:
Genesis 3:17 (NAS) Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have ….
Hear God pronounces a curse on the land for two reasons. The first and most important reason for the curse is Adam’s listening to the voice of his wife. Notice that God didn’t say that Adam listened to his wife (as if she had commanded him) but that he listened to her voice. Vine’s complete expository dictionary gives this basic definition for the Hebrew word used for “listening”:
Basically, this verb means to “hear” something with one’s ears, but there are several other nuances. In Gen. 37:17, a man told Joseph that he “heard” Joseph’s brothers say, “Let us go to Dothan”; in other words, he unintentionally “overheard” them say it. Shama? can also be used of “eavesdropping, or intentionally listening in on a conversation; so Sarah “overheard” what the three men said to Abram (Gen. 18:10). Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W. (1996). Vol. 1: Vine’s complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (pg 107).
Adam’s “hearing” of Eve’s voice was the conversation with the serpent. It was an intentional listening in on a conversation but it was not an intentional correction to the lie that she was being fed. Adam remained silent.
The fact is that God knew Adam’s internal state and that Adam was not deceived. He also knew that Adam listened to the conversation between Eve and the serpent. Lastly He knew that Adam did not act for Eve’s benefit or for God’s benefit by saving Eve from the lie. Rather he allowed another human being to be ensnared by the enemy in his own watch. Adam was the watchman on the wall and the deliberate abdication of his watch by refusing to use his knowledge to benefit another and refusing to snatch them from the fire through his knowledge, an action which God identified as treachery in Hosea 6:7, was also identified by God as the initial reason why God brought a curse on the earth because of Adam’s sin.
So is Adam’s silence of vital importance to the text in 1 Timothy 2:12-15? Absolutely! Adam was not deceived. Adam listened without acting on his state of non-deception. God cursed the earth for the first reason that Adam listened without action.
What’s the moral of the story? We are responsible for what we know and staying silent with our knowledge in the face of deception brings God’s disfavor. And what is the correction of the specific problem in Ephesus? It is fixed with his participation (thus the importance of “they” in verse 15).
I will bring up one more point in answer to another person’s question later.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-23
★
@163 Kristen,
You said:
But I still have some questions. First, are there any articles in Koine Greek equivalent to the English “this” or “that”?
Yes. Houtos means this and you can find this word in Acts 6:13:
Acts 6:13 (NAS) They put forward false witnesses who said, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law;
Here it is a demonstrative pronoun.
In other words, I have had trouble believing that Paul would say simply “woman” (which is translated “a woman”) when what he meant was “that woman.”
It isn’t necessary in Greek to say “this” woman or “that” woman. In Acts 6:13 the demonstrative pronoun was used to identify which man was the culprit and their anger also was a reason to use the term “this man”. But Paul is not standing beside the woman to say “this woman” as if there were many options. Timothy did not need Paul to name her, nor did he need Paul to say “this” woman, not “that” one. The problem woman teacher was a clearly identifiable issue to both of them.
Here is another case where Paul identifies a specific man without saying “the man” or “this man”:
2 Corinthians 12:2 (NAS) I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven.
Most interpret this as Paul as the unidentified “man”. The Greek term is anthropos which means person or it can mean a generic man. But in this passage we can understand that Paul isn’t saying that any man was caught into heaven. It was a specific man but Paul did not want to name him and most people that he didn’t name him because it was Paul himself. If Paul isn’t going to identify himself, and he wants the “man” to remain unnamed, then he isn’t going to say, I know “this” man in Christ…
In English, we can say “a woman” can or can’t do something, and mean it collectively, even though the construction is singular. It is my understanding that this can also occur in ancient Greek– which is the source of my reservations. Generally when we mean a specific unnamed person, we say “this person” not “a person.”
A person without the definite article in Greek can mean a generic person or a specific person. It depends on the context.
But if the Greek doesn’t have a way to say “this person” or “that person,” that would make sense.
It does have the word for “this” but not only is it not necessary, but it would be used in person, not so much in writing. Timothy for sure knew who she was.
I know you mentioned that in 1 Cor 5, Paul says “a man has his father’s wife,” and is referring to a specific man– but in the Greek, the word “man” does not appear in this passage. The phrase is not “aner has his father’s wife,” but actually says “someone has his father’s wife.” So I’m wondering if anywhere else in the New Testament, the word “man” or “woman” by itself can be used to refer to a specific man or woman when the context does not make it clear.
In 2 Cor 12:2 that was given above, the “person” or “a man” is on the same level as 1 Timothy 2:12. In the Timothy passage, we can know that the woman is a specific woman because of the specific grammar in verses 14 & 15. In the 2 Cor. 12:2 passage, we can know it is a specific man because Paul says in verse 5 that he is boasting on behalf of that man.
Notice also in this passage that the terms 2 Cor. 12:2, 3, 5 “such a man” is used three times. This is the same term as 1 Cor 5:1.
More to come….
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-23
@136 TL,
Great answer to Holly. I too like to check out lots of lexicons and I like Scott and Liddell for the same reason that you like it.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-23
I will have to finish my responses tomorrow. Good night all.
Craig
2010-07-24
Thanks Cheryl for your help and encouragement 🙂
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-24
You are welcome. I love to help anytime I am able! 😉
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-26
Kristen,
That is a good comment as well and one that goes along with my next post that I am working on right now.
gengwall
2010-07-28
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.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-07-29
★
@207 gengwall
I think I failed to congratulate you on thinking outside the box. Even if your view does not agree with mine, the fact that you are thinking for yourself and considering all the options is a wonderful and commendable thing. Good going!
You said:
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.
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.
So let’s have a closer look at the changes within the text. Paul goes from plural to singular. Is the plural generic for all women in verse 10?
1 Timothy 2:10 (NAS)
10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.
This is a statement about all women “who are making a claim to godliness”. It appears that these are women who claim to have maturity and are godly examples of the faith.
The women in vs. 10 needed a correction for behavior in the worship service that was inhibiting the spread of the gospel.
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?
Vs. 11 has nothing to do with that at all. Verse 10 is a wrap up; vs. 11 is a beginning.
I agree. Verse 10 is about a general “kind” that are claiming godliness and verse 11 is about a woman who has a need to become a disciple and to learn from instruction.
Is verses 11 & 12 about a general “kind” of woman who is deceived and who needs to stop teaching her husband her errors and who needs to learn while verse 14 is about a specific woman who is called “the woman”? This would seem a bit odd if we consider that only one is said to be still in the transgression and results of it. 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? If that would be the case, then there would be no reason for a generic example needed. 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.
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? Would it not also be true that all of those who have been deceived would be eligible for mercy from God if they all submitted to learning the truth, and all were helped with a mentor who would walk alongside them in staying in the truth, staying true to a love for God and living a holy life for God by staying away from the error?
If Paul is indeed giving this example so that we can be sure that God has not rejected those who are lost in the cults and in aberrant movements, then wouldn’t it be contradictory of Paul to turn around and say that we can ignore some because we can judge some who have been deceived as unworthy to receive mercy? I just don’t think that fits.
So we are back to why did Paul use the singular in verses 11 & 12 without the definite article and then choose to use the definite article in verse 14? Here is what I think. I believe that his pattern has been to not use the definite article when the context is clear to the audience that a specific person is in mind. When Paul went from the plural to the singular, he made a switch to those who are going to be part of the solution (those who claim godliness) to the problem teacher who needs teaching herself. There is no doubt in my mind that Timothy knew exactly who this teacher was that he was to stop from teaching. However there is a complication in verse 14 that seems to require a definite article.
In verse 13 Paul has named Eve in connection to Adam. He does this because the problem in the garden directly correlates to the problem in Ephesus with this one woman. But Paul is now going to add the woman into the equation showing Timothy that the seriousness of her situation is just like what was going on with Eve. So where we would expect Paul to use Eve with Adam in verse 14, here Paul switches from the original problem that existed in now dead people, as an overlay to the current problem with an alive person. In order to make sure that Timothy understands the direct connection and that he isn’t talking about Eve but the specific woman, he contrasts the dead with the living by specifically identifying her as “the” woman and then uses grammar that shows that the effects of her transgression are on-going.
So I think that the unexpected use of the definite article is the area that we should concentrate on and why Paul used the definite article when he has in the past used no article when he was identifying a specific person.
Lastly I think that if “woman” of verse 12 was not a specific woman that was doing a specific thing with a specific man then Paul’s command to Timothy had no real teeth since it would be an “if” command instead of a definite command to do something. In other words if Paul was using generic terms like any woman who is deceived needs to learn and to stop teaching her husband, the question would be why Paul would give a command regarding potentially deceived women. It wasn’t his modus operandi to give out commands for “what if’s”. His commands seem to be about specifics.
Paul also didn’t give up on people seeing them as unable to be saved very easily. He did treat the deceivers differently than the deceived but the deceivers were not turned over to the church to be taught. They were turned over to satan and it was the deceived who were turned over to the church to be taught.
So if your alternate suggestion is true, one would have to explain
-
Why would Paul command regarding possible scenarios?
-
Was “the woman” from verse 14 & 15 also to be commanded not to teach her husband? How could we be sure if verse 12 was only about “if” situations?
-
Why would there not be a generic “woman” who was still in the transgression and the results of that transgression in verse 14? Why would Paul seem to teach that any woman could be deceived, but it is only “one” woman who is still in the transgression?
-
Why would Paul who was confident that those who were deceived in unbelief be eligible for mercy turn around and deny that all but one was eligible for mercy by making the “she” of verse 15 about only one woman?
I think that making the woman of verses 11 & 12 to be any woman who is deceived takes the punch out of Paul’s command and makes the passage less clear and with irreconcilable problems about who can be saved. This is why I hold to the thought that the singular is a consistent change to a specific example of one particular woman and one particular man. It just fits the verses without the problems that making a generic woman out of “she” and then changing the “she” in verse 15 to be specific.
And if the “she” in verse 15 is the specific woman of verse 14 PLUS the unspecified generic woman of verses 11 & 12, the “they” of verse 15 becomes very confusing. We can make “they” the specific woman of verse 14, but who would “they” be that must walk with her to help to assure her salvation? “The” woman of verse 15 isn’t connected to “the” man and we can’t assume that “any” woman who is a false, deceived teacher has a husband who is a believer. But if verses 11 & 12 are about one woman and one man, then the example that Paul gives of the very first husband and wife in the garden, and the fact that it is only “she” whose salvation is in question, shows that this one couple are exactly like Adam and Eve. She is deceived. He is silent. She is in need of true knowledge. He has the truth and has done nothing with it.
Jennifer
2010-07-29
So, Gengwall: basically, you’re an egal who believes that Paul was basically saying that all women should not practice false teaching/dominion over their husbands?
Jennifer
2010-07-29
I’m simply trying to confirm where you stand. Are you an egal who believes women are not forbidden to teach men?
gengwall
2010-07-30
I am. I’m still not sure why that is in doubt, but…..moving on….
Cheryl Schatz
2010-08-01
★
@227 Kristen,
You asked:
Would Paul really be saying that only those women who claim to have maturity and are godly examples, should be dressing modestly? That only they should be focusing on inner character rather than outward adornment– while those women in the church who are immature Christians are exempt?
I believe that Paul is specifically pointing out the ways that godly women are to show their godliness. While proper dressing can be applicable to all of us, we can let things go with new converts or those who are not even Christians yet. For example if a man thought that the expression of his spiritual maturity was a leather jacket, but he wasn’t spiritual without that leather jacket, then this is where he could have some instruction on the proper way to express his godly maturity.
Remember that the clothing was not immodest as if it is revealing or skimpy clothing. It is way overdone “call attention to me” clothing that seeks to show godliness through stand-out clothing rather than from an inner character. Those who were not yet saved would not have a restriction on their clothing so that they couldn’t come to the gathering with elaborate hairstyles. That would be overlooked for those who are not yet Christians or who may be immature yet in their faith. But those who claim maturity need to know how to express spiritual maturity through ways other than elaborate clothing.
It seems to me that Paul is talking about all the women in the church here, as he was talking about all the men a verse earlier. Just as the men are to “lift holy hands,” the women are to dress modestly.
Paul uses the definite article “the men” and the term “holy” hands is “of persons who live right before God holy, devout, dedicated” from the Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament.
These too are ones claiming that they are holy, living rightly, setting the example. Paul tells both the men and women who are claiming holiness how to express that maturity outwardly. While there are a lot of things that all can learn here, I do believe that Paul is specifically talking to leadership, both men and women, and not to those who do not yet have a mature Christian lifestyle where they could claim to have “holy” hands.
I’m not sure whether or not Paul is making a correction to the Ephesian church’s behavior or not. I think he’s simply saying, “In order to be a good witness to the surrounding culture, the men should have “holy hands” and the women should have “holy dress.”
I don’t think that Paul is talking about outside of the Christian gatherings. I don’t think he is telling the men to walk down the streets lifting up “holy hands” nor that women cannot wear elaborate dress and elaborate hair styles at any time or any place. But in the family of God that gathers together there is an appropriate way for those who claim godliness to express that godliness. The term for women expressing “godliness” is piety, reverence for God, God-fearing. Both terms used for the men and women are a claim to a strong devout faith.
Then in regards to whether the generic is used in 1 Tim. 2:11, 12 you said:
It could be as you say– but the examples you have given so far– “I know a man who was caught up to the third heaven,” for example– seem to always contain some kind of qualifier: a “who” statement that MAKES the context clear. I agree that possibly Paul was simply referring to this one woman both in verses 11 and 12 and in verse 14– but then (when it comes to verse 11, at least) we lose the strength of “let a woman learn!” as a POLICY.
I understand that this is what complementarians claim Paul is saying – that there is a policy being made here of letting women learn rather than excluding them as the Jews did. The problem with this is that if Paul is talking generically about all women, it would seem that there is a new policy being created as if there has been a policy like the Pharisees who didn’t let women learn. But this has not been the case. Jesus always had female disciples and Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 14 that the spiritual gifts were to be used by all so that all may learn. There was a general acceptance that all disciples learned together and a woman’s learning was never segregated from the men. Paul said nothing in 1 Timothy 2 about anybody stopping women from learning so it doesn’t seem to fit that a new policy is being created that will let women now learn the Scriptures. It is only as a solution to the problem (learning doctrine solves the problem of deception) that letting her learn is emphasized as deception is the very reason for the prohibition that follows.
We also lose the “this is nothing personal, I’m not singling her out” idea that I think may very well be what Paul is saying here.
If that is the case then all women were stopped from teaching because of verse 12 so that no woman would be singled out. I don’t think this works with the complete context of the passage. Complementarians have forced a generic rendering of this passage and this has been the problem. When no difference is seen between the “women” from verse 10 and “a woman” from verse 11, verse 15 cannot make proper sense but becomes a sore thumb force-fit into the passage.
I do think that in verses 14 and 15 Paul is definitely talking about this one woman’s situation, this one woman’s salvation, and this one couple’s need to walk in sanctification.
But how then can one have a specific prohibition to all with one woman’s situation? How does her problem relate to what all women are forbidden from doing?
I hope that makes it clearer why I like Gengwall’s interpretation so much.
Well I am glad for gengwall’s sake that he has a good supporter. He has not convinced me at all because I see way to many inconsistencies and problems with that view. He will have to work out the problems to be convince me that there is more than one way to see this passage.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-08-02
TL,
What would be especially odd is to make a generic person the brunt of a very real prohibition.
Cheryl Schatz
2010-08-02
gengwall,
I’m going to step back for a bit and try to pull out all the straw I find suddenly attached to me.
Ah@! No way, don’t leave!
Let’s discuss the meaning of generic woman. K?
Cheryl Schatz
2010-08-02
Maybe we could help Paul out. How could we word it so that it is a “class” less than a generic woman?
Cheryl Schatz
2010-08-03
Kristen,
“Teach” and “authentein” are both connected to deception. I do not believe that authentein describes the kind of teaching, but that authentein and teaching in this case are both verbs that are showing how deception was being expressed.
For example look at the parallel to Rev. 2:20-
Revelation 2:20 (NAS) ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.
Here we see the same construction where two verbs are joined together by a conjunction. Now Jezebel was not teaching in a leading way as if it was okay for her to teach but just not in a leading way. She was teaching immorality and leading in immorality.
God is not saying in Rev. 2:20 that all women are not allowed to teach or lead a congregation. He is saying that the immorality that is expressed in her teaching and immorality was a sin. I believe that Rev. 2:20 has the very same connection to sinful error as 1 Timothy 2:12. The only difference is that the term “authentein” is so unusual a term that it is found only in this verse (1 Timothy 2:12) in the entire Bible so we cannot completely put our finger on what was being forbidden other than the term always has a negative identity in secular sources and the prohibition that includes “authentein” is connected to deception.
Now as far as the challenge that gengwall gave me regarding why Paul would use the term “woman” without the definite article first before he introduced “the” woman in 1 Timothy 2:14, I have found the answer. It is a linguistic term called an anaphoric reference and I just made a new article explaining this here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/08/03/a-woman-anaphoric/
I hope this helps.
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more