Cheryl Schatz

Hi Kristen,
While I was working on my response, you responded to Craig which I did not see. I have only a little time left this morning, so I will answer this one and then have to leave.

You said:

Craig, my understanding is that the way the verse is set up, the way the structure works in the Greek, is that it could either be read “I do not permit a woman to teach and I do not permit a woman to authentein a man” OR it could be read “I do not permit a woman to teach-authentein a man.”

The second option is not correct. There are two verbs that are joined together with a conjunction. The conjunction cannot be ignored and I have not seen a Greek manuscript without the conjunction. Therefore the two verbs are two activities and not one activity with a modifier. Comps have pointed this out for a long time and I have to agree with them. If Paul had wanted to say otherwise the grammar would have to be different. I believe that it is very important that we do not change the grammar to support our view, but that our view changes to match what is already there. I know that there are some high level egals that have taken the approach that it is one activity that is forbidden, but I have never seen an proof that they have a leg to stand on. We need to be fully honest with the text and let it say what it says whether we like it or not. There is a reason why there are two things forbidden and the reason is deception and the harm that teaching deception brings.

“Teach-authentein” would, in that case, mean something along the lines of “teach in such a way as to authentein a man.”

You are right. But the problem is that this is not what the grammar says. Not unless you are willing to take a scissors and cut out the little conjunction word. It must be considered and cannot be ignored.

The one thing that the Greek syntax does NOT support is “I do not permit a woman to teach a man or to authentein a man.” Either both verbs take the object, or only “authentein” does.

It is pretty obvious that both actions are directed towards the man. Paul certainly couldn’t be saying that it is not right for a woman to authentein a man but okay for a woman to authentein a woman. I think you would agree with me here.

So it is not that the women (or woman; I do think that is a very viable reading) are being told not to teach men (or “a man”). They are either being told not to teach in such a way as to authentein a man, or they are being told not to teach at all.

This simply does not hold up to the inspired grammar. It is two verbs, not one. And the object fits both the actions that are joined together by a conjunction.

These things are very important because if we don’t actually work with the grammar as it is, what comp is going to listen to us? While we may not know 100% what authentein means, we can know what is being forbidden. The question should be “who” is “a woman” that is forbidden from doing these bad things and “why” is she being singled out? Since we already know that the stopping of false teaching is the key to why Timothy was left in Ephesus, all we need to know is “who” is Paul talking about and “why” is the situation in chapter 2 any different than chapter 1 so that he needed to clearly explain to Timothy about silencing a teacher and why Paul was so confident that she would be saved. I think that when we look for the “who” and “why” we won’t have a problem with the exact grammar that lists two forbidden things that are joined together with a conjunction.

Another note, I wonder why these same teachers who are insisting that Paul has one action in mind are not saying that same thing about Jezebel in the book of Revelation? Was Jesus unhappy with the church allowing her to do two things or one? If it is two as the grammar shows, then why are not these same teachers insisting it is only one thing just as they do in 1 Timothy 2:12? That really confuses me. I would really like to know.

I don’t think it makes sense to say that even an uneducated woman cannot teach at all– 1 Cor 14 says that ANYONE can have “a teaching.”

I agree. It is amazing at how some “uneducated” people can have a real gift of wisdom in teaching. However misunderstanding something and the need to be educated in the truth is another matter and I think that is what Paul is getting at in chapter 1. Formal education in schooling is not a requirement but proper understanding of God’s truth is very important.

If Paul had meant “they cannot teach at all as long as they’re teaching false doctrine,” I think he would have said that.

I think he did say that with this one woman. He very strongly implies this by the question of her salvation. When Paul says she will be saved “if”… we know that her salvation is future not at the time that Paul was writing.

Therefore, I think the reading is the second ,”I do not permit a woman to teach in such a way as to authentein a man.”

This reading simply does not fit the grammar. If you really do believe that it does, please educate me. Give me a grammar source two verbs joined together by one conjunction can be one action that is modified by the other verb. Honestly, I have never seen it and I want to be faithful to the grammar.

This I find interesting:

As for the “they” and “she” pronouns, I believe it is possible to read the passage in terms of “she” being Eve (as representative of all womankind, and therefore able to be referred to in a form of present tense)

Can you explain to me how a dead woman can be saved in the future as a representative of all womankind?

and “they” being the offspring of her childbearing; ie, her Christian daughters in the church whom Paul is talking about.

Can you explain to me how what all Christian daughters in the church will accept the salvation of Eve? How would what they do bring the salvation of all womankind? This doesn’t make sense to me. Can you explain this?

That is, the sin of Eve is reversed (“she” is “saved”) for women if “they” (Eve’s daughters) continue in faith, etc.

I don’t understand this at all. It wasn’t Eve’s sin that was passed on to all of us and is doing good things able to change the past? Will my faith in Jesus change Eve or her destiny? How can this be?

I have found, though, that presenting Cheryl’s reading in certain circles often results in frank incredulity and even mockery.

Sure. But no one yet has presented a viable hole in my argument. In fact I once presented my argument to a huge group of men many of whom were pastors and I asked them to find a hole in my argument. Not a single one of them could find a viable hole. Now if my view was so laughable, then I wonder why no one has been able to refute it? In fact the argument has grown stronger through the years as I have learned more about the surrounding verses that I had not known before and because I have learned about specific grammar that applies to my argument that I was unaware of before. Laugh if they may, but my take is that those who laugh do so because it is easier to laugh than to try to refute the “error”.

This alternate reading at least presents another possibility for those who refuse to accept that “a woman” could mean one individual, and who therefore cling to their complementarian interpretation.

I would agree with this if it matched the grammar. I am very uncomfortable with accepting as a possibility a reasoning that has so many holes and which must change the grammar to make it fit. I just want what fits the grammar and the inspired words and if someone can refute my view and can show how the inspired grammar does not fit, then they would be doing me a favor if I am indeed wrong.

Okay back to work for me. The day is long advancing and I have so much ministry work to do.

Thanks Kristen for taking me on and working hard to work through these very tough verses! The truth worth working hard to reason through.