LNE

I have read Payne’s book and I think there are some misunderstanding about his arguments he[re.

1](logos4:///Bible/Re 1). Payne says that the present INDICATIVE form of “I am not permitting” is what makes him feel it is a time-bound situation, since he examines other uses by Paul of his use of “I” followed by an indicative verb and finds that most, if not all situations like this reveal a present non-universal desire of Paul’s (particularly throughout 1 Cor 7 and in Philippians once).
He stresses the importance of the “indicative” form, not that the present tense alone is what makes it limited.

2. The example from Rev 2:20-22 is not Pauline, but written by John, and does not use “oude” (but rather “kai” to connect the verbs in Rev 2:20) ” nor the “ouk, oude” construction that Payne argues is used in specific ways by Paul that is different than how other writers of the Scripture use the same construction. He analyzes every instance of the “not, nor” or “ouk, oude” constructions from Paul to make his argument that they are used in this instance, as well as the other similar instances, to make a single prohibition.
   His argument hinges on how Paul alone uses this vocabulary (which he maintains is different than even how Luke uses “oude” in Acts), and the “oude” word, so the Revelations passage is not precisely relevant to his argument since it is not Pauline and has no “oude”.

Also, I think you could make the “teach” and “lead astray” activities that Jezebel is doing into one activity, “leading astray by teaching”, though this is just my opinion and I don’t know if that is proper to do or not.

3. I think Payne believes Paul prohibited all women from assuming personal authority to teach in Ephesus for a limited time because he believes the false teachers were targeting and deceiving women moreso than any other group in 1 Tim, based on what the rest of the letter says about false teaching and how widows were going astray, and using evidence from similar texts in 2 Tim. I don’t think he sees authentein as “dominate” or as something utterly negative all the time, but rather taking authority into one’s own hands to do something without delegation. I think he might say there are times when this is okay, and that authentein is not always a bad thing, but it would be in this case because of the current false teaching problem.

4. I don’t think he would say that because women are not to do this (teach+assume authority) to men in this instance, that they can do it to women and children, but rather that Paul was explicitly speaking of women doing this to men because that’s what the problem was at the time. Just because “a woman” (or women in general in Payne’s view) is singled out as the one who is not to teach nor usurp authority (or assume authority) over a man, that doesn’t mean that all believers weren’t prohibited from it as well.
   In 1 Tim 2:8-9, men are told to pray without wrath and “reasoning” (referred to in English translations as wrangling/doubting/dissension, but the word itself can often just mean reasoning or thinking, oddly enough. Sometimes its not negative… like the word to “teach”. Hmm, so I guess men can’t reason or think when they pray, huh? No, but that’s similar to how comps interpret “teach”, that it must be positive teaching in 1 Tim 2:12.), and the women are told not to dress opulently and immodestly (which would almost certainly apply to men as well). Sometimes Paul just likes to emphasize things for one person or group without it applying only to that person or group because certain ones are causing the current problem.

That said, I really wish Payne would have addressed the grammar in a similar fashion as you do, specifically the abrupt switch from plural to singular to plural again at the end. There is no need for using singular language in order to compare all women to Eve, since in 2 Cor 11:3 Paul compares the whole Corinthian Church to Eve with the plural “you”.

Payne did briefly say he believed that the singulars in 1 Tim 2:11-14 are referring to each woman/all women as generics, but he did not explore this in any depth in my opinion, and he didn’t really defend his stance on this either.
He also didn’t talk about the ramifications of the perfect tense of “has become” from verse 14 much at all, or the future tense of “she will be saved” to my recollection.

I’d really like to have a Ph.D like Dr. Payne confirm that the perfect tense of the woman having “become” a transgressor really must rule out Eve as being “the woman” of verse 14, and that the “she” of verse 15 cannot refer to Eve because of the future tense of “she will be saved”. But I know Dr. Payne had to drastically cut the size of his book nearly in half in order to please Zondervan, so this may have been cut.
It really seems like no egal scholar ever brings this up nor desires to take a stab at the grammar in their books… why is that? You’d think some Greek scholar would have taken up this position by now.

Yet I know many Christian scholars are comps, so they probably don’t want these verses to be re-thought or changed in any way. Like many other poor choices by “scholars” in regards to women in the Bible and translations, they seem to just want to keep the traditions of the reformers instead of being painstakingly literal and “true” to the text and grammar.

My take on these verses is that I think God, through Paul, is prohibiting false teaching by a singular, unnamed, but definite woman, probably in conjunction with usurping authority over a man, but it could be two separate prohibitions as well.

As an aside, I think it’s false teaching being prohibited, despite the word being the generic word for “teach” (didasko) instead of “teach differently’ (heterodidaskaleo), because I have found that heterodidaskaleo is only used twice in the entire NT, and didasko, the generic verb for teaching used in 1 Tim 2:12, is used seven times in Scripture for what the speakers of the words in the verse believed was false teaching (eight if you count 1 Tim 2:12).
Examples: Rev 2:14, Rev 2:20, Titus 1:11, Acts 21:28 (the teaching in this case was actually right teaching, some may protest. But the Jews who were railing against Paul in this passage, used this word for his teaching, though they believed he was teaching falsehood. Yet they still used didasko to describe it.), Acts 5:25 (similarly with the last one, the teaching was actually true, but it was viewed as evil by the people who called it simply “didaskontes”.), Mark 7:7(Matt 15:9 parallel), Matt 5:19.

So clearly, the word “didasko” and it’s derivatives can be used for false teaching, even in Paul’s pastorals, and the verb heterodidaskaleo is not required, nor is it often used (never used outside of 1 Tim in fact). Whether “to teach” is a good thing or not is determined by context and other words around the verb “to teach”.

Back to my interpretation of 1 Tim 2:11-15: Because the context seems to demand that she (“the woman”, and “a woman” who may be anartherous) is a deceived woman as Eve was, and is in her transgression still, if Eve cannot be “the woman” from verse 14 because of the grammar, then it’s false teaching that is prohibited, and not true teaching. That would make “a woman”=”the woman”, instead of the traditional view that “a woman”= each/all women, “the woman”= Eve + each/all women, and “she”= Eve + each/all women being the ones who “will be saved through The Childbirth”, if “they”(which also = all women) stay in true faith.

The “they” that must remain in faith in order to save the “she” of verse 15 seems to have to be the man + woman of verse 12, not “all women” from verse 10 which is not directly connected to these verses, though I don’t know if it could be or not since I am not a Greek expert. I know there is no linking particle between verse 10 and 11, but the verses do seem to be linked by the topic of women/a woman. They could be at least.

I believe God used the passage about Priscilla and Aquila taking aside Apollos in Acts 18:26 to help me understand that a singular man and a singular woman together can become the plural “they”, like in this passage, and that this is the most natural reading of the 1 Tim 2 passage. I always thought importing verse 10’s “women”(plural) was the natural way to deal with verse 15’s “they”, not realizing man + woman seems to be the better option.

I’m still trying to understand the link between Adam’s prior formation and Eve’s latter formation and Adam’s not being deceived, since it just isn’t elaborated on in the passage. Is it because, as you say, Adam had more time to learn from God and therefore was not deceived, that his prior formation was important to mention?
It seems like a plausible suggestion, but it’s not really brought up by anyone one else I know, nor is there a similar comparison elsewhere in scripture that makes Adam “not deceived” because of his having more knowledge and experience with God than Eve, due to him having been made first. But then, there isn’t a whole lot on Adam and Eve compared to each other in the NT at all, and I certainly agree that Adam clearly has more experience than Eve when it comes to seeing God’s works and majesty because of what God did with him before Eve was made. That is true, at least, if we go by just what is told to us in Scripture (which we have to I think). I don’t see that as straining the text at all.

However, like Payne asserts, is Adam’s prior formation relevant because women should show respect for their “source” (male headship as “sourceship”) which requires a woman to honor man and not teach him with assumed authority, (as should man a woman, because she is his source now, similarly to the argument from 1 Cor 11 about mutual “sourceship”)?
And then there is the comp view, that Adam is given authority to rule over Eve simply because he was made first (not entirely because of the fall and Eve’s sin), which I see as a possible conclusion if firstborn=headship=ruling authority, though I don’t think “head” has been proven to mean “rulership” or “authority” definitively in the New Testament.
Also, I don’t think firstborn sons had “rulership” over their siblings simply because they were first born, they just got more inheritance. Didn’t many latter-born’s rule over their older siblings in religious, political, and social matters? Clearly. I assume this sentiment is shared by most of us here, that Adam’s possible primogeniture doesn’t equal eternal male authority over all females.

So there are still some questions I haven’t found convincing answers for, though I like how your view considers Adam’s prior creation having something to do with his non-deception, as it seems many do not connect these two things and take them as separate unrelated reasons for each of the prohibitions, which are also taken separately (or together sometimes).

I guess that’s all, just wanted to clear that up. I’m hoping you’ll post again soon Cheryl, haven’t seen you around in a while.