Cheryl

Don,
I have heard the interpretation before about the Gnostic teaching that woman authored the man. Although I do believe that it is possible that Paul could have somehow been referring to this teaching, I have doubts about it because of problems with the text. I myself do not subscribe to an egalitarian interpretation if I can see contradictions or holes in the argument. Here is where I see a problem and why I don’t hold to that view. If we understand Paul as saying that he does not allow two things (neither/nor) then it would be difficult in my mind to justify the interpretation that Paul is not allowing the teaching that woman authored the man because this is one thing (teaching) not two. Rather it appears that there are two things that are forbidden: 1. teaching 2. authenteo a man

It appears to me, unless I am wrong, that a right interpretation would have to include two things not one. Also it appears that the two things are either both a good thing or both a bad thing. Some argue that didasko is a good thing and not bad, so authenteo must also be a good thing. However we can see in Rev. 2:20 that teaching (didasko) has a negative connotation because Jezebel is “teaching” and “leading” men into error. In this case didasko definitely has a bad thing not a good thing. It also has a parallel to 1 Timothy 2:12 as there are two things that are both spoken of in a negative way.

Rev 2:20 ‘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.

Because of Revelation 2:20 we can be sure that both the teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12 and authenteo can be a negative thing.

You said:

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

If that is the case then the teaching is also not referring to a specific man. However this doesn’t fit the context unless I don’t quite get it. If I understand this interpretation correctly, you are saying that Paul is instructing the specific woman not to teach that the woman has authored the man. That would certainly fit if there was only one thing forbidden but it appears clear to me from the construction of the Greek that it is neither/nor which would mean there is neither this nor that which are two things. I don’t see how forbidding the teaching that a woman has authored the man to be two things. If you can make it two things, then I would certainly reconsider. Also the man is only said once so the teaching and the authenteo is both toward the same man. If authenteo a man isn’t about a specific man, then neither would be teaching a man. It just doesn’t add up but I can admit that perhaps I don’t understand the point fully.

When I come to scripture, I tend to be very precise believing that God didn’t say anything that he didn’t mean in context. Therefore if there is a precise word or precise piece of grammar, I want to understand it with the precision that it has been written. If I ignore that Paul is prohibiting two things and not one, then I would think that I would be ignoring part of the word to make my idea fit and that doesn’t seem right to me. I think my interpretation fits the context without ignoring any of the words or the grammar. If we say that Paul is stopping a specific woman from teaching or spiritually murdering (this is one meaning of authenteo while another would be to dominate him as to control him or force him to go along with her) a particular man with her error then this would fit the context of deception and error and it would allow there to be two things that are forbidden to this specific woman – two things that she is practicing.

I do admit that I am not infallible but I have never seen another interpretation that didn’t have holes in it. If the holes I see have an explanation for them that fits the text, I will gladly reconsider.
My belief is not based on an egalitarian agenda and I think this can be proved by my rejecting as many egalitarian arguments as I do complementarian ones. I am just very interested in getting to the bottom line of what Paul meant and I do believe that God meant us to understand Paul. Granted, I do think it takes a lot of work to understand Paul. I think one of the problems is that we all have come to the passage with our own preconceived notions of what the text says. In my desire to be faithful to the text, I have rejected every interpretation that does not fit with verse 15 and also all interpretations that do not consider all of the words in verse 12. So at this point, I have to say that Paul is prohibiting two things unless I can be shown how the Greek proves that Paul is only stopping one thing. It doesn’t appear to me that Paul is stopping abusive teaching which would make authenteo an adverb instead of an action. I think that without allowing emotion to get into our interpretation, we can see that Paul is disallowing two things. My interpretation fits this wording and it fits verse 15 perfectly.

If my interpretation has any holes, I haven’t seen them nor has anyone pointed out what actually were real holes. If someone has an hole to point out to me, I would love to see it. I mean that very honestly because for someone to hold onto a false understanding isn’t helpful nor wise. I hold onto my interpretation because of the inspired words in the text, not in spite of them.
Having said that, I always appreciate reading other people’s thoughts. I also like finding out why people think their interpretation might fit with the context. This is how iron sharpens iron and it is very helpful to me and I am sure to everyone who reads this blog.

Don, you have a very succinct way of putting truth into a logical format that really drives home the point. Your list of deceived/deliberate sinner/deceiver was so clear and very helpful to see it listed that way. Thank you!