Chris

Cheryl,

I understand your position on 1 Timothy 2:12-15 to be that Paul is telling one specific wife in the church to stop teaching her husband false doctrine, and that verses 13-14 serve to illustrate Paul’s meaning. This position rests heavily first, on your claims that one specific wife is in view, and second, that the woman is teaching false doctrine. Your claim that one specific wife is in view is based on 1) the singular form ‘a woman’ in verses 11-12, 2) the shift from ‘she’ to ‘they’ in verse 15, and 3) your claim that Paul is talking about a husband and wife. Your claim that the woman is a false teacher is based on a contextual argument that depends largely on 1 Timothy 1:3ff.

As to the first point, the singular form ‘a woman’ presents no problem for the patriarchalist view. William D. Mounce writes in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (specifically 1 Timothy 2:11), “The anarthrous ????, ‘woman,’ functions as a generic noun here as in v 9 and v 12 (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 253-54), appropriate in the statement of a general truth.” (William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, no. 46 (Nashville: T. Nelson, 2000), 117-118). This means that ‘a woman’ is not referring to a specific woman, but to a typical member of a group. In English, this means any woman.

Regarding the switch between ‘she’ and ‘they’ in verse 15, John Calvin writes in his commentary on Timothy, “As to the verb being plural, and the noun singular, this involves no difficulty; for an indefinite noun, at least when it denotes a multitude, has the force of a collective noun, and therefore easily admits a change from the singular to the plural number.” Similarly, Barnes New Testament Notes says, ““If they continue. If woman continues—it being not uncommon to change the singular form to the plural, especially if the subject spoken of have the character of a noun of multitude.”

Dr. Wayne Grudem has addressed the argument that Paul is talking about a husband and wife in his book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. You can read it online by going to:
http://www.efbt100.com/index.php (see pages 296 to 299 in chapter 8)

Insisting that ‘she’ in verse 15 is singular and refers back to ‘a woman’ in verse 12 would seem to imply that the order of creation in verses 13 to 14 is not meant to show a normative, universal principle, but is illustrative instead. This would require an illustrative use of ‘gar’ in verse 13 rather than causal, but see:
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-11-No-1/Causal-Gar-in-1-Timothy-2-13

Also, is there another place in the bible that uses the order of creation illustratively? When I look at Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6, Ephesians 5:31, and 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 I see normative teachings that are not restricted to just one situation. The appeal to creation implies that the principle Paul is teaching is transcultural, and that it is for all men and women.

Now you also claim that this wife is teaching false doctrine. This you say is based on context. Paul writes, “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (ESV). Here you have failed to adequately profile the ‘certain persons’ of which Paul is speaking. He says they are teaching ‘different doctrine’ and sets it in contrast to “sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (10-11). In 1 Timothy 6:3-5 Paul writes, “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.” Further, Paul says in Galatians 1:8-9, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” You seem to be saying the wife who is teaching her husband false doctrine is one of these certain persons, but verse 15 says “she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” That’s a lot different than “let him be accursed” and how is this wife supposed to “continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” if she is like the heretics in 1 Timothy 6:3-5 and 1 Timothy 1:6-7?

In conclusion, I find nothing in your position that would make it preferable to the patriarchalist interpretation. Instead, you must prop it up with unlikely hypotheses like: ‘a woman’ means a specific wife, ‘she’ in verse 15 refers all the way back to ‘a woman’ in verse 12, the passage is speaking of a husband and wife, and ‘gar’ has an illustrative use. And, as far as I can tell, you haven’t cited any experts that can match John Calvin, Albert Barnes, or William Mounce on these issues.

PS Yes, I’m responding to an older blog post here, but this is probably your clearest and most complete layout of your position. I’ve read a few, not all of your posts on this, so I may be missing some arguments that you’ve made, though I don’t intend on responding to all of them anyway.