Cheryl Schatz

@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.