1Timothy2 Challenge

[Timothy2]

and yet according to the text, it is an isolated situation, not a world wide one

Edit: If Paul's amonishment to women to not teach men was meant for all woman in every church, why do we see prophetess? Why don't we see the teaching or reference to the teaching in the Paul's letters to the other churches. Look for example at the teaching of circumcision....it comes up more than once and is discussed many places. If the teaching were meant for every woman throughout the ages, why is it only talked about once and why is public lecture the only teaching mentioned and why were there prophetess that were not repremanded? Questions we must ask the text and allow the scriptures to answer for us.

Good questions.

 

[Timothy2]

I think that is a convenient construction. There is nothing there which necessarily implies that Paul was speaking only to a single instance and the larger context indicates that he is making a more general apostolic 'ruling'.

I am not a Greek scholar but I am pretty sure that Greek does not have an indefinite article so the "a" is put there by translators to help the text make sense in English. He seems to be speaking of "woman" in kind.

It is true that the article "a" is not there in vv. 11 & 12, but the definate article "the" exists in v.14. What in the context proves that he was even speaking of more than 1 woman? How many women is Paul writing about in v.14?

 

[Timothy2]

If I say, "I do not permit a man to take my money" why would you conclude that I am speaking of only one man other than the use of the indefinite article? The phrase "a man" here speaks also to kind, implying "any man".

If you, Fenstermacher said "I do not permit a man to take money from a woman" and then you also said, "he will not serve prison time if they continue to stay honest", it would clearly be that you could not be refering to "men" (meant by "a man") as "he" and also "they". (See v.15 of the 1 Tim 2 passage) Can men be called "he" and "they" at the same time, in the same breath, in the same sentence, and be considered grammaticaly correct?

I think Paul is using the same kind of linguistic construction.

And the reason I think this is because the whole Bible speaks to a divinely established and necessary order, from Adam to the last man, which places man as the head of the woman and only that construction is consonant with this truth.

I do not see where this has been abrogated.

We can get to that later...because in this passage Paul doesn't say anything about "head".

 

[Fenstermacher]

Friend, if you want to deal with passages in isolation from the larger context of the whole Bible, I'm sorry I can't help you and I appear to have misunderstood your intent.

 

[Timothy2]

I would argue that the office or function of prophet is not what Paul is talking about here. He is talking about order and governance of the church.

Prophets and prophetesses certainly do "teach" but this is not what he's talking about, he is talking about the normal "liturgical" life of the church.

Just as there is no mention of "head" here, there is also no mention of "prophet" and there is also no mention of gender order. So what kind of "order" are you refering to?

 

[Timothy2]

okay, so now I am confused, what do you think is unclear here?

What I hope to eventualy make clear is that Paul only stopped 1 woman from teaching 1 man. That he stopped 1 woman from teaching 1 man, is what can be proven, but that he stopped more than 1 cannot.

 

[Timothy2]

Those who were stirring up discord and false teachings....

Well, yes, the context is false teachers (Chp 1) and Paul is stopping someone from teaching, and in v.14 he says that the woman (a singular woman) is deceived and in sin. (The Greek is in the present tense so v.14 cannot be speaking about Eve, since she was dead).

 

[Timothy2]

Friend, if you want to deal with passages in isolation from the larger context of the whole Bible, I'm sorry I can't help you and I appear to have misunderstood your intent.

I think it's best to stick with the facts no matter where they lead. Here you are making an assumption about me just as you do with the 1 Tim passage. How about we deal with the facts, evidence and proof ONLY of the passage, context and whether or not I take any verses or passages out of context and whether or not I understand that scripture should be taken as a whole? No one can get anywhere, really without what is TRUE.

Say something IF you KNOW it's True, how's that? Let's discuss then what we do KNOW is true.

 

[Timothy2]

Look at it this way, the way some interpret the passage we would have to conclude that men are saved through the Lord Jesus Christ and women through having children, therefore any barren woman is unsaved and will go to hell. I really don't think that is what Paul is intending. We do know however, that the church was plagued with false teaching...we know that if the women weren't involved in that, Paul wouldn't have mentioned it at all. So what does that tell us...are women saved through child birth and so unmarried or barren women have no chance of heaven?

What you are pointing out shows exactly why the original inspired Greek is very very important. In the original the word is a noun as in "the childbirth" and it is NOT a verb as in "chid bearing". The grammar is inspired and written by Paul just as the Holy Spirit wanted it. Once we know that the Holy Spirit inspired "the childbirth" and not "child bearing" then the question of why would Paul talk about a woman being saved through bearing children yet men are saved through Christ, Disappears since only 1 childbirth saves anyone, the birth of Christ. What I mean is that once we know the facts, many questions disappear and things become clearer.

 

[razzelflabben]

What I hope to eventualy make clear is that Paul only stopped 1 woman from teaching 1 man. That he stopped 1 woman from teaching 1 man, is what can be proven, but that he stopped more than 1 cannot.

the question however, is that if only one woman was involved, and only one man, who was "sinning" and to who?

Take the previous discussion, if a woman is gossiping, who is she gossiping to? Wouldn't both the woman gossiping and the woman listening to the gossip both be wrong? Both be reprimanded?

 

[razzelflabben]

What you are pointing out shows exactly why the original inspired Greek is very very important. In the original the word is a noun as in "the childbirth" and it is NOT a verb as in "chid bearing". The grammar is inspired and written by Paul just as the Holy Spirit wanted it. Once we know that the Holy Spirit inspired "the childbirth" and not "child bearing" then the question of why would Paul talk about a woman being saved through bearing children yet men are saved through Christ, Disappears since only 1 childbirth saves anyone, the birth of Christ. What I mean is that once we know the facts, many questions disappear and things become clearer.

Close enough to my point to let it go.

 

[Timothy2]

the question however, is that if only one woman was involved, and only one man, who was "sinning" and to who?

Take the previous discussion, if a woman is gossiping, who is she gossiping to? Wouldn't both the woman gossiping and the woman listening to the gossip both be wrong? Both be reprimanded?

Verse 14 says that the woman is deceived and in sin. The context is false teaching (chp 1) and Paul has stopped her from teaching a man. The woman then was teaching a man false things which is why Paul stopped her.

All we can do is take from the 1 Tim 2 passage what is there. So as far as gossiping goes, maybe the scriptures that do speak to that issue should be looked at to see Paul's advice in such situations.

 

[razzelflabben]

Verse 14 says that the woman is deceived and in sin. The context is false teaching (chp 1) and Paul has stopped her from teaching a man. The woman then was teaching a man false things which is why Paul stopped her.

All we can do is take from the 1 Tim 2 passage what is there. So as far as gossiping goes, maybe the scriptures that do speak to that issue should be looked at to see Paul's advice in such situations.

gossiping was merely an example of what I am trying to say, nothing more. We can apply the same thing to false teaching, someone has to be listening, so who then is involved...only the one teaching?

 

[CTyer]

For those interested, I will be here untel it is clear that 1 Timothy 2 does not prohibit women from teaching men... If a belief of what the scriptures teach cannot be proven, then it is mere belief and not scriptural.

 

[CTyer]

Right Timothy2, that would not and could not be considered grammatically correct.

Calvin Tyer

If you, Fenstermacher said "I do not permit a man to take money from a woman" and then you also said, he will not serve prison time if they continue to stay honest", it would clearly be that you could not be refering to "men" (meant by "a man&quot as "he" and also "they". (See v.15 of the 1 Tim 2 passage) Can men be called "he" and "they" at the same time, in the same breath, in the same sentence, and be considered grammaticaly correct?

 

[CTyer]

Right again.

Calvin Tyer

Well, yes, the context is false teachers (Chp 1) and Paul is stopping someone from teaching, and in v.14 he says that the woman (a singular woman) is deceived and in sin. (The Greek is in the present tense so v.14 cannot be speaking about Eve, since she was dead).

 

[Timothy2]

Right Timothy2, that would not and could not be considered grammatical correct.

Calvin Tyer

 

[Timothy2]

gossiping was merely an example of what I am trying to say, nothing more. We can apply the same thing to false teaching, someone has to be listening, so who then is involved...only the one teaching?

Who was the woman teaching?

Paul stopped 1 woman from teaching 1 man, so she was teaching 1 person. (Probably her husband) But Paul said in v15 that "she" would be saved if..."

 

[razzelflabben]

Who was the woman teaching?

Paul stopped 1 woman from teaching 1 man, so she was teaching 1 person. (Probably her husband) But Paul said in v15 that "she" would be saved if..."

If only one man was listening, the culture of the time would have stoned them or at least ostrasized them for "private" conversations between a man and woman...remember it wasn't the same culture as we have today.

 

[Timothy2]

If only one man was listening, the culture of the time would have stoned them or at least ostrasized them for "private" conversations between a man and woman...remember it wasn't the same culture as we have today.

Since the culture of the time was much different than ours today, and women were considered shameful by various acts, by their culture for various reasons, again, it probably was her husband. Point is, that it cannot be proven that 1 wife was teaching her husband. It can only be said that 1 woman was teaching 1 man, which was probably her husband considering the culture of the time. Make sense?


Some examples...

I cannot say, "Paul prohibited women from teaching men, in 1 Timothy 2" since it is not a fact and cannot be proven.

I cannot say, "Paul stopped a wife from teaching her husband", since it too is not a fact and cannot be proven. (This is because the Greek word for "woman" is the same for "wife" and when we have a context where it can be determined that Paul intends "wife" by the use of the Greek word, in such contexts, we have Paul using phrases that determine he is talking about a wife, but no such phrasing exists in the Tim passage, but that does not mean that Paul was not talking about a wife who was teaching her husband.)

I can say, "All that we can solidly conclude from the passage regarding the "gender issue" is that Paul stopped 1 woman from teaching 1 man.", as that can be proven, and it probably was her husband considering the culture of the time.