1Timothy2 Challenge

[razzelflabben]

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.

I think your wrong, but have at it.

 

[Timothy2]

I think your wrong, but have at it.

That's okay. I'm concerned with the facts and proofs, not with what anyone can think about any passage without minding them. Not that opinions are unimportant because they are, but when it comes to the teachings of the bible (on this topic of 1 Timothy 2) the facts and proofs have the final say, not opinion because they are the only things that are unmoveable. Have a look yourself one day and see what they are. Scripture4all is a good resource for looking at the Greek grammar.

I appreciate the interaction we've had.

 

[heymikey80]

The challenge:

Is there someone, anyone who can prove that Paul stopped more than 1 specific woman from teaching 1 specific man in the 1 Timothy 2 passage?

Prove from the 1 Tim 2 passage that Paul stopped women in general from teaching men.

There's no definite article for either "woman" or "man" in the passage. A "definite article" in grammar is a "particularizing" word -- that is, a word which indicates that there's a specific man or a specific woman in mind.

So Paul didn't have a specific man or woman in mind.

For the record: I don't think this verse demands what you think it demands, either. But that's not what you asked.

The verse can't sustain specificity, because the sentence is nonspecific. Sure it's singular. But it's certainly not specific if you mean particular to an implied man and woman not further alluded to. It doesn't do justice to the missing articles to conclude this. It'd be like saying "a man and a woman can go out together," in English, and someone demanded you only meant John and Katy.

What we can actually say from this passage is that Paul did not permit a woman -- in general, not in specifics -- from teaching or being authority over a man -- in general, not in specifics. Native Greek readers would understand that as generally as it sounds.

Lastly, this would also be a reasonable grammatical construction if Paul wished to emphasize 1-on-1 teaching & authority in distinction from groups. Then shifts in singular / plural would be natural, on down the text. The implications here as to why Paul would want this are often more problematic than most egalitarians want to tackle, but it's a grammatical view as well.

 

[Timothy2]

There's no definite article for either "woman" or "man" in the passage. A "definite article" in grammar is a "particularizing" word -- that is, a word which indicates that there's a specific man or a specific woman in mind.

So Paul didn't have a specific man or woman in mind.

Hi heymikey,

1. Yes, there is a Definate article for "woman" in the passage. It's in verse 14. Therefore Paul had a specific woman in mind. Because of Paul's switch to the present tense, the woman of verse 14 is deceived and in sin at the time he wrote his letter.

I'll address the rest of your post as we go along covering all your points, one at a time.

And have you read all the posts I've made in this thread? They address some of the things you have brought up.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's okay. I'm concerned with the facts and proofs, not with what anyone can think about any passage without minding them. Not that opinions are unimportant because they are, but when it comes to the teachings of the bible (on this topic of 1 Timothy 2) the facts and proofs have the final say, not opinion because they are the only things that are unmoveable. Have a look yourself one day and see what they are. Scripture4all is a good resource for looking at the Greek grammar.

I appreciate the interaction we've had.

I agree that the scriptures must hold the answer, scriptures interpret scripture, what I disagree with you on is that we can know or assume from the text that only one person was involved...in fact, false teaching is detestable to God because of those it leads astray which basically means many were involved in the situation....

 

[Timothy2]

I agree that the scriptures must hold the answer, scriptures interpret scripture, what I disagree with you on is that we can know or assume from the text that only one person was involved...in fact, false teaching is detestable to God because of those it leads astray which basically means many were involved in the situation....

We can know without assumption that according to the passage, all that can be concluded or proven is that Paul stopped 1 woman from teaching. Any honest scholar has to admit this. Now assuming would be to say that according to the passage under discussion, he did stop more than one woman. Anything and everything is posible outside the boundaries laid out in the text, but if we don't cross them then we are left with presciley what the text tells us.

Now the context is false teachers (plural - chp 1) and Paul did name 2 of those false teachers in chp 1. So the situation wasn't that there was only one false teacher. There may have been more false teachers, but the three that he does mention are the ones written about in the Timothy letter. So there was more than one situation. There was at least a situation involving the 2 false teachers Paul named, and there was another involving a woman and a man. There could have been more situations, but Paul did not specificaly write about them in chp 1 & 2.

 

[razzelflabben]

We can know without assumption that according to the passage, all that can be concluded or proven is that Paul stopped 1 woman from teaching. Any honest scholar has to admit this. Now assuming would be to say that according to the passage under discussion, he did stop more than one woman. Anything and everything is posible outside the boundaries laid out in the text, but if we don't cross them then we are left with presciley what the text tells us.

I'm not suggesting that anyone stopped anyone, I'm suggesting that we cannot know how many people were involved. According to the text, there was false teaching going on, this means that we have a minimum of 1 false teacher and according to the text, people (plural) listening, so how many were at fault then?

Now the context is false teachers (plural - chp 1) and Paul did name 2 of those false teachers in chp 1. So the situation wasn't that there was only one false teacher. There may have been more false teachers, but the three that he does mention are the ones written about in the Timothy letter. So there was more than one situation. There was at least a situation involving the 2 false teachers Paul named, and there was another involving a woman and a man. There could have been more situations, but Paul did not specificaly write about them in chp 1 & 2.

and how many were listening? That is the problem I see with your direction here, we can't assume no woman was listening....

 

[heymikey80]

Hi heymikey,

1. Yes, there is a Definate article for "woman" in the passage. It's in verse 14. Therefore Paul had a specific woman in mind. Because of Paul's switch to the present tense, the woman of verse 14 is deceived and in sin at the time he wrote his letter.

That doesn't work out properly in the grammar

The absence of the definite article at the start of the passage points out Paul's sentiment is not for a particular man or a particular woman.

Paul does use a particular, known example as support: Adam & Eve. That's where v.14 is located. Of course as Eve is a specific person, the example refers to a specific woman.

The absence in other places reflects the lack of reference to this man & woman, or to any other particular man & woman.

Paul's application sentence :11-12 is general, without definite articles for man or woman.

 

[Timothy2]

That doesn't work out properly in the grammar

The absence of the definite article at the start of the passage points out Paul's sentiment is not for a particular man or a particular woman.

The absence in other places reflects the lack of reference to this man & woman, or to any other particular man & woman.

Paul's application sentence :11-12 is general, without definite articles for man or woman.

Let me give the reminder that we are not looking at the English language here.

This is the way the Greek works:

The singular "woman" in Greek when used can mean five possible things:

1 Generic for all women
2 Symbolic
3 Singular specific woman
4 Singular specific wife
5 Generic for all wives

And the same applies for when "man" is used. Now look at the verse below:

2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago–whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows–such a man was caught up to the third heaven.

According to your argument that since "woman" does not have a definate article therefore it cannot mean "singular specific", therefore in 2 Co 12:2, "man" here also does not mean singular specific just because it does not have a definate article. But in the Greek, the context ALONE tells us whether or not a indefinate noun is indefinate or definate.

Now what you have not done is Prove that "woman" here in this passage is used for women in general.

Paul does use a particular, known example as support: Adam & Eve. That's where v.14 is located. Of course as Eve is a specific person, the example refers to a specific woman.

Adam and Eve are persons who are named. Eve is a specific person because she is identified by name. The woman of v14 is a specific person because there is a definate article. And your reply doesn't deal with the present tense of v14.

 

[Timothy2]

I'm not suggesting that anyone stopped anyone, I'm suggesting that we cannot know how many people were involved. According to the text, there was false teaching going on, this means that we have a minimum of 1 false teacher and according to the text, people (plural) listening, so how many were at fault then? and how many were listening? That is the problem I see with your direction here, we can't assume no woman was listening....

Hi razzelflabben,

If we are talking about the passage of 1 Timothy 2, we can know how many people were invloved.

If your focus is on "who was listening" to the woman false teacher, then what does Paul say about the matter in the 1 Tim 2 passage?

How many total listeners there were who listened to all the various false teachers has nothing to do with the passage under discussion.

In the passage, does Paul talk about the woman false teacher having taught another woman? No.

 

[razzelflabben]

Hi razzelflabben,

If we are talking about the passage of 1 Timothy 2, we can know how many people were invloved.

If your focus is on "who was listening" to the woman false teacher, then what does Paul say about the matter in the 1 Tim 2 passage?

How many total listeners there were who listened to all the various false teachers has nothing to do with the passage under discussion.

In the passage, does Paul talk about the woman false teacher having taught another woman? No.

In the case of a false teacher, who is wrong, the teacher or the listener or the one who allows it to continue?

 

[Timothy2]

In the case of a false teacher, who is wrong, the teacher or the listener or the one who allows it to continue?

It depends on the situation, razzelblabben, so there's a) just the false teacher or b) both the false teacher and the listener.

If the listener is ignorant or deceived then God may grant them mercy of somekind.

In Eden, Eve was the listener (she listened to the serpent) and God gave her some mercy - her seed ALONE was prophesied to crush the serpent's head -in chp 1 of 1 Tim, Paul was the perp, but he was ignorant, and God granted him mercy as he wrote... So it all really depends on the situation. There is no black and white "rule".

I do know that God has granted mercy on the ignorant and deceived in different ways, for example, Paul and Eve.

Ofcourse the reason why God grants mercy on the ignorant or deceived is because he looks at the heart. While Paul and Eve both sinned for what they did, they were given mercy because of the reason WHY they did what they did.

 

[razzelflabben]

It depends on the situation, razzelblabben, so there's a) just the false teacher or b) both the false teacher and the listener.

If the listener is ignorant or deceived then God may grant them mercy of somekind.

but would he not be corrected?

In Eden, Eve was the listener (she listened to the serpent) and God gave her some mercy - her seed ALONE was prophesied to crush the serpent's head -in chp 1 of 1 Tim, Paul was the perp, but he was ignorant, and God granted him mercy as he wrote... So it all really depends on the situation. There is no black and white "rule".

and yet even in Gen, the listener, still faced punishment, consequences and repremand.

I do know that God has granted mercy on the ignorant and deceived in different ways, for example, Paul and Eve.

Ofcourse the reason why God grants mercy on the ignorant or deceived is because he looks at the heart. While Paul and Eve both sinned for what they did, they were given mercy because of the reason WHY they did what they did.

we are all given mercy, that isn't the point.

 

[Timothy2]

but would he not be corrected?

Hi razzelflabben,

What does Paul say about that in the passage?

In Eden, Eve the listener wasn't corrected. She admitted to God that the serpent deceived her. So she came out of her deception. Since she came out of her deception, God did not need to "correct" her for she had already come to realize that she had been deceived.

Adam wasn't deceived, and he "listened to the voice of his wife"
while the serpent deceived her. He wasn't corrected either, but God did curse the ground because he listened to her conversation with the serpent and did nothing.

and yet even in Gen, the listener, still faced punishment, consequences and repremand.

The only consequences she faced for breaking God's command were exactly what God told her would happen if she were to eat. God
told her that "they both would die". Beyond that she was not punished, but God did tell her what to expect living with a rebel...

we are all given mercy, that isn't the point.

What's the point? The point is that Paul wanted a deceived woman to learn, and to stop teaching. And he said that she would be saved if...
There's nothing in the passage about "correction" for the "listener", that's the point it seems to me if we are talking about the passage. But if we are talking about some other scripture, then tell me which scripture you have in mind?

 

[razzelflabben]

Hi razzelflabben,

What does Paul say about that in the passage?

seems to me that Paul corrects them all, but that is the point I have been making all along.

In Eden, Eve the listener wasn't corrected. She admitted to God that the serpent deceived her. So she came out of her deception. Since she came out of her deception, God did not need to "correct" her for she had already come to realize that she had been deceived.

what of her increased pain in childbirth? That wasn't a correction?

Adam wasn't deceived, and he "listened to the voice of his wife"
while the serpent deceived her. He wasn't corrected either, but God did curse the ground because he listened to her conversation with the serpent and did nothing.

Right, a correction of the behavior, punishment as it were.

The only consequences she faced for breaking God's command were exactly what God told her would happen if she were to eat. God
told her that "they both would die". Beyond that she was not punished, but God did tell her what to expect living with a rebel...

so all the "curses" handed out by God in Gen. were not punishments? What were they? Blessings? Rewards? God didn't say, if you disobey me, I'll increase your pain in childbirth, curse the ground so you have to work, and cause the serpent to crawl on the ground...those were punishments for defiant sin...the consequence of our sin was death.

What's the point? The point is that Paul wanted a deceived woman to learn, and to stop teaching. And he said that she would be saved if...
There's nothing in the passage about "correction" for the "listener", that's the point it seems to me if we are talking about the passage. But if we are talking about some other scripture, then tell me which scripture you have in mind?

I've presented my case, but you don't even see the punishment for sin in Gen. so I wouldn't expect you to see what I am seeing in Tim....

 

[CTyer]

God's declaration that the woman's desire will be for her husband and her husband being filled with pride as a result, and using it to lord over her is a result of sin, not a command of God to be used to practice superiority of men over women in the Church. This behavior of husbands towards wives is not even acceptable in the New Testament Church. Paul corrects this and tells us how husbands shall treat their wives. Husbands are charged to not only be mutually submissive to their wives in marriage, but also to love their wives as Christ loved the Church that He laid His life down for her. Heh, how many husbands in the Church follow that I wonder? "If you want to know what kind of a man, a man is, just look into the face of his wife." ( said by Bill McCarthy of Promise Keepers) 1 Timothy 1 is dealing with false teachers. Paul outs a couple of them, who were willful deceivers. Paul continues in the 2 chapter, speaking to Timothy about a particular woman in Timothy's Church, who being unlearned was teaching falsely (in error, not willfully deceiving) and her husband and not men and women in general and their roles of ministry in the Church. This is clear by looking at the language as Timothy 2 has pointed out repeatedly. I believe this is where the problems come in at. People are trying to formulate rules for ministry by using instructions meant for marriage. The 1st century Church did not have these issues. Men and women worked side by side in all areas of ministry.

Calvin Tyer

seems to me that Paul corrects them all, but that is the point I have been making all along. what of her increased pain in childbirth? That wasn't a correction? Right, a correction of the behavior, punishment as it were. so all the "curses" handed out by God in Gen. were not punishments? What were they? Blessings? Rewards? God didn't say, if you disobey me, I'll increase your pain in childbirth, curse the ground so you have to work, and cause the serpent to crawl on the ground...those were punishments for defiant sin...the consequence of our sin was death. I've presented my case, but you don't even see the punishment for sin in Gen. so I wouldn't expect you to see what I am seeing in Tim....

 

[razzelflabben]

God's declaration that the woman's desire will be for her husband and her husband being filled with pride as a result, and using it to lord over her is a result of sin, not a command of God to be used to practice superiority of men over women in the Church. This behavior of husbands towards wives is not even acceptable in the New Testament Church. Paul corrects this and tells us how husbands shall treat their wives. Husbands are charged to not only be mutually submissive to their wives in marriage, but also to love their wives as Christ loved the Church that He laid His life down for her. Heh, how many husbands in the Church follow that I wonder? "If you want to know what kind of a man, a man is, just look into the face of his wife." ( said by John McCarthy of Promise Keepers) 1 Timothy 1 is dealing with false teachers. Paul outs a couple of them, who were willful deceivers. Paul continues in the 2 chapter, speaking to Timothy about a particular woman in Timothy's Church, who being unlearned was teaching falsely (in error, not willfully deceiving) and her husband and not men and women in general and their roles of ministry in the Church. This is clear by looking at the language as Timothy 2 has pointed out repeatedly in this thread. I believe this is where the problems come in at. People are trying to formulate rules for ministry by using instructions meant for marriage. The 1st century Church did not have these issues. Men and women worked side by side in all areas of ministry.

Calvin Tyer

Not sure why my post was quoted in relation to that, but good go....in fact, my husband and I talk about the roles of husbands and wife a lot and teach a very different gospel than most churches on this topic. Bravo!

But back to the OP topic...I am not suggesting that all women should "keep silent", or that Paul was talking to all women, or any other such thing. What I am suggesting is that from the totality of scripture, the part being isolated out for discussion is Gen., we cannot limit the instruction to just one person. Where it seems likely that only one woman was out of control, it is equally likely that several woman, men, maybe even some children needed to hear the message or else Paul would have used regular church discipline and dealt with the issue privately, and then with witnesses before ever getting to the point of church wide letter....

 

[CTyer]

Oh okay. I do apologize for misunderstanding where you were going with the reference to Genesis. please forgive me for that. (on the other, glad to be able to encourage you and your husband according to Scripture! May you live a blessed life of service together unto the Lord!) You are right that the reference of Genesis was not just for those two people, but regarding the marriage of the two people and their role and of course to any couple down the road up to the present who would need this particular correction. The man, just like Adam should be protecting the woman, (as Adam should have been protecting Eve) from err. Adam walked a long time in the garden alone with God prior to Eve's arrival. She was deceived but he really had no excuse. So it was with men in general, in that they were permitted to learn long before the women were and her husband should have known better than to allow her teaching in error to continue and for her own sake, caused her to cease in an effort to protect her. But it was not a message to men and women in general as far as roles in Ministry are concerned and not meant to be used to support a particular gender hierarchy as has been being taught in the Church in error. Hope I cleared that up.

Calvin Tyer

PS. Paul did deal with this privately. This was a letter addressed to Timothy.

Not sure why my post was quoted in relation to that, but good go....in fact, my husband and I talk about the roles of husbands and wife a lot and teach a very different gospel than most churches on this topic. Bravo!

But back to the OP topic...I am not suggesting that all women should "keep silent", or that Paul was talking to all women, or any other such thing. What I am suggesting is that from the totality of scripture, the part being isolated out for discussion is Gen., we cannot limit the instruction to just one person. Where it seems likely that only one woman was out of control, it is equally likely that several woman, men, maybe even some children needed to hear the message or else Paul would have used regular church discipline and dealt with the issue privately, and then with witnesses before ever getting to the point of church wide letter....

 

[razzelflabben]

Oh okay. I do apologize for misunderstanding where you were going with the reference to Genesis. please forgive me for that. (on the other, glad to be able to encourage you and your husband according to Scripture! May you live a blessed life of service together unto the Lord!) You are right that the reference of Genesis was not just for those two people, but regarding the marriage of the two people and their role and of course to any couple down the road up to the present who would need this particular correction. The man, just like Adam should be protecting the woman, (as Adam should have been protecting Eve) from err. Adam walked a long time in the garden alone with God prior to Eve's arrival. She was deceived but he really had no excuse. So it was with men in general, in that they were permitted to learn long before the women were and her husband should have known better than to allow her teaching in error to continue and for her own sake, caused her to cease in an effort to protect her. But it was not a message to men and women in general as far as roles in Ministry are concerned and not meant to be used to support a particular gender hierarchy as has been being taught in the Church in error. Hope I cleared that up.

don't forget that God's love restores. Part of the husband's role of loving is to restore his wife to the creation she was intended to be. But all that is another discussion

Calvin Tyer

PS. Paul did deal with this privately. This was a letter addressed to Timothy.

Two problems, one the issue was brought before Timothy not privately before the woman and second, at the time, the letters were generally intended for the whole church body, not Timothy alone. The custom as it were was to receive a letter and read it to the entire assembly. They were house churches, that means communications were for the entire "house" assembly. therefore, the matter was not private, or the letter would have been addressed to the specific woman as we see in Philemon and other such letters.

 

[CTyer]

First point. True. God's purpose is to eventually restore everything to the way it was before the fall, but right, that's another discussion.

On the second. One thing we have to take note of, is that most of Paul's letters are in response to letters or word he received via ministry messenger on the churches he oversaw, and those letters are not provided for us to read unfortunately, as it would help to clarify some of Paul's writings that are hard to understand. Timothy was the appointed pastor by Paul of his church. Paul was not present at the location during the issue that needed to be addressed, therefore could not take the two aside even if he had wanted to. Timothy looked to Paul for guidance, direction and instruction regarding issues in his church. Paul was giving Timothy that direction, guidance and instruction, which is useful for any pastor of any successive generations if/when faced with a similar issue in part or in whole depending on whether the offender is married or not. I'll give you an example of a true story. Once in our church we had a fairly new member, a woman, who began taking people aside either before or after service, or during service if another woman went to the restroom and was prophesying to them. This was an issue where, the leadership was not familiar with the woman and was not given the opportunity to test her and prove her. She obviously did not subject herself to be proved and tested by the leaders in the church, therefore until such time she was, she was stopped. Not because she was a woman, but because this was necessary to protect the sheep from an unknown who had not been proved. Obviously if a person is called of God to prophesy, then such a person would have done so in obedience to the Lord, according to the Scripture and be tested and proved by others with the prophetic giftings in that present body of believers in which she was "ministering".

It isn't necessarily true that the letters to Timothy specifically, were copied and sent out to all churches at that very time. We have no information to conclude such. There is no indication that Timothy read the entire letter to his church either at that time. But let's for a moment assume they were distributed and/or read in their entirety immediately upon receipt. (assuming Timothy used no wisdom or discretion in the reading of the entirety part). We are not even told how many she was teaching in err. There is nothing indicating that she preached a service to all in attendance, or if she was teaching a couple of people things on the side, that they asked Timothy about which brought it to his attention in the first place. Any of that would have to be added to the text as it doesn't say. The fact that Paul did not name the woman or her husband's names however, does clearly indicate that Paul was not intending to make it publicly known who they were, and the reason being that she was not a willful deceiver, but one who was in error. Paul was also one who was in error when he was a Pharisee, so he had a compassion for those in error that would receive correction and apparently had no motive to put these to an open shame. But we do know from evidence of the text that those that did not receive correction, proved themselves to be willful deceivers, having made a shipwreck of their faith and he outed them straight away by name (note 1 Timothy 1:19-20, "Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.")

Calvin Tyer

don't forget that God's love restores. Part of the husband's role of loving is to restore his wife to the creation she was intended to be. But all that is another discussion Two problems, one the issue was brought before Timothy not privately before the woman and second, at the time, the letters were generally intended for the whole church body, not Timothy alone. The custom as it were was to receive a letter and read it to the entire assembly. They were house churches, that means communications were for the entire "house" assembly. therefore, the matter was not private, or the letter would have been addressed to the specific woman as we see in Philemon and other such letters.