{"id":2348,"date":"2011-06-25T16:14:45","date_gmt":"2011-06-25T23:14:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/?p=2348"},"modified":"2016-09-21T16:51:03","modified_gmt":"2016-09-21T23:51:03","slug":"specific-or-general-woman","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/","title":{"rendered":"1 Timothy 2:11-15 specific woman or a faceless generic?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"One<\/p>\n

This post will be an expansion on the reasons why I believe that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is about one specific woman and why a general reference to women does not line up with the grammar within the surrounding context.\u00a0 I will also consider the challenge to my view from the new verbal aspect theory.\u00a0 To start I will summarize my reasons from the text for believing that Paul had a specific woman in mind.\u00a0 After that,\u00a0<\/span>I will expand on each point trying hard to bring it down to a general level of understanding.<\/span><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0 There is a grammar change along with a topic change starting with 1 Timothy 2 verses 11 and 12 that points to a single woman rather than a group.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 There is an anaphoric reference in verse 12 (the anarthrous noun “woman”) that has as its referent the definite noun (the woman) in verse 14 as an antecedent.\u00a0 This clarifies the non-specific noun (woman) in verse 12 as a specific woman rather than generic\u00a0<\/span>woman.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0 The woman<\/em> in verse 14 is in the\u00a0<\/span>perfect tense<\/strong><\/em> as she is existing in a present state and therefore the woman<\/em> cannot be made to fit a dead person such as Eve.\u00a0 The challenge of the new verbal aspect theory will also be dealt with under\u00a0<\/span>this point.<\/span><\/p>\n

4. \u00a0The\u00a0<\/span>she<\/em> in verse 15 is in the future tense<\/strong><\/em> and cannot be made to fit a dead person such as Eve who cannot do anything in the future concerning her salvation.<\/span><\/p>\n

5.\u00a0 Paul creates an outline or pattern of Eve\u00a0 in verse 13 that fits the situation of a one specific deceived woman referred to in 1 Timothy 2:14 as the woman<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

6.\u00a0 Timothy receives an assurance about a particular “she” whose salvation would still be in the future at the time of Paul’s writing.<\/span><\/p>\n

7. Paul uses both the singular and plural in verse 15 and proper grammar disallows referencing both “she” and “they” in the same sentence as being the same thing.\u00a0 The grammar supports a single woman along with at least one other person in order to make a plural “they”.<\/span><\/p>\n

8. Eve cannot be a pattern for all women since not all women are deceived.\u00a0 Eve can<\/em> be a pattern for another deceived woman.<\/span><\/p>\n

Expansion on the first four points <\/strong>(the expansion on the next four points will come with the next post in this series)<\/span><\/p>\n

1. There is an unusual grammar change<\/strong><\/em> in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 that is unnecessary<\/em> and very irregular<\/em> if Paul was writing about women in general.\u00a0 <\/span>However the grammar change is a natural change<\/em> if Paul is switching gears and changing subjects.<\/span><\/p>\n

A logical continuation of the general topic of women should have kept Paul using the term “women” in verses 11 and 12.\u00a0 This would have been straightforward and understandable if Paul was not changing the subject and if he was referring to the same group.\u00a0 Paul could have easily <\/span>said “I am not allowing women<\/em> to teach or authentein<\/span>\u00a0men<\/em>.”\u00a0 This is indeed what complementarians are saying that Paul meant, but if that is what Paul meant to write, he did not write\u00a0<\/span>what was natural <\/em>in that continued flow of\u00a0 discussion.\u00a0 Rather than continuing with the plural form, Paul abruptly switches to the singular woman<\/em> in verses 11 and 12.\u00a0 It is an abrupt change in grammar and we need to ask why<\/em>?\u00a0 Was the Holy Spirit trying to confuse us through this difficult passage penned by Paul?\u00a0 Or is this one of the passages that we need to pay especially close attention to each point of grammar in order to rightfully divide the Word of Truth?\u00a0 I would like to suggest that we have speculated far too long on what Paul meant and by speculating we have dismissed the grammar as if it has no real relevance.\u00a0 Dismissing the grammar has caused us to veer off course and has caused much confusion in the church.<\/span><\/p>\n

Paying close attention to the grammar allows 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to be one continuous text that is presented in a logical and compelling order. It is also in contrast<\/strong> with the previous verses.\u00a0 For example in 1 Timothy 2:9, 10 Paul is talking about godly women<\/em> who have good works<\/em>. These godly women<\/em> are to be given instruction by Timothy on how to model godliness by dressing modestly without placing undue emphasis on their attire.\u00a0 Then comes the shift.\u00a0 The prohibition in verse 12 shows that these verses are not talking about godly women nor about good works but about a sinner<\/em> and about bad works<\/em>.\u00a0 There is a shift in the grammar (from plural to singular) and from good and godly things to bad and ungodly things which are markedly similar to Paul’s own ignorance, unbelief and violent aggression (1 Timothy 1:13) that he displayed before he found God’s mercy.\u00a0 Paul himself said that he was set up as a pattern for those who were going to believe on Jesus.<\/span><\/p>\n

1 Timothy 1:16 (NKJV) However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern<\/strong><\/em><\/span> to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Paul was set up as a pattern as one who was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor<\/strong><\/em><\/span> (1 Timothy 1:13) yet Paul found mercy. The Greek noun that is translated a violent aggressor<\/em> means:<\/span><\/p>\n

an act which invades the sphere of another to his hurt<\/strong><\/span>, a \u201ctrespass,\u201d a \u201ctransgression\u201d of the true norm in violation of divine and human right. Arrogance of disposition is often implied<\/span><\/p>\n

Vol. 8: Theological dictionary of the New Testament.\u00a0 (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A similar kind of word is used in 1 Timothy 2:12 as the extremely rare Greek word authentein<\/em> also has a violent root even at times being equated with murder by one’s own hand.\u00a0 Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament defines this unusual word as:<\/span><\/p>\n

one who with his own hand kills either others or himself.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Zodhiates The complete word study dictionary writes this about authentein:<\/span><\/p>\n

murderer, absolute master<\/strong><\/span>, which is from autos (846), himself, and entea (n.f.) arms, armor. A self\u2013appointed killer with one\u2019s own hand, one acting by his own authority or power<\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So while Paul in his pre-Christian state thought he was working for God, his ungodly acts were violent aggression<\/em> against both God and man. In chapter 2 Paul takes the pattern of his example and lays it as a pattern over the case of a woman who is unwittingly doing evil, but who is also eligible to receive God’s mercy.\u00a0 Paul links her to the deception of Eve and in her deception\u00a0<\/span>she is to be stopped from teaching and committing the act of authentein\u00a0<\/span>towards a man. A deceived person who is teaching their deception is a bad work<\/strong><\/em> and deception veers one onto the path of ungodliness<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 It is important to note that Paul never ever stops the teaching of true doctrine<\/strong>. \u00a0 Even those who teach the truth yet with an ungodly motive are not stopped<\/strong><\/em><\/span> from teaching.\u00a0 In Philippians 1:15-18 Paul brings this out very clearly.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Philippians 1:15\u201318 (NASB95)<\/span><\/p>\n

15<\/sup><\/span>Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife<\/strong><\/em>, but some also from good will;<\/span><\/p>\n

16<\/sup><\/span>the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel;<\/span><\/p>\n

17<\/sup><\/span>the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives<\/strong><\/em>, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment.<\/span><\/p>\n

18<\/sup><\/span>What then? Only that in every way, <\/span><\/strong><\/em>whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed<\/span>; and in this I rejoice<\/span><\/strong>. Yes, and I will rejoice,<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

So we can see that starting in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 there is a grammar change<\/strong><\/em> from plural to singular\u00a0<\/span>and a topic change<\/strong><\/em> from godly women<\/em> to the bad works<\/em> of one who is deceived.\u00a0 We can know for sure that the topic has changed because true teaching is never stopped <\/strong><\/em>by the Apostle Paul even with those who display an ungodly, bad motive.\u00a0 Paul’s pattern was always to stop false doctrine,<\/span>\u00a0but never did he stop the preaching of the truth.\u00a0 To summarize, the transitional words to signal the change in topic<\/span>\u00a0are the change from plural to singular<\/span>\u00a0and from the topic of godly to the topic of deception.\u00a0 We would expect that Timothy completely understood the topic change because he knew the specific situation in Ephesus.\u00a0 We would certainly not expect Timothy to connect instructions for godly women on their appearance to instructions for one who is under deception.\u00a0 Ignoring the topic and grammar change has caused many to lump godly women into the category of the deceived.\u00a0 We must change this faulty tradition so that the church can go forward in unity and in the strength and the inter-connective\u00a0<\/span>nature of each member and each God-given gift.<\/span><\/p>\n

Note:\u00a0 Those who are disagreeing with me, need to provide reason for the irregular and unusual grammar change if they believe that Paul continues to write about women in general.\u00a0 Also those who believe that Paul was stopping godly teaching need to provide proof that Paul ever stopped the teaching of the truth of the gospel.<\/span><\/strong> Please document additional places where such an unusual grammar change happened in the Scriptures where there is no change of subject and please provide proof that Paul ever practiced silencing the truth of the gospel.\u00a0 If you cannot, then please consider that Paul has changed the subject from godly to ungodly and the application from general to a specific case.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. There is an anaphoric reference<\/strong><\/em> in verse 12 that links the anarthrous noun “woman” to the antecedent reference “the woman” in verse 14.<\/span><\/p>\n

Anarthrous means “used without the article”.\u00a0 An anarthrous noun does not mean that it is indefinite just\u00a0 because it does not have the definite article.\u00a0 It can properly be attached to a repetition of the noun and the repetition does provide the definite article.\u00a0 Dr. James White<\/a><\/strong> of Alpha and Omega Ministries defines it this way:<\/span><\/p>\n

Normally when an anaphoric use is in view, the preceding use of the noun will lack the article. It will not be articled. And if you read Greek then you will know that in James 2:14 when it says that a person says they have faith (ean pistin lege) pistin does not have an article, so this is a classic example where you have a noun, then you have the repetition of the noun later<\/strong><\/em><\/span> with an article, that article is pointing us back to the preceding use of the noun<\/strong><\/em><\/span>. This is called the anaphoric use of the article.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You can hear the audio clip on this topic here James White on Anaphoric reference<\/a><\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

So we have “woman” in 1 Timothy 2:12 that lacks the article and a repetition of the singular “woman” in verse 14 that has the article.\u00a0 The repetition of the noun with the article will point us back to the preceding use of the noun and identifies a specific woman is in view.<\/span><\/p>\n

Since Timothy knew the problems in Ephesus that Paul was alluding to, we can know for certain that Timothy was not confused by Paul using the general term “woman” and then adding the specific term that defines a specific woman when Paul links her to the very first deceived woman.\u00a0 Timothy was not confused.<\/span><\/p>\n

Note:\u00a0 For those who do not agree that Paul used an anaphoric reference in verse 12 attached to the repetition of the noun with the article, then please show me why such a use of the reference cannot fit the reason why Paul changed from the plural “women” in verse 10 to the singular “woman” in verses 11 and 12.<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0 The woman in verse 14<\/strong><\/em> is in the<\/span>\u00a0perfect tense<\/strong><\/em> as she is existing in a present state of affairs and therefore the woman<\/em> from verse 14 grammatically cannot be made to fit a dead person such as Eve.<\/span><\/p>\n

The perfect tense in Greek is defined this way:<\/span><\/p>\n

perfect \u2014 The verb tense used by the writer to describe a completed verbal action that occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result that exists in the present<\/strong><\/span> (in relation to the writer). The emphasis of the perfect is not the past action so much as it is as such but the present \u201cstate of affairs\u201d<\/strong><\/span> resulting from the past action.<\/span>
\n – Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There are those who claim that the new verbal aspect theory allows them to change the perfect tense in 1 Timothy 2:14 to a dramatic or historical perfect. Unfortunately, <\/span>this cannot be done in this passage.<\/span><\/p>\n

In my work as a apologist I have seen the same claim about the present tense where some have tried to deny the Deity of the Lord Jesus by claiming that Jesus’ words in John 8:58 “I am” is not to be seen as a present tense but a historical (or dramatic) present.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

John 8:58 (NASB95)<\/span><\/p>\n

58<\/sup><\/span>Jesus said to them, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am<\/strong><\/span>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Jesus was saying that before Abraham came into being, Jesus as the Word of God already existed. He was contrasting the existence initiated by birth with Himself as an absolute existence, the same existence claimed by God in Exodus 3:14.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Exodus 3:14 (NASB95)<\/span><\/p>\n

14<\/sup><\/span>God said to Moses, \u201cI AM WHO I AM\u201d; and He said, \u201cThus you shall say to the sons of Israel, \u2018I AM has sent me to you.\u2019 \u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Instead of taking this as an eternal present, Jehovah’s Witnesses have claimed that it is to be taken as a historical present.\u00a0 Daniel B. Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics on page 526, he writes this about the historical present:<\/span><\/p>\n

1. Definition<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The historical present is used fairly frequently in narrative literature to describe a past event.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Amplification\/Semantics<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

a. Reason for Use: Vivid Portrayal<\/span><\/p>\n

The reason for the use of the historical present is normally to portray an event vividly<\/em>, as though the reader were in the midst of the scene as it unfolds…The present tense may be used to describe a past event, either for the sake of vividness<\/em> or to highlight <\/em>some aspect of the narrative….<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The problem for those who deny the Deity of Jesus,<\/span>\u00a0is that Jesus’ wording using the present tense is not in a narrative.\u00a0 It does not qualify as a historical present.\u00a0 A narrative passage would be one which is telling a story:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Matthew 1:19\u201320 (NKJV)<\/span><\/p>\n

19<\/sup><\/span>Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.<\/span><\/p>\n

20<\/sup><\/span>But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, \u201cJoseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Jesus was not telling a story but was giving a testimony to His enduring existence.<\/span><\/p>\n

But what of those who claim that the perfect tense in 1 Timothy 2:14 can also take the route of being a historical perfect?\u00a0 There are two things that remove 1 Timothy 2:14 as having the possibility of being a historical or dramatic perfect.\u00a0 The first thing is that the perfect tense needs to be aorist not\u00a0 indicative as the perfect tense is in 1 Timothy 2:14.\u00a0 The second important point is that it has to be in a narrative context which 1 Timothy 2 is not.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here is the definition of the perfect tense according to Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics pg 573<\/span><\/p>\n

Definition<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker.) Or as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for “indicating not the past action as such but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action<\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

BDF suggest that the perfect tense “combines in itself, so to speak, the present and the aorist in that it denotes the continuance of completed action<\/strong><\/span>…”<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here is how Dr. Wallace defines the boundaries around the historical perfect tense on page 578 of his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:<\/span><\/p>\n

C. Aoristic Perfect (a.k.a. Dramatic or Historical Perfect)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

1. Definition<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The perfect indicative is rarely used in a rhetorical manner to describe an event in a highly vivid way<\/strong><\/span>. The aorist\/dramatic perfect is “used as a simple past tense without concern for present consequences…”<\/span><\/p>\n

In this respect, it shares a kinship with the historical present. There are but a handful of examples of this in the NT, occurring only in narrative<\/em> contexts<\/strong><\/span>. Thus this use is informed by contextual <\/em>intrusions (narrative). The key<\/em> to detecting a dramatic perfect is the absence of any notion of existing results.19\u00a0 (19 footnote – Cf. Burton, Moods and Tenses, 80, 88. Burton doubts that any genuine examples actually occur in the NT.)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The perfect tense of 1 Timothy 2:14 is not in the aorist tense but in the indicative which is said to be rarely ever used this way<\/span>.\u00a0 It is also not found<\/span> within a narrative context<\/span>.\u00a0 Lastly the perfect tense in 1 Timothy 2:14 is not identified only with the act and not the consequences.\u00a0 In fact verse 15 goes on to describe how “she” will come out of the consequences of being in the transgression (perfect tense) that is found in verse 14.\u00a0 Thus 1 Timothy 2:14 is not a historical perfect.<\/span><\/p>\n

One other set of quotes <\/span>are found in the book Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek<\/em> by Constantine R. Campbell.\u00a0 In this book he admits that verbal aspect “represents a controversial area of research” and he does deal with the historical perfect that does not deviate from Wallace’s work.\u00a0 Campbell writes:<\/span><\/p>\n

Historical Perfect<\/span><\/p>\n

The perfect tense-form is often used in nonpresent contexts, most often past-referring. These are best translated like aorists, though are not the same as aorists in meaning. There are two basic types of historical perfects: those that introduce discourse and those that employ lexemes of propulsion. In this way, the historical perfect parallels the historical present almost exactly<\/strong><\/span>; the same functions are observed with the same group of lexemes…As with the historical present, such lexemes may also be used to refer to the present rather than the past. The point is, rather, that these lexemes may refer to the past when found in past contexts<\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Campbell also writes:<\/span><\/p>\n

Perfect tense-forms sometimes end up depicting a process or action in progress. This usage of the perfect tense-form is not widely acknowledged, though is a natural expression of imperfective aspect…As long as this progressive sense is not overruled by context, the Aktionsart may be progressive.<\/span><\/p>\n

A word of caution: sometimes it is difficult to decide whether a perfect is progressive or historical when the context would allow either<\/strong><\/span>. Care must be exercised here, as the outcome can be quite different either way.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is no wonder that some have tried to claim that the perfect tense in 1 Timothy 2:14 should be seen as a dramatic or historical perfect because leaving the perfect tense as is would disqualify “the woman” from referring to Eve and this is a problem for them.\u00a0 Instead of paying attention to the inspired grammar, some want to see it as a simple past tense by claiming the historical perfect.\u00a0 <\/span>Unfortunately the boundaries around the historical perfect completely take 1 Timothy 2:14 outside the possibility that it qualifies as a historical perfect.<\/span><\/p>\n

While Campbell warns people to be cautious in deciding that a perfect tense is a historical perfect, Wallace’s three points of\u00a0 determining the difference between the two remains solid. And the pivotal point still remains: The key<\/em> to detecting a dramatic perfect is the absence of any notion of existing results. 1 Timothy 2:14 does not qualify in any sense of the word, to be a historical or dramatic perfect for verse 14 is attached to verse 15 which gives the expected final outcome from the existing condition.<\/span><\/p>\n

Note:\u00a0 Those who take a contrary position will have to explain how a perfect tense can take the form of a historical perfect without any of the qualifying markers present in the passage.<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0 The <\/em><\/strong>she who “will be saved” in verse 15 is in the<\/strong> <\/em>future tense<\/strong><\/em> and cannot be made to fit a dead person such as Eve who cannot do anything in the future concerning her salvation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul uses sozo<\/span>\u00a0(saved) in the future tense and he attaches it to a conditional conjunction – “if”.\u00a0 The “she” who has to do something to be in the place of salvation is connected to “the woman” from verse 14 who is in the present state of affairs of resulting consequences from her transgression.\u00a0 The perfect tense, the future tense and the conditions for future salvation all point to “the woman” as a single woman in Ephesus.<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul wrote 1 Timothy to Timothy about specific problems in the Ephesian church.\u00a0 We can know that of anyone who would certainly understand what Paul was writing in this passage, it would be Timothy.\u00a0 Timothy was not confused.\u00a0 While Paul wrote Adam and Eve<\/em><\/strong> in 1 Timothy 2:13, he wrote Adam and “the woman”<\/strong><\/em> in verse 14.\u00a0 There is no such reference to Adam and “the woman” in the Old Testament.\u00a0 Where Adam’s name is connected to “woman”, it is listed as Adam and his wife.\u00a0 Thus the personal pronoun “his” is always attached to “<\/span>woman” which makes it a definite woman through possession.\u00a0 In 1 Timothy 2:14 no such pronoun is attached to “the woman” to make her Adam’s woman<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 And when Paul continues to speak about her salvation, Timothy cannot help to know that this particular woman who has her salvation yet in the future, is not the first deceived woman attached to Adam, but one like<\/em> her that Timothy is dealing with at the time of the letter.\u00a0 Timothy is certainly not confused about Paul’s grammar thinking that “the woman” is Eve who has salvation yet to come.\u00a0 The connection between Eve and “the woman” would be clear to Timothy because he knew “the woman”. Timothy would not be confused that this deceived woman was Eve.<\/span><\/p>\n

I believe the key to verses\u00a0<\/span>13-15 of 1 Timothy 2 is the continuing effects<\/strong><\/em> and the future tense because of deception<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 I do not think that Paul’s point is to identify the deception but the seriousness of deception in regards to one’s salvation.\u00a0 Timothy knew the problems and Timothy surely knew any conversations that he had participated in with Paul about why he was left behind in Ephesus.\u00a0 Timothy did not need to be told what the deception was because he knew all about the problems.\u00a0 Timothy needed to be encouraged to take action because the situation was serious.\u00a0 Paul’s connecting the present situation to the first deception in the garden is brilliant.\u00a0 It was a picture set up for Timothy to relate to that emphasized the seriousness of the current situation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Adam’s neglect to enter into the conversation with the serpent as a savior towards one who was being deceived and then his participating in the act of sin with his eyes wide open to the deception and the consequences, should propel Timothy on to understand that deception is not to be ignored but to encourage the watchman on the wall to enter into\u00a0<\/span>the situation.\u00a0 Out of the two people listed in 1 Timothy 2:12 “a man” and “a woman”, only the “woman” is said to have her salvation questioned according to verse 15. The one who is not deceived must not be silent but help the one who is deceived.\u00a0 The repetition of the garden deception was not be repeated.\u00a0 Timothy’s instruction and the instruction for the non-deceived man was\u00a0<\/span>that he was needed to get involved in her learning and in her need to stay away from deception.\u00a0 Whether he had been dominated by her to stay quiet or not, the fact was that he had not been encouraging to her to stop her deception and he had not been involved in her learning the truth.\u00a0 Timothy could step in and get involved by helping them both.\u00a0 The man needed to be encouraged to walk alongside his wife in truth and the woman needed to be encouraged to learn and to stay away from error.\u00a0 Thus verse 15 says that “she will be saved…if they….”<\/span><\/p>\n

Note: Those who disagree with me about “the woman” being a deceived woman in Ephesus, need to explain why Paul called Eve “the woman” rather than “his (Adam’s) wife”.\u00a0 Why does the Scriptures always resort to the possessive pronoun when referring to Eve and Paul did not use the possessive?\u00a0 It would have been normal for Paul to say either Adam and Eve or Adam and his wife.\u00a0 But never is there a reference to Adam and the woman<\/em>.\u00a0 Why did Paul write this way? Also why would Paul speak about Eve as if her salvation is still future?<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The last 4 points will be in the next post.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This post will be an expansion on the reasons why I believe that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is about one specific woman and why a general reference to women does not line up with the grammar within the surrounding context.\u00a0 I will also consider the challenge to my view from the new verbal aspect theory.\u00a0 To start I will summarize my reasons from the text for believing that Paul had a specific woman in mind.\u00a0 After that,\u00a0I will expand on each…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[5,6,7,8,72],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\n1 Timothy 2:11-15 specific woman or a faceless generic? - Women in Ministry<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Why 1 Timothy 2:11-12 cannot be about generic woman and 1 Timothy 2:15 cannot be Eve.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"1 Timothy 2:11-15 specific woman or a faceless generic? - Women in Ministry\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Why 1 Timothy 2:11-12 cannot be about generic woman and 1 Timothy 2:15 cannot be Eve.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Women in Ministry\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-06-25T23:14:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-21T23:51:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/06\/one-woman-1-tim-2-12.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Cheryl Schatz\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Cheryl Schatz\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/\",\"name\":\"1 Timothy 2:11-15 specific woman or a faceless generic? - Women in Ministry\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-25T23:14:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-21T23:51:03+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/d7a33503fddaf9e8c392972b2801441a\"},\"description\":\"Why 1 Timothy 2:11-12 cannot be about generic woman and 1 Timothy 2:15 cannot be Eve.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"1 Timothy 2:11-15 specific woman or a faceless generic?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/\",\"name\":\"Women in Ministry\",\"description\":\"This blog is for dialogue on the issue of women in ministry and the freedom for women to teach the bible in a public setting. It is also for questions and answers on our DVD entitled \u201cWomen in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?\u201d This 4 DVD set answers the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women\u2019s ministry.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/d7a33503fddaf9e8c392972b2801441a\",\"name\":\"Cheryl Schatz\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e19c4eee7accb8e3a07173a2c17c808?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e19c4eee7accb8e3a07173a2c17c808?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Cheryl Schatz\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/author\/cheryl-schatz\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"1 Timothy 2:11-15 specific woman or a faceless generic? - Women in Ministry","description":"Why 1 Timothy 2:11-12 cannot be about generic woman and 1 Timothy 2:15 cannot be Eve.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"1 Timothy 2:11-15 specific woman or a faceless generic? - Women in Ministry","og_description":"Why 1 Timothy 2:11-12 cannot be about generic woman and 1 Timothy 2:15 cannot be Eve.","og_url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/","og_site_name":"Women in Ministry","article_published_time":"2011-06-25T23:14:45+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-21T23:51:03+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/06\/one-woman-1-tim-2-12.jpg"}],"author":"Cheryl Schatz","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Cheryl Schatz","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/","url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/","name":"1 Timothy 2:11-15 specific woman or a faceless generic? - Women in Ministry","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-25T23:14:45+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-21T23:51:03+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/d7a33503fddaf9e8c392972b2801441a"},"description":"Why 1 Timothy 2:11-12 cannot be about generic woman and 1 Timothy 2:15 cannot be Eve.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/25\/specific-or-general-woman\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"1 Timothy 2:11-15 specific woman or a faceless generic?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#website","url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/","name":"Women in Ministry","description":"This blog is for dialogue on the issue of women in ministry and the freedom for women to teach the bible in a public setting. It is also for questions and answers on our DVD entitled \u201cWomen in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?\u201d This 4 DVD set answers the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women\u2019s ministry.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/d7a33503fddaf9e8c392972b2801441a","name":"Cheryl Schatz","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e19c4eee7accb8e3a07173a2c17c808?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e19c4eee7accb8e3a07173a2c17c808?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"Cheryl Schatz"},"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/author\/cheryl-schatz\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p30ZFw-BS","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":2405,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/09\/22\/eve-prototype\/","url_meta":{"origin":2348,"position":0},"title":"Eve as the outline, pattern and prototype in 1 Timothy 2:14","date":"September 22, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"This post is the second part of an expansion on the reasons why I believe that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is about one specific woman and why a general reference to women does not line up with the grammar within the surrounding context.\u00a0 The first points 1 - 4 are discussed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1 Timothy 2"","img":{"alt_text":"Eve is the outline on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/06\/outline.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2228,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2010\/08\/03\/a-woman-anaphoric\/","url_meta":{"origin":2348,"position":1},"title":"“A woman” in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 as an anaphoric reference","date":"August 3, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"In a recent blog post, there has been some discussion on 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 in the comment section, and the question of whether \"a woman\" is generic\u00a0woman or a specific woman.\u00a0 I always appreciate questions and challenges on my position as it continually pushes me to continue to do\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1 Timothy 2"","img":{"alt_text":"Anaphoric reference in 1 Timothy 2:12 on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/twins.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":10,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2006\/03\/13\/isnt-a-woman-from-1-timothy-2-clear-that-she-is-generic-woman\/","url_meta":{"origin":2348,"position":2},"title":"Isn’t “a woman” from 1 Timothy 2 clear that she is “generic woman”?","date":"March 13, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"Q: You say that \"a woman\"\u009d in 1 Timothy 2:11 & 12 is the same terminology as Paul calling \"a man\" living in sin in 1 Corinthians 5. Wouldn't you have to admit that the normal grammatical reading in 1 Corinthians 5 which says that Paul is talking about a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1 Timothy 2"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":223,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2008\/05\/07\/223\/","url_meta":{"origin":2348,"position":3},"title":"Answering Matt Slick’s agenda on 1 Timothy 2:12","date":"May 7, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"This is part 2 of answering the complementarian objections of Matt Slick on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. See part one here. My article laying out the original argument showing that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a specific woman that Paul forbids from teaching is here. In Matt\u2019s article on CARM 1 Timothy\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1 Timothy 2"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":920,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/03\/20\/round-3-interview-with-paul-on-a-woman\/","url_meta":{"origin":2348,"position":4},"title":"Round 3 Interview with the Apostle Paul on 1 Timothy 2:12","date":"March 20, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"This post is the third one of a simulated interview with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.\u00a0 Doug, a strong complementarian has been given the opportunity\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1 Timothy 2"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/03\/woman_frog.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2333,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2011\/06\/05\/prohibit-teaching-a-man\/","url_meta":{"origin":2348,"position":5},"title":"1 Timothy 2:12 – prohibit teaching “a man”?","date":"June 5, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Some egalitarians suggest that the object \"a man\" in 1 Timothy 2:12 should rightfully be connected to only one verb \"authentein\"\u00a0and that the infinitive form of the verb \"to teach\" was not meant to be connected to the object \"man\". Let me first state that I am an egalitarian and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1 Timothy 2"","img":{"alt_text":"Two verbs, one object on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/06\/two-verbs-one-object.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2348"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2348"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2348\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3222,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2348\/revisions\/3222"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2348"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2348"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2348"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}