I has a good debate over this video which outlines my position on women teaching and having authority in the church- a postion that will probably get me in hot water with both sides.
*******
Your video is well
video is well produced and you make some thoughtful observations, but I don't
think the argument holds.
On ἀνήρ and γυνή,
you're right that they can mean either man/woman or husband/wife. But in the
NT, the marital sense is routinely signaled by some marker of possession -- a
possessive pronoun, the adjective ἴδιος ("one's own"), or the article
in a possessive construction. Examples: Matt. 1:16, 19; Mark 10:2, 12; Luke
2:36; John 4:17–18; Rom. 7:2–3; 1 Cor. 7:2–39; Eph. 5:22ff, etc.
Without those
markers, the natural semantic force is simply "a man" or "a
woman" (the much more common usage), not "husband" or
"wife."
That's what we
find in 1 Tim. 2:12. γυναικὶ ... ἀνδρός. No article or pronoun, just the bare
genitive. The default sense is generic: "a woman ... a man." To read
"wife/husband" here imposes a marital context that the grammar does
not support (more on this in a bit).
1 Cor. 11:3-14
illustrates the distinction. Paul uses both the generic and marital senses side
by side:
"The head of
every man (παντὸς ἀνδρός) is Christ, the head of a wife (γυναικός) is her
husband (ὁ ἀνήρ), and the head of Christ is God" (v. 3).
παντὸς ἀνδρός is
clearly generic; "every man." γυναικός, lacking a possessive, would
naturally read as "a woman." However... ὁ ἀνήρ, with the attributive
article and the parallel to Christ as possessor, carries a definite, relational
sense: "*her* man." The text could just as well read, "The head
of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is *her* man, and the head of
Christ is God." As you correctly pointed out in your video, there is no
specific Greek term for "husband" or "wife." But this
possessive marker *describes* the marital relationship. This is why our English
Bibles supply "husband" and "wife" -- because English has
specific terms for conveying what the Greek is *describing* by way of a generic
noun with a possessive marker.
That's what's
missing in 1 Tim. 2:12. Nothing in the grammar points to the marital sense. To
restrict the text to husbands and wives misses how Greek actually signals that
category.
As to context,
I'm having trouble understanding why you think its marital. The context is
clearly ecclesial. In 1 Tim. 2:8 Paul frames the instruction as applying
"in every place" (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ). That's a standard way of referring
to corporate gatherings. When he turns to Genesis in vv. 13-14 he's appealing
not to the institution of marriage but to creation order and the fall. Adam was
formed first, which establishes God's design for how men and woman relate, and
Eve was deceived, which illustrates what happens when that design is
overturned. Paul grounds his instructions in the order of creation and the
order of deception, both of which apply universally to men and women, not just
married couples.
- 1w
- Reply
- Edited
Author
All-star contributor
Scott I
appreciate your serious comments. That is the kind of sharpening I sought out
here. It is why I joined. Just too rare.
What you describe
is a clear way to discern if a text means husbands or wives, but as I am sure a
man of your learning knows, there is more than one way to say things in Greek.
What signals a change in sense from 2:8 is a switch from the plural to the singular......we
were talking about men and women generally, now we are talking about a specific
man and woman and how they should relate to each other. This implies husband
and wife. Then he further clarifies by using Adam and Eve as the example. You
give the standard view of Genesis that makes it still unclear whether he is
referring to Eve as the wife of Adam or referring to Eve as women in general to
all men.
I have two things
to say about that. One is that she was not made as a woman generally, she was
made to be his wife. Thus, the fact that they are husband and wife carries more
weight the idea that they are just male vs. female generally. But the real
kicker is this, what if Genesis teaches that there were other men and women,
outside the garden? That Adam was not the first man, except in the sense that
Christ was the second Man in some comparison? I ask that you suspend your
disbelief for a moment to consider what that means to our question "Do
Adam and Eve represent men and women generally here or is this referring to
their status as husband and wife?" I think you can see that this would tip
the scales to say that it is referring to them as the pattern couple.
Hi Mark
Moore , thanks for the reply. Regarding the plural > singular
shift, I think you're overstating the case. That shift doesn't automatically
individualize into "a particular man and his wife." The singular is
commonly used as a paradigmatic reference; i.e., a representative example that
applies universally. "A woman" = any woman in that context, not
necessarily a wife. Sure, there are many ways to say things in Greek. But that
fact doesn't give us license to force a marital nuance where the text itself
doesn't signal one. A mere shift in number is not enough. A possessive marker
is how Greek takes ἀνήρ and γυνή and says, "not just a man / woman, but
*her* man / *his* woman -- which we mark in English as husband, wife."
It is not unclear
what Paul is doing with Genesis. He does not appeal to Adam and Eve as the
pattern couple. He is referencing the order of creation and deception. The
appeal is to protology. "Adam was formed first, then Eve." The logic
here is not "Eve was Adam's wife," but "Eve was second in
formation." That's the stress of Paul's point; the temporal sequence, not
marital role. The reference to deception further illustrates this. "Adam
was not deceived, but the woman was deceived." Again, the stress is on
sequence and susceptibility. Eve *as woman* was deceived, Adam *as man* was not
deceived. That is a universal ordering, not marital instruction. Eve's
deception (Gen. 3:13) is not narrated as a marital failure, but as a human
failure.
If Paul's goal
were to ground his prohibition in marriage per se, the natural text to cite
would be Gen. 2:24. That's the marriage institution verse, and Paul cites it
elsewhere in marital contexts (e.g. Eph. 5). But here, he's choosing to
highlight creation sequence and deception sequence. Those are categories that
transcend marriage and apply to all men and women. Yes, Eve was made to be
Adam's wife, but that fact serves as the basis for the order of creation, not
as commentary on marriage roles per se. The sequence of creation is about
primacy and design, not marital vows. If we reduce the reasoning here to
marriage, then a woman's created purpose only exists in relation to her
husband. That would effectively make singleness a distortion of creation. Eve
is not simply the representative of a wife; she is the protological
representative of her sex. Their marriage was the first context where that
order was displayed, but the principle itself is broader.
I'm not sure what
the relevance is of the question, "what if Genesis teaches that there were
other men and women, outside the garden?" Is this just a "what
if" or are you suggesting you can make the case? It's an argument from
silence if you don't provide evidence.
- 1w
- Reply
Author
All-star contributor
Scott
Morgan I was glad to come home from a hard day's work and read
your comment. Good stuff. Lots to think about. Now when you say "That
shift doesn't automatically individualize into "a particular man and his
wife." The singular is commonly used as a paradigmatic reference; i.e., a
representative example that applies universally. " I am saying much the
same thing though. To me it is applying it universally to married people, to
you it is applying it to all men and women whatever their status. That's what
we need to sort IHMO rather than if the use is paradigmatic. We both agree it
is.
I don't see the
creation sequence for Adam and Eve to be any different whether from her
formation or to the formation of the pattern couple. It is the same account as
she was created specifically for that role. Thus, her role is inseparable from
her order of creation. In fact, in 1 Cor 11 Paul goes into more detail
expounding on a similar principle and there he says woman was created for the
man, not the other way around, and that the woman was of the man and not the
other way around. If one is trying to figure out what Paul means by this terse
statement in Timothhy, I think it helps to read what he has to say when using
very similar language making a similar point in 1 Cor. Please consider that and
see if it doesn't move the needle towards the idea that Paul is referencing Eve
as a Wife to Adam, not merely something created later. After all, plants good
for food were created before Adam but they don't have precedence.
To further
demonstrate how I think you are over-stating the "order" being the
driving factor here- there is no "order of deception". Rather there
is a comparison between one who is deceived, and one who is not. If they were
both deceived then it doesn't make the point that wivs should listen to their
husbands rather than the reverse. But if she was deceived and Adam just went
along with it then it perfectly makes the case for the husband taking the lead
in the marriage, rather than the wife.
Re other humans
outside the garden prior to or with Adam, this is not just an empty
hypothetical. I believe that I can make an overwhelming case that they have
been "hidden in plain sight" in the text. Therefore I do ask you to
consider what it would do to your argument that the leadership of the man is
not based on their relationship but their order of creation as a sex generally
independent of the relationship.
- 1w
- Reply
- Edited
Mark
Moore I'm glad we agree that the singular can function
paradigmatically, but my earlier comment addressed your suggestion that the
shift from plural to singular signals a change in sense (from generic "men
and women" to specific "husband and wife"). A shift in number
alone does not warrant such a change in sense. That was my point. All that
shift does is use a representative as a paradigmatic example. It could be
specific or generic, context depending; we're not told enough from the shift itself.
I want to press
the point that the scope in 1 Tim. 2 is "in every place" (v. 8 ).
This clearly refers to the gathered assembly, which includes both married and
unmarried. Paul does not narrow this focus, and it really wouldn't make sense
to do so within the greater contextual concern.
On the dative, it
is not a possessive case. Its core functions are marking the indirect object
("to/for"), instrumentality ("by/with"), and location
("in/at"). Possession is normally indicated by the genitive, which
answers "of what?" or "of whom?" In 1 Tim. 2;12, the dative
γυναικί functions as the indirect object of ἐπιτρέπω. Paul is saying he does
not permit the action *to* a woman. It does not mark her possession of the man.
Regarding the
order of creation, again I think you're overstating the case. Yes, Eve was
created for Adam, and yes, that took shape in marriage. But notice what Paul
actually *does* with that fact. In v. 13, he says, "for Adam was formed
first, then Eve," not "the woman was made for the man," which
would make the marital function the point. Paul's citation focuses on temporal
sequence, not relationship purpose.
Your argument
collapses these categories, equating Eve's secondary creation with her marital
role. But Paul appeals to the sequence itself, not to the purpose the sequence
*first made visible*. The fact that Eve became Adam's wife explains why God
*structured* creation that way, but it does not determine why Eve was created
in the first place, and therefore it does not determine the principal Paul
cites. In other words, the purpose of marriage is incidental to the principal
Paul appeals to. Just as the sun was created before the moon to fulfill its
role as the greater light, Adam's primacy and Eve's secondary creation
establish a principle of headship. The marital context is the arena in which
the principle is *first revealed*, not the principle itself.
If the purpose of
Eve's creation is the essence of the created order (i.e., "woman exists in
order to be the wife of man"), it would follow that any unmarried woman,
by definition, is failing to fulfill her created purpose. Which is clearly untenable
(cf. 1 Cor. 7). By contrast, there is no difficulty here if we recognize that
marriage is the context in which the creation sequence was first revealed, not
its essence. The distinction between relational purpose and temporal sequence
is key. Paul's concern in 1 Tim. 2:12-14 appeals to the latter specifically.
1 Cor. 11 does
not rescue your case. There Paul universalizes the creation principle. "As
the woman is from the man, so the man is born through the woman, and all things
are from God" (v. 12). By framing it that way, he is not simply talking about
married couples or wives in relation to husbands. He's pointing to the created
relationship between the sexes as such. The principle of origination -- woman
coming from man, man being born through woman -- applies to all men and women,
not just to spouses. So this transcends marital status, which shows male
headship is grounded in the broader pattern of human creation.
You argue that
there is no order of deception, only a contrast between one deceived and one
not. But Paul's pairing reinforces sex-based ordering. Adam was formed first,
Eve second; Eve was deceived first, Adam second. The contrast is not
incidental. It highlights two complementary sequences: the order of creation
and the order of the fall. The created order establishes male headship (Adam
> Eve), while the fall demonstrates what happens when that order is
subverted (Eve > Adam in deception). It is precisely this contrast between
proper order and its disruption that grounds Paul's instruction in 1 Tim. 2:12
that men, in the assembly, are to teach, women are not.
The notion of
"other humans outside the garden" is speculative and irrelevant.
Paul's argument is explicitly protological. Adam and Eve are the representative
pair through whom God's created order and the consequences of the fall are
displayed. There is not textual or exegetical warrant for bringing in
hypothetical outside humans. You say you believe you can present a case for
this, but I've asked and no evidence has been provided, so I'm not really sure
what your goal is with this claim.
- 1w
- Reply
- Edited
Author
All-star contributor
Scott
Morgan I did not realize you were asking me to talk about people
outside the garden in Genesis. That is one of my hobby horses. I will think
about this at work today and answer when I get home in the evening. I feel that
we have some ways to go here in 1st Timothy and I would like to finish it out
first....but I also think the other is of greater theological impact (implying
the EO have it more right than the west on inherited guilt from descent through
Adam for example..
- 1w
- Reply
Author
All-star contributor
Scott
Morgan I have decided that I will make one more go of it here on
this issue, and then give you the last word on it. When I get back in town I
will start a new post about humans outside the garden and tag you. I think I
know way more about early Genesis than I do this. It does have some relevance
to this question but more oblique and I believe I can make the case without it.
I want to start
out by linking to the NIV for this chapter. https://biblehub.com/niv/1_timothy/2.htm It has
a footnote which suggests wife and husband as an alternate translation, as
indeed the biblehub "house" reading of the chapter does. A few
translations have it as the preferred reading. Therefore, it isn't likely the
issue is as clear-cut as you seem to be making it out to be.
We agree that
which word is meant is decided by context, but what I think you are doing is
over-relying on grammar to determine the context of a very non-standard use of
the words - "use an individual as a paradigmatic example". If you
will think about it, in ordinary use of the words it is talking about a
particular wife and husband who are wed to each other, in their relations, thus
it is proper for the grammar to indicate possessive sense. This is about their
behavior as part of an assembly.
Thus 1 Cor 14:34
has none of your markers either, yet it means wives too since it later says
"let them ask their husbands at home".. An usual situation calls for unusual
grammar. Fortunately grammar is not the only way to determine context.
You cite 1 Tim
2:8 to say the context is the assembly of all men and women and "Paul does
not narrow this focus, and it really wouldn't make sense to do so within the
greater contextual concern." but Paul does narrow the focus in one sense.
He moves from "men" and "women" in the assembly to a man
and a women in that assembly and how they are to relate to each other. That's
an argument for my position, not yours. The context of being in an assembly
does not shift but the specificity of the member of the opposite sex being
related to does shift. After all, the chapter ends by saying "women will
be saved for childbearing if they continue...". He shifts to plural again
but what kind of women is he speaking of here? All women? Widows? Single
maidens? No, he is speaking of married women. It is assumed that the women he
is referring to by paradigmatic example in the immediately preceding verses,
the verses in question, are wives. The context goes from all men and all women
in 8 to a paradigmatic wife and husband in 11 and 12, and from that example to
married women in plural.
Re 1 Cor 11 you
write "By framing it that way, he is not simply talking about married
couples or wives in relation to husbands. He's pointing to the created
relationship between the sexes as such. The principle of origination -- woman
coming from man, man being born through woman -- applies to all men and women,
not just to spouses." All women coming from man? That isn't a universal
claim. It is a claim about the pattern couple which he applies universally. Eve
came from Adam. The women (Eve) was from the man (Adam). It even says "the
man" and "the woman", just as they are referred to in this
manner in the account in Genesis.
You think this
doesn't rescue me because you once again universalize it to the sexes rather
than the marital relationship. Yes it is applied universally, but is this universal
to all women or all wives? In the context of the passage it is all wives
because they are to wear a head covering when they pray or prophesy in the
assembly as a sign of submission to their husbands. The passage is appealing to
the original couple and their order to show why wives should defer to their
husbands. At least in 1 Tim the passaage is short and vague but here where Paul
is talking about a related issue- the deference of wives to their husbands in
the assembly- it should be more clear that this is the context and more detail
is given about the order of creation than in 1 Tim 2. Paul isn't going to be
double-minded on this issue so if he is speaking of wives in 1 Cor. it is
likely he is doing the same in 1 Tim.
Just in case
anyone has forgotten, here is 1 Cor 11 in the ESV..
2 Now I commend
you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I
delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every
man is Christ, the head of a wife1 is her husband,2 and the head of Christ is
God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his
head, 5 but every wife3 who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered
dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a
wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it
is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover
her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and
glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman,
but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10
That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of
the angels.4 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor
man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman.
And all things are from God.
Completely
obvious there, even when the translation says "man" and
"woman" , that it is in the context of husbands and wives. It starts
off by talking about husbands and wives and ends up talking about them. The
passage is about husbands and wives, thus the reference to Adam and Eve
("the man" and "the woman" just as they are called in Gen
2) is about their relationship as husband and wife. This is more detail than is
given in 1 Tim but if that is what he means here it is very likely that he
means the same there. It is just that in Timorthy he only used something like
that part in the middle where it talks about "the man" and "the
woman" but it is all in the context of husbands and wives. I don't think
Paul changed his approach between 1 Cor and 1 Tim.
// But Paul
appeals to the sequence itself, not to the purpose the sequence *first made
visible*. The fact that Eve became Adam's wife explains why God *structured*
creation that way, but it does not determine why Eve was created in the first
place, and therefore it does not determine the principal Paul cites//
I urge you to
re-read the account in Genesis. Before she was ever formed, her purpose was to
be helper to the man. It DOES determine why Eve was created that way. It is a
shorthand of what he said in 1 Cor., where it is clearly connected to marriage.
//But Paul's
pairing reinforces sex-based ordering. Adam was formed first, Eve second; Eve
was deceived first, Adam second.//
You keep saying
this and all I can do is repeat that this isn't an accurate statement. Adam was
not deceived. You are pounding on this "ordering" thing so hard I
can't seem to get you to what the text actually does and does not say. You have
one example of ordering, the order of creation, and when we see Paul go on
about it more in 1 Cor, we see it is shorthand for Adam and Eve, as husband and
wife.
An unmarried
woman is under no obligation to reflect the order God intended in marriage.
- 1w
- Reply
- Edited
Author
All-star contributor
I think it is
very telling that in both 1 Tim and 1 Cor Paul does not use a possessive when
describing behavior in an assembly in a passage which has an overall context
which does suggest husbands and wives. I consider this support for the position
outlined in the video. There is a sense in which the wife "belongs"
to the body of Christ, just as the husband does. They are both
"members" of the body of Christ in that local assembly, yet there is
a also a sense where the wife is of the husband. In Christ there is neither
male nor female, while at the same time in marriage the head of the woman is
her husband. To me the tricky grammar reflects this tension. Even in the body
of Christ, the assembly, where she IDs with the church, she still has a duty to
her husband. I believe the grammar suggests this balance, that even when she is
operating as other than a possession of the husband, she is not to assume
authority over him.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.