"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

'The' Woman of Error in I Timothy 2:12 Shouldn't Teach

When the principles and practices of the kingdom of God are made subordinate to the traditions of men, the power of Spirit-filled living becomes a figment of our collective imagination.  When religious leaders place shackles on God's people to keep them from functioning as He has gifted them to function, the church becomes a powerless shell of immobility. Without the vivifying energy of the Spirit in the body of Christ, the King's men and women become regal attendants fighting at each rather than royal ambassadors working with each other. If you have ever experienced a dead church, you know intuitively that the deadness occurs because leadership is controlling guilty people rather than empowering gifted people. The Scripture is emphatic that the Spirit gifts His people--men and women--with gifts of teaching, service, leadership, mercy, organization, etc... Good leaders get to know their people, find out how they are gifted, and empower them to fulfill their calling.

The Bible is replete with examples of men and women gifted by God to teach and to lead. No Bible-believing Christian seems to have a problem with men leading or teaching, but women fulfilling those roles, as gifted by the Holy Spirit, seems to cause consternation in the lives of some who are more familiar with tradition than truth. We have dozens of illustrations in the New Testament of women teaching men (Priscilla, Anna, Philip's four unmarried daughters, and many, many more). There are also dozens of additional illustrations in the Bible of women leading men.

I Timothy 2:11-15 Is the Text Used by Men to Restrict Gifted Women

Following is the text that is used to stifle women. I have placed only four words in (bold) that more accurately translate what Paul is saying, words that are a direct translation of the Greek. The reasons for the four words I supply will be explained below:

"Let a (the) woman learn in quietness and full submission. "12I do not permit a (the) woman to teach or to assume authority over a (the) man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women (lit. "she") will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

The verses above seem to say, at least on the surface and without the four words I've supplied, that no woman should ever teach any man; that no woman should  ever assume any 'authority' over any man; and that all women must always be quiet in the presence of men.  Of course, most evangelical conservative men would say that the Apostle Paul was only addressing women "in the church" and "in the home" so that women in the political world, corporate world, and secular world, are not under these restrictions. I find it humorous that conservatives complain of "potential malignancy" in one's gospel orthodoxy if one can find a way to make this I Timothy 2 text say that it is okay for women to teach men or have authority over men "in the church." Why is that humorous to me? Because those same conservative men have already found a way (rightly so) to explain how a woman can have leadership over a man and teach a man in every other realm of life (politics, business, etc...). Do we remember when Condi Rice, Secretary of State, spoke to the Southern Baptist Convention in 2006? She taught us Southern Baptist men a great deal about war and the bombing of terrorists, and we applauded her leadership as Secretary of State. So much for the gospel malignancy theory.

But back to the I Timothy 2 text above. For those of you "in the church" who get stuck on this text, and as a result, refuse to have women read the Bible in public at church, or teach a discipleship class with men in it, or refuse to have women serve as trustees, or elders, or committee chairpersons "in the church: lest they 'assume authority' over men, let me help you see how you are totally ignoring the clear teaching of the New Testament in favor of a poor and false interpretation of these I Timothy 2 verses. For all you out there in cyberland, and for a few of you in local churches who want to make women in leadership an issue of gospel orthodoxy, I will provide below a very clear interpretation of I Timothy 2:12-15 that is consistent with the rest of the New Testament's teaching on empowering women in their giftedness. There are five basic principles that must be understood in order to rightly comprehend what Paul is saying:

(1). Paul is addressing a problem Timothy had with a specific woman teaching heresy to a specific man in the church at Ephesus.

How do we know this? There are at least four grammatical reasons:

(a). Paul gives instructions to "women" (plural) in the beginning of chapter two (i.e. how to dress modestly, live of life of good works, etc...), but beginning with verse 11, Paul switches from the plural noun (women) to the singular noun (woman). The definitive article "the" is in the original Greek (i.e. "the woman"), not the unfortunate translation "a" woman (NIV; NASB).  Paul moves from instructions to women in general (vs. 9-10) to a very direct instruction for a specific woman in verse 11. You can verify this quite easily with any online interlinear.
(b). The “she” in verse 15 is third person singular (again, the NIV and NASB unfortunately mistranslates the third person singular Greek pronoun in v. 15 with the plural English noun "women"). The "she" of verse 15 is the same woman in verse 11 and verse 12. She is the woman who needs correcting.
(c).  "...if they continue" (v.15). The word "they" is the accurate translation of the third person plural used by Paul. This plural pronoun identifies not only the woman doing the teaching, but also the man whom she is deceiving ("the woman" and "the man" of v. 12).
(d). The verb "continue" is in the aorist active subjunctive. This verb's tense confirms that the instructions Paul gives in vs. 11-15 are designed for the woman and the man in question (v. 12), to two people who are alive at the time Paul is writing and not to those who are either dead or not yet born (i.e. Eve or women in general).

(2). The woman in question was teaching error out of her ignorance and should be shown mercy.

Mercy and love toward false teachers is one of the themes of letter we call I Timothy, particularly because the assembly at Ephesus was a church filled with people from pagan backgrounds: "As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith" (I Timothy 1:3-5).

Paul has already spoken of the ignorance he was in before he was taught the truth: "(I) was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and insolent; but I received mercy, because being ignorant I did it in unbelief" (I Timothy 1:13).

Paul mentions how Eve sinned in ignorance: "...it was the woman (Eve) who was deceived and became a sinner" (I Timothy 2:13). The entire first two chapters of I Timothy are leading up to Paul expressing sympathy toward, and encouraging Timothy to display love to, that woman teaching error. We know that Paul wrote this letter in response to problems Timothy was facing in Ephesus, and those problems were known by Paul (I Timothy 3:14-15). This is a personal letter, not a general epistle, and proper interpretation requires the reader to delve into why Paul wrote the letter in the first place.

(3).  Paul expressed hope that this woman will be saved by Christ, even though she is in error.

Verse 15 "she will be saved through (the) childbearing" is a reference to the the woman's salvation through the Incarnation of Christ (the childbearing). The word teknogonia is used just once in Scripture and the word is NOT a verb (childbearing)--it is a noun (THE childbearing). This is a reference to the Messiah, who was born from a woman despite the deception of Eve. The Messiah came to destroy the destroyer, to crush the head of the Serpent who deceives, and the deceived woman of I Timothy 2 will be saved through "the childbearing" if stops teaching heresy, learns of Christ in complete submissiveness (v. 11), and continues in "faith, love, and holiness in propriety."

(4). Scripture only expresses a prohibition on women teaching error, never on women teaching men.

A similar passage to I Timothy 2:11-15 is Revelation 2:20: "But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols."

The problem with Jezebel was not that she "teaches and leads." The problem with Jezebel was that she taught and led others "astray." The only solution for a woman who teaches and leads astray is for her to first learn the truth. This is precisely the solution Paul proposes to Timothy for the woman of I Timothy 2. She must first learn "in quietness and full submission" (v.11). By the way, this is also a good practice for any man who is teaching error. He should be confronted and told to FIRST learn in quietness and submission before he attempts to teach.

(5).  The people who misinterpret Paul and attempt to prohibit women from teaching or leading men are ignoring the entire tenor and teaching of the New Testament.

God empowers His people through giftings and anoints His people to fulfill their calling through the Holy Spirit. The giftings of God are never distributed according to gender. The calling of God is never limited according to physiology. When the daughters of Philip prophecied, it was by the giftings of God and the anointing of the Spirit. When Anna taught the men in the Temple it was in fulfillment of the calling of God on her life and through the giftings and anointing of the Spirit. From Priscilla, to Lydia, to Junia, to Phoebe, and to all the rest of the New Testament women God used to expand His kingdom through prophesying, teaching and leading other men and women, God has gifted and anointed as many women as He has men.

Let's not traditions trump truth.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Don't let your traditions trump truth or you might very well find Ichabod written above the doorpost of your church."

This is an example, Wade, of why it is hard to carry on a serious discussion. Your suggestion that:

1 - I am holding my position because of tradition
2 - I will possible find God removing His presence from our church because I believe differently on this than you. I would hate and oppose anyone to say such things of you because of your position. I will not push back at you.

Also, I do not hold to Landmarkism.

Ben

Wade Burleson said...

Ben,

Good point.

My word of encouragement was not directed at you, but toward someone who sees the Scripture to teach what I've laid out, but is afraid to say it because of the traditions that surround him.

If you say to me that you believe that a woman should be quiet in the presence of men, should never teach men, and should never be in any position of leadership over men, and that you believe what you believe BECAUSE you see it in the Bible -- then I will respect you -- and not be a part of your church.

:)

I enjoy my dialogue with you Ben.

Let me ask you a question: If someone sees the Scripture to teach something, but is afraid to implement it BECAUSE of traditions, do you believe that traditions have taken the place of the Spirit?

I think you would say "Yes." I hear you saying, "I do what I do because of what I believe Scripture teaches."

I believe you are wrong, but I respect the fact that you are doing what you do because of your belief in Scripture. Again, I was not addressing you, but those who see something taught in Scripture but are afraid to change because of the traditions of the church.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

Thank you for your explanation. One question, due to your own comment to me: Do you think the people who you say things against, like the Icahod comment, are speaking to you directly?

I think it is possible they make their comments with a wide brush also without being specific to any person so pushing back does not seem to help the discussion. If these people who are an offense to you (my term and it could be too harsh) will not speak to you on these things, just shake the dust off your feet. Some wise pastor out there somewhere, recommended this to others. It was good advice.

Ben

Ray said...

Wade, There is no definite article in the original text. The interlinear you cited does indeed translate it as "the woman,' but neither the Metzger text nor the Textus Receptus has the definite article which means the literal translation is "a woman."

Wade Burleson said...

Ben,

You ask a great question: "Do you think the people who you say things against, like the Icahod comment, are speaking to you directly?"

Of course not. :) I am pushing back on a principle, not a person. The Spirit of God never leaves His children--but the Spirit will leave the ministries of His children.

I always (and I mean ALWAYS) make a distinction between what Christians do and who Christians are.

I am pushing back against what I believe to be a ridiculous, extra-biblical and nonsensical gender gospel that promotes secondary beliefs to the status of doctrinal orthodoxy. People who have the gall to make gender an issue in an evangelical church should be able to withstand my withering criticism.

:)

Wade Burleson said...

Ray,

Articles in Greek go with nouns and are sometimes supplied and sometimes not ("childbearing" translated "the childbearing" is an example). "A" woman or "the" woman from an English perspective makes a HUGE difference - but in the Greek language, the article attaches itself to a singular noun (woman) in juxtaposition to the plural noun (women) in the context preceding it.

Greek interlinears will disagree on the TRANSLATION of the articles preceding singular nouns, but there is NO DOUBT that the nouns in the I Timothy text switch from plural (woman) in verses 9-10 to singular (woman) in verses 11-12.

IF PAUL desired for ALL WOMEN to remain silent and learn in submission and ALL WOMEN to not teach men and have authority over men - then he should have used the same plural noun (women) he was using before he got to v. 11.

It's obvious vs. 11-15 are dealing with a definite, particular woman and the definite article is the appropriate translation.

:)

A. Amos Love said...

Wade

You write...
“The Bible is replete with examples of men and women gifted by God
to teach and to lead. “

Seems Jesus has a unique take on “Leaders” for **His Disciples.** - “ONE”

Have you ever wondered why Jesus taught His Disciples NOT to be called “Leaders?”
For you have “ONE” leader - the Christ. Mat 23:10 NASB - And NONE did... ;-)

New American Standard Bible - Mat 23:10-12.
Do not be called leaders; for “ONE” is your Leader, that is, Christ.
But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled;
and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

The Message - Mat 23:10-12 -
And don't let people maneuver you into taking charge of them.
There is only “ONE” Life-Leader for you and them—Christ.
**Do you want to stand out? - Then step down. - Be a servant.**
If you puff yourself up, you'll get the wind knocked out of you.
But if you're content to simply be yourself, your life will count for plenty.

Jesus instructed **His disciples** NOT to be called **leaders** and NONE did.

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ,
Col 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ,
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God,
Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant

**His Disciples** all called themselves **Servants.**
None called themselves “Leaders.” None? None.
None called themselves “Servant-Leader.” None.

If Jesus instructed **His Disciples** NOT to call themselves “leaders”
and someone calls them self a “leader” or thinks they are a “leader;”
Or - allows others to think they are “leaders”...

Are they a "Disciple of Christ?"

Why isn’t what Jesus said important? ;-)

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall **hear MY voice;**
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16

One Fold - One Shepherd - One Voice - One Leader

{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

Wade Burleson said...

Ben,

Out of respect for you, and in appreciation for your comments, I have removed the "Ichabod" statement at the end of my post.

I will try to be more careful in the future.

Wade Burleson said...

Amos Love,

Very good point.

Tom Parker said...

Wade:

Do you believe the 2000 BF&M will ever be revised to allow woman as pastors in the SBC?

If you believe this will happen, what will bring this change about?

A. Amos Love said...

Wade

And Jesus also taught His Disciples - NOT to be called Rabbi - Teacher...

Mat 23:8 NASB
But do not be called Rabbi;
for “ONE” is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

Rabbi - Strongs #2519. kathegetes kath-ayg-ay-tace';
...... a guide, i.e. (figuratively) a teacher:-- master.

Rabbi - in Thayers - a title used by the Jews to address their teachers.

It does take a step of faith to believe and trust
that Jesus “can speak to you” and teach you “ALL truth.”

John 14:26
But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name, “he shall teach you” all things...

John 6:45
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be “ALL taught of God.”

Deuteronomy 4:36
Out of heaven he made thee to *hear His voice,*
that *He might instruct thee:*

Psalms 32:8
I will instruct thee and “teach thee”
in the way which thou shalt go: I will “guide thee” with mine eye.

Could Jesus desire to be - The “ONE” Teacher?

Jesus is the best - Teacher... Yes?

Ray said...

You are right, sometimes articles are supplied and sometimes they are not. The context will dictate whether or not an article should be supplied. I disagree, with your assertion that it is obvious. The antecedent, in a normal straightforward reading, would be the mention of women in the previous verse. There is no reason to think that Paul has shifted his thought now to a particular woman.

Further, there are several examples of Paul using the singular form without the article where the general application to all Christian women is implied; Rom. 7:2, 1 Cor. 7 & 11.

Wade Burleson said...

Tom,

There is a systemic problem within the SBC that will not be solved by any changes in the BFM 2000. When grassroots Baptists begin to understand the dangers of pushing a gender gospel (as is beginning to happen), the growing churches will be those who identify less with denominationalism and more with Scripture.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

Thanks but there was need to do that for me if you believed it to be true.

Ben

Tom Parker said...

Ben:

You said to Wade:"Wade,

Thanks but there was need to do that for me if you believed it to be true.

Ben"

Ben Wade can not win with you--you are offended by the comment and then when he removes it you make what appears to me to be a snarky comment.

Anonymous said...

Tom,

I meant nothing snarky at all. I just wanted Wade to know he did not have to remove the comment for my sake if he believed his words to be true. If it comes across that way, I promise that is not my intent. He explained himself well and I never asked Wade to stop anything. I attempted to carry on a civil conversation and hope Wade would tell me if I crossed a line.

Wade,

If you have not read my comment yet, please forgive me if it comes across as snarky or any other negative way.

Thanks Tom for bringing this to my attention.

Ben

gengwall said...

The most literally accurate translation I have found for this passage is in the Concordant Literal New Testament:

Let a woman be learning in quietness with all subjection. Now I am not permitting a woman to be teaching nor yet to be domineering over a man, but to be in quietness (for Adam was first molded, thereafter Eve, and Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded, has come to be in the transgression). Yet she shall be saved through the child bearing, if ever they should be remaining in faith and love and holiness with sanity.

Note how different this is from the more common translations. Reading this accurate translation makes it very hard to generalize the passage as a prohibition on women teaching and leading.

Kristen said...

I agree with Gengwall-- and will note, as he has noted in discussions on this elsewhere, that the verb translated "has come to be in the transgression" in the Concordant Literal Translation is apparently a Greek tense indicated an ongoing state of affairs that began in the past and is still continuing in the present. This makes it very hard to apply to the subject, "the woman," if "the woman" is a reference to Eve. Eve, being deceased, cannot be continuing to be in transgression even up to the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy! I think this does make it very likely that the singular "woman" being referred to and compared with Eve is one woman who was living and in the church at Ephesus at the time Paul wrote the letter to Timothy, and that Paul and Timothy both knew exactly who was being talked about.

Don said...

I do not see any Greek article associated with gunaiki in 1 Tim 2:12.

In the Greek, the word translated woman is gunaiki and it does not have an article, so it is called an anarthrous noun. There are 3 possible meanings for an anarthrous noun.

1) It still might be definite, as if the word "the" is implied in English. So it would refer to "the woman" that is, a specific woman at Ephesus that has been previous identified.

2) It might be indefinite, as if the word "a" is implied in English. So it would refer to "a woman" and possibly therefore the entire group of women.

3) It might refer to a group of women (possibly only one, but possibly more) that was previously defined as a group.

So at least we can say that 1 Tim 2:12 is a ref to at least one woman at Ephesus and it might be a ref. to all women everywhere.

I myself think it is a ref. to a small group of more than one woman at Ephesus (option 3 above), because of the use of a plural noun later, but it is a choice as to how this verse is understood and it is important to see that we are not Timothy and so we cannot be totally sure WHICH is intended, but translators have to go with SOMETHING and they make their best estimate of what they think was meant. But to claim that one is 100% sure on something so unclear is not something I recommend doing.

On such an unclear verse in this way and in many other ways, it is not wise to use to make such a pervasive doctrine.

Tom Parker said...

Don:

You said:"On such an unclear verse in this way and in many other ways, it is not wise to use to make such a pervasive doctrine."

I have always wondered how the 2000 BF&M was changed as it relates to the role of women. How many folks voted for the change?

Debbie Kaufman said...

When the principles and practices of the kingdom of God are made subordinate to the traditions of men, the power of Spirit-filled living becomes a figment of our collective imagination. When religious leaders place shackles on God's people to keep them from functioning as He has gifted them to function, the church becomes a powerless shell of immobility. Without the vivifying energy of the Spirit in the body of Christ, the King's men and women become regal attendants fighting at each rather than royal ambassadors working with each other. If you have ever experienced a dead church, you know intuitively that the deadness occurs because leadership is controlling guilty people rather than empowering gifted people. The Scripture is emphatic that the Spirit gifts His people--men and women--with gifts of teaching, service, leadership, mercy, organization, etc... Good leaders get to know their people, find out how they are gifted, and empower them to fulfill their calling.

The last sentence of this is the most important and life changing sentence.

I remember when I first began studying deeply the Bible and writing on my then blog, I would email you all the time asking if I was correct, I was unsure having been raised by the church I grew up in that women were to be silent, etc. I was unsure of what I found in scripture or if what I was writing was correct, so I had a sort of accountability team.

You were so patient with me as you affirmed my thoughts. Between you, your dad, and my husband I soared. I also began teaching and found I had a gift of writing and teaching. A gift I would not have found had our church not been the type of church where leadership does the very thing you wrote in that last sentence.

I am now a confident, fulfilled woman in Christ, having found two gifts that I am not only good at but love to do. I was in college at the time working toward a nursing degree, taking writing courses which my professors saw my writing potential.

None of this would have happened had the leaders not taken such a stance.

It not only makes for a healthy church, but healthy women, which has not been in, well I can't remember when it's been.

Debbie Kaufman said...

PS: It finally got to the point a few months into my blog that I stood on my own and just wrote what was in my heart or on my mind. I'm sure I might have shocked you a few times, but am grateful I could then stand on my own two feet. It was so great. :)

Wade Burleson said...

And, Debbie, you have done superb! :)

Thanks for being a prime example for us all about the importance of empowering gifted women to fulfill their calling.


A. Amos Love said...

Wade

You write...
“The Bible is replete with examples of men and women gifted by God to teach and to lead. “ No Bible-believing Christian seems to have a problem with men leading or teaching...”

Today, that is NOT an accurate statement for many BBC - Bible-Believing Christians.
Today there are lots of questions about these - so-called “Gifts” - to teach and to lead.

Never met a MAN - who “Said” he had “these Gifts” - Who was very “accurate.” :-(
Turned out - lots of their “Teaching” - was “Traditions of men” NOT in the Bible.

How “accurate” does someone with “this Gift” of “Leading” “Teaching” have to be?

And Jesus “Said” - He who speaks of himself seeks his “Own Glory.” John 7:18.

In my experience...
Most - Do NOT start out - Wanting to steal the Glory that belongs only to Jesus...
We just do NOT refuse that Glory - our “Own Glory - when it comes... : -(

A. Amos Love said...

Wade

Was wondering...
If someone has “this Gift” of “Leading?”
Does that mean - the rest of us BBC have to have - “The Gift” of “Following?” ;-)
Before we BBC can “Follow” the one who has “this Gift” of “Leading?”

And if we BBC do NOT have “The Gift” of “Following?” - “A Mere Fallible Human?”
Does that mean we BBC will just wander aimlessly? The rest of our lives?
Or - Do we BBC fall into the hands of “Blind Leaders” - leading the blind?” Mt 15:14.

And - If there is such a thing as - this Gift” of “Leading?”
How do we - BBC know - Who has “this Gift” of “Leading?” Because...

wikipedia says there are NOW 38,000 Denominations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Even if they overstated by 90% - That’s still - 3,800 - Denominations.

Weren’t ALL these Denominations - NOT in the Bible - started by men?
Men - Who believed - and told others - they had - “this Gift” of “Leading?”
Men - Who convinced, nay, deceived many - they had - “this Gift” of “Leading?”
Men - Who rejected other men - who believed they had - “this Gift” of “Leading?”

Wow - Thousands of Denominations - With many thousands of so-called “Leaders.”

Should ALL these “Mere Fallible Humans?”
Who “say” they have “this Gift” of “Leading? - Be “Followed” by BBC?

How do BBC know - Who has “this Gift” of “Leading?” That’s the correct “Gift?”

And the Bible says some interesting things about “Leaders.”
That those who “Say” they have “this Gift” of “Leading” - tend to “Ignore.”

...O my people, *they which lead thee* cause thee to err,
and destroy the way of thy paths.
Isa 3:12 KJV

For *the leaders of this people* cause them to err;
and *they that are led of them* are destroyed.
Isa 9:16 KJV

Do not be called leaders; for “ONE” is your Leader, that is, Christ.
Mat 23:10 NASB

Is there any hope for us BBC - Who NO longer “Follow” “A Mere Fallible Human?”

Anonymous said...

A couple of things I noticed as I studied through your article, then Scripture:

1. Though Paul was dealing with those who had turned aside from truth and were teaching error (I Tim. 1:6-7), he seemed to specifically name those "men" he was speaking against (Hymenaeus and Alexander) in verses 19-20. Note, too that he did not simply encourage them to keep silent and learn in submission before teaching truth; rather, Paul said he delivered them unto Satan so they would learn to not blaspheme and distort "faith". When it came to error in doctrine, Paul NEVER minced words nor consequences through his epistles.

2. Ray brought up a good point to which I would love for you to address your thoughts: Paul also uses this same "style" of switching between plural and singular while addressing ALL women or men (or ALL husbands and wives). Examples: Rom. 7:2; I Cor. 11:6-12. Are we to suppose these were addressed to speak to one individual woman, too?

Anonymous said...

Wade, thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Wade Burleson said...

Amos Love,

The "gift" of leading is nowhere found in Scripture - (as you rightly understand). However, whenever anyone exercises their gifts, they are leading people. For example, when a teacher teaches under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, he/she leads others into an understanding of truth. When a person with the gift of administration/organization exercies his/her gift, they lead others into a disciplined and orderly life, etc... No such thing as "following," only being blessed by other gifted people.

A. Amos Love said...

Wade

You write...
“However, whenever anyone exercises their gifts, they are leading people.”

“when a teacher teaches under the anointing of the Holy Spirit,
he/she leads others into an understanding of truth.”

Could you please show me where these concepts are found in the Bible?
I’m afraid they might be “Traditions of men” that make “Void” The Word of God.

And - IMO - You correctly warn about teaching “Tradition” when you say...
“some who are more familiar with tradition than truth.”
“Let not traditions trump truth.”
------------

Seems, 1 - John. 2 - Jesus. 3 - Paul - Say - In different ways....
God - the Father - Jesus - The Holy Spirit - teaches ALL truth.

1 - John - The only verse I found with *Anoint and Teach* is in - 1 John 2:26-27 KJV
AND - It is “The Anointing” in you - That “Teaches You” - ALL things.
AND - You need NOT that any MAN teach you.

1 John 2:26-27 KJV
These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
But the *anointing* which ye have received of him *abideth in you,*
and **ye need NOT that any MAN teach you:**
but as **the same “anointing” teacheth you of all things, and is truth,**
and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

It is NOT when “a teacher teaches under the anointing of the Holy Spirit...”
I can’t find that concept in the Bible. That seems to be a “Doctrine of MAN.”
------------

2 - Jesus - As man - Said in John 8:28 - The Father taught Him....
...I do nothing of myself; but as “my Father hath taught me,” I speak these things.

Jesus also taught His Disciples, in Mat 23:8 NASB...
NOT to be called - Rabbi-Teacher - For “ONE” is your - Teacher - Jesus Christ.

Jesus, taught in John 14:26 - The Holy Spirt will teach you ALL things...
------------

3 - Paul, in Col 1:27, Christ in you the hope of Glory. - “Christ” means -“Annointed.”

Paul, in Gal 1:11-16...
…the gospel which was preached of me is NOT after MAN.
For I neither received it of MAN, neither was I taught it,
but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...
...immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
------------

If there is such a thing as “a teacher teaches under the anointing of the Holy Spirit,”

That person will teach...
Jesus is the “ONE” teacher - And you can ALL - Hear His Voice - And...

Since - Disciple means - learner, pupil - And Jesus taught His Disciples - Directly....
You can be - His Disciple - Hearing His Voice - Learning directly from Jesus today...
You need - NO middle MAN... You need NO “Mere Fallible Human.”

Jesus loves me this I know...

gengwall said...

Ray said "Further, there are several examples of Paul using the singular form without the article where the general application to all Christian women is implied; Rom. 7:2, 1 Cor. 7 & 11."

While that may be true (I haven't reviewed those passages), the determination that the noun in vs 11 is anarthrous (implied definite article) is nearly irrefutable, supported by the most definite reference to a specific, individual woman in vss. 14-15 who can not be Eve (see Kristen's comment). Although the "they" of vs. 15 is ambiguous (still I agree with Wade's conclusion there), "the woman" and "she" are not.

There is no scholar that I know of that tries to detach vs 11 from 14 and 15, and the attempts at grammatical gymnastics to make the clearly singular "the woman" and "she" of 14/15 into some group of people, while clever, are thoroughly unconvincing.

Put simply - whoever "woman" is in vs 11 she/they are clearly the same as "the woman" and "she" in vs 14-15. Nobody disputes this. Since "the woman"/"she" can in no way be a group of women, neither can "woman" in vs. 11. And since "the woman"/"she" is unmistakeably a distinct, definite, individual contemporary with Paul and Timothy, so must be our vs. 11 woman. Therefore, the implied definite article is appropriate.

Wade Burleson said...

Gengwall,

Have not heard, nor could I write, any better comment on why Paul is speaking of a particular and singular woman.

charlean said...

I always wonder if women are to learn in quiet and submission, if in turn, men should learn in noise and a non-submissive attitude. Sounds like we women have a better learning environment be it math, accounting or hebrew. Sorry, guys, good luck learning in a less than ideal manner.
Charlean

Anonymous said...

Couldn't Anna have simply been witnessing? It seems like you are ignoring the broader context of the story... from my understanding, her diligence in the temple was her personal devotion time, not a place where she would regularly teach. When verse 38 tells of "speaking," it appears that Anna had "[come] in that instant" (that is, happening upon Simeon) and similarly "gave thanks." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Anna is testifying rather than instructing? I think those two words carry vastly different connotations.

On the flip side, 1 Timothy must be examined in broader context as well, which is about the church and how to deal with administration, teaching, and the flock (as well as issues pertinent to his church). So when Paul speaks of women not to usurp authority, he is speaking strictly about church leadership, specifically about pastoring over men. It is not appropriate for a woman to rule over a man in this specific context because it is the man's responsibility, not to dominate, but to serve in this way. This does not mean women cannot hold positions in the church or teach (because scripture is full of examples of women who held prominent positions in the church), but 1 Timothy 2 makes it very clear that these are the 2 positions women cannot hold.

Lisa said...

This is an interesting study to me, I've not heard this passage explained this way before. I am curious why Paul uses the example of Eve being deceived as his justification because, wouldn't this apply to all women? Or why bring it up?