December 9, 2009

Gender and Number in 1 Tim 2 - Part 2

It might be a coincidence, or it might be significant. Did Paul intend to imply that all women are more prone to deception than men? Or is it possible Paul's words here are chiefly focused against one-on-one mixed gender discipleship and the dangers that come during such intimacy?

We noted last time that 1 Tim 2:12-14 is entirely singular. The first plural comes in 2:15. Explaining that change seems to be a pivot point in this problem, so we should analyze the transition sentences. When, where and why does Paul shift from singular back into plural?

Backing up one half verse, to 14b, Paul says: "The woman, having been deceived, in transgression became." More literally, "into transgression was born." When used of persons the verb here can also mean born. Almost poetically, Paul says that the world's first mother, herself formed and not born, was now "born". With the very next phrase, Paul says "she" (Eve?) will be saved (or 'preserved') through child-bearing. I pause to note the whole thought seems closer to child-rearing. "They" (Eve's children?) must grow up to display proper behavior.

Thus, v.15a begins with a singular reference, "she will be saved", and lurches abruptly into a plural, "if they continue". Seriously, what is going on here? This abrupt shift also seems to confuse translators. One option, apparently, has been to take Paul's entire Genesis illustration as a metaphor. But here's what we know for sure.

Paul says "Eve" in v.13, "woman" in v.14 and finally "she" in v.15 [number and gender of the subject implied by the verb and its context]. But what "she" does Paul mean? Oddly, the NASB, NIV, TNIV (!) & NLT all render that singular as a plural: "women will be saved" (NASB says 'preserved'; TNIV & NLT footnotes, "Greek she".) As it turns out, the ESV (!) more accurately renders "she will be saved". Admirably, the ESV also leaves that "she" vague. (The conservative translators are the ones who resisted interpretation at this point. Isn't that fascinating?)

A lot could hang on this hinge. Is Paul's "she" meant as a generalization of all women, or was Paul suggesting that Eve herself would yet be redeemed, in some sense, by her children? It feels like a stretch, but we have to consider it.

If Paul meant that "Eve will be saved" then Eve's children should include all of humanity. That could very well take the responsibility of v.15b off the shoulders of each individual mother's nuclear family and transfer it onto the church. Consider that for a moment.

Furthermore, if this "if they" refers to all of Eve's descendants, then the grammar becomes perfectly clear. In this case, "she" is no metaphorical plural. In this case, the plural only comes in after 'childbirth'. That, itself, may be fitting.

Is Paul partly suggesting the tragedy of a one-on-one problem can find salvation through multiplication?

It's worth more consideration, at least...

51 comments:

Peter Kirk said...

Great post and series! You may well be on to something here.

But one correction: the Greek word gegonen "became" does not "literally" mean "was born". gegonen comes from ginomai "become", not from gennao "give birth". The distinguishing mark of the latter is the double nu. Now ginomai is sometimes used of birth, e.g. in John 1:14 (cf. v.12), but that is not what it means - contrast the use of the passive of gennao for "was born" in John 1:13.

Chris said...

Thanks for this Bill, very helpful analysis. If you can get hold of a copy I strongly recommend Paul Young's treatment of Genesis 1 and 2 and the place of name and women in church life. The DVD is available from the House2House store. It's disc three of the set, the second track on the disk. Absolutely awesome stuff. Maybe you can borrow the DVD from someone you know?

Chris said...

Err... 'name and women' should of course have been 'men and women'. D'oh!

Bill said...

You know I was hoping you'd contribute to this one, Peter. :-)

I'm not near my dictionaries now, but doesn't ginomai have an etymology that includes some sense of engendering or birthing/beginning? If that's true, then I suppose I used the wrong qualification to say "more literally". What would be more accurate?

"It also has a slight connotation of..."

?

Bill said...

...maybe "slight" is too much backing off. I'll be back in the office later today, hoping for your advice. :-)

Chris, I was at that presentation. I went just to hear Paul. It was indeed wonderful, and I've thought about it many times since.

The things I remember from Paul's message won't get into this series, I don't think. But maybe I'm forgetting things.(?) Feel free to refresh my memory...

Bill said...

Just removed the odd fragment from early in paragraph 2. Still waiting before I can check the Greek on Peter's point.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Bill,

You bring out good points regarding the inspired text that Paul is using both singular grammar throughout until verse 15 where he changes back to plural.

There is also an unusual grammar in verse 15 as "childbearing" because it is a noun and not a verb and it is "the" childbearing with the definite grammar.

I have placed a concise version of my own view of why the grammar is singular throughout and then why Paul changes back to plural. It is found here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/02/what-does-1-timothy-211-15-mean/

It is wonderful to see someone else dealing with the specific singular grammar. Most people who follow the traditional view just disregard the abrupt change of grammar and in their heads they think that Paul is just referring to "women" (plural). If Paul had meant women (plural) then it would have been so easy for him to keep the plural grammar from 1 Timothy 2:9. But Paul did not do that. He changed from plural to singular and then back to plural in verse 15. I don't believe that we can properly understand the passage without understanding why Paul made the change of grammar.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Here is a clickable link to my concise post on the grammar of "a woman" from 1 Timothy 2:11-15 What does 1 Timothy 2:11-15 mean?

Bill said...

Nice to meet you, Cheryl. First off, I was sloppy to say "verbs and have now corrected that. Thank you.

I found your linked post very interesting and I may comment there after some time. Above all, I agree, it's wonderful to see someone else thinking along one's own lines of thought.

Have you found any scholarly literature pursuing the issue of number in 1 Tim 2?

Cheryl Schatz said...

Hi Bill,

Jon Zens has done some work on the issue of the singular

Jon Zens on "Are the Sisters Free to Function" on Searching Together

Many people have stumbled over these verses admitting that verse 15 is one of the hardest verses in the Bible to understand. Their problem, in my estimation, is because they cannot get past an assumption that 1 Timothy 2:12 is about all women. Once one becomes open to the possibility that Paul really just meant one woman then the pieces can all come together.

Peter Kirk said...

Bill, sorry I couldn't get back to you earlier. I don't have dictionaries with me here in Italy so can't be sure of the etymology. But I suspect that gennao is derived from ginomai rather than vice versa. Yes, the latter has connotations of birth, but only I think because that is how (with two exceptions, on a literal reading of Genesis) humans come into existence.

I'm working on a post linking to this.

Cheryl Schatz said...

I should have said "Dr. Jon Zens" as you asked about scholarly literature.

Another link that is helpful is

1 Cor 14 & 1 Tim 2 the two controversial passages

Here Dr. Zens discusses the 1 Cor. 14:34-35 passage and he gives a plug to my own work as the DVDs mentioned are mine.

Bill said...

Peter, I've amended the post to reflect what I found in the Liddell-Scott entry on gignomai (ginomai). Your last comment would make this particular use very appropriate, wouldn't it?

Cheryl, thanks for the links to JZ. I'll check those out some time soon. I'd also love to hear more of your thoughts about my view on v.15 specifically.

T.C. R said...

Bill,
I have to agree that this is a great post, indeed.

I notice a lot riding on singular and plural (what does all this say about this gender debate in English translation?).

I see reference to Eve more as an illustration than a mere metaphor.

The NRSV reads "Yet she will be saved" at 15a.

At any rate, this verse remains problematic to me.

But I call for your one-on-one to be established elsewhere and developed by other biblical writers.

Bill said...

Hey, TC. When I note the presence of singular and plural, please be assured that I am attempting to do so with reference to the Greek. I'm certainly not trying to analyze the English alone. (Or did I misunderstand?)

Btw, you can call on the NT writers to establish whatever you want them to, but I don't think they'll be adding any new text any time soon. ;-)

Cheryl Schatz said...

Bill,

There is unusual grammar throughout the passage that would bring some problems to your view. The first for consideration is in verse 14 where "the woman" who fell into transgression is in the perfect tense so whoever she was, she was alive at the time that Paul wrote to Timothy since she was still in her transgression. This can't be Eve since Eve was long dead by the time.

Also in verse 15 she "will be saved" is in the future tense so the salvation is yet in the future at the time Paul wrote to Timothy. It appears apparent to me that "they" includes "the woman" so that there are actions that she the man must participate in regarding her state of salvation. While a deceived woman and her husband can work to counteract the deception, Eve cannot do anything about her salvation (in the future tense) since she is dead.

While I do agree with you that a female teaching a male alone, or for that matter a male teaching a female alone, may bring out some problems regarding an emotional attachment or other issues, I don't think that this is what Paul is getting at since he would also have to equally banned a man from teaching a woman. Right? But Paul only states that "a woman" isn't allowed to teach "a man" not vice versa.

The issues here also revolves around a unique word "authentein" (in verse 12) that is forbidden to "a woman". We should note that Paul never gives a man or men the permission to "authentein" men or women. Zodhiates Complete Word Study Dictionary gives us a good hint of why Paul never gives anyone permission to "authentein" another person.

"from authéntēs (n.f.), murderer, absolute master, which is from autós (846), himself, and éntea (n.f.) arms, armor. A self–appointed killer with one’s own hand, one acting by his own authority or power. Governing a gen., to use or exercise authority or power over as an autocrat, to domineer
Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament" (to be continued on next comment)

Cheryl Schatz said...

(continued from previous comment)

Whatever is being stopped, is definitely not a good thing. So it appears that in the context of false deceived teachers that Timothy was left behind to stop from teaching (chapter 1), that verse 12 with "teach" and "authentein" the two things that are forbidden are attached to false teaching and a false teacher. There is no indication that godly teaching is being stopped.

Now back to verse 15, since "the childbearing" is a specific noun and not the action of a verb, it appears that one event of the birth of a child is in view. The only birth that is linked to salvation is that of the Messiah.

If "the woman" is indeed one of the teachers who is teaching error and she is specifically teaching one man (likely her husband) then her husband is going to be key to helping to bring her out of her deception. She will be saved through the Messiah (the childbearing) if she and her husband (they) continue in the true faith, with sincere love for God and self-control to stay away from error and heresy.

It is also good to note that the concern about salvation is not for "they" but only "she". She will be saved....if... Paul's concern is about one false teacher and the fact that by her error, she shows that she is not grounded in the truth. Because she must be allowed to learn (verse 11) and must stop teaching we can know that she is not sound in doctrine. Instead she is steeped in error and if her husband just allows her to teach him her error and doesn't bring her to learn the truth and unlearn the error, how will she be saved?

While all the other false teachers may have been men, it seems to me that it is certain that there was at least one woman who had fallen hook, line and sinker for the error.

(continued on next comment)

Cheryl Schatz said...

(continued from last comment)

Like Eve, she was deceived. And her husband was like Adam in saying and doing nothing about her error. Paul tells Timothy to step into the situation using Paul's authority.

Why did Timothy need an encouragement to stop her from teaching? I believe that the timid Timothy could deal with all the other false teachers, but stopping a wife from teaching error to her husband was an especially sticky situation. Timothy would need to go past her husband to make sure she stops teaching and is brought into a position of learning. Overriding the husband in that culture would not be considered a "safe" job.

I believe this is also why Paul says "I am not now allowing a woman...." Paul is giving Timothy the ability to claim authority from Paul to go to the woman and tell her that "Paul says you must stop". The authority given by Paul would give Timothy a boost of courage to deal with one problem case with one problem deceived teacher.

The other thing concerning Paul's saying that he is not "now" allowing her to teach means that once the problem is solved and she understands Christian doctrine and the plan of salvation in a correct way and she is diligent in learning, she will be able to teach later when the error no longer has a hold on her life.

With this understanding we can see why Paul introduces salvation and "the child bearing" into the context of the original command to stop the false teachers. One of the false teachers is like Eve in that she has a husband who is silent when he should have spoken up. And just like the situation in the garden there still can be hope coming out of a bad situation.

Just like Eve was deceived yet God brought good out of evil by bringing the Messiah through the line of the one who had been deceived, God can bring good to this woman too. By bringing the Messiah through the one who was deceived, God set up His plan to destroy the first deceiver (satan) through the seed of the deceived.

Paul's bringing up of the original deception brings hope to this situation too as Paul confidentially states that this particular deceived woman will be saved if... It is a confident affirmation that godly teaching with correct the false doctrine. The truth of the water of the word will bring her out of her deception and she will find salvation too through the seed of the first deceived woman.

T.C. R said...

Bill,
Your position has potential, but I'm one for more data. Forgive my hard-wiring. ;-)

Bill said...

TC, that's good hard wiring. I absolutely agree. We need more, so for now, I'm just putting this out there. However, stick around for the rest of the series and I might have a teensy bit more to share. Maybe.

Bill said...

Cheryl, I find your reconstruction to be plausible for the most part but I'm having a difficult time separating your imagined details from your exegesis. My regular readers know, that's been a 'growth area' for me for a long time, so please rest assured I'm not throwing any stones... but I'm honestly not sure how to extract the key points of your argument from your storytelling, so as to interact with those points in an orderly manner.

That said, I like what you're putting together. I'm just not sure I see the "bedrock" of your overall thesis. Which conclusions are most certain, and are any of them absolutely necessary?

I'd love to interact more about this. The next five posts (pre-drafted) are set to address some of your points. Maybe you can stick around and address other bits as they come up?

Cheryl Schatz said...

Sure, I'll try to stick around if I don't forget. If you email me the links to the posts that should help.

Which parts of the "story" are you having problems with?

One thing that I think is really important is that Paul never instructed Timothy to stay behind to stop the false teachers AND the women. There is no indication that Paul was instructing Timothy in chapter 1 that women teaching correct Biblical doctrine were to be stopped. Can we agree with that?

If so, then chapter 2 and the stopping of teaching should be understood in the context of chapter 1. It would be out of context for Paul to stop the teaching of the gospel by anyone. After all he even rejoiced when people preached the gospel with a motive to harm him. He said that at least the gospel was being preached. (Philip 1:15-18) It would be outside of Paul's practices now to want the gospel stopped just because women were teaching it to men. Make sense?

Bill said...

Thanks for narrowing things down, Cheryl. This chunk is a size I can bite into. :-)

Paul never instructed Timothy to stay behind to stop the false teachers AND the women

Strictly speaking, that's correct. But who are "the women"? Are you referring to a specific verse or are you referring to a particular group of women as you're reconstructing them?

no indication... that women teaching correct Biblical doctrine were to be stopped.

Again, sure. But what does that prove? I think it's clear you and I share the same view on women being allowed to teach, but I don't see what this 'argument from silence' is supposed to prove about 1st Timothy.

If so, then chapter 2 and the stopping of teaching should be understood in the context of chapter 1.

How can a positive be understood 'in the context of' a negative? Or a fact 'in the context of' a non-fact? Besides, you may be generalizing (or 'principalizing') "the stopping of teaching" in a way that's beyond anything the text actually refers to.

All we can really do is: (1) analyze what the text says, and (2) discuss what the text might mean. We can then (3) attempt to reconstruct what might have happened. Each level in that process adds a degree of uncertainty, which is one very good reason why we must move through these three tasks in that sequence, as much as possible.

It would be out of context for Paul to stop the teaching of the gospel by anyone.

If you mean "out of character" then I completely agree. That is indeed one reason why I don't buy the oppressive view of this passage. But appeals to Paul's general character don't help us explicate (or exegete) this passage. You yourself think Paul did have conditions under which he did encourage "the stopping of teaching".

Your three long comments had some stronger points than these, I thought. But perhaps you chose to highlight these because they're what personally drives you. (?) If so, I totally get that. But what I'm asking is, where's the bedrock of the argument? Where's the immovable point that should convince us all about some detail?

It doesn't take exegesis to understand that men shouldn't subordinate women. What we're trying to do is examine the passage and determine what it does, might, might not, and/or does not say.

I admire your energy in particular, by the way. Care to try again?

Cheryl Schatz said...

Bill,
You said:
"Strictly speaking, that's correct. But who are "the women"? Are you referring to a specific verse or are you referring to a particular group of women as you're reconstructing them?"

1 Tim. 2:12 and 1 Tim. 2:15 and almost without exception taken as referring to women in general. My argument was to show that beyond the grammar, that it could not be women in general, as is typically the argument.

but I don't see what this 'argument from silence' is supposed to prove about 1st Timothy.

Again, I am deconstructing the "normal" exegesis of the passage. My argument is that stopping godly teaching (which is what most comps say verse 12 means) would need an explanation of why godly teaching is to be stopped. Godly teaching is never stopped in the NT so the "normal" exegesis needs more proof than the complementarian position provides. It is a weak point of their argument.

How can a positive be understood 'in the context of' a negative?
That's my point. When error is being stopped in chapter 1, how can the comp position be correct that Paul is stopping godly teaching when given by women?

You yourself think Paul did have conditions under which he did encourage "the stopping of teaching".

Yes. They are listed in chapter 1. Paul stopped the teaching of error.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Bill,
You said:
But perhaps you chose to highlight these because they're what personally drives you.

No, it is what convinces me that we need to look more deeply at the passage then what has been the traditional view.

But what I'm asking is, where's the bedrock of the argument? Where's the immovable point that should convince us all about some detail?

You haven't told me what you have problem with in my argument, so I was sharing what I have problems with in the comp argument. Fair enough?

What we're trying to do is examine the passage and determine what it does, might, might not, and/or does not say.

I thought I did pretty good at explaining why the tradition view doesn't fit. Perhaps you can share why you have problems with my view so I have something to respond to. ;)

Bill said...

Cheryl, I'm sorry we seem to be talking past one another. Maybe some brunette can step in-between the middle of us two blondes and act as an interpreter. ;-)

Or maybe we'll work out better communication as we go. I'm sorry I can't do any better tonight.

Grace & Peace

Cheryl Schatz said...

You mean I get to be a blond for a day?

Yippee!

An Brunettes out there? Anyone, anyone??

Gary said...

Of course, it could be possible that "the woman" does indeed refer to Eve, since she was not referred to as "Eve" until after the Fall, anyway.

And as for "en parabasei gegonen," it would seem that the perfect tense was used because it refers to a state of being. Eve (or "the woman") changed her status from "in innocence" to "in transgression." There is no conflict in using the perfect tense in reference to a dead person -- especially since time element is not the main idea of Greek tenses. Remember that with Hebrew and Greek, time elements are presented much more often than they are affirmed.

It does not by any means necessitate that the woman in reference was alive. When Eve came to be in transgression (i.e. became a sinner), she continued to remain in the state of transgression, even to her dying day. Fair enough for Paul to refer to her as "in transgression" at the moment she was deceived (note that aorist participles are often contemporaneous with the main verb). So, when she was deceived, she came to be in transgression.

Is Eve still in transgression when Paul wrote? Paul does not address that. He is referring to the Genesis 3 narrative, and he speaks from that time frame instead of his own. Cheryl, I really can't see "the woman" not referring to Eve here. Isshah was her original name, after all.

In short, I find the burden of proof on the one who would affirm that "the woman" is not Eve.

Side note: gegonen here refers to coming into being of the state of being a transgressor, whereas she previously existed (gegonen, or one could use its pluperfect which I don't know off-hand) in the state of not being a transgressor. In this context, it has nothing to do with birth or coming into existence.

Although nowhere in the New Testament is anyone indicted for preaching the Gospel in the wrong manner (ti gar? Plen hoti panti tropo, eite prophasei, eite aletheia...), I think it's at least possible that one who teaches correct doctrine but doesn't walk the walk would certainly be indicted by Paul. Perhaps Diotrephes in III John was such a one. Psul would certainly write about issues that are causing strife and division, whether those teachers taught proper doctrine or not. Chapter 3 does not list any qualifications about education (even literacy). Character traits are all he has in mind.

In chapter one, let's note that Paul addresses the issue of ignorance (v 7) and wicked conduct (immediately before in v 6). Reading vv 5-7 as one sentence, there's a connection here between wrong conduct and wrong understanding. They were not simply teaching what is incorrect; they threw aside their own good conscience, which led to their heterodoxy.

I see egalitarians connect chapters 1 and 2, but in my (admittedly limited) experience, I've seen few references to chapter 3.

Gary said...

As a non-argumentative question, do you think these false teachers were all "handed over to Satan?" 1:3-11 could imply that, but... Paul's self-reference in 12-16 seems to say that there's hope for anyone.

Food for thought.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Gary,

You said:
And as for "en parabasei gegonen," it would seem that the perfect tense was used because it refers to a state of being. Eve (or "the woman") changed her status from "in innocence" to "in transgression."

Eve cannot be in the state of "transgression" now as her sin is not continuing. In the same way verse 15 cannot refer to Eve since there is nothing that can be done in the future about her salvation. I think John MacArthur says it well when he states that 1 Tim. 2:15 "she" cannot be Eve as she is dead. Same for verse 14 as these two verses are connected.

It does not by any means necessitate that the woman in reference was alive. When Eve came to be in transgression (i.e. became a sinner), she continued to remain in the state of transgression, even to her dying day. Fair enough for Paul to refer to her as "in transgression" at the moment she was deceived (note that aorist participles are often contemporaneous with the main verb). So, when she was deceived, she came to be in transgression.

But the tense is perfect and that shows that the action is in the past but continuing to the present.

Perfect tense: 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 (in relation to the writer).
Heiser, M. S. (2005; 2005). Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology.

This cannot refer to Eve because neither her deception or her transgression was continuing at the time that Paul wrote to Timothy.

In short, I find the burden of proof on the one who would affirm that "the woman" is not Eve.

"The woman" over verse 14 is the "she" of verse 15 and unless we are going to believe that dead people can do something about their sin, we must agree with John MacArthur that this cannot be Eve.

I think it's at least possible that one who teaches correct doctrine but doesn't walk the walk would certainly be indicted by Paul.

However they wouldn't be indicted for preaching the gospel. Those who preached the gospel even from a wrong motive made Paul glad that at least the gospel was being preached. We have no reason to believe that Paul would change his mind and stop the preaching of the gospel because the one preaching was a slave or a woman.

They were not simply teaching what is incorrect; they threw aside their own good conscience, which led to their heterodoxy.

This is why Paul brought in the same things again in chapter 3 by saying that these things must be adhered to:

...if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

I see egalitarians connect chapters 1 and 2, but in my (admittedly limited) experience, I've seen few references to chapter 3.

1 Timothy is a letter and we can better understand it without the divisions in chapters. If Paul's intent was to stop all women from teaching and stop all the heresy taught by false teachers, it would have fit into chapter 1. Timothy then would have been left behind to stop the false teachers from teaching AND stop the women from whatever kind of teaching they were doing. Paul didn't say that, and it was Paul's practice to thank God for the preaching of the gospel even if it was done with ulterior motives. The preaching of the gospel can do God's work and save even no matter what vessel is used because the power is in the gospel not the vessel.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Gary asked:
As a non-argumentative question, do you think these false teachers were all "handed over to Satan?" 1:3-11 could imply that, but... Paul's self-reference in 12-16 seems to say that there's hope for anyone.

Paul made a distinction between those who sinned because of ignorance and unbelief (as Paul himself was) and those who sinned deliberately and with knowledge of the truth. Those who are turned over to satan were the ones who sinned on with knowledge. Is there hope for these? I think that only God knows since He alone knows the heart. Hebrews states that there is no further sacrifice given for those who have apostatized and trampled on the blood of Jesus as unholy.

For others who were turned over to satan for terrible sins that do not involved apostasy, there appears to be be hope.

God is the judge regarding how far gone a person is. I leave it at that.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Cheryl again - I'm not talking about why God considered Adam's actions as sin. I'm talking about what led Adam to actually eat the fruit.

In that case you can say that he ate the fruit because Eve gave it to him. You don't have to use the word "follow". Perhaps some day we will know exactly why he did that. What on earth was that man thinking?

Bill said...

Cheryl, I think that last comment belongs to the thread on Part 3. I'll copy it there and reply there.

Gary said...

Context often superimposes its will (authentein, if you will) onto tenses in a way that can alter or nullify the "unaffected meaning." You correctly quote the unaffected meaning of the perfect tense, Cheryl, but there's more to it.

My point is that the woman came into the state of being in transgression. If this does refer to Eve, then she is indeed in that state of non-innocence -- not just immediately after eating the fruit, but forever after eating it she is still marred by sin (unless Jesus fixed it, which is speculation I don't care for). Since it is an ongoing state of being "in transgression," this fits within a natural use of the perfect tense.

With the perfect tense, the action itself may carry over into the present from the past, or it may be that only the consequences carry over from the past.

Indeed, Daniel Wallace (Greek Grammar BtB p573) says "the force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past ..., has results existing in the present time." He then clarifies with a quote of Zerwick: the perfect tense is used for "indicating not the past action as such but the present 'state of affairs' resulting from the past action." [This is a generalization of the unaffected meaning. On that broad and simplistic understanding of the perfect tense, we agree.]

Wallace puts forth a specific, contexually-nuanced usage of the perfect called the "Perfect of Allegory" on page 581. Essentially, it refers to an OT event in such a way that the event is viewed in terms of its modern-day applicational value. He further clarifies by saying that this usage doesn't necessitate that the author in question is speaking allegorically, but merely that it sometimes focuses on the paradigmatic significance of the OT event. "It is, in fact, a logical extension of the Greek Perfect used of a past but still relevant event." (Moule, Idiom Book p15).

Essentially, Wallace points out a very specialized version of the gnomic use of the perfect -- the use of the perfect without regard to time element, because it refers to a timeless statement. This subcategory of the gnomic is rare, but it occurs and should be considered here.

After all, Paul did undeniably mention both Adam and Eve in verse 13, and 14a says Adam, while 14b says "the woman." The most immediate context for "the woman" would mean that the article is anaphorically referring back to Eve, since no other woman is mentioned in this text by name.

Verse 13 to 14a is undeniably a reference to a particular OT story, and I doubt Paul would be mentioning it without having some applicational value in mind. Since it builds up to a point made in 14b, how can we say that his train of thought got derailed?

Regardless of the "unaffected meaning" of the perfect tense, this is a legitimate instance for considering the less time-bound, allegorical usage(see also e.g. John 6:32).

Events in the OT are not simply "dead and gone." They are things that have continuing effects on faith today; they are still relevant. NT authors believe they are still within the "resultant state" of OT events, and so it makes sense to use the perfect for them.

Perfects can occur with a future time element (I John 2:5), aoristic meaning (Matt 13:46), or even a gnomic, timeless meaning (John 3:18).

In short, it's important to note that time element in Greek is fluid in the indicative mood, and flying out the window in the oblique moods.

Gary said...

As a side-note, we do similar snap-shots of past events in our newspapers. The caption for photos in the news section use the present tense instead of past tense for games that obviously ended before the paper came out the next morning. Referring to it in the present tense just feels right, because you have a visual image the Sammy Sosa sliding into home base (or whatever) right there in front of you.

Likewise, when referring to a story in Greek, one could have a mental image and it would just "feel" right to refer to it as if you were right there, at the moment it was happening. Thus, the use of the perfect and not the pluperfect does not really exclude interpreting "the woman" as Eve. 13 had Adam and Eve, and 14a had Adam, and 14b either has Eve, or else is some abrupt shift.

Bill said...

Gary, thanks for the extensive commentary on grammar. Longtime readers know I'm extremely open about my low level of expertise in Greek. I understand merely that a strong past tense (perfect) could refer to someone who is dead. I also understand your arguments seem to support my original point. :-)

With that, I have two questions.

1 - are you referring to what I think I recall hearing about, called the "historical perfect"? Or is that the "historical present"? (I'm not sure where to search for that term, or if I even recall it correctly.)

2 - I see that you're in DFW and you're speaking of Dr. Wallace. Not to 'out' you for privacy concerns online, but it might help us all if you'd say a word to your own greek training. I know Peter was a Wycliffe translator for some years. How about yourself?

Cheryl, same question if you like.

Me? I took four semesters of Attic Greek at LSU, eons ago. ;-)

Cheryl Schatz said...

Gary,

You said: My point is that the woman came into the state of being in transgression. If this does refer to Eve, then she is indeed in that state of non-innocence -- not just immediately after eating the fruit, but forever after eating it she is still marred by sin (unless Jesus fixed it, which is speculation I don't care for). Since it is an ongoing state of being "in transgression," this fits within a natural use of the perfect tense.

Sorry but this can't be. It isn't a "state of non-innocence", it is a state of being in "the" transgression. It is a specific sin that is continuing and this doesn't fit Eve. She is not continuing in the sin of eating the forbidden fruit.

Wallace goes on to say on page 573 that "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"

The continuance of the fall into "the" transgression (the eating of the fruit against God's command)is not continuing. Eve is dead and her transgression cannot be continuing. Wallace goes on to say "The chart shows that the perfect may be viewed as combining the aspects of both the aorist and present tense. It speaks of completed action (aorist) with existing results (present). The basic question to be asked is which of these aspects is emphasized in a given context."

There are not existing results of of "the" transgression for Eve and no other person is said to have Eve's existing results. Eve is dead and gone and her sin is done with and is not continuing.

Essentially, Wallace points out a very specialized version of the gnomic use of the perfect -- the use of the perfect without regard to time element, because it refers to a timeless statement. This subcategory of the gnomic is rare, but it occurs and should be considered here.

Wallace doesn't say that it is a "timeless statement" rather he says "It is, in fact, a logical extension of the Greek Perfect used of a past but still relevant event." Eve's sin doesn't qualify for this because her sin is not in the category of an ongoing relevant event. Wallace gives the examples of such an even as "...the one who had no genealogy...has received tithes from Abraham and has blessed the one who had the promises." Abraham is still "blessed" so this one qualifies but Eve's transgression doesn't qualify as an ongoing relevant event not only because she is dead but because there is no such statement in Scripture that would make her suffering in hell right now under her transgression. This concept is foreign to the Scriptures.

After all, Paul did undeniably mention both Adam and Eve in verse 13, and 14a says Adam, while 14b says "the woman." The most immediate context for "the woman" would mean that the article is anaphorically referring back to Eve, since no other woman is mentioned in this text by name.

Paul certainly did mention Adam and Eve, but the Eve must only become a symbol of the first deception since the grammar using the perfect in verse 14 and the future tense in verse 15 (which both refer to the same "she") cannot be made to fit Eve. In fact I noticed that you sidestepped this problem by not even referring to the future tense of verse 15. The "she" of verse 15 must refer back to "the woman" from verse 14 so we must deal with the grammar from both verses as referring to a living person and not a dead one. Wallace makes it quite clear that the "Perfect of Allegory" has a very rare usage. Add to that the future tense of verse 15 and we should comfortably be able to lay to rest any thought that Eve's sin is an "ongoing relevant event" or that the grammar of verse 14 can be divorced from verse 15 in any attempt to make this a "Perfect of Allegory".

Cheryl Schatz said...

Bill,

Regarding your questions, the "Perfect of Allegory" is a rare animal and not supported by the surrounding grammar.

Secondly regarding my Greek training, I am only self-taught but have great help. Dr. Dan Wallace is a friend of mine. He is presently helping me with my next DVD project and he helps by evaluating my grammar. Dan also has copies of my previous DVD work on women in ministry and on the subject of the Trinity (by his request) and he thinks I am a worthwhile person doing honest-hearted work. We don't always agree on every doctrine, but he still is interested in helping me get to a goal of doing the very best job that I can without error regarding the Greek. Dan has been an invaluable help to me and I feel very blessed.

Gary said...

Bill, you make a good point in asking about training. It's true, I'm not too far away from you! I went to Oklahoma Christian, where I took three years of Greek and one of Hebrew. I was then the grader for Hebrew tests. Hebrew is a grad-level course at OC, so undergrads just get a more lenient grading scale.

I studied Greek under Drs. Loren Gieger and John Harrison (doubt you've heard of them), but also studied on the side with Dr. Curt Niccum (Peter Kirk knows Curt).

I currently can read the Gospels, Revelation, about half of Paul, 1-3 John, and from the Septuagint I read Joel, Jonah, Obediah, Micah, and Tobit.

If you give me an email address, I'll send you an audio recording of me reading Philemon or Philippians 1. I'll send the slow as well as the medium (semi-fluent) recordings. The faster version is OK for reciting/memorization, but is too quick for actual study.

As to your question, yes I was referring briefly to the historical present [you termed it right], as well as the present with an immediate future meaning. Both of these uses are dramatic, but especially I think the futuristic present. The example that comes to mind is in Matthew when the storm comes, and the disciples wake him up and say "we're gonna die!" It's literally just "we die." Completely off topic, the futuristic present implies immediacy or certainty. In that context, I'd say it's both (at least in the minds of the disciples).

The proleptic or futuristic perfect is definitely not a common category in the NT. 1 John 2:5 is the example I'd give. Personally, I wonder if it's influenced by the prophetic use of the Hebrew perfect to refer to [God's] future events as done deals.

My point, Bill, is that time element can't be stretched too far. It's a secondary idea in the indicative, and just not there outside of the indicative. (This understanding comes from Curt Niccum, in case Peter reads this and is curious.)

Gary said...

Cheryl: Let me first thank you for taking me to challenge on this! I've grown from it, and I enjoy it. Thank you for sharpening me.

I am very interested in talking to someone who knows Dr. Wallace personally. I would wonder what his take is on these things in specific. I noticed elsewhere in BtB he referred to gunaiki as a generic noun, though that alone doesn't say much. So, would he take this as a perfect of allegory?

Before I reply to you on that, I will make my reply about the future tense in 2:15. I have no doubt that 13-15 is one compound thought, so I don't deny its relevance at all. The truth is, I really don't know what to do with it, and I prefer not to engage in too much speculation. It's more my habit to tuck such problems away until I stumble upon more information haphazardly. I am only 24 and have so much more to learn -- I have enough time to set some curiosities aside and study more readily apparent mysteries first.

If you were to pigeonhole me, I would say I have a vague sense that the future, in Paul's usage, is a gnomic application. If I were to speculate, I would have to wonder if Paul knew of some rabbinic tradition having to do with Eve and childbearing. I think there's something there in his thought that is not readily apparent (at least not to me).

The central question I'd have about such a "Sunday school" tradition is: which verse is this alleged tradition referring to? Eve's punishment (not a curse, IMHO) in 3:16, or is it verse twenty?

I would argue from the feel of Tim 2:15 that Paul was envisioning Gen 3:20 rather than 16 here. Though he mentioned deception, he does not mention punishment or "pain" anywhere. In Gen 3, immediately after God's almost hopeless statement that Adam will die and return to dust, he names Eve the mother of the living. Where did he get this hope?

Look at 1Tim 2:15 again. What if there was a rabbinic oral tradition that God had said that to Adam & Eve between 3:19 and 3:20. If that Greek statement were used by God in reference to Eve, then it could be interpreted "she will be sustained through childbearing..." Or maybe the more conventional "saved"/"healed." I can't say, since I don't know this theoretical tradition, or even if it existed. But if it did, then in this original context, sothesetai would be a straightforward predictive future. Since (in my theory) it would be a statement originally said by God to Adam, it would be a guaranteed prediction, because of who God is.

One way or another, Gen 3:20 is a statement of hope on Adam's part, because he believed there would be salvation/healing for them both despite the dire pronouncement immediately preceding. 1 Tim 2:15 is likewise a statement of hope, so if the Tim verse is influenced by a tradition, the tradition is more likely related to verse 20 than 16.

A key word in 1 Tim 2 is σωφροσύνη, that cardinal virtue of having temperate judgment. In reference to clothing specifically, we call it modesty. I am not sure if this could be equivocated with the Hebrew "knowledge," so I won't go there. However, I find it interesting that the Tim verse refers to her being saved/healed/sustained "if she continues in faith... with σωφροσύνη."

Even if it's not the same word as in Hebrew, there is a logical connection between Tim 2 and Gen 3. Adam and Eve both lacked sound judgment (σωφροσύνη) and didn't refuse the fruit. Then they realized they were naked (and therefore a sense for modesty -- (σωφροσύνη).

This is similar to the snake's deceptive but technically correct claim to the woman that they would "be like God, knowing good and evil." The snake made it seem (to my mind) that the fruit would give the woman knowledge of what's good and bad, much like in Home Alone when the kid wishes his parents would go away forever. He has the run of the house! Autonomy from parents!

Gary said...

And yet, the snake was the first snake oil salesman. It didn't work as promised. They did not gain the σωφροσύνη to make independent decisions. Instead, Adam and the woman gained the intimate, experiential knowledge of committing evil (and presumably already had experiential knowledge of good). And then they gained σωφροσύνη (modesty).

In short, I see logical and thematic connections between Genesis 3 and 1 Timothy 2:13-15. Perhaps Paul quoted a tradition that had Adam tell God that this punishment was more than they could bear (much as his son Cain did), and God gave a gracious promise that she would be saved/restored/healed/sustained through childbearing. Perhaps in this theoretical original context, God meant "sustained through childbearing" in the sense of "she will still be able to bear children," though that is going a bit far off a non-existent script with only a theoretically reconstructed context.

Paul, in accord with his usage of actual scripture without regard to the historical-critical method, may have done the same with this supposed rabbinical myth. (Perhaps it's related to the unending genealogies?) If that's the case, then... well, I'll give you my full reconstruction of the passage at some other time.

After really looking at this, I have to say that sounds pretty elaborate. Wow. Didn't think I would stretch that out so much!

I will return focus to verses 13-14 soon.

Gary said...

You explained to Bill that the "surrounding grammar" doesn't support my invocation of that rare category here. However, Dr. Wallace's textbook doesn't mention any grammatical cues for the perfect of allegory. Do his references (Fanning, Moule, BDF) mention any grammatical cues that he was remiss in omitting?

What he does mention, however, is subject matter, namely a reference to the OT. There are no grammatical limitations (e.g. "never occurs in conjunction with an aorist participle," "only in the protasis of conditional clauses," or "only in indicative mood). Unless you can cite another work that mentions structural/grammatical cues (again, such as "only clear examples are first-person singular"), then I would ask you to take back your statement -- it's either an untrue statement, or Wallace indeed left something out.

I think it's fair to say that Dr. Wallace was saying on p582, in a nutshell: "in at least some cases when the perfect tense is used in reference to the OT, it breaks the usual time element restriction for the perfect tense."

The only cue he gives is in the context of a reference to the Old Testament. The mention of Adam and Eve does just that. Therefore, this category is not beyond the realm of possibility for gegonen in verse 14, since the surrounding context has a reference to the OT.

There's another part of your statement to Bill that seems a little off: you dismissed the category because it's rare. Rare does not mean extinct.

Now, you did correctly note that he did not list our text in question as an example of the perfect of allegory, but then again I do not assume such lists to be exhaustive. I don't find that objection to hold much weight.


Wallace doesn't say that it is a "timeless statement" rather he says "It is, in fact, a logical extension of the Greek Perfect used of a past but still relevant event."

I realize that the perfect of allegory is not something that Dr. Wallace categorizes as a subset of the gnomic use. That summary of mine basically meant "much like the gnomic, this rare category transcends the usual time element associated with the perfect, though not necessarily transcending all time element as the gnomic does. It is also more specialized in that the gnomic perfect is proverbial (and non-Jews used proverbs), but the perfect of allegory would be a strictly Jewish/Christian usage."

Sorry but this can't be. It isn't a "state of non-innocence", it is a state of being in "the" transgression. It is a specific sin that is continuing and this doesn't fit Eve. She is not continuing in the sin of eating the forbidden fruit.

Firstly, you put forth no argument to support your assertion. How can you be sure it's a specific sin? A prepositional anarthrous noun is may be definite, but that does not automatically mean it is specific. Wallace (p209-210) explains that the article's main use (particularly in conjunction with nouns) is to identify, that is, to stress the identity of an individual or class or quality [from the broader concept itself].

Gary said...

It is true that she'd be quite the glutton if she kept eating fruit until she died. However, the consequences of doing that even once changed history forever, since sin was introduced into the world. Are there existing results from the first human sinning? Yes. That result -- sin in the world -- is still quite alive, even if Eve herself is dead.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that someone was a high-profile bank robber. She robbed a few banks, got rich, and then disappeared. Now, she managed to live as a fugitive with no problems. After she died, her children were found by the FBI. They're now thirty-something years old, full-grown adults. Their mother died with a debt to society for transgressing the law. She is dead, but her children still have ill-gotten money. Are there ongoing consequences after her death? Yes. They have to give the money back. Why? Because their mother was a transgressor.

Did Eve make restitution with God before she died to clear her debt? No. So the debt is still there, as an ongoing effect. Dead people have legacies. Some good, some bad. The effect of her action was the introduction of sin and death into the world. Now there would be "pain" for her (3:16), Adam (3:17), and shockingly, even to God (6:6). Sin's legacy of pain went full-circle.

On a related note, if you deny the possibility of the perfect's continuing results extending beyond the actant's death, then you run into some difficulty justifying the use of gegraptai, "it is written." Pretty sure the authors of the OT were dead when Jesus said gegraptai. But the legacy remained -- the record of scripture.

Besides, ginomai is more naturally used with states of being (since it is itself a verb of existence). One cannot be "in a specific instance of the act of transgressing." One can, however, be "in transgression," i.e. "branded as a lawbreaker with a warrant out for your arrest." Yes, I know it's an anachronism, but run with it.

I don't intend to continue this discussion further with you Cheryl. You've been less than charitable in telling me that I'm flat-out wrong ("sorry, but that can't be") without really any evidence. The context of what's going on in verses 13-15 would make a reader assume that "the woman" is introducing an already-known female subject. The most recent singular antecedent that matches "the woman" is Eve, who happens to be mentioned in just the last breath (or two, if you read slowly). Why would Adam be juxtaposed to Eve, and then supposedly be juxtaposed to another woman that has not been mentioned and is not mentioned again in the letter?

"'She will be saved through childbearing,' if they remain... Faithful is the saying." Paul is quoting something verbatim there. Sometimes things adopt a fixed form. It would be awkward to say "do you believe in 'us, the people?'" That doesn't make sense -- we say "do you believe in 'we, the people,'" even though "we" is not the right case for the object of a preposition.

In short, if you want to quote a saying, it is easier for the listener to recognize your reference if you quote it verbatim, even if it causes grammatical disagreement. "Faithful is the saying" makes it clear that it is a quote. The Nestle-Aland 27th edition attaches it to the same paragraph as 2:15, so they obviously take it as referring to that, and not as referring to 3:1b.

Lastly, looking through the "Free to Function" thing you referred to, I notice that he (and you) never addressed the possibility that "to teach nor authentein" is a hendiadys. How can we be sure it isn't? Most hendiadys are "X and Y," but "X nor Y" can be possible, as in the English "I saw hide nor hair of him since yesterday."

Actually, that link was lacking on several other accounts, but that's enough, I suppose.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Gary,
You said: Cheryl: Let me first thank you for taking me to challenge on this! I've grown from it, and I enjoy it. Thank you for sharpening me.

Thanks also to you for a respectful dialog. I think that many non-Christians don't believe that Christians can have passionate discussion without getting disrespectful and in the attack mode, but I believe that if we place our love for our Savior first, we can love our brothers and sisters in Christ and respect them while still disagreeing in these debatable matters.

I would wonder what his take is on these things in specific. I noticed elsewhere in BtB he referred to gunaiki as a generic noun, though that alone doesn't say much. So, would he take this as a perfect of allegory?

I just sent Dan an email so I'll let you know what he says. I hope he doesn't mind this new question since I still haven't opened his last email to me. We are discussing some heavy things and with two projects on my plate, I am working more on the one with a deadline (my book) and juggling the other project (a DVD on a balanced view of the Sovereignty of God) whenever I can put in some spare time. I know that if I open his emails I am right in there like a dirty shirt and so even though he has been really good with me in answering quite quickly, I often have to set his emails onto the back burner and I am the slow one in our correspondence.

I have no doubt that 13-15 is one compound thought, so I don't deny its relevance at all.

Good, we can agree. However I would back it up two verses to verse 11. All of the verses from verse 11 are connected with a conjunction so we should not break the flow of the argument.

I am only 24 and have so much more to learn -- I have enough time to set some curiosities aside and study more readily apparent mysteries first.

You are doing well if you keep an open mind like you seem to have. All of us can learn from anyone no matter the age or experience. I see this as an iron sharpening iron discussion so it challenges me too when I meet someone who has a different way of looking at the passage. It tests the validity of my argument and stretches me to see if there is any problems or holes in my own understanding.

If I were to speculate, I would have to wonder if Paul knew of some rabbinic tradition having to do with Eve and childbearing.

I have read a lot of stuff in the Talmud (the rabbinic tradition) and much of it sickened me. I came to a clear understanding of why Jesus called the Pharisees white washed tombs full of dead men's bones.

So would Paul appeal to a rabbinic tradition? I have never seen a positive appeal from Paul back to a non-Torah tradition. Also when Paul references something that seems out of place, the connecting reference is found in the text sometimes many chapters ahead so that we don't need to guess what Paul means. That is why when I read the context I just keep reading back and back until I find Paul's own explanation. I see nothing from the text that refers to a rabbinic tradition so that seems easy for me to reject.

I think there's something there in his thought that is not readily apparent (at least not to me).

I have been over and over this passage so many times, that I can see it but I admit that the passage is an extremely hard one and most scholars seem to throw their hands in the air and give up in trying to understand Paul in this passage.

The central question I'd have about such a "Sunday school" tradition is: which verse is this alleged tradition referring to? Eve's punishment (not a curse, IMHO) in 3:16, or is it verse twenty?

I would say neither. I think the answer is right within the passage itself (verses 11-15).

Cheryl Schatz said...

Gary,

You said: In Gen 3, immediately after God's almost hopeless statement that Adam will die and return to dust, he names Eve the mother of the living. Where did he get this hope?

I believe the answer came from the promise of the Messiah through the seed of the woman. While he would father all those who are dying, she alone would be the mother of the living.

If that Greek statement were used by God in reference to Eve, then it could be interpreted "she will be sustained through childbearing..." Or maybe the more conventional "saved"/"healed."

The Greek word is always for spiritual salvation in the epistles so we would need a good reason not to translate it this way as in every other one of Paul's passages. Also remember that it isn't the bearing of a child (verb) but it is a hapax because it is a noun. Also th future tense is attached to things that are to be followed so placing a dead woman into verse 15 doesn't work.

But if it did, then in this original context, sothesetai would be a straightforward predictive future. Since (in my theory) it would be a statement originally said by God to Adam, it would be a guaranteed prediction, because of who God is.

But it isn't said as a "guaranteed prediction but a hopeful prediction as Paul used the adverbial conditional "if".

1 Tim 2:15 is likewise a statement of hope...

I agree with you that it is a statement of hope, but I don't take it back to the far past to dead people. It is a hopeful statement about one who is in a problematic situation regarding faith.

A key word in 1 Tim 2 is σωφροσύνη, that cardinal virtue of having temperate judgment.

I would take this a bit past how you describe it to emphasize self-control. The Analytical lexicon says it means:


(1) as a quality of life characterized by the ability to restrain passions and impulses self-control, moderation, sensibleness
Friberg, T., Friberg, B., & Miller, N. F. (2000). Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament.

One needs self control in how we present ourselves in dress and self control in the area of staying away from faulty doctrine. I agree with you that this is a key and repeated thought of Paul's.

Adam and Eve both lacked sound judgment (σωφροσύνη) and didn't refuse the fruit.

I wouldn't say that Eve lacked sound judgment per se. Rather she lacked the wisdom and knowledge that would have exposed the lie. As far as Adam, he lacked something alright. Perhaps it went far past "sound judgment"

Cheryl Schatz said...

Gary,
You said about after Adam and Eve ate the fruit: Then they realized they were naked (and therefore a sense for modesty -- (σωφροσύνη).

I don't think that modesty was the issue here. After all they were husband and wife. The issue of nakedness is the issue of shame. This is the reason why the Jews said that the wife was to have a head covering from the day of her marriage. Because they said that the woman "led" the man into sin, she must go around as a mourner because of the shame of her sin. Covering is a sign of mourning and a sign of shame. I believe that Adam and Eve were ashamed because of their sin and they were busy trying to cover up their shame and hiding from God because shame and guilt separates us from God.

This is similar to the snake's deceptive but technically correct claim to the woman that they would "be like God, knowing good and evil."

I differ in this area because I do not believe that the serpent told the truth. Jesus said that satan is the father of lies and there is no truth in him. Adam and Eve were already "like" God since they were made in His image. Adam through his deliberate and willful disobedience in an act of treason became "unlike" God through the experience of sin while still remaining in God's image. It is the perfect tense in Genesis 3:22. Adam did not become "like" God after he ate. He was already in His image so he became a distorted image of God who must not live forever in that state.

I must see it this way since Jesus said that satan cannot tell the truth and is God now agreeing with the serpent's words as if they were truth?

In short, I see logical and thematic connections between Genesis 3 and 1 Timothy 2:13-15.

I too see the connections between Genesis 3 and 1 Timothy 2, but not quite in the way that you see them. The connection is still there as a backdrop to Genesis 3:14, 5 as "the woman" and "she" are similar to the deception of Eve, but Eve herself cannot be the direct fulfillment of the promise of salvation.

Perhaps Paul quoted a tradition that had Adam tell God that this punishment was more than they could bear (much as his son Cain did), and God gave a gracious promise that she would be saved/restored/healed/sustained through childbearing.

But how would we know that? What words or grammar show us Adam's plea for his wife?

I have to go for a bit and don't know if I will be able to finish the other two posts of yours tonight. I will respond as quickly as I am able.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Gary,
You said: You explained to Bill that the "surrounding grammar" doesn't support my invocation of that rare category here. However, Dr. Wallace's textbook doesn't mention any grammatical cues for the perfect of allegory. Do his references (Fanning, Moule, BDF) mention any grammatical cues that he was remiss in omitting?

What I mean is that the grammar must include verse 15 because the verses are all connected together. Verse 14 cannot remain on its own with the perfect of allegory if that would be what it was. It has to flow into verse 15 and with the perfect tense that has actions that are required, this is a huge hurdle to leap over.

There's another part of your statement to Bill that seems a little off: you dismissed the category because it's rare. Rare does not mean extinct.

I guess Dan is really rubbing off on me because this is what he pushes on me. He says that "rare" needs something that will prove the application of the rare grammar. I was just passing on what he says to me. Where is the proof that the other option (the plain old perfect tense) is not the correct meaning? Okay so Dan is a hard cookie to crumble, but I do see that on the instances of the "rare" grammar, we need evidence to get rid of the "normal" usage and prove the "rare" usage is the one that is meant by the context.

How can you be sure it's a specific sin? A prepositional anarthrous noun is may be definite, but that does not automatically mean it is specific. Wallace (p209-210) explains that the article's main use (particularly in conjunction with nouns) is to identify, that is, to stress the identity of an individual or class or quality [from the broader concept itself].

From Beyond the Basics, pg. 210 c. The Greek article also serves a determining function at times --i.e., it definitizes. On the one hand, although it would in incorrect to say that the article's basic function is to make something definite, on the other hand, whenever it is used, the term it modifies must of necessity be definite. (bold is my emphasis).

The fact is that if it were to refer to Eve, there is only one sin "transgression" that it could refer to. However with the grammar referring to a specific woman "the woman" still in the consequences of "the transgression" with two uses of the article and the use of the perfect tense, I don't see any way around seeing it as one woman in her particular sin. Would Timothy have known what sin she was in? Since the letter was written to him, I think it is safe to assume that he understood the problem as well as the solution that Paul was advocating.

Gary said...

Cheryl: Good response, so far! I fear that I get a little snappy in the last one. Forgive me in advance.

I haven't been able to sleep much lately, and I'm a bit cranky. I hope tomorrow will greet me with more responses!

And good luck with the full plate!

In a mini-response: I agree that modesty was certainly not an "issue" in Genesis. However, both knowledge and nakedness present themselves as key terms, with and the whole crafty serpent - naked people thing is a good pun. I just came up with the sophrosune thing on the spot, but I have you to thank for it.

I think a case can be made that Paul was making a wordplay that somehow interacted with both of those major linking terms in early Genesis (naked - crafty links chapters 2 and 3, and knowledge links three to four).

Cheryl Schatz said...

Gary,
You said: It is true that she'd be quite the glutton if she kept eating fruit until she died. However, the consequences of doing that even once changed history forever, since sin was introduced into the world.

Her eating didn't bring sin into the world. It was the sin of the one man which brought sin.

After she died, her children were found by the FBI. They're now thirty-something years old, full-grown adults. Their mother died with a debt to society for transgressing the law. She is dead, but her children still have ill-gotten money. Are there ongoing consequences after her death? Yes. They have to give the money back. Why? Because their mother was a transgressor.

The problem with this is that the woman did not bring sin into the world or to her children. I think the Bible is clear that it was only one man who brought sin into the world and if we make that two, then I think we would be adding to the Scripture.

Did Eve make restitution with God before she died to clear her debt? No. So the debt is still there, as an ongoing effect. Dead people have legacies.

There cannot be a legacy towards her children since she didn't pass on her sin to them. But for her to have her debt still not clear means that she would be in hell. Her actions of faith in believing that it was God who gave her, her children was an act of a believing woman, not a reprobate. No matter what, Scripture never gives us any indication that she is in hell or that the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross was not applicable to her. If Scripture never leaves her in her guilt for eternity, how can we do this without a second witness?

The effect of her action was the introduction of sin and death into the world.

I understand that there were some early fathers who thought this way and this is a common theme in the Talmud, but the Scriptures do not say this. How do you deal with these witnesses?

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

Romans 5:19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Where does the Bible ever say that Eve's sin brought sin into the world?

On a related note, if you deny the possibility of the perfect's continuing results extending beyond the actant's death, then you run into some difficulty justifying the use of gegraptai, "it is written." Pretty sure the authors of the OT were dead when Jesus said gegraptai. But the legacy remained -- the record of scripture.

God is the author of Scripture, and He is not dead.

One cannot be "in a specific instance of the act of transgressing." One can, however, be "in transgression," i.e. "branded as a lawbreaker with a warrant out for your arrest." Yes, I know it's an anachronism, but run with it.

Ah, my friend, I don't run very well ;)

With the perfect tense it is the consequences of the sin that is continuing, so that while the original action is done, the sin is still there on the person because it has not been dealt with and they are still immersed in the consequences. That doesn't fit Eve especially since Paul confidentially says "she will be saved..."

Cheryl Schatz said...

Gary,
This is the last part to your comments.

I don't intend to continue this discussion further with you Cheryl. You've been less than charitable in telling me that I'm flat-out wrong ("sorry, but that can't be") without really any evidence.

Well, this surprises me. Telling someone that they are wrong is not uncharitable. I have given proof and continue to give proof in response to your comments. If you choose not to engage, then certainly that is your choice. I never made comment about your person, and I was as charitable as I could be with what I believed was error.

The context of what's going on in verses 13-15 would make a reader assume that "the woman" is introducing an already-known female subject.

Sure. And the intended reader (recipient) is Timothy. Since we are looking at some of Paul's hardest passages from many years after the original situation was dealt with by Timothy, surely we will not see things as clearly as Timothy did.

The most recent singular antecedent that matches "the woman" is Eve, who happens to be mentioned in just the last breath (or two, if you read slowly). Why would Adam be juxtaposed to Eve, and then supposedly be juxtaposed to another woman that has not been mentioned and is not mentioned again in the letter?

What Paul has done is placed singular language around "the woman" that cannot refer to Eve. 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 cannot refer to Eve (a woman) and verse 15 cannot refer to Eve (she will be saved...if..) Somewhere Paul has to change back to a singular other than Eve. It has to be done by verse 15 and with the perfect tense of verse 14 giving a reason for the stopping of a teacher, it fits without the grammar just the way it was written.


1Ti 1:5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
1Ti 1:6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion,

"Faithful is the saying" makes it clear that it is a quote. The Nestle-Aland 27th edition attaches it to the same paragraph as 2:15, so they obviously take it as referring to that, and not as referring to 3:1b.

I don't have a problem with this at the end of the chapter. After all Paul mentioned this already in chapter 1:

1Ti 1:5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
1Ti 1:6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion,

There are things that must be there for sincere faith and those who stray from these things move off into error. This supports the concept of an application to people alive at the time and not to a dead woman who cannot be part of the "faithful saying" about how salvation is assured.

Lastly, looking through the "Free to Function" thing you referred to, I notice that he (and you) never addressed the possibility that "to teach nor authentein" is a hendiadys. How can we be sure it isn't? Most hendiadys are "X and Y," but "X nor Y" can be possible, as in the English "I saw hide nor hair of him since yesterday."

I know that a lot of egalitarians want to make the prohibition about one thing and not two, but I believe that two things are prohibited and both are negative things.

In the same way two things are negative in Revelation 2:20 -

Rev 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.

She was "teaching" and "leading" with error. Her reprimand is not because she was a woman but because she was leading and teaching immorality.

Anyways, thanks for the discussion. I thought it was a good one with iron sharpening iron. I see you as a brother in Christ and as one who is free to disengage if you want.

Take care,
Cheryl

Cheryl Schatz said...

Gary,

Cheryl: Good response, so far! I fear that I get a little snappy in the last one. Forgive me in advance.

You are totally forgiven! Oh my, I guess I should be reading in advance instead of just typing the responses as I read them.

So are we are okay?

I haven't been able to sleep much lately, and I'm a bit cranky. I hope tomorrow will greet me with more responses!

And good luck with the full plate!


Well I wish you a blessed sleep with God's grace. I know that I can have problems sleeping too, but I don't struggle as much with grumpiness than I do with just being "down" with I don't get enough sleep.

As far as my "full plate", I will have to hunker down at least by after Christmas and set aside blogging at least for periods of time. Even my own blog is too addicting. At least I don't have any editing on top of my other work right now. I put a brief look at my last editing project regarding Word Faith in case you are interested in knowing what my real job is like working in apologetics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDW-2MTrHr0

It may not look like much but it is long hours (15 or more a day) for months at a time. I have a breath of air now as my next DVD project will not likely start for at least a year.

However, both knowledge and nakedness present themselves as key terms, with and the whole crafty serpent - naked people thing is a good pun.

Ah, a punny guy, eh? Alright then, I won't argue about the pun.

I just came up with the sophrosune thing on the spot, but I have you to thank for it.

Really? Well, I think that's good, right? But it went past my head, but that's okay. Kind of a late night again for me. Brain cells not working as good as they should.

Recent Posts
Recent Posts Widget