POINT 1: Notice that Paul says "I do not permit". This may be his own personal stand, not necessarily God's.
2 Tim 3:16 means that Paul’s words are God’s words. So this is God’s command because “All Scripture is God-breathed.”
POINT 2: Paul says "And I do not permit a woman to teach..." Note the context of this which can be found in 1 Timothy 2:8 where Paul states that "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands...and I also want women to dress modestly ... which is proper for women professing godliness." In other words it is EVERYWHERE not just in the church.
Incorrect. 1 Tim 3:14 makes clear that Paul is addressing how people ought to conduct themselves
in the church. The fact that a teaching might be applicable elsewhere, does not change the context of this one. So your understanding of the text is not only “not assured,” it is specifically contradicted by the Scriptures themselves.
POINT 3: The word "Teach" is the key to this awkward situation. It is the Greek word "Didasko" from which we get the word "Didactic" which is to teach in a pedagogic manner. In other words it is a domineering form of teaching requiring submission, which was the way that many Greeks and Romans taught. Paul says that this form of teaching is unacceptable in a Christian woman. It is therefore important to realize that when we "teach" today it usually means "an exchange of information".
Simply incorrect. Where did you get this from? You list no source by which it can be checked. I browsed quickly through TDNT and NIDNTT and see nothing of the sort right off. Brown (NIDNTT) says “The aim of all teaching is to communicate knowledge and skill with a view to developing the pupil’s abilities, but not to force his will in a particular direction” (3:760). That seems directly in opposition to your assertion about “requiring submission,” as does the rest of the discussion on this word.
POINT 4: Paul says that he will "not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man". Note to begin that the word "over" is NOT in the original text. It literally reads "I do not permit a woman ...to have authority a man."
It doesn’t literally read that way. The genitive case in Greek requires us to supply a word in English that is understood perfectly well in Greek. The text says nothing about a woman exercising authority under a man. That is your addition to the text. Never does a man have permission to call on a woman to disobey God in any context.
POINT 5: The point that needs be made here is the use of the word "authority". It is the Greek word "Authenteo". This is a compound word which literally means "to act for oneself" or figuratively has the meaning to "dominate". My wife neither acted for herself nor dominated. She acted at my behest, and I called the shots or dominated. Therefore my wife was not exercising "Authenteo" over me or the audience. She was not at fault Scripturally on either meaning of the word.
Again, simply incorrect. The word can mean to have authority over or to domineer. You have assumed the definition that fits your preconceived notion. The word does not require that, nor does it really make sense. Not even men are to “dominate.” They are to lead gently, and teach clearly. George Knight (New International Greek Testament Commentary) says, “ Contrary to the suggestion of the KJV’s “to usurp authority” and BAGD’s alternative, “domineer” (so also NEB), the use of the words no inherent negative sense of grasping or usurping authority or of exercising it in a harsh or authoritative way, but simply means “to have or exercise authority” (BAGD; LSJM; “to have full power or authority over”; cf. Preisigke, Worterbuch I, 235f., giving three nuances for four different papyri, all in the sphere of the above definition; cf. finally Lampe, Lexicon, whose four main meanings are in the same orbit; so NASB, RSV, TEV, NIV: “to have authority”).
He continues, “That a woman may not teach in the church, or teach a man, is underlined by the addition of [to remain quiet (he uses the Greek here, but most won’t understand it so I translated)]. The adversative particle alla indicates that this clause is contrasted with what precedes (not to teach or have authority but to be in silence). Some have suggested that Paul is only ruling out teaching or exercise of authority apart from a man’s oversight [which seems to be your position, Barry], or just a certain type of authoritative teaching. The insistence here on silence seems to rule out all these solutions. The clause as a whole describes the status of a woman not in relation to every aspect of the gathered assembly (i.e., praying, prophesying, singing, etc.; cf. again 1 Cor 11:5) but specifically in respect to that with which it is contrasted, i.e., teaching (and the exercise of authority), just as the first occurrence of [in silence] applied to the learning/teaching situation (v. 11).”
So you have failed to account for “remaining in silence” (v. 12), and learning in silence (v. 11).
POINT 6: A literal reading of the text might therefore be "I, Paul, do not permit a woman to present in a domineering way which requires submission to her, or to act for herself or dominate a man." On this basis my wife is clear of all charges against her. She did nothing wrong or contrary to the straightforward reading of Scripture. There remains one final comment.
That is most decidedly not a literal reading of the text. That is your interpretation of the text, to support your position. The text literally reads “To teach, a woman, I do not allow nor to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (You can get out your Greek New Testament and check it out.) Smoothed out for English construction, Paul literally says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to remain in silence.” The words you have added are your words, not God’s.
BTW, concerning “remaining silence,” do you still want to argue that this is not just about the church? As much as some men with talkative wives might find such a prescription helpful, it most certainly is not intended for outside the church.
Here, your wife asked for comments, so they were offered. I have tried to stay clear of making direct personal accusations while at the same time not compromising on the clear teaching of Scripture.
POINT 7: However, what also disturbs me is the form of legalism that has penetrated some churches, or at least the individuals who run those churches. This legalism requires them to insist that there is no other valid interpretation of passages such as this one. This legalism denies God's character. If there is another legitimate interpretation open, which allows the graciousness of Christ to shine forth, it should be used in place of a legalistic one. It can be seen from POINT 6 that there is a very valid reading of Scripture which allows this graciousness to be expressed.
This is the last resort … Pull out the legalism card? Are we legalists because we insist on the outdated notion that men and women should not live together? That homosexuals should not marry? Why is it that taking the words of God and putting them into practice is legalism? Why pull this out?
The fact that I and others take the words of Scripture on this matter very seriously does not make us legalists. It is unfortunate that you stooped to that.
In short, Barry (I think there is a rule BTW against posting under someone else’s name), the text of Scripture is clear and your seven points are attempts to avoid the text. You have not participated in a straightforward reading of the text. You have mangled it, attempting to use Greek; you have ignored the context, both near and larger context of 1 Tim as a whole; you have ignored the impact of the doctrine of inspiration; you didn’t address remaining silent; you did not even attempt to address Paul’s reasons (creation and fall). If all you have said is true, then why did Paul speak so clearly in opposition to your position, and why did he use creation and fall as his proof?
Are your familiar with Grudem and Piper’s book on this topic? You should familiarize yourself with it. The arguments you make are typical arguments made by evangelical feminism (which doesn’t necessarily make them wrong). As I said earlier, I have a lot more respect for people who just say, “Paul was trapped in first century culture,” than for those who try to change what the text says.
I think what you have given us is a classic attempt to justify women in teaching and authority roles in the church. Every church with women pastors would applaud your exegesis because it is exactly what they believe. And I think that we have shown sufficient holes in it to undermine any legitimacy it might pretend to have.
