"Wives" or "Women"

Helen,

I just thought I would add my 'two cents' on why it matters whether gunaikas is translated as "women" or "wives" in 1Tim.3:11.
It matters because, if Paul meant it to refer to women more generally, then one could take this in context as a reference to women who served in a way similar to deacons, and thus as a possible proof text for an office of "deaconess". At least this is what the modern debate about the meaning of gunaikas in this verse usually seems to be about.

Pastork

 

In considering the phrase "husband of one wife", could it possibly be considered as a generic use of the words? We take the phrase "it is appointed unto man once to die" and don't expect any women to become immortal, using this verse as evidence. If it is generic, its thrust is against bigamy from either sex, isn't it?

As for the general servant idea, how many of us would want to allow a Sunday School teacher of either sex if they had two spouses? Certainly a point worth making, isn't it?

 

OK PastorK I see the point you are aiming at.

Yes, if there is not a "possesive indicator" then you are correct.

Actually both could be true.

I believe that there are "deaconesses" in the Church, every time we have a potluck, there they are "serving" the saints

So, yes, even these women who "serve" tables or in Sunday School or in Children's Church or in Awana or as Church Treasurer/Secretary or whatever ministry God calls them to, must currently have these personal qualities.

HankD

 

DocCas,

Will you ever answer my questions about your position on gunaikas in 1Tim.3:11?

Pastork

 

Well, DocCas, since you have chosen for the past two weeks not to answer the questions I have put to you concerning your position on gunaikas in 1Tim.3:11, I assume you are unable to do so. Perhaps you will take a word of advice? I think it would be best if you did not speak so authoritatively about the underlying Greek text if you are not able to defend your assertions.

Pastork

 

Pastork, I suspect you may be too full of yourself!

The reason I did not answer your question is that I did not read it. I have not been on this thread since the last time I posted here.

Now, in order to answer your question I will have to ask you how much Greek you have studied, and what system you studied? Did you learn 5 case or 8 case, and if 8 case are you aware of the distinction between the genitive and ablative and how to recognize that distinction?

If you have not studied Greek that extensively just look at the other versions.

Tyndale - "their wyves"
Great Bible - "theyr wyves"
Cranmer - "their wyues"
Geneva - "their wyues"
Bishops' Bible - "their wives"
Lamas's Translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta - "their wives" (by the way, check that Aramaic word for "wives.")

 

John MacArthur states that he thinks it refers to the seperate office of a women deacon.
1. Use of pharse "In the same way" (cf. 2:9, 3:8 and Titus 2:3,6)
2. No possesive pronoun or definite aricle connecting these women with deacons
3. No qualifications for elder's wives, why so for deacons wives?
4. Paul did not use deaconesses because there is no such Greek word. Using the term "women" (gunaikeios) was the only way to distinguish them from male deacons.
5. Qualifications parallel those of male deacons, why repeat the qualifications again unless to establish another office?

After reading many, many, many other writers on this verse, what MacArthur states seems to me to make the most sense it is also consistent with Romans 16:1, where Phoebe is refered to as a deacon.

 

DocCas,

My apologies for too quickly assuming that you were ignoring responding to my questions. I was trying not to reach such a conclusion, but after watching you respond to a number of other threads , but not to this one, I jumped to what I now find to be a wrong conclusion. However, I do not think anything I have said warrants the assumption by you that I am "too full of myself". And I think all my questions were reasonable ones.
In answer to your question about how much Greek I have studied, I have had three full years of Greek studies. I have studied under both a five and an eight case system (although I prefer the five case approach). As far as how to distinguish between the genitive and the ablative case, I will quote what I think is a pretty good summary: "Inasmuch as both the genitive and the ablative employ the same case form, one must first decide whether a word in the second inflected form is genitive or ablative. This can usually be done by asking whether the use of the word reflects kind, description,definition--in which case the word is genitive--or separation [e.g. source or origin]-- in which case the word is ablative" ( Syntax of New Testament Greek , Brooks and Winbery, p.21). This probably won't help much with our discussion of gunaikas, however, since it is in the accusative case (as is diakonous in verse 8).

As far as looking at other versions for support of the "wives" reading, I don't see the need because I agree that it is the slightly better way to translate gunaikas in 1Tim.3:11.

I await your answer to my previous questions, which I will try to restate here for your convenience.

1. You made an argument regarding the morphology of the word gunaikas when you said "the Greek for 'wives' reads ' gunaikas'. In Greek this word contains a grammatical indicator which we, in English, would call the 'possessive'. It gives the sense of 'belonging to' ". What is this "grammatical indicator" contained in the word gunaikas? Can you cite support, perhaps from an authority dealing with the morphology of such words?

2. You said "It is clear that the antecedent of gunaikas is the diakonous of verse 9" [I think you meant verse 8]. I am not familiar with using the term "antecedent" to describe the relationship of a noun to another noun in this manner. Do you use this word because you think gunaikas does not function as a noun in this instance?

3. After asserting the aforementioned "possessive" force of gunaikas , you then argue that "As the word for 'deacons' is masculine, and the word for 'wives' is feminine and in the sense of 'belonging to' we have to understand that the women belong to the deacons in the sense of their possessing them". Here I am really lost, because I am entirely unfamiliar with such reasoning. If you are right about gunaikas being a "possessive", wouldn't it then describe that which belongs to the women themselves rather than to some other group? This is the only way I know to conceive of the manner in which possessives function. Besides, wouldn't the usual way of stating in Greek that the women "belonged to" the deacons previously mentioned in verse eight be to use an accompanying pronoun in the genitive case as a possessive pronoun, thus reading something like gunaikas auton[the 'o' in auton representing an omega] ( i.e. 'their women')?

Pastork

[ August 23, 2002, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

Go2Church,

Is there a website where I can read MacArthur's argument in its entirety? I am very interested in learning more about it, especially since the points you have listed, as well as the direction my thoughts have been taking in response to DocCas, have made me start to lean more in Mac's direction.

Thanks for mentioning it and for any further help you can give.

Pastork

[ August 23, 2002, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

In grammar there is a device known as a relative which is a word referring to or qualifying an antecedent. In most cases, in English, relatives are pronouns, but occasionally a noun will also be used as a relative. This also occurs in Greek.

In the passage in question, we see, at the beginning, the interrogative pronoun τις which means "who" or "whoever" and is translated, in the KJV, as "If a man."

Later in the passage we see διακονους and later still γυναικας, without articles. In this case, γυναικας functions as a relative noun with the antecedent διακονους. It has even been suggested by some Greek scholars that διακονουσ and επισκοπης are both antecedents of γυναικας. I am not sure I see that, but I have no doubt at all that γυναικας is a relative noun with διακονους as its antecedent.

 

DocCas,

I agree that in Greek grammar there is a "device known as a relative". Any first year Greek student is familiar with relative pronouns and relative clauses often introduced by relative pronouns ( although they may also be introduced by such things as pronominal adjectives or by adverbs or adverbial particles). Given that nouns are a part of the makeup of such relative clauses, I can imagine that one could refer to a noun as a "relative". However, I would ask for support for your position from a recognized authority in Greek grammar( e.g. BDF,Moulton, Robertson, Brooks & Winbery,Dana & Mantey, etc.). I would also point out that a "relative" and a "possessive" are not the same thing, but you have previously argued that gunaikas functioned as a "possessive" due to a "grammatical indicator" you said was "contained" in the word. I again ask, What is this "grammatical indicator"? I also would ask that, if you are now arguing that it functions more like a relative pronoun than a possessive one (thus requiring an antecedent),can you cite a recognized Greek authority for such a thing? And, assuming for the moment that you are correct,why would the 'antecedent' have to be diakonous?

You go on to say that "In the passage in question ,we see, at the beginning [verse 1, I presume], the interrogative pronoun tis which means 'who' or 'whoever' and is translated, in the KJV, as 'If a man'". First, tis is not an interrogatve pronoun here, it is a pronominal adjective used as an indefinite pronoun and thus can be translated as "a man", "any man", "one", or "any one" ( and "if" actually translates the Greek conjunction ei). Second, tis is used in this way in both verse 1 and verse 5, so do you think it is significant there as well? Third, whether you are referring to the use of tis in verse 1 or verse 5 (or both), you have not stated the connection with the use of either diakonous in verse 8 or gunaikas in verse 11. Exactly what is the connection you are implying?

You further state that "Later in the passage we see diakonous and later still gunaikas, without articles. In this case, gunaikas functions as a relative noun with the antecedent diakonous". Why? If having no article means that gunaikas functions here as a "relative" that needs an antecedent, then why would that antecedent have to be diakonous? And why doesn't diakonous also require an antecedent? And why wouldn't the antecedent be the same for both?Also, I would ask for support from a recognized authority on Greek grammar for how it is that lack of an article can indicate that a noun should be taken as a "relative" that requires an antecedent.

I find both of your discussions of the passage so far to be confusing, but I will tell you what I think is really going on in the text and that I think you have mistated in your most recent post. If I have it right, both diakonous in verse 8 and gunaikas in verse 11 are a part of a relative clause introduced in each case by the adverb osautos (both 'o's transliterating omegas), which is translated "likewise". The question thus becomes, "like-" what? What do these two statements relate back to in the context? It would seem that they relate back to the qualifications of overseers which began in verse1-2 and continued through verse 7. Just as anyone (tis) who desires to be an episkopes must meet certain moral requirements, so must the diakonous or the gunaikas(whether the "wives" of the deacons or "women" who serve as deaconesses, although I am beginning to think that the latter may be a stronger option than I had previously thought).

Pastork

[ August 23, 2002, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

I don't want to sound unkind, but I really don't care enough about this subject to get into a nit-picking debate with you.

My medication is making it very difficult to type, not to mention concentrate, so this is just not worth the effort.

I have stated what I believe and why I believe it. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else to believe as I do. You may believe whatever you choose to believe, and I trust you will grant me the same liberty.

 

The information comes from one of his books. I will get back to you on the title, but is the book where he talks about the role of women in the church, I found it very helpful. Check back in a day or so I will post it. I had those notes written in the back of my bible.

There is a web site for Mac's sermons John MacArthur's sermons

 

DocCas,

I do not wish to sound or be unkind either, but I will point out that in my opinion it is not "nit-picking" to expect someone who speaks so authoritatively about the Greek text to do so accurately. Your profile lists you as both a pastor and a seminary professor. You also have the title "Doc" in your name here, and I have seen you referred to as "Doctor" in another thread. This means that many who frequent these discussions will consider you an authority, so I think it is only proper that you are careful to speak accurately when you offer up arguments on the Greek text. And as far as I can tell, you have either mistated, misunderstood, or misused basic Greek grammar. A number of your points have certainly gone beyond the pale for what could be considered a simple mistake. It is not "nit-picking" to expect a seminary professor not to keep doing this. When you claim that a "grammatical indicator" is "contained" in a Greek word, it is not "nit-picking" to ask you what it is, especially when you have based an argument on the point. I am sorry you are not feeling well, but I really do not think it is fair of you to have characterized me as "too full of myself" or "nit-picking" simply because I expect you to know what you are talking about and to back up what you say.

Since you wish to drop the subject, I am more than willing to do so. I hope you start feeling better soon.

Pastork

 

Thanks Go2Church! I will be looking for the title of the book and will check out the website.

Pastork

 

Dear Doc,

I think you did a spectacular job.

To take a creative step outside the box of the "accepted authorities" is a courageous one.

I understand your observation that there can be such an entity as a "relative noun" functioning much the same as the relative pronoun indicating an especially strong attraction to the antecedent.

I appreciate your contributions.

Yours too PastorK.

HankD

 

PastorK
The name of the book is "God's High Calling for Women"

Also try this site Question and Answer

 

Thanks again Go2Church!