Neopatriarch has taken a second stab at trying to refute my teaching on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as he has rewritten his article. Once again he has failed to poke a hole in my argument but this time he has dropped the charge that I am exasperating. Good for Neopatriarch for taking a much kinder tone in his introduction! He nows calls it his “canned response”. From reading the comments, it appears that Neopatriarch has come to the understanding that brothers and sisters in Christ can argue their position passionately without attacking the other person’s character and their motives. This is certainly a change in his approach and I commend him for that.
I must also give Neopatriarch credit for trying to answer my interpretation when others who make their living off of promoting the complementarian message just run and hide. However Neopatriarch has major flaws in his argument and his argument fails to present contradictions or holes in my own argument so I am very pleased to be able to present this second refutation of Neopatriarch’s attempt to tear down my argument.
I will start my response by saying that I have no doubt that Neopatriarch is a brother in Christ. However on the issue of patriarchy he is dead wrong. It is a loving thing to confront a brother in Christ with his errors so that he can learn from his mistakes. I am certain that Neopatriarch continues to read my blog, even though he doesn’t want to post here any longer, and since my blog seems to have a higher following, I am posting my response here.
At this time I would also like to commend Mike Seaver for his willingness to debate me in this public setting. I do not take this kind of bravery for granted. Although Mike’s answers were not very weighty, the fact that he was willing to work with me to bridge the gap between complementarians and egalitarians was truly a remarkable act on his part. Hats off to Mike for being brave, loving and kind!
Now back to Neopatriarch’s second attempt at refuting me. Neopatriarch writes:
Schatz’s view has cropped up in various discussion groups like CARM and Worthy Boards, and, you might see it in various blogs as well. If you’re thinking about engaging her in a debate or discussion, you might first want to listen to this debate between her and Matt Slick:
Neopatriarch linked to the audio with Matt Slick where Slick refused to allow me to finish my argument on 1 Timothy 2:15. I would recommend that Neopatriarch take a more fair approach and link to my article where I give my full view which includes verse 15. I make this recommendation so that Neopatriarch doesn’t come across as being biased and merely seen as trying to stack the deck by only a partial view of my position. If Neo believes that he is right and I am wrong, it would only be fair to link to a proper and fair presentation of my view.
After giving a quote from John Calvin, Neo writes:
As Calvin explains, Paul continues on the topic of modest conduct by forbidding women to teach or exercise authority over men. From verses 9-10 we know that Paul is addressing the conduct of women (plural).
While John Calvin may have believed that teaching the truth of God’s word to men was immodest conduct, the context of this passage does not list it this way. Instead we find a clear break in verse 10 where Paul is referencing women who have a claim to godliness. These godly women were to be encouraged to dress modestly so that their godliness would be shown from their good works rather than from their outward apparel. Would teaching the truth of God’s Word be a good work? Of course! There is not a single reference in the Scriptures instructing the church to stop the teaching and preaching of the truth of the gospel. So we have godly women referenced in verses 9 and 10. Does the reference to godly women continue? It does not. Here is where the break comes. Paul goes back to the theme of chapter one where he references the stopping of teaching and here in chapter two deception as the reason given for the stopping of teaching. In 1 Timothy 2:9-10, 11-12 not only does Paul go from plural to singular, but Paul goes from godly women (women who profess godliness) to the certain ungodliness in the issue of sin through deception. The two portions of this chapter do not go together in one flow. Godliness does not connect with transgression and deception no matter how much Neopatriarch would like to think it does.
Since context determines the meaning of a word, the reasonable presumption here is that “a woman” refers to any of the women (plural) whom Paul is addressing.
Context certainly does determine the meaning of a word. A “woman” is connected to deception. Now tell me, are all women to be considered as deceived? Are all women continuing in the transgression (verse 14)? The context simply cannot fit all women.
Neopatriarch then quotes Rev. Lane Keister as writing:
I believe that Paul has in mind already the reasons in verses 13-14, which require a singular to connect with Eve as a representative. Therefore, Paul is using a generic singular to make his point. Mounce argues that a general principle is being stated here, and that the singular is most apropos. I think this is borne out further by Paul’s argument in verses 13-14, which speak of Adam and Eve as representative of male and female.
Let’s test this by the Scripture. Paul has already been using a generic form for women in verse 10 although he states that these are women who have a claim to godliness. Are they now to be included in verses 12-15? The claim that this is a “general principle” can only stand if it fits the context. Let’s continue to test the context.
Where does Paul speak of Adam and Eve as representative of male and female? Paul speaks of Adam as a man who was created first. Are all men now to be considered created first? Adam is said not to be deceived. Are all men now to be as Adam and not deceived? These facts of Paul’s do not fit generic men. How about Eve? Eve was created second and like Eve “the woman” in verse 14 was deceived. Is Eve representative of all women? In what way is Paul making Eve connected to all women? Unless Neo can show a representative nature in this passage, he cannot add to what God has inspired to make the passage say more than it is saying.
Neopatriarch then writes:
But Schatz interprets in a way that disrupts the flow and coherence that verses 11-15 have with the preceding verses. Indeed, she claims there is a “sharp” shift to the singular4, and thereby isolates verses 11-15 from the immediately preceding verses.
This is not true. Here is the coherence – in chapter one Paul has reminded Timothy that he left him behind in Ephesus to rstop the deceived teachers who are teaching error. The only teaching that is stopped according to Paul’s command in chapter one is that of the false teachers who are teaching strange doctrines. Paul continues in chapter one to describe his compassion for those who have been deceived by comparing them to his own actions done in ignorance. Paul says that he received mercy because he had done his wicked deeds ignorantly and in unbelief. Paul then moves on in chapter two to say that God desires all to be saved and this would have to include even the ignorance deceived teachers. Paul’s word to men about not praying with wrath and dissension fits in perfectly with the exasperation of the elders who were responsible for fixing the problems. They were “fixing the problem” by arguing and this appeared even in their prayers. Paul says that this wrath and dissension should not be shown in their prayers.
The next group to be dealt with are the women who would be the mature believers and who have works of godliness. They are to reveal their godliness by their acts, not by their dress. They too would have been called on to deal with the error that had crept into the congregation especially if it was a problem with a woman. Paul connects the issue of the salvation of all men to the importance of godly leadership by saying “therefore” and “likewise”. But there is no connecting word in verse 11. Check it for yourself. The first word is “woman” and it is disconnected to the grammar of verses 9 & 10. The disconnection here cannot be ignored. Paul is not talking about the same group of women. The women in the previous verses are women with good works claiming godliness.
So how does verses 11-15 “flow” from the preceding verses? The beginning of chapter 2 shows some of the problems in that the leadership is not handling the problem of the false teachers very well. The arguments are carrying into their prayers. Even the mature women are not relying on their godly character to handle the issue but setting forth their “class” or their right to be heard by their elaborate dress. Paul breaks from the instructions for Timothy regarding the leadership and goes back to the sore spot regarding deceived teachers. Paul lays out the solution for the one deceived teacher who has been a thorn in their side. She is to be stopped, but Paul is sure that with immersing her in sound doctrine she will be saved and come to know the truth of the gospel. Paul’s whole thought flows from deception to leadership dealing with deception back to the deception again and the final solution is how to bring the deceived one to a solid foundation in salvation that was promised after the very first deception happened on this earth. The very first one who experienced being deceived would be used by God to bring forth the Messiah who would then make it His mission to destroy the deceiver and set the captives free.
Neopatriarch’s view, on the other hand, does not flow. Neopatriarch cannot successfully connect Adam and Eve to all men and women since he has no basis to make “a woman” to be generic because of Eve. Eve is not a representative of all women Neither can Neo make “a man” generic because of Adam as the reference to Adam’s first creation and his not being deceived is not applicable to all men. Neo also cannot connect all women to the deception of Eve nor can he connect the ongoing transgression of one woman as it does not fit in context with all women. Lastly his position cannot connect all women to the key verse which is the end result of the prohibition. Not all women are deceived so it fails the text of context to question the salvation of all women.
First, we normally read a pericope from start to finish so that contextual resources are provided to us as we move from one verse to the next. With Schatz’s approach, the reader must wait until he reaches verse 15 to decrypt what Paul meant by “a woman” in verses 11 and 12 because Schatz has made verse 15 the interpretive key for 11 and 12.
Neopatriarch, has again failed to consider the context. Paul is writing directly to Timothy, not directly to us. Timothy didn’t need to wait until verse 15 to understand what verses 11 & 12 meant. Timothy knew all about the situation in Ephesus. We, on the other hand, have to do our homework before we can understand the passage. Some of Paul’s writing is difficult to understand and verse 15 is the verse that dismantles the complementarian argument because they cannot make it fit in their view that Paul is talking about all women.
The conjunction, “for,” at the beginning of verse 13 could be understood in the causal or illustrative sense. The causal sense would mean that Paul is giving us reasons for his proscription. The illustrative sense would mean that Paul is simply giving us an example.
Paul is not simply giving us an example. The “for” must mean Paul’s reason for the prohibition otherwise the prohibition would not make sense in the Christian worldview that never had a law that prohibited a woman from teaching men. The only thing that makes sense is that “for” gives the “reason” for the prohibition. If there is no reason then there cannot be a claim to a law since the Old Testament never carries such a law against a woman’s teaching abilities.
But if (the Greek) is used in the illustrative sense, then Paul did not ground his proscription in the order of creation. Instead, he appealed to Genesis 2-3 as an example of what happens when a woman teaches a man false doctrine.
This could not possibly be Paul’s meaning since Eve did not teach Adam “false doctrine”. In fact not even a single one of Eve’s words to Adam is recorded. One cannot get the interpretation that Eve taught Adam “false doctrine” without doing violence to the Scriptures. We know for a fact that Adam was not deceived and we also know from Genesis that Adam was there with Eve when the serpent was speaking to her. Where is the doctrine that came from Eve’s mouth to Adam? It isn’t in the Scripture. Secondly if this an example, then Neopatriarch just spoiled his own case. He attempts to prove that Paul is stopping all women from teaching correct Biblical doctrine to men but with Neo’s admission is that the example Paul gives is about false doctrine. Which way is it? Is it a “reason” for the prohibition (false doctrine) or is it an “example” (false doctrine)? No matter which way Neopatriarch turns, he cannot make the passage say that Paul is stopping the teaching of true doctrine.
This could still be taken as justification for proscribing any woman from teaching any man false doctrine. After all, why would this example apply to only one woman?
But why should we stop with the men? With Neopatriarch’s view that it could also be taken as stopping any woman from teaching any man false doctrine, he refutes himself since he will now have to justify why Paul only stops all women from teaching all men false doctrine but doesn’t stop them from teaching false doctrine to other women and children. At every turn, Neo’s claim that this is generic women and generic men just doesn’t fit. Also Neopatriarch has another dilemma. Why would Paul have to say anything about all women’s false teaching if he already stopped the false teachers in chapter one? If there wasn’t one sticky situation with one woman which was also concerning false doctrine, verses 11-15 would not even have to be written. Certainly if there were multiple women teaching multiple men, women or children, Paul would have used the plural just as he did in the previous verses. There would be no need to change the plural women to singular woman.
Also, how does the fact Adam was created first illustrate the claim that only one specific woman is not to teach false doctrine? The illustrative sense fails to explain verses 13-14 as well as the causal sense. Therefore, we should understand verses 13-14 as reasons for Paul’s proscription in verse 12.
So now Neopatriarch takes us right back to the “reasons” for the prohibition, the exact position that I have. Now the “example” fails the test and we are back to square one. We must ask how does the fact that Adam was created first give us the reason for why she is stopped from teaching? Because the first one created one had sound doctrine to immunize him against the deception of the serpent. Remember Paul started with verse 11 saying that she must learn? Learning sound doctrine is the key here. Adam knew the truth and he was not deceived. But Adam failed to speak out and stop Eve’s deception, just like the woman’s husband in Ephesus. He was another Adam and Timothy had to go past her husband to command her to stop. The reason for the prohibition was because of deception and the non-involvement of the one who was not deceived fits perfectly with why Timothy was being pushed to step in and stop her himself.
Since presumption favors our initial conclusion that any man and any woman are meant in verse 12 and verses 13-14 function as reasons in Paul’s argument, the most natural reading takes Adam and Eve as representatives of any man and any woman.
I ask if Neo’s admitted “presumption” favors his conclusion that any man and any woman are meant, then I ask him to please explain how any man is not deceived and any woman is deceived? Neopatriarch has failed to give any viable explanation for the connection to all of us as women. There is a very strong connection to a couple in the same condition as Adam and Eve were, but there is no connection to godly men and godly women who are not in error.
In his first reason, I submit that Paul is alluding to the steward-helper relationship between Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2:7, God created Adam and gave him the garden mandate not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (2:16-17). Adam was hereby entrusted with stewardship of God’s word and consequently of moral life in the garden.
Neopatriarch is alluding to the teaching that only Adam was entrusted with God’s word, but this cannot be proven since Genesis 1:26-29 describes the creation of the man and the woman and the prohibition is included within the list of what they could eat since they are given permission to eat from every tree except for the one tree that had no seed bearing fruit. Eve also describes God’s Word given to her so there is no proof at all that only Adam was entrusted with God’s Word. There is also nothing that says that Adam was given the stewardship of the moral life in the garden. The Bible does say that he was entrusted with guarding the garden but this is a far cry from being responsible for Eve’s sin. He was responsible for warning her but not responsible for her moral life.
Eve was not around when God gave Adam the garden mandate, but apparently he taught it to her because she repeated it, albeit not exactly, to the serpent (3:2-3).
As I wrote previously, Eve was given God’s Word about what she could eat and it was her testimony that she was also told by God what she was not allowed to eat. Although Neopatriarch used the word “apparently” it is clear that he knows that there is no Scripture that says that Adam was responsible for teaching Eve the prohibition. Eve walked with God too and her testimony counts as it came from a sinless woman before sin entered the world.
Consider an illustration of this idea: A father tells his first son to remove a boulder from the yard, but, seeing that his first son is unable to do it by himself, he sends his second son out to help. It is understood that the first son is still in charge of the boulder removing project and that the second son receives instruction from and is subordinate to the first. The second son does not take over the project. What this means for Paul’s proscription is that women are not to take over the teaching and leadership duties that belong specifically to the office of the steward of God’s word. Only other men are to be in the position of teaching and exercising authority over men.
What Neopatriarch has failed to do is to pay attention to what God said. While he can make up all the illustrations that he wants, these illustrations do not correspond to the Scriptures, because God said that they both were to rule. There was not one ruler and a subordinate helper. There were two rulers over God’s creation.
Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Gen 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Neopatriarch started with a false premise and continues on the wrong path when he writes:
In his second reason, we see the consequences of reversing the steward-helper relationship. The first part of verse 14 says, “Adam was not deceived.” He was not deceived by the serpent. Instead, he listened to wife, and God faulted him for it (Genesis 3:17).
There is no steward-helper relationship. There is a God-given ruler-ruler relationship. The helper then is defined by God as an equal ruler. How do we reverse the ruler-ruler relationship? Here it is: ruler-ruler. Does it look different? It can’t look different because God’s Word is what counts and He made them both rulers.
Secondly God faulted Adam not for being nagged into eating the fruit (because there are no words recorded of Eve speaking to Adam) but God faulted Adam for remaining a silent watchman as his wife spoke to the serpent and was deceived. This is the serious issue. It isn’t an issue about a nagged husband but about treason. God says that a watchman who fails to sound the warning is a traitor and deserves death. Adam listened to the voice of his wife while she was speaking to the serpent. He heard the deception. He heard her as she was being deceived… and Adam did nothing. This is what God called treacherous (Hosea 6:7)
The implication is that Adam should not have listened to his wife. Why? I think the best explanation is because she was not the proper steward of the garden mandate. She did not have the authority to instruct him.
Where is Neopatriarch’s proof that Eve spoke to Adam and instructed him on anything? It isn’t in the text. It is the tradition of complementarians, but it isn’t Scriptural. Where does God say that Eve took her own authority to instruct Adam? It doesn’t. Adam doesn’t blame Eve for “instructing” him. He blames her only for giving the fruit to him. Surely if she had sinned by “instructing” the man without proper authority, then someone would have said something about this sin. Where is Neopatriarch’s proof? He has none.
Neopatriarch now quotes Andreas Köstenberger:
Eve, Paul implies, was not kept safe at the Fall; she was deceived. Why? Because she left her proper domain under her husband’s care. What happened as a result? She became an easy prey for Satan. How can women under Timothy’s charge (and in churches everywhere) avoid repeating the same mistake? By “childbearing,” that is, by adhering to their God-ordained calling, including a focus on marriage, family, and the home. 1 Timothy 2:15 thus turns out to be Paul’s prescription for women as a lesson learned from the scenario of the Fall described in the preceding verse.7
I have already discussed with Andreas his position and I have given him the reasons why his view cannot be correct. His view has major holes in it. He was not to answer my questions because his view doesn’t fit.
The first problem is that there is no indication that Eve was given instruction to be under her husband’s care. Eve did not have to ask Adam to have a conversation with an animal. When Eve was fully convinced by the serpent that God was holding back on her and that she would not die but receive the ability to be like God, the fruit became to her not a prohibition, but a blessing. She did not have to ask Adam for his permission to eat any fruit. She was a free moral agent who fell into sin through deception. She did not leave her proper domain under her husband’s care. It was Adam who left his position as guardian of the garden and he is the failure who did not speak out about the deception when he knew the truth. Noepatriarch’s position is an invalid charge of sin against Eve and a failure to charge Adam with his treason. The fact is that Eve became a prey for satan because the man failed to speak out and expose the lie. Where did God ever blame Eve for stepping outside her “domain”? God did not blame her for this. He blamed Adam for listening to his wife while she was being deceived. This was a serious sin. It is an amazing thing to me that Neopatriarch continues to blame the deceived one and let the one who was the silent watchman go scot-free. In Neopatriarch’s quote below the Greek words do not show up as my blog is not able to show the Greek.
Eve was tricked by the serpent. The consequence was that she became a transgressor. The identity of womankind with Eve is expressed by Paul’s switch to “the woman” and the perfect tense “has come into transgression.” So what is predicated of Eve is predicated of womankind, through the typology. That is, any woman who is typologically represented by Eve has become a transgressor through deception and continues in the state of transgression.
Neopatariarch wants all of us to think that the identify of all women (womankind) is first of all sure because Paul said “a woman” and now it is identified with Eve because all women (plural) are “the woman” (definite singular)? That is impossible. First of all the perfect tense is not the future tense here. The perfect tense is maintaining that at the time of Paul’s writing “the woman” was in the transgression, however she will be saved (future tense) if… (verse 15) All of womankind is not even alive at the time that Paul wrote this so the perfect tense cannot apply to them. Also Paul could not have predicted that all of womankind would come into transgression through deception. He would have to say that all womankind will come into transgression (future tense) if they fall through deception. This is not even close to what Paul actually said.
Either Paul was inspired and his grammar was inspired or it wasn’t. Which is it? I choose to believe that Paul said exactly what the Holy Spirit inspired. “The woman” was a woman in the Ephesian congregation who had been deceived by the lie. She was like Eve in that the one who could protect her was sitting on his duff doing nothing. He was another silent Adam allowing his wife to continue in her deception. Timothy was to take Paul’s authority and stop her. Timothy can now go to the woman and bypass her husband and say that “Paul is the one who is not allowing this…” Timothy will have courage to do this necessary work of stopping this woman and he does so with Paul’s full authority and Paul’s encouragement.
Neopatriarch tries to sum up my view by saying:
Now we come to the crux of Schatz’s argument. Essentially, I believe her argument is this: In verse 15, either “she” refers to the specific woman and “they” refers to the woman and her husband, or “she” and “they” have the same antecedent. But “she” and “they” cannot have the same antecedent because the antecedent cannot be both singular and plural. Pronouns must agree with their antecedents in number. Therefore, “she” must refer to the specific woman Paul is correcting, and “they” refers to the woman and her husband. She may further claim “she” refers to “the woman” in verse 14 because it is the nearest candidate for an antecedent.
This is correct. We cannot have hanging pronouns without the original nouns that they refer back to. Let’s see how Neopatriarch tries to wiggle out of this one.
First, it should be recognized that the nature of Schatz’s argument as a disjunctive syllogism requires her to eliminate disjuncts to establish her own view. While she may have eliminated the disjunct she tries to pin on the patriarchalist, she presents us with a false dilemma. “[S]he” and “they” in verse 15 do not need to have the same antecedent in the patriarchalists’ view. Instead, the chiastic structure of verses 8-15 reveals the correct pronoun-antecedent relationships:
A (9-10) Christian “women” (plural)
B (11-12) “a woman” (singular indefinite noun) –it means any Christian woman.
C (13) “Eve” (generic / representative woman)
C’ (14) “the woman” (generic / representative woman)
B’ (15a) “she” has the antecedent “a woman”
A’ (15b) “they” has the antecedent “women,” Christian women in context
Women are the topic of both “she” and “they,” but, grammatically, they have different antecedents. The pronoun “she” refers to “a woman”, and the pronoun “they” refers back to “women.” In other words, “she” refers to any woman, and “they” refers to every woman. Hence, “she” is not a specific woman, but any woman who is represented by the woman Eve. Schatz’s argument fails at least so long as this is a live alternative.
Let’s see if we can unravel this womanly mess. 🙂 What Neopatriarch is saying, is that all godly Christian women are to be clothed with good works (verses 9 & 10) however it is forbidden for any Christian woman to teach any Christian man (verse 12) because Eve was a representative of any Christian woman (verse 13) and “the woman” meaning any Christian woman is in sin right now and is still in her transgression (verse 14) and has been deceived but any Christian woman will be saved from her deception if all Christian women continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control. This is illogical to have all Christian women in sin and all Christian women represented by Eve, but the thought that no Christian woman can be saved unless all Christian women continue in faith is untenable.
In essence there is no difference between “any Christian woman” and “all Christian women” and it is by necessity that “any Christian woman” must be included with the “all Christian women” and “all Christian women” can be broken down to “any Christian woman” so there is no difference between the two groups. For example I would ask Neopatriarch which group his own your wife belongs to? Is she one of the “any Christian woman”? Or is she one of the “all Christian women”? She is by necessity a member of both so the antecedent is of necessity the same. Not only does Neopatriarch’s explanation make a mockery of Paul’s words by attaching all women to the deception of Eve, but the Bible never uses Eve as a representative of all women. Also since the “any” and the “all” cannot be shown to exclude any particular Christian woman, by necessity the sides are equal and Neopatriarch’s own convoluted explanation “she” = “they”. This is illegal grammar.
If the reader has trouble figuring out Neopatriarch’s explanation, it is no wonder. His explanation is nothing more than double talk. He has no way to show that “any Christian woman” cannot fit both into the “she” group and the “they” group so although he tried to explain that these were different things, they are not. Neopatriarch has only succeeded in trying to make Paul look foolish with confusing words that mean the same thing and the questioning of all women’s salvation which surely would spark the thought that women are somehow spiritually inferior to men whose salvation is never questioned in the Scriptures as a group.
Also I also ask Neopatriarch to show me how any Christian woman can be said to be in transgression right now because of her deception? His explanation doesn’t hold water. I would also like to ask how Timothy would have understood all of that “she” = “they” stuff? And how does all of this fit in with the specific deceived teachers at Ephesus? The thought that Paul would have connected all Christian women to the deceived Eve and said they were all in transgression in deception is so far fetched that I can’t believe that Neopatriarch could think that his explanation would refute my straightforward interpretation of the passage that allows the grammar to be followed exactly as it was inspired?
Second, although the nearest candidate for a pronoun antecedent is often correct, we must remember that context is king. As I’ve argued above, we ought to understand (a woman) as an indefinite noun referring to any woman. Hence, we choose the antecedent for the pronoun “she” that makes the best sense in the context.
So “a woman” must mean any woman and “the woman” must mean any woman. That makes no sense at all. So why did Paul write these verses with what appears to be illegal grammar instead of staying with either “she” or “they”? He could have said “she will be saved if she…” or “they will be saved if they…” And what does a single Christian woman have to do with all Christian women? So I can’t be saved unless all Christian women stay in the faith? Or your wife cannot be saved unless all Christian women, (including me!) stays in the faith? And of course that means all Christian women past, present and future!
Neopatriarch, your interpretation is nonsense. I think you had better try one more time to see if you can get it right. You have not found a way to poke a hole in my interpretation, but your own interpretation is so full of nonsense that we (all Christian women) could drive a Mac truck through it.
Let’s sum it up with Neopatriarch’s final words:
Third, Schatz’s view leads her to the untenable conclusion that a husband and wife are in view. But this conclusion has been answered by Michael R. Riley in his paper “The Proper Translation of Aner and Gune in the New Testament.”9
Riley’s paper is not about a particular woman and a particular man but about generic woman and generic man so my position about one particular couple has not been answered by Riley as Neopatriarch claims.
In conclusion, Schatz’s view has several problems. Among them:
1. Schatz fails to take proper account of the context. Specifically, the verses that precede verses 11-12 where Paul is giving instructions for men and women (plural).
This is a false conclusion as I have shown from the context that Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers and in the middle Paul is dealing with the leadership and their improper way of handling opposition with the men (through arguments in their prayers) and the woman (through asserting their position through their way of dressing). Neopatriarch has failed to show that Paul was stopping the deceived teachers AND the women or that Eve’s deception has anything to do with all women.
2. Schatz violates a basic principle of hermeneutics by making an interpretive key out of what many interpreters have recognized is an unclear verse (15). The clear verses should interpret the unclear.
It isn’t an “unclear verse” if one does not shoe-horn “all women” into verses 11, 12 and 14. When one just takes the grammar as it was written, verse 15 no longer remains “unclear”. However Neopatriarch’s view of what he calls “clear” verses makes verse 15 so “unclear” that we may as well round up all women and keep these deceived transgressing women away from the children. Oh, but that won’t do, because these deceived transgressing women are allowed to teach the children, right?
3. Her conclusion that “she” refers to a specific woman and “they” refers to the woman and her husband follows from a false dilemma.
And what “false dilemma” would that be? That Timothy actually knows who the false teachers are and that Timothy knows that Paul is talking about? While we may have trouble with Paul’s writing to Timothy, surely it is a given that Timothy who lived in the situation knew exactly what Paul meant and Timothy was not confused by Paul’s words.
4. Her explanation of the summary citation lacks the explanatory power of the patriarchalist interpretation, especially with respect to verse 13.
Oh my, since Neopatriarch has added to God’s Word throughout his explanation of verse 13 and made commands for Eve where no such commands exist and removed God’s ability to speak to Eve as well as Adam, I think that Neopatriarch is the one who lacks the explanatory power. His view has no foundation in Genesis and it goes down hill from there.
5. Her position naturally leads to an untenable conclusion that a wife and her husband are meant. Riley demonstrates that the grammatical and contextual clues necessary to establish this conclusion are absent.
There is no such thing as an “untenable conclusion” from my explanation. I assume that Neopatriarch read Riley’s paper. If he did he certainly should have known that Riley has not refuted my position. Riley does not deal with Paul talking about one couple.
Those who spoke Greek did not think “Paul here is talking about wives not women, or husbands not men.”
This piece was written in 1993 and Riley was not refuting my position back in 1993. He was trying to refute a generic representation of all wives and all husbands which is not an uncommon position for some egalitarians to hold. This in no way touches my argument. And for the record, I have no problem if there was a specific woman who was teaching a specific man who was not her husband. That just doesn’t seem realistic because single men didn’t normally talk to single women. But it doesn’t change my position at all about one particular man and one particular woman.
Neopatriarch, it is nice that you have tried once again to refute me, but too bad that you have failed the second time. Next time you try, please email me so that I can get to your argument a little sooner. I have full confidence that you will not be able to come up with an argument that has any substance in it and my argument still stands strong and forceful by the fact that I use the inspired words and the inspired grammar as they are written without making “she” = “they”.
Back to the drawing board, my friend. I wish you well. Do keep me informed of your progress because it is always an interesting thing for me to watch what you will come up with next.