Re: 1 Tim 2:12

From: Paul S. Dixon (
Date: Sun Jun 28 1998 - 20:17:25 EDT


Thanks for your input on this. I'd like to consider your claim that
ANHR and GUNH refer to the husband and wife relationship. Perhaps
after reading your paper, I'll do just that.

However, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that ANHR and
GUNH in 1 Tim 2 do refer to husband and wife, respectively.
Furthermore, let's assume that the instruction of the passage then
relates specifically to the husband-wife relationship.

If so, then it seems to me that the most we could possibly infer is
that this passage does not explicitly forbid a woman from teaching
or holding authority over a man who is not her husband in a different
arena, such as in the church, or in a small group setting, and that
the door, then, might be open for them to do so.

I have two observations to make. First, is there any precedent for
saying that a woman was forbidden from treating her husband
in a certain way, but where she could treat other men that way?
I don't think so, but that may be neither here nor there, as this
could a unique situation. In line with this, however, how plausible
is it that a woman who properly obeyed this directive toward her
husband would feel she comfortably do otherwise to other men?
It seems most incongruous.

Second, the reasons Paul gives (the order of creation, and the order
of the fall) do not seem to be reasons that pertain to the marriage
relationship exclusively. Paul does not use ANHR and GUNH in
these reasons (vv 13-14). Rather, he uses ADAM and hEUA. These
names are normally taken as representative of men and women
respectively, Adam as the first man and Eve as the first woman.

In summary, if we think that taking ANHR and GUNH refer to
the husband-wife relationship only, and conclude from this that
the woman may teach or hold authority over another man or men,
then we have gone too far. It seems the burden of proof would be
upon those who would wish to posit such an incongruous behavior
of women.

I am not saying you have concluded this, just making an
observation in general.

Sincerely in Christ,

Dr. Paul S. Dixon, Pastor
Wilsonville, Oregon

On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 05:43:54 +0800 "Paul R. Zellmer"
<> writes:
>Ward Powers wrote:
>> The point I make is that in verses 11-15 ANHR and GUNH are singular
>> plural), are referring to the headship of the man in the one-flesh
>> husband-wife relationship, and that this understanding of ANHR and
>GUNH in
>> this passage is indicated by the immediate context (in which there
>> nothing to suggest a reference to a worship-service or other
>> context), by the close parallels with 1 Pet 3:1-7, and also by other
>> passages about the headship of the husband and the submission of the
>> a submission which is always and only to her own husband, not to
>other men.
>I would like to thank Ward for a posting which (1) touched on a very
>controversial issue in a non-aggressive way, (2) added valid areas of
>study and consideration to the issue, and (3) gave evidence with a
>synopsis of its value AND references for further investigation. Very
>nicely done, Ward.
>Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
>Ibanag Translation Project
>Cabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippines
>b-greek home page:
>To post a message to the list,
>To subscribe,
>To unsubscribe,

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

b-greek home page:
To post a message to the list,
To subscribe,
To unsubscribe,[]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:50 EDT