Journal: Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Volume: JBMW 11:1 (Spring 2006)
Article: Causal Gar in 1 Timothy 2:13
Author: David K. Huttar

JBMW 11:1 (Spring 2006) p. 30

Causal Gar in 1 Timothy 2:13

David K. Huttar

Professor Emeritus,
Nyack College,
Nyack, New York

This brief article seeks to refute a point made by Linda L. Belleville in her recent book Women Leaders and the Church.1 It is in no way intended to be a comprehensive treatment of the many complex exegetical issues involved in this thorny subject. However, it will serve an acceptable purpose if it can demonstrate the fallacy of one of the arguments Belleville uses in her discussion.

Certainly no discussion of the Bible’s teaching on the role of women in the church can afford to bypass 1 Tim 2:9–15. One of the particularly important facets of the interpretation of this passage is in regard to the significance of the postpositive conjunction gar that logically introduces verse 13. Should it be taken in a causal sense or not? Belleville argues against the causal sense and her discussion is as follows:

Some take for as causal (rather than as explanatory) and see it as introducing a creation order dictum. Women must not teach men because men in the created order are first and women by nature are prone to deception. This is problematic on a number of grounds. For one, the principal causal conjunction in Greek is hoti, not gar (Blass, Debrunner, Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, §456). Paul could be using gar in this way, but there is nothing in the context that would support it. In fact, verse 15 is against it. (It is nonsense to say women must not teach men because Eve was deceived but will be saved through childbearing.) Second, although some are quick to assume a creation and fall ordering in verses 13–14, virtually all stop short of including “women will be saved [or kept safe] through childbearing” (v. 15). To do so, though, is to lack hermeneutical

JBMW 11:1 (Spring 2006) p. 31

integrity. Either all three statements are normative or all three are not. Finally, to see verses 13–14 as normative is to fly in the face of clear biblical teaching elsewhere in Scripture.2

It is the claim that gar is not the principal causal conjunction in Greek, especially in relation to hoti, that needs additional comment. The truth is that the claim is simply incorrect. In the Pastoral E...