Causal Gar in 1 Timothy 2:13

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 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 Epistles (excluding for the moment the passage in question) there are at least twenty-nine examples of causal gar and only seven (possibly nine) of causal hoti.³

There is no reason to suspect that the frequencies of the two conjunctions would change if we broadened the corpus to include all of the Pauline Epistles. Although a definitive counting of examples would be somewhat laborious, a cursory review reveals that (apart from the Pastorals, which have already been considered) causal hoti occurs some sixty-three times in Paul's writings. By contrast, gar occurs more than twice that many times in the book of Romans alone. Even if some of these occurrences of gar in Romans are not causal, it is apparent that gar far outstrips hoti in introducing causal clauses in the writings of Paul.

With this incontrovertible evidence in mind, we are left to wonder about Belleville's citation of the grammar by Blass-Debrunner-Funk (BDF)⁴ in support of the claim that hoti is the predominant causal conjunction in Greek. Two possibilities suggest themselves: either this standard and reputable authority is in error, or Belleville has misunderstood the statement found therein. The latter alternative seems more likely.

In fact, we are probably to understand the statement in BDF ("the principal conjunction is hoti") to be restricted to the conjunctions immediately under discussion: "subordinating" causal conjunctions, such as hoti, dioti, epei, epeidē, epeidēper, hopou, and kathoti. Of those conjunctions it is certainly true that hoti is the preferred one for introducing a causal clause. But a fuller look at BDF's discussion will clarify that this comment about the prevalence of hoti is made in reference to a restricted group of conjunctions.

BDF discusses conjunctions under two main headings: coordinating conjunctions⁵ and subordinating conjunctions.⁶ The correctness of this division is not really the issue; it simply is the way the conjunctions are classified in BDF. As we have seen, the statement about hoti being the principal causal conjunction applies only to subordinating conjunctions. On the other hand, the conjunction gar is treated under coordinating conjunctions, where we find the following under the sub-heading "Causal co-ordinating conjunctions": "Gar is one of the most common particles in the NT."⁷ Within this section the detailed discussion centers on "exceptional" usages for gar, clearly leaving the impression that gar is normally causal and very frequent. In light of this broader view of the discussion in BDF, it seems that Belleville has simply misunderstood and therefore misused her citation.

We must also challenge Belleville's insistence on placing the three clausal ideas in verses 13-15 (Adam was formed first, then Eve; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner; women will be saved through childbirth) on the same level, in such a way that either they must all three be taken as normative or that none of them is normative. After all, there is this difference-that the verbs in the first two clauses are past tense ("was formed," "being deceived," "became"), while the verb in the third clause is future tense ("will be saved").

Furthermore, Belleville has, perhaps unconsciously, linked the causal meaning of gar with the normative nature of the content of the gar-clause. But other ways of construing the text are possible. It would make perfectly good sense, at least grammatically and contextually, to hold that the first clause ("Adam was formed first") points to a normative condition-a part of the order of things as they were created-and that the second clause ("the woman, being deceived, became a transgressor") points to a separate "normative" condition-a part of the order of things as they were established by the fall but not as they were established by creation. The point, then, would be not that women are by nature more open to deception than men, but that Eve fell into transgression through being deceived.

Understood this way, Paul is saying that there are two reasons why he does not permit women to perform certain activities. One reason is rooted in the divine ordering of things at the time of the creation of mankind, demonstrated by Adam's priority in creation. The other reason is rooted in the historical fact of Eve's transgression through being deceived. In the one case, the prohibition against women doing certain activities is "by nature." But in the other case, it is more-or-less a consequence for her disobedience to God's command-a disobedience that took place before the physical act of partaking of the forbidden fruit, but began at least as early as the point of allowing herself to be deceived by the Tempter.

Perhaps a word should also be said concerning the wording of verse 14. Although on the surface it says that Adam was not deceived, this is open to different possible interpretations. It may, of course, be taken at face value and imply that Adam sinned "with his eyes open," and not in any way under deception. Alternatively, however, it may be a case of a Hebraic statement of relatives or comparatives as if they were absolutes. This is a well-known phenomenon and is classically illustrated by God's statement in Hosea, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." Inasmuch as it was God himself who commanded the laws of sacrifice, it is commonplace to understand these words in a comparative sense-that God desires mercy more than sacrifice. Likewise, Paul's point may be that in the historical circumstance surrounding the fall Eve's deception was greater than Adam's.

One other point in Belleville's analysis needs comment. Her statement, "it is nonsense to say that women must not teach men because Eve was deceived but will be saved through childbearing," is not a sensible reading of Paul's argument. Paul does not actually say that women may not engage in a certain activity because Eve was deceived. Rather, what he says is that women may not do this activity because Eve sinned [or came into transgression], under the circumstances of being deceived. Why is it then nonsense to think that a restriction was put in place by God as a result of Eve's fall into sin? Of course, if the perceived nonsense is seen in the idea that women are placed under a prohibition because they will be saved through childbearing, that really does appear to be a non sequitur. But then again, we have tried above to show that the clause about women being saved through childbearing does not stand in as close a relationship to the prohibition as do the other clauses in verses 13-14.

Belleville's arguments to support a non-causal meaning for gar in 1 Tim 2:13 need considerable refinement in order to be effective.