Laurie, welcome to my blog.

I am not sure if men realize, but God said in the beginning that a male alone club is “not good”.

Bridget,
Thank you for your kind thoughts. And welcome to my blog!

I too felt quite speechless when I read Phil Johnson’s post because of the attitude that was displayed. It is my hope that some day the Church will be free of the attitude against women. I hope to see it in my lifetime because I believe that the Holy Spirit can do what no person can hope to accomplish.

Cindy,
When a dispute comes into a marriage where one partner pulls for one decision and the other partner pulls for the other decision, this is an opportunity to bring it to the Lord and to work out His will in the marriage. The Bible gives no recommendation for one partner to take authority over the other partner to force the partner underneath their will. It is always easier to “pull rank” to get one’s way feeling that the “role” they have taken entitles them to force a decision on an unwilling partner, but this is not God’s way. Working out a one-flesh union between two very different people can be a challenge, but I believe that Scripture shows us that we are to model the way of the Master. Working hard for resolution or one partner willingly submitting their own will for the good of the other is the best way. Seeking pastoral help or the help of a godly friend is another good way to come to a compromise. But taking authority over the unwilling is not an option.

When Jesus showed his servant attitude by washing the disciples feet, he bent down and washed each one of their feet including the feet of Judas. But when He came to Peter, Peter refused to let Jesus wash his feet. Jesus did not take authority over Peter and go against his will. Instead Jesus, in a loving and respectful manner convinced Peter of the necessity of Jesus’ servanthood so that Peter became willing of his own free will to allow Jesus’ purpose to happen. Respectful dialog can go a long way and sometimes we need to sleep on a decision for a time. Other times we need to set aside the decision for the time being and revisit the problem later. But when one partner lords it over the other partner by practicing the worldly way of dominating another person’s will, it will inevitably result in hurt feelings and resentment.

I hope this helps!

Cindy,

You said:

The egalitarian’s real issue, I believe, is one of the heart and its unwillingness to take God’s word regarding the woman’s subjection as literal.

Not at all. I believe that egalitarians who are like myself want to respect the whole word of God so that God’s Word can be respected in the way it was written. Take Ephesians 5:15-6:9. So many comps are tempted to leave out the full extent of what Paul has said in this passage. Probably the best sermon I ever heard explaining this entire passage (the passage doesn’t end with chapter 5 but goes onto chapter 6) is found in a recent sermon preached on October 23, 2011 at a Baptist church with the audio found here:
http://fbc2010sermons.posterous.com/spirit-filled-relationships-part-iii

I commend this pastor for a fine job of giving us a huge picture to see from the passage and I would really recommend people listen to the audio and see how well the pastor brings out everything in context that leads to true Christian submission.

You asked:

How do you square the passage in 1 Timothy 2:11-14…or 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

I would also recommend that you have a look at my DVD set that goes through all of these passages in depth. You can click on the DVD tab at the top of the page to order, or to see free clips of the DVDs or to read reviews of the DVDs. There is also a lot of material on this blog that will answer your questions.

You said:

The Bible speaks in some places of submitting, one to another but it speaks about exclusive submission in other passages like Ephesians 5:22

That isn’t true. In fact the Greek word for “submission” is not even in verse 22. The only way to pick it up is to go back to verse 21 where the term is mutual.

You said:

Submission has become a “dirty” word in our sinful world.

I agree and it should not be a dirty word. In fact it should not be a dirty word for anyone including men as Christ Himself set the example on how to put others first and to show respect and honor. We are all to follow Christ and when we understand what submission truly means, we will willingly give honor, respect and hold up others for the sake of Christ.

In all things, there is order. It’s when one person within that order starts bucking against it, wanting a different or higher position

The Bible does not talk about authority within the marriage union except for mutual authority over each others bodies. When God made the man and the woman there was no ordering of the relationship and no hierarchy. Both were given the responsibility to rule the world and neither was given the responsibility to rule the other.

You said:

But, look what happened when Abraham “obeyed” Sara

I believe that we must not be selective when we quote Scripture. It wasn’t always a good thing when Sarah obeyed Abraham and on the other hand God Himself told Abraham to do what Sarah told him to do:

Genesis 21:12 (NASB95)
12But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named.

God told Abraham to submit to Sarah’s decision in this case. That doesn’t mean that Sarah was a boss of Abraham, but that mutual submission is a God-ordained mandate found even in the marriage of Sarah and Abraham.

You said:

I urge you to really look at those hard, unmistakeable passages that speak of obedience to husbands and not try to find ways around them or make them say something other than what they say and mean.

There is no need to find ways around the passages. The passages are inspired in their context and they are for our learning and our Christian character and for righteousness. The church has often not gone far enough in following Christian instruction in the Bible including the passages on submission.

I would commend to you my DVD set to see the full picture of what you may have missed out on that will fulfill the entire passages in a way that goes beyond what you have seen. We need to honor the Word of God so that none of it is disregarded and none of it will contradict other parts.

We also need to remember that we can only have one master in our lives and we are not under two masters. Honor, respect and uplifting is godly. But must never make our husbands our master as the Bible is very clear that we are under one Lord and one master and that is the Lord Jesus.

Blessings,
Cheryl

Hi Cindy and welcome to my blog!

You said:

God’s way. It has nothing to do with inequality but everything to do with roles.

The Bible never mentions “roles”. In fact we are told that we are all to submit one to another and that submission is to be the characteristic of a Christian following Christ. This means that the things that you learned about your attitude as a wife were correct in that you are to respect your husband and to serve him as unto Christ.

The problems come when husband is told that he is not to submit to his wife and that his “role” precludes submission. The comp message is one-sided even though they preach that the husband should sacrifice for his wife. How can sacrifice not include submission to her needs?

If you read through my blog you will see that I preach mutual submission and that submission is what we are all called to. It isn’t just women who are to submit to Christian men, but Christian men are also to submit to their Christian sisters. This is a submission that is Christ-like, but it foreign to the comp message. They just don’t go far enough so that they have watered down the Word.

I hope this helps!
Cheryl

Mark,
I will take the other link to the picture off as well. The warning is inappropriate from your side since surgery should not be feared with a qualified professional. I have seen this issue from both sides from different males in my family and the circumcision was always a good thing and it is a sign that God has given to all of us regarding the good effects of circumcising of our hearts. God does not use a bad procedure to illustrate a good result.

I think we have had enough discussion of physical circumcision so that those who read can judge for themselves.

The removal of the skin on the male is tied into a spiritual lesson that God created and He is the ultimate authority whose Word we need to believe. I don’t think that scare tactics from those who practice shoddy work should take us away from the truth of God’s Word. I am going to remove the link to the graphic pictures as I don’t think that is appropriate or called for on my blog. Blessings.

I finally released NN’s comment from moderation #77 that I had kept in the moderation que for an extended period of time because frankly I was so busy this summer I hardly had time to think.

Now that we finished our last ministry trip for the year, and in trying to clean up the emails that I was not able to get to this summer, I came across NN’s comment still held in moderation. I now have time to answer his concerns. Those reading this might want to look back at #77 where NN’s comment shows up in the time order that it was written.

NN, you said:

I honestly don’t think (I hope) that you believe differently regarding the fundamental nature of God the Son’s pre-existent nature than I would.

As Christians we should be in complete agreement that Jesus’ nature as God before taking on humanity was fully God. That isn’t the area that we disagree on. It is with the term “Christ”.

You said:

Indeed I am greatly reassured versus some of your original words on how we should not not “equate Christ with God” – I presume that you can understand the concern that these sorts of statements might raise given your interaction with cultist groups.

I think I have made it quite clear that the term “Christ” is a prophetic term in the Old Testament for the coming Messiah and in the New Testament it is the term that refers to the human Jesus (who is God come in the flesh). What I have said, and say again is that God in His essence and nature is not called “Christ” since the term “Christ” refers to a human. God took on the nature of man and thus became the Christ, but God is not called “Christ” as His name from eternity past.

You said:

However, the Christ was both fully God and fully man He could not have been the Christ were He not fully God. Therefore to assert that the title of “the Christ” refers only to His human nature would be quite contrary to Scripture.

This is not true. In fact in order to disprove what I have written, all you would need to do is to produce one Scripture that calls the pre-incarnate Word of God as “Christ” before He became man. The term for His Deity is the “Word of God” in the New Testament. The term for His humanity is “the Christ”. He was born the Christ because He became human. “The Christ” was resurrected as a human because only the man Jesus died. The Spirit cannot die. The Christ died and was resurrected and surely you can admit that God did not die.

You said:

Indeed one thing that I cannot rule out from your words which still worries me is that you would assert that God the Son did not exist as a separate Person in “eternity past” but was somehow synthesized from a previously unified Godhead in the incarnation. I suspect (again hope) that you don’t believe this but I put it out there to clarify.

I said nothing of the sort. That is a fabrication.

You said:

I will close only by stating that I believe with high confidence that you are wrong in your exact assertions about the Christ and that I can prove it Biblically

Go ahead and try to prove it Biblically. Your comment was held since mid-July, so hopefully you are not as busy now so you can take the time to put your money where your words are. Fair enough?

44 Pastor, you said:

Both men and women who have preached the Gospel are going to stand before our Father and here…”Well done my good and faithful servant.”.

I agree. All of us are to follow Christ’s lead and we are responsible for the gifts that we have been given that are meant for the common good. Our praise may not come here on this earth amongst those who have faulty tradition that blinds their eyes to the value of women preaching the gospel, but keeping our eyes on Jesus, our praise will certainly come from Him.

Sorry that I didn’t get to the last two comments in a timely manner and they sat in my “pending” box while I was out of the country.

Steph Chen #43,

The view that you take I would think is not uncommon these days with more and more comps moving towards the center.

There are some issues that I would like to point out that you may want to consider. First of all taking “authority over others” was a common practice during Bible times and Jesus warned against taking such an authoritative stance by saying:

NET | ?Mt 20:25 But Jesus called them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions use their authority over them. ?26 It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant,

The worldly way is for a man to take authority over others but the way of the Master is to put oneself underneath those that he/she serves so that the person becomes a servant who is there not to take authority, but to serve. Those who serve in this way and understand that leaders are not ones who take authority, but ones who humble themselves to serve, will not not be fighting for authority that was never given to individuals to take over others.

I also believe that Eve was accountable for her sin, but mercy was granted to her because she sinned through being deceived without Adam helping her to see the deception during her time of need. The one who sinned with his eyes fully opened to the truth before he ate, is the one who is charged with treason (Hosea 6:7)

Are only a few to take the responsibility of protecting the flock? I think that 1 Timothy 3 shows that the desire to be an overseer is a good desire for any one to attain to, but one who oversees the flock is held accountable to God for his/her work. It is not a position of “glory” but a position of servanthood. I believe that those who want to give their lives for the flock to serve and protect and help the flock should be appreciated. And none of these should ever take the attitude that they are set up to have the sheep serve them or that they have power over another Christian. The only one who has authority over all Christians is Jesus.

The Bible also says that Adam’s sin brought a curse on the earth, but no such curse is said to be upon the woman or because of her sin. I believe that we read way too many things into the Genesis account that are part of our tradition rather than part of the text itself.

For more information, I would refer to my DVD set called “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” It has helped a lot of people to see where the dividing line between tradition and Scripture exists and how to walk in freedom from unhealthy tradition.

I hope this helps!

Thanks TL! We just got back from an 8 day out-of-country trip. I am tired but grateful to be home so I can get back to normal again.

Andrew,
I just sent you an email with Stan’s email address.

Ramiro,
You said about the creation science site that I gave a link to:

I wasn’t swayed in any way unfortunately.

The site has great audio/video material that is well done and with a lot of research. I highly recommend that you actually have a look at the material rather than dismiss their Biblical arguments without researching the facts that they present.

You also said:

I reply with a simple two-part question: Can you envision anything that while change your mind on this subject? If the answer is “no” (as it appears to me), then is this really a discussion that we are having?

The answer is not “no”. I can envision something that has the power to change my mind. I will be corrected by the Bible as it is the only accurate “ruler” that tests all spiritual claims of truth including the claim to the origin of God’s creation.

I also do not want my blog to become a discussion of evolution or scientific claims of the origin of matter. This is a blog dedicated to the issue of women in ministry and I do not want to go off of that focus. I am certain that answersingenesis.org would have information that could be given on discussion groups hosted by biblical creationists.

Perhaps if you have time you could let me know what is your “ruler” of truth that you use to measure all other claims of truth?

I do agree that the Bible is “God’s history book of the universe”. I also understand what they mean by that. The meaning is that the history of the creation of the universe is written in God’s Word. We can know how the universe came into being by reading God’s account of what He did. We can also read the history of the creation of man and the history of the entrance of sin into the world. Science can tell us nothing about the existence of sin or of God’s creating man in His own image. The Bible tells us everything that we need to know to have faith that God told the truth about what He did and the results of man’s choice.

I also believe that the Bible, while not a science manual, has information in it that if heeded by man would keep us from making mistakes about God’s creation. By reading God’s word, we can know that the earth was a sphere, not flat, for example.

I firmly believe that God’s Word was written as it was with inspired words and inspired grammar so that all of our spiritual questions will be answered sufficiently for us to have faith in God. I trust that the Bible is an accurate ruler to measure other claims of truth.

Kristen, you made my day 😉

It is the idea of special cases that set a precedent that need to be separated from the others. It took me a long time to get this one out into an article form and to know that you can see the picture that I was drawing from Paul’s example, makes me feel like the effort I went to was worth it. Thank you!

Ramiro,
You said:

You are correct about science changing it’s dating of the world. That’s how science works, it keeps adapting in search of the truth.

It doesn’t seem to me that “science” is in search of the truth. “Science” is published as having the truth. It was supposedly the truth when I was a child and it is supposedly the truth now. I don’t think that using a rubber ruler is helpful at determining the truth.
You said:

There are new dating methods with clear empirical evidence such as fossil evidence, Radio-carbon dating, ice core samples, just to name a few. Is denying this kind of evidence part of the pursuit of truth?

There are two sides to the story so that what is claimed as “evidence” has been challenged. Answersingenesis.org has brought a serious challenge to the “evidence” of science that appears to dispute the Bible’s record. I highly recommend their web site.

Is truth really consistent? The world would still be flat and we would be at the center of the universe if truth was consistent.

Real truth is consistent. Faulty “facts” disguised as truth will not be consistent. The world was never flat and the Bible gives evidence of that even before any worldly scientist understood that fact.

Do history books tell the truth? Do I tell the truth? Do you tell the truth? I could tell you that I tell the truth and would you have to believe me? No, you obviously wouldn’t have to believe me.
I’ve put aside my assumptions. I’ve kept myself open to new understanding. I hold my beliefs in an open hand and not a tight fist.

What is claimed as truth needs to be measured by something that is really true. We are told by the Scriptures that we are to test all things and to hold fast to what is true. When I am corrected by the truth of the Scriptures, I will let my false ideas go. But I will never test the Scriptures by science. The most important test for spiritual truth is to have the straight edge of God’s truth to test all things. This is what I aim to do and I encourage all here to do the same.

Thanks for asking!

foggy #76,
My sincerest apologies for being so slow in answering your question. I hope you signed up for a notification so that you do get the answer. I think my being so overwhelmed this last year and especially since late spring has caused me to miss out on a lot on this blog, unfortunately.

Dr. Witherington did respond to me and he does have a copy of my DVD but he has given me no feedback. I would suspect that it is because the basis of my work (starting from the assumed viewpoint that the inspiration of the Scriptures includes the inspired words and the inspired grammar). Dr. Witherington comes from a far more liberal viewpoint than I have.

As far as vs 14 Eve/the woman, I changed my view of that verse when a piece of grammar was pointed out to me that I missed that made it impossible for Eve to be “the woman”. My amended view is stated in this post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2011/09/22/eve-prototype/

Boy, do I understand time pressures! 😉 Take all the time you need to figure it all out.

Gengwall,
I do understand that there are many times that people have closed themselves from hearing a side that does not belong to their own viewpoint. I want to keep myself from becoming like that. I may be a strong person and confident of my position, but if there is truth outside of my view, I am willing to hear it.

Sometimes we can do nothing at all for someone else but wait for them to be open and pray, pray, pray. An encouragement to me is that God has prophesied that he will use women especially in the end time. That makes me think that the phenomenon of women in ministry will be so outstanding before Jesus comes that the church will embrace women in ministry and reject man-made tradition just as the issue of slavery was eventually rejected and equality for all races was accepted. What seems impossible right now, is surely possible with God.

Well, I am back at least for the time being. TL, I have posted part 2 at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2011/09/22/eve-prototype/ It has indeed been my season of extra work and somethings have to take priority when you can’t do everything. I have also posted my explanation of what I have been doing the last couple of months on the above post.

Thanks for caring!

Charlie,
Welcome to my blog.
You ask what reason would I have to explain Paul? It is because I am fully convinced that the Bible is God-breathed and it is truth. I am also very interested in having people set aside faulty tradition in order for them to see the truth of God’s Scripture. If indeed God’s Word is truth, and if it is indeed God-breathed, then it CANNOT stray from truth.

My premise starts first of all that God’s Word is truth and that some passages are more difficult to understand and take lots of work. Some will dismiss parts of Scripture that are not easy to understand, but I believe that all Scripture is God-breathed and all of it is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and training in righteousness.

I would like to apologize to everyone for being so slow in getting part 2 of this post up. My summer has been especially stressful with more ministry obligations, preparing for three talks at the MORE conference in July, teaching a weekly class verse by verse through Hebrews and three weeks of company that made me unable to get everything done that I was required to do. I had been hopeful that I would be able to get my writing squeezed into my schedule, but that did not happen. Other than a trip out of country in October and catching up on my ministry work that had to be set aside during my very busy summer, I should have a bit of time to devote to my blog. This is what I intend to do, God willing.

Thanks Kristen! I have just been overwhelmed of late so I have not yet finished part 2. I will try to incorporate your question in that section. Sorry for being so slow. I put a whole lot more time into my talks and the powerpoint presentations than I had anticipated and that has left me far behind in my ministry work including emails, etc. It has been really hard to balance everything. I really need the Lord’s strength to get done everything that is on my plate.

57 Patrick (Mark) wrote:

Now considering that we are all in agreement that it is grammatically possible for the singular to be generic, it is obviously therefore not ‘unusual’ for this to happen. It can be a normal part of grammar.

That is not what I asked. It is not unusual for the singular to be generic, but it is highly unusual for the generic to be plural and then suddenly change to singular. I asked for any comp to give the reason for the shift from the generic plural to the generic singular if the topic had not changed from the topic of women in general.

I have also pointed out that Paul’s topic previously concerned godly women and the way to show their godly character through their appearance. The switch comes when godly women are no longer in site and Paul’s communication to Timothy changes to state his will about “a woman” who is not said to be godly but whose salvation is in question. That kind of topic change and that kind of grammar change must be noted by complementarians and it must be answered if they continue to insist that Paul continues to talk about all godly women in verse 12.

I am going to answer Mark here regarding his comment as “Patrick” on post #105.

My question is this, who is the He/he/him?

Because to me, it seems like the He who is the firstborn is the same He who made all things (pre-incarnate). He is before all things (pre-incarnate) and also the head of the Church (incarnate). He is the firstborn from the dead (incarnate) has the fullness of God dwelling in him and made peace by the cross (incarnate).

So who is the He/he/him?

If we say Jesus Christ, this seems to contradict what Cheryl has said regarding the pre-incarnate Word (who cannot be called ‘the Christ’ and therefore cannot be the one who sustains the world and made it according to this text). If we say Word, it contradicts Cheryl because the head of the Church is the incarnate God/man who is obviously called ‘Jesus Christ’.

So this whole debate seems like semantics over titles. Can both sides not affirm the orthodox belief in a two natured Christology, without confounding the two, nor seperating them?

In Colossians 1, the context is the person that existed prior to the incarnation and continued to exist in the incarnation as Jesus. The same “person” who is the head of the Church is the “person” who created the world. However it is never said that “the Christ” created the world as this term is in Scripture before the coming of Jesus is found only in prophecy and after the incarnation is shown as the fleshly human who is the God-man. At this point I have never read anyone claim that a fleshly human created the world so the term “the Christ” as the one who created the world is not used. It is the “person” who remains constant from eternity past to eternity future, but “the Christ” has a beginning in the flesh. The Christ is always a term of flesh therefore God is never called “The Christ” prior to the LORD of hosts emptying Himself to take on flesh to become the man Jesus Christ.

I felt that is was important to answer the question that Mark posed to me as “Patrick” even though Mark has apparently left my blog. These are very important issues and it is highly important to understand the the term Christ cannot be attached to anyone who is not flesh. The Christ is the fleshly offspring of David and The Christ in the flesh will sit on David’s throne. No spirit is ever qualified to be the seed of David and no spirit is every called “The Christ”.

I hope this helps.

51 “Patrick” wrote:

I would ask you again, however, to be careful of the many straw men you are attacking. Here are some examples to show you what i mean.

47- “Perhaps it would be an appropriate time to ask why one should assume that Paul was stopping the truth of the gospel in verse 12 rather than applying his stated purpose to have Timothy stop the teaching of error?”

I never said Paul was stopping the truth of the gospel in verse 12, that is your assumption. I did say Paul was putting some sort of prohibition on women teaching. I never said he was stopping the truth of the gospel. The two are not necessarily compatible.

Not at all. If Paul is continuing his instruction for godly women and he stops these godly women from teaching men, then the assumption is that he is stopping godly teaching. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you believe Paul is not stopping the teaching of the truth of the gospel to men if Paul is stopping godly women from teaching men. Are you willing to say that it is okay for women to teach men the truth as long as they don’t teach men error? I know you are not. WE all agree that error needs to be stopped. The only disagreement is what we do with the teaching of the truth. So let’s have you create the proper identification of what Paul was stopping. There is truth and there is error. Was Paul stopping the teaching of truth by women to men? If you say this is a straw man, then define exactly what kind of teaching that Paul was stopping. Let’s verify this right now. Define your meaning so that we can all verify whether what I have said is a straw man or not.

49- “Actually that is not true regarding any permanent limiting of the gift. While only two or three are to speak in one meeting so that the edification of the church can happen unhindered, the one with the gift is free to speak at another time as there is no permanent injunction.”

I never said Paul was imparting a ‘permanent’ injunction on the gift of tongues.

You are the one who compared teaching to the gift of tongues. How are the two situations comparable if one results in a permanent injunction while the other does not? How are the two situations comparable if one stops women from teaching and the other does not stop speaking the words of God? Please explain.

49- “This is completely unlike the tradition that stops the teaching of the truth of the gospel for the common good.”

Here you parallel the false argument that i did not give (permanent injunction) with some sort of tradition that you are describing. Given the context, it’s obviously meant to be negative which is all the more troubling when you apply an argument to me that i myself did not give.

You are the one who compared the stopping of one gift with the stopping of teaching. If you are comparing the two saying that neither is a permanent injunction so that they can be compared, then come out in the open and provide your reasoning for now saying that the injunction against a woman teaching a man in the assembly is not a permanent injunction. Please explain for you appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouth and this kind of confusion is not helpful for discussion.

49- “Encouragement to release the gifts by asking God for the corresponding gift in no way corresponds to a universal prohibition of a gift for the benefit of males.”

Again you attack an argument i did not make. I never said there was a universal prohibition on the gift of tongues.

In this quote, I did not even mention a universal prohibition on the gift of tongues. I was showing you the flawed method of comparing a restriction that did not result in a universal prohibition with a restriction that does result in a universal prohibition of women teaching men (if the comp position is right). You appear to have a problem understanding something other than your own position. Let’s get this one nailed down too. Are you saying that there is a universal prohibition against a woman teaching a man in the assembly? Yes or no?

I highlight this because it can become frustrating and difficult to try and engage over a blog when straw men are constantly employed.

Frustration comes from trying to nail jello to the wall. It works for you to not give any definitions except that you are a typical comp, and any stating of your position is said to be a straw man. You won’t answer questions so why are you here?

For those who are interested in my answers.

50 “Patrick” writes:

I agree with most of this, the singular does not necessitate a specific singular woman. I agree the singular needs to be noted, yet your argument that it is unnecessary i’m not convinced of.

If Paul was continuing on with generic discussion about godly women “women who claim godliness” then it is unnecessary to resort to the singular unless he was changing the topic or changing the meaning of the generic (i.e. no single woman can teach a single man but a group of women can teach a man) as the change is not only unnecessary but confusing. The fact is that we cannot disregard the grammar change as if Paul has not changed from the plural “women” The wording is inspired and we need to pay close attention to the grammar change as it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

It is only unnecessary if you adopt your contextual understanding. However, if we adopt the traditional approach regarding corporate worship then it is a non-issue.

That simply isn’t true. Paul’s previous words are about godly women. The change in plural to singular that goes along with an instruction to godly women that has never been found in the entire history of the Scripture is not a corporate worship issue. No godly woman was ever stopped by God in speaking God’s words to God’s people either corporately or individually. A universal restriction against godly women would be unprecedented. We must pay attention to what Paul is saying and not add in a command that doesn’t exist in the Scripture nor in Paul’s direct words.

As you yourself note, a singular can simply have a generic meaning. I agree that the context decides whether it is a specific woman, so it appears therefore that it is here where the real disagreement lies.

A singular can have a generic meaning just as a plural can have a generic meaning, but consistency is expected. A change in grammar is not haphazard. God has a reason for the change and we need to explore the reason from the context.

You answered yourself, did you not, by affirming that a singular can be generic. What it appears that you are asking is to show the reason for the “irregular and unusual grammar change” based on the acceptance of your contextual understanding.

Actually I asked for a reason based on the comp understanding that would fit with Paul’s grammar. I have not yet received a logical or thoughtful answer that fits the context of Paul’s writing in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Paul’s change from plural to singular is inconsistent with his instructions to godly women as a whole and the negative rather than the positive is highlighted as attached to a singular “woman” rather than generic godly “women”.

But surely you must realise that this type of language is based on your preconceived conclusion and understanding of the context.

Not true. I originally had no preconceived conclusion when I came to the context. What I find so amazing is that comps would conclude that Paul was creating a new law that never existed and accept that godly women are all forbidden to teach men when no such application was ever supplied by the Bible, Jesus, or any of the apostles. How can we jump to a universal application when such an application is inconsistent with all of Paul’s practices?

It is not irregular and unusual if we adopt the traditional hypothesis. On the contrary, it is only unusual if you believe a priori that it is referencing a new topic with a new specific woman.

It is especially irregular when we try to square it with the traditional view. It is not unusual at all if we see that Paul is no longer dealing with godly women but a situation that would require the stopping of teaching that was not God honoring.

I appreciate your understanding, but given what you have discussed, i find it much harder to accept your contextual understanding which has Paul shoot off in a rather different direction between v10-11 which can only be understood by reference back to earlier parts of chapter 1. This for me, seems like the irregular and unusual approach.

It is not irregular at all if we consider the entire book of 1 Timothy from the stated reason why Timothy was left behind in Ephesus. The rampant false teaching that required Timothy to be there in the first place cannot be disregarded as if chapter breaks in a personal letter were inspired by God. What is irregular is the thought that Paul was not stopping false teaching but was stopping the teaching of the truth. The stopping of the teaching of truth was never initiated by God, nor practiced by Paul and to insert this foreign concept into Paul’s letter to Timothy is not only irregular but highly suspect of the “tradition of men” rather than the law of God.

Does your conscience bother you “Patrick”? I really thought that you would ignore my question as is your habit rather than be untruthful on a public forum. Do you think that adding some question marks after your name doesn’t make it a lie? Have you forgotten that as administrator I have access to your email address? This greatly saddens me and this is part of the reason why I really long to have godly complementarian men and women come to visit my blog – ones who love the truth. I am so tired of the unloving tactics of many complementarians. When it becomes okay to publicly lie rather than to confess the truth and go on from there, what kind of witness is that to the church and to the world? No one is perfect and everyone should be given a second chance, but I have a strong aversion to those who practice deception. It isn’t befitting the Lord Jesus nor is it befitting a pastor.

2:2 The kings … take their stand … against the LORD. To reject the Lord’s anointed king was to reject God himself. The Psalmist (David, according to Acts 4:25) would understand the expression his Anointed One (as in 1 Sam 26:11) to refer to the human king whom God had chosen to maintain justice in the land. Yet here is also a foreshadowing of the Messiah who was to come; that is, Jesus. To reject him is to reject the God who sent him (cf. Matt 10:40; John 12:48).

The College Press NIV commentary. (93).

2:2 The king is the Lord’s “anointed” (mashiah means “anointed one”, translated into Greek as christos). Every legitimate king was a “messiah” (1 Sm 16:13; 2 Kg 11:12); but the biblical writers prophesied that a greater king was coming, the Messiah (e.g., Is 9:2–7; Jr 23:5–6; Ezk 34:23–24; cp. 2 Sm 7:11–15). To reject God’s anointed king is to reject God.

The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (789–790).

The term “Christ” or “Messiah” was always seen as the term that referred to a human king who would represent God. This is why it is not a term that is referred to God in eternity past, but always points to the incarnation.

Oh and Daniel 9:25 is another clear prophecy about the coming Messiah. But what about calling God in eternity “the Christ”? It never happened.