Jeremy,
I haven’t been around much to even answer the comments, but I did read your last one. If you are really open at all like you say, I would recommend you get a copy of my DVD set. The argument is set up in context and even comp pastors have told me that there are favorite parts that they think is the best biblical reasoning that they have heard on a passage. I do think that it is worth your time.

Blessings!

Linda,
Welcome to my blog!

The Savior bore the marks of circumcision as he had to fulfill all of God’s law on our behalf. We on the other hand are not able to fulfill the law and so we receive the payment for our sin and the fulfillment of the law through Christ. While having a son circumcised is not a requirement, it is also not a sin. However if we are looking to circumcision to fulfill our part of the law, then Christ has no value to us as we cannot share in the sacrifice for sin. Either we attempt to be righteous before God by obeying the requirements of the law, or we are made righteous through Christ.

What we all can have is the sign of the circumcision of the heart as we are to turn our back on sin in order to follow Christ.

God bless!
Cheryl

Jeremy, it is my desire that all feel welcome here, even if they do not agree with me.

You said:

1. Not every gift is supposed to be used publicly in church. The 1 Peter passage you site does not say that all gifts should be used publicly. If I am gifted by God to run well, does that mean I should run publicly in church?

The Bible clearly says that spiritual gifts are for the benefit of the church. In 1 Cor. 14:1 commands believers to earnestly desire spiritual gifts especially the gift of prophesy and verse 4 shows that the gift that all may desire is meant to edify the church. Edification of the church is the purpose of our spiritual gifts. 1 Cor. 14:5 gives a second witness that our spiritual gifts are to bring edification to the church. Paul commands that we are to seek to abound in spiritual gifts for the edification of the church. Just as in 1 Peter 4:10, 11, the speaking gifts which are key spiritual gifts are for the church and what God has designed for the common good is not to be withheld by anyone from edifying the church.

You said:

Women might have gifts to speak well and understand God’s Word, and these gifts can be used to edify the body of Christ, but not in the public arena of a church service where authority is assumed. It is not withholding anyone’s gift from being used to serve the body, just in certain arenas.

This is not the case. Paul talks about all speaking in the public gathering of the whole church assembling together in 1 Cor. 14:23. The authority to speak resides with the Scripture that commands us to desire the gifts and then gives us the authority to use these speaking gifts as one who speaks forth the oracles of God. (1 Peter 4:10, 11)

This is prohibited by Scripture in 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2-3, and elsewhere.

This is not so. Paul specifically gives permission for all to speak in the public assembly and he withholds permission from no one who has the gift of prophesy to be used for the common good.

You said:

2. I read the article from CARM where you quote the author, and you do misuse his idea of gift. In that same article he clearly states, “it is not possible for a woman to possess every spiritual gift that a man possesses. A woman cannot be a father. Furthermore, the spiritual gift of being an elder/pastor is something only the male is called to per divine revelation.” So they do not believe a woman can have the spiritual gift of being a pastor…he was only saying that women are gifted (i.e. talented).

You have misread. I never claimed that CARM believes that women can have the spiritual gift of being a pastor. I did say that CARM claimed that there are some women who can be more gifted than many men at preaching and teaching. Here is the exact quote from CARM.

There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men. However, it isn’t gifting that is the issue, but God’s order and calling.

The founder believes that these women may preach and teach to women and he does believe that teaching is a spiritual gift that God gives women. He just doesn’t believe that women may use that gift in an authoritative way as a pastor.

1 Peter 4:11 is clear that “whoever” speaks forth should do so with the strength that God gives as they speak forth the utterances of God. No indication is given that part of the body of Christ are exempt from receiving God’s gifts just because the utterance is given through a woman. Speaking forth the utterances of God is the authority to use God’s special gifts and the motivation is always to be for the service of the body through being proper stewards of God’s grace given to all.

Jeremy, welcome to my blog.

You say that gifted orators are not necessarily meant to speak publicly in the body of Christ, yet that is not what the Scripture says:

1 Peter 4:10–11 (NASB95)
10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Peter gives a command that whoever has received a gift from God is to use that gift as a serve to “one another”. To withhold God’s gift from “one another” is a disservice to God and to the body of Christ.

I have quoted the Scripture to you. Can you please show me even one Scripture that denies body ministry through the gifts of God? I can’t find any at all.

Also I haven’t misunderstood the CARM position as I have had a lot of communication with them over this issue. Perhaps you can provide a quote that would show where I have misunderstood. So if you are able, please provide both a Biblical quote and a quote from the one who you say I misunderstand. That would be helpful.

Hi pinklight (or is that pinklightlight?)
I am still here but so many things have happened that I feel like I have to do some digging out just to get to street level. I really want to be back writing again and I will be. In a week I finally get a week vacation and it is my intent to spend time catching up and this blog is top of my list.

Notice that the reason is so that unbelievers will not dishonor God’s word just as Retha said.

What Mark is doing is making a “principle” so that it is a result of the woman’s nature that she must stay home and not doing so causes Christians to offend God. That totally changes the reason from the unbeliever to God’s offense which doesn’t match up with what He has said elsewhere.

Jolly good try, Mark, glad to know you are still looking at the blog. I am on a sabbatical still for a time as I am still in an overwhelmed state. Hopefully you will catch up with us when I come back so you can share how you keep all women bound to one role when God gifts and calls many of them for the service of His Word and His body.

Retha, welcome, sorry I haven’t been around much to answer questions here, but I hope to be back on my blog when I get some things off my “plate”.

Andrew, welcome to my blog!

Unfortunately the view that you have of these hard verses is typical of the unsatisfying answer we have had for many years. Paul is indeed talking about deception and false teaching throughout the book of 1 Timothy, but the grammar changes to a current situation in Ephesus. There is no way logically we can take Paul’s words and create a ban against Eve (and all women) when God did not pronounce a judgment of “no teaching” against her in the garden. Also it makes an extremely unsatisfying answer why Eve’s deception would cause her inability to teach only men. Why not ban her from teaching women and children?

Paul isn’t saying that women’s nature (the way that God created them) is one of deception. That would make God the origin of what is “not good” as His original creation would be faulty, defective and the gifts He gives women in teaching would be ill advised.

It also makes women’s salvation to have an additional factor of works to provide a “service”. How are single women going to be “saved”? How are single women going to provide a service? And what about married women who are barren?

What we need to do is compare what we think Paul meant in these verses to what he said in the entire book and in his dealings with women. Paul never held them back or said teachers like Priscilla should not be teaching men nor did he remind the men to look out for the “easily deceived” women who were working right alongside Paul. Surely they should not have been working in the gospel but staying at home providing a “service” in making more children.

Instead of fanciful additions to the Scripture in saving women through child birth and blaming the woman’s deception on her nature rather than the serpent and the man who listened but was not deceived, let’s work through this passage in a manner that fits the rest of Paul’s writings to Timothy and the Church and not create a “law” that restricts women when no such “law” was ever produced in the church before or after Paul’s letter to Timothy.

Excellent response gengwall!

Wives are absolutely to honor their husbands and by doing them good they honor them. Godly husbands are also to honor their wives and do them good. God even commanded Abraham to obey his wife Sarah and when Abraham obeyed her, he both honored her and God for her way was truly God’s way.

TL,

Good point about God’s choice not always connected to the first born.

Elaine,
The “conversation” you quoted makes my head spin as I remember the trips around the bush with comps who were more interested in holding onto a view that was comfortable to them rather than seriously considering the holes in their view.

pinklight,
Yes it has been quiet here. My life has been very complicated for some time and it has been hard for me to slow down to write. When our ministry partner had an aneurysm in her brain on December 30th, I didn’t right away see the amount of work that would be added to my plate. She is not capable right now of writing the regular quarterly newsletter so that is now an added pressure. When the stress lessens enough for my mind to get working again, I will be back. I hope it is sooner than later. 😉

Craig,
You said:

I have heard some comps say that Paul in 1 Tim 2:13 is using the understanding of primogeniture to say that Adam had authority over Eve because he was created first. They say that people in the first century would have understood this argument.

This is easy to say but impossible to prove biblically as no husband or wife was given rule over the other because of their age. My goodness what would happen if a wife was older than her husband?

It is true that in the culture primogeniture was only about first born males, but the basic outworking was about inheritance, not about “rule”. Adam was not Eve’s sibling so where would the connection have come from without any biblical example? It appears to be another case of reading one’s view into the text.

But I cannot think of any universal thing I should do because of a cultural reason. Can anyone else? Does this sound like a reasonable question to ask a comp, or am I missing something?

Your question sounds reasonable to me.

Hi TL,

Sorry for still being so slow. I am out of the country right now on a late trip with ministry work that we just finished during the Christmas break. Our ministry partner had a brain aneurysm burst recently so things have been topsy turvy here and not relaxing as I had hoped. She survived, thank God.

There are live quotes here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLe-qF2nptA on the preview for the Trinity DVD. Also on my blog I quote from his book here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/21/jesus-unequal-in-prayer/

I hope this helps!

I do intend to get back to this post this week if I can carve out some quiet time to get the post written. I did not even get Christmas off as we worked to get our latest magazine out. There were lots of glitches and reformatting needed which caused a whole lot of extra work when I thought I could rest. I am praying that the Lord will give me times of quietness and rest this year so that I don’t have to live with constant stress which is really hard on the body.

I hope that everyone had a great Christmas and New Year and that you are refreshed and ready for a new year.

Thank you Greg and a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you as well. Also to all the blog followers we wish you a very blessed and joyous time with your families.

TL,
The thing that puts a damper on that idea that Paul is talking about our own spirituality is that Paul didn’t use the word for spiritual but he used the word for “saved”. It is also future and not present tense (for those who already had children). The coming of Jesus was miraculous rather than something that made Mary spiritual. It is possible that Paul had more in mind than the connection between deception of the first woman and the deceived “issue” at Ephesus, but I would think that if he did he would have used more words like “spiritual” rather than just deceived and transgression. I am just unconvinced that there is something further there without something to hang onto. It also seems to me that Paul was more interested in going from the place of deception to salvation than he was in explaining what the specific deception was about.

I have been trying to carve out some time to fill out my last post, but haven’t had that kind of time yet, but hopefully soon.

TL, Marg, and others here, I wish you a very blessed Christmas and a joyful time in the Lord with your families!

Hi Marg,
That is indeed interesting! It appears to be just another puzzle piece that fits. Thank you so much for sharing that!

There are two problems with this view when comparing to the biblical text.

If the beautiful Lucifer seduced Eve and she turned around and seduced Adam, it explains why Adam didn’t put up any resistance!

If we take deception meaning the same as seduction as Paul said that Eve was deceived by the serpent, then we can also clearly understand that Adam was not seduced since Paul said that Adam was not deceived. The article quoted above shows that sexual seduction is not in the text, and the meaning of seduction has to be within the boundaries of deception.

Also in the account of the fall deception came from the serpent alone. It was not Eve’s deception that Paul was afraid of but the serpent’s deception that deceived Eve. I have never seen a biblical proof text that Eve deceived Adam. Adam was not seduced or deceived into sin. He willingly partook of the fruit with his eyes wide open to the truth.

I welcome both comps and egals to comment here on whether Paul is forbidding two things or one in 1 Timothy 2:12. Also it would be appropriate to discuss why Paul saw a need to single women out and if the prohibition is also applicable to men. Thanks! 🙂

Okay, Kristen, good idea. I have prepared a new post here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/12/14/1-timothy-212-two-prohibitions-or-one/ Although it will take me some time to put my thoughts down for the post, you are all welcome to post your views, questions, comments etc at the new location. I am going to close down the comments on this post so that we don’t end up losing the comments into outer space again.

Kristen if you would like to post either of the last two comments to start out for the post, you are certainly welcome to do so. I think that these things should be discussed and reasons for the views that we hold are welcome to be defended.

Remember passionate debate is welcome and encouraged and we are to remember that this is an in-house debate so we are completely free to treat each other with love and respect while we passionately disagree. Alrighty then, everything is set. I will go ahead and close out the comments here.

Hi Kristen,
While I was working on my response, you responded to Craig which I did not see. I have only a little time left this morning, so I will answer this one and then have to leave.

You said:

Craig, my understanding is that the way the verse is set up, the way the structure works in the Greek, is that it could either be read “I do not permit a woman to teach and I do not permit a woman to authentein a man” OR it could be read “I do not permit a woman to teach-authentein a man.”

The second option is not correct. There are two verbs that are joined together with a conjunction. The conjunction cannot be ignored and I have not seen a Greek manuscript without the conjunction. Therefore the two verbs are two activities and not one activity with a modifier. Comps have pointed this out for a long time and I have to agree with them. If Paul had wanted to say otherwise the grammar would have to be different. I believe that it is very important that we do not change the grammar to support our view, but that our view changes to match what is already there. I know that there are some high level egals that have taken the approach that it is one activity that is forbidden, but I have never seen an proof that they have a leg to stand on. We need to be fully honest with the text and let it say what it says whether we like it or not. There is a reason why there are two things forbidden and the reason is deception and the harm that teaching deception brings.

“Teach-authentein” would, in that case, mean something along the lines of “teach in such a way as to authentein a man.”

You are right. But the problem is that this is not what the grammar says. Not unless you are willing to take a scissors and cut out the little conjunction word. It must be considered and cannot be ignored.

The one thing that the Greek syntax does NOT support is “I do not permit a woman to teach a man or to authentein a man.” Either both verbs take the object, or only “authentein” does.

It is pretty obvious that both actions are directed towards the man. Paul certainly couldn’t be saying that it is not right for a woman to authentein a man but okay for a woman to authentein a woman. I think you would agree with me here.

So it is not that the women (or woman; I do think that is a very viable reading) are being told not to teach men (or “a man”). They are either being told not to teach in such a way as to authentein a man, or they are being told not to teach at all.

This simply does not hold up to the inspired grammar. It is two verbs, not one. And the object fits both the actions that are joined together by a conjunction.

These things are very important because if we don’t actually work with the grammar as it is, what comp is going to listen to us? While we may not know 100% what authentein means, we can know what is being forbidden. The question should be “who” is “a woman” that is forbidden from doing these bad things and “why” is she being singled out? Since we already know that the stopping of false teaching is the key to why Timothy was left in Ephesus, all we need to know is “who” is Paul talking about and “why” is the situation in chapter 2 any different than chapter 1 so that he needed to clearly explain to Timothy about silencing a teacher and why Paul was so confident that she would be saved. I think that when we look for the “who” and “why” we won’t have a problem with the exact grammar that lists two forbidden things that are joined together with a conjunction.

Another note, I wonder why these same teachers who are insisting that Paul has one action in mind are not saying that same thing about Jezebel in the book of Revelation? Was Jesus unhappy with the church allowing her to do two things or one? If it is two as the grammar shows, then why are not these same teachers insisting it is only one thing just as they do in 1 Timothy 2:12? That really confuses me. I would really like to know.

I don’t think it makes sense to say that even an uneducated woman cannot teach at all– 1 Cor 14 says that ANYONE can have “a teaching.”

I agree. It is amazing at how some “uneducated” people can have a real gift of wisdom in teaching. However misunderstanding something and the need to be educated in the truth is another matter and I think that is what Paul is getting at in chapter 1. Formal education in schooling is not a requirement but proper understanding of God’s truth is very important.

If Paul had meant “they cannot teach at all as long as they’re teaching false doctrine,” I think he would have said that.

I think he did say that with this one woman. He very strongly implies this by the question of her salvation. When Paul says she will be saved “if”… we know that her salvation is future not at the time that Paul was writing.

Therefore, I think the reading is the second ,”I do not permit a woman to teach in such a way as to authentein a man.”

This reading simply does not fit the grammar. If you really do believe that it does, please educate me. Give me a grammar source two verbs joined together by one conjunction can be one action that is modified by the other verb. Honestly, I have never seen it and I want to be faithful to the grammar.

This I find interesting:

As for the “they” and “she” pronouns, I believe it is possible to read the passage in terms of “she” being Eve (as representative of all womankind, and therefore able to be referred to in a form of present tense)

Can you explain to me how a dead woman can be saved in the future as a representative of all womankind?

and “they” being the offspring of her childbearing; ie, her Christian daughters in the church whom Paul is talking about.

Can you explain to me how what all Christian daughters in the church will accept the salvation of Eve? How would what they do bring the salvation of all womankind? This doesn’t make sense to me. Can you explain this?

That is, the sin of Eve is reversed (“she” is “saved”) for women if “they” (Eve’s daughters) continue in faith, etc.

I don’t understand this at all. It wasn’t Eve’s sin that was passed on to all of us and is doing good things able to change the past? Will my faith in Jesus change Eve or her destiny? How can this be?

I have found, though, that presenting Cheryl’s reading in certain circles often results in frank incredulity and even mockery.

Sure. But no one yet has presented a viable hole in my argument. In fact I once presented my argument to a huge group of men many of whom were pastors and I asked them to find a hole in my argument. Not a single one of them could find a viable hole. Now if my view was so laughable, then I wonder why no one has been able to refute it? In fact the argument has grown stronger through the years as I have learned more about the surrounding verses that I had not known before and because I have learned about specific grammar that applies to my argument that I was unaware of before. Laugh if they may, but my take is that those who laugh do so because it is easier to laugh than to try to refute the “error”.

This alternate reading at least presents another possibility for those who refuse to accept that “a woman” could mean one individual, and who therefore cling to their complementarian interpretation.

I would agree with this if it matched the grammar. I am very uncomfortable with accepting as a possibility a reasoning that has so many holes and which must change the grammar to make it fit. I just want what fits the grammar and the inspired words and if someone can refute my view and can show how the inspired grammar does not fit, then they would be doing me a favor if I am indeed wrong.

Okay back to work for me. The day is long advancing and I have so much ministry work to do.

Thanks Kristen for taking me on and working hard to work through these very tough verses! The truth worth working hard to reason through.

Hi Kristen,
Thanks for dialoging and trying to convince me of your position. This is the kind of defense of one’s position and back and forth dialog that I am looking for.

You said:

I said he was talking about “teaching in an authoritative way that contradicts the authoritative teaching that is currently being given by the leaders of the church.” It isn’t “authoritative teaching” I’m talking about. It’s false teaching that purports to be authoritative and thus usurps the true authoritative teaching.

How would you explain the fact that Paul didn’t mention this usurping the “true authoritative” teaching in chapter 1? In chapter 1:3-4, Paul lists the reasons why Timothy has been left behind in Ephesus and then he goes on to speak about those who want to be teachers of the Law.

1 Timothy 1:6–7 (NAS)
6For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion,
7wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

The Greek term for “make confident assertions” is diabebaioomai. It means to speak confidently, to insist, strongly maintain, give a firm assurance, to be positive, to give special emphasis. There is no doubt that teaching error in a confident way would be contradicting the teaching of the truth, but why would Paul not give us any hint here that there is this is actually a usurping of authority? He uses no words about authority or usurping a position, office or power that belonged only to some. Can you explain to me why Paul would speak about their confident claims but fail to connect this to an authority they were usurping?

Can you also explain why these false teachers in chapter 1 would not be also usurping “authority” but only the women mentioned in chapter 2? Were there no false teachers who were men who were teaching in a confident way? Why then would Paul single out women and not also tell the men that they were not to teach in this way?

You also said:

I never said there was “authority” given to “accepted teachers.” I said the teaching of the “accepted teachers” was considered “authoritative” on the subjects they were teaching about. This has nothing to do with exercising authority over the congregation, any more than the scholar whose book I read to learn what an “authority” on his subject thinks, is exercising authority over my life.

I don’t know how to see it otherwise because you used the word “usurp”. This word means much more than being an authority on a subject.

To usurp authority means:

to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne. source: dictionary.com

When you use terms like usurp, the term has a meaning behind it that is assumed. Perhaps you need to restate what you mean without saying that there was an authority to usurp. Otherwise I don’t understand what you are saying about these “women” who have been called out in a special way by Paul.

In my view the woman in 1 Timothy 2:12 is one of the false teachers from chapter 1 but she is in a unique position in that she isn’t openly teaching her error. She is teaching only one person and this would have presented a special problem.

If many women were in view in 1 Timothy 2:12, then why could they not have been dealt with in chapter 1 with all the other men who were teaching error in a strong and confident way? Why did Paul need to specifically stop only women from teaching their confident errors and why were they only not to teach these errors to men?

I appreciate anyone trying to convince me of their position. I am thoroughly convinced of my own position because it fits without contradiction, but I am open to be convinced of another position in the hopes that there might be more than one option that is plausible from the inspired words and the inspired text that does not contradict the text.

Craig,
You said:

Is it
“usurp the authority of an accepted/authorized teacher before you yourself have been authorized”
as Kristen has put forward or to “dominate” as I think you believe.

I don’t see any evidence that there was an “authority” given to “accepted teachers” let alone an authority that could be “usurped”. Since the leaders were to be servants and not lording over the flock, is it their authority to act as a servant that is being “usurped”? It just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think that “dominate” exactly fits the meaning either. Authentein appears to have more of a sinister meaning than dominate. I also think that not knowing exactly what the word means is NOT a hindrance to understanding the passage. We can know that the activity is never sanctioned for any Christian brother or sister and that the situation was so serious that Paul drew a link to the very first situation involving deception. I also believe that term authentein is used of an action that is being done by the woman in ignorance not in a deliberate attempt to dominate or tear down the man and destroy him for her pleasure. The fact that Paul is so convinced that her receiving correct teaching will bring her out of her error and to salvation, convinces me that what she is doing is being done in ignorance of the harm that she has connected herself to. The act of domination doesn’t lend itself as much to innocence, but a bad character and perhaps selfishness in sacrificing someone else on purpose. I believe she was deceived. I do not believe that she was a deliberate deceiver nor that she was one who was trying to harm the man on purpose. Paul’s words about who would receive mercy as he did just seem so applicable to her situation.

Is it a certain particular woman or more than one doing this dominating false teaching? Your view that it is one woman makes a lot of sense of the whole passage, and is very appealing, but it is not easily accepted by others.

I believe that if there was a group of women doing false teaching and dominating men, that Paul would have used correct grammar to describe them. The fact that he used the singular and then the plural fits a man and a woman but it doesn’t fit a group of women who would never be called both “she” and “them”. In my desire to be faithful to the text, I am very unconvinced about any argument that would excuse Paul’s writing as bad grammar. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit so the buck stops with Him. He doesn’t make mistakes.

a)Is it really a natural way for Paul to have spoken, without clarifying a little?

It is very natural for Paul. Paul spoke about himself calling himself “a man” when he was not wanting to boast about his spiritual experiences and he also used non specific terms when he spoke about a specific man committing a sin that would eventually find him back in the fold after being disciplined by the church. In both cases Paul had a reason for not being specific and these two other examples show Paul willing to hide the identity of the person for specific reasons. If the Holy Spirit hid names and specific information about these two other instances of real people who are not directly identified, then there is no reason why 1 Timothy 2:12 is not along a similar line. In fact 1 Timothy 2:12 is more understandable with non specific information since it was a personal letter to Timothy who would have known all of the details that we do not know. He didn’t need to know a name. In the other cases where Paul did not reveal names, the letter was written to a much wider audience.

As far as not being accepted easily, that isn’t quite true. I won’t ever forget the very first pastor who watched my DVD set with an open mind even though he was thoroughly convinced that women were not allowed to participate in the privileges that were given by God to men alone. He wrote me that the Holy Spirit convicted him so much so that he repented of his view of women. He was deeply repentant and he confessed his sin. Others has come along the same course but with more skepticism at first and they pursued me with questions. There is a huge set of traditions that we have accepted for so long that these traditions will not easily fall. I myself had to let these traditions go, but I have chosen to only allow accepted traditions to fall because of (not in spite of) the inspired text and grammar. I also am unconvinced by emotionalism or speculation outside the text. This is the reason why I reject some of the things that egalitarians teach. I don’t want speculation but only the truth of God’s Word. It is my desire to help many others to share my strong trust in the Scriptures so that which is only speculation or even deception will not stand when compared to God’s Holy Word. There should be no fear in sticking to God’s Word.

b)Are there Greek experts and other prominent egals who have adopted this view?

I will have to start a blog post one day (!) and send those to the post who have supported me in the past to publicly speak out. And send me all the Greek experts you have and I will dialog with them. Dr. Daniel Wallace who is a noted Greek expert has a copy of my DVDs including the one on the Trinity. Whether he has finished viewing them yet, I don’t know. He is such a busy man, so he is not as easy to get in touch with him. But he has found my writing interesting in the past on a comp blog and he has commended me on my attitude so he gave me his home address to send my DVDs to and I expect sometime in the future to hear back from him. One thing for sure, he has not corrected me to this point and that is encouraging.

(I noticed that your last comments were at 2am and 3am!!)

Yes, I am a bad one for that. I work hard at ministry duties during the day and then later if I can’t sleep, my blog just “calls” me so I read and if needed I respond. Our home does not yet have the siding on the outside so the house wrap flaps in the wind at night and without insulation the noise is very loud and at times drives me to distraction. It helps to wear ear plugs, but sometimes sleep evades me anyway. It is the early morning quiet hours when I can think without distraction and then what comes out of me is usually passionate and I am not worried that I am wasting time that could have been spent in ministry work.

So I may be here and I may not be here until the new Year. And yes, in case you are thinking of asking, I am tired. I truly don’t get enough sleep. But I truly LOVE this topic and I am passionate at wanting people to see how logical Paul is in his hand picked words and his precise grammar. I want to give the apostle Paul a big hug when I meet him in heaven. The more I pick him apart, the more I appreciate him and his love for women. He truly was interested in setting us all free to serve God with our gifts. Praise God for the gift to the church of the apostle Paul!

Back to my sabbatical. I really do need to relax my mind. It goes a million miles a minute when I discuss God’s Word. It is truly hard to keep quiet 😉

In reading through the passage I find some things of interest.

1. Paul never addressed “authority” in chapter 1. He did address false doctrine and the wrongful use of the law that would hinder people from coming to Christ as the one who fulfilled the law, and using the law this way would bring people back under bondage to the written letter of the law that they could never fulfill on their own.

2. Paul never stopped anyone from preaching the truth of the gospel, nor did he state that he left Timothy behind to stop women from teaching the truth of the gospel to anyone. It would seem rather odd to have a universal statement about the silencing of godly women who were teaching the truth when it was never mentioned in the purpose of Timothy’s reason for being left behind in Ephesus.

3. The view that it was an authoritative teaching that was forbidden seems to defy the grammar. In 1 Timothy 2:12 there are two verbs that are joined together by a conjunction. What is the grammar source that makes the one verb as a modifier of the other?

We have the same grammar in Rev. 2:20 –

Revelation 2:20 (NAS) But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

Here we have two verbs that are joined together with a conjunction. The term for “lead astray” means to deceive. She is both teaching error and deliberately deceiving. The term for “teach” here is normally used positively, but the term “lead astray” or “deceive” is a negative term so both terms become negative. She is faulted not only for teaching error, but for deliberately deceiving and bringing God’s servants into her acts of sin.

I think there is a better way to see 1 Timothy 2:12 that will not add in an idea about authority. If Paul had meant to talk about earned authority or respect of the congregation, there were perfectly good words to convey that idea. Instead Paul used a word that is so extremely rare that it is difficult to pinpoint the exact meaning, except for the fact that it is never a term that is given to anyone in the Bible as an “earned right” or “privilege”. It is always used as a negative term outside of the Scripture. And because Paul’s main points include false doctrine and deception in chapters 1 & 4 which surround the disputed text, we can be confident that Paul was not restricting the teaching of correct doctrine. Also because Paul never discusses in this book an accepted human “authority” that would be needed before one can use their gift of teaching , we should be leery of reading that into 1 Timothy 2:12. Paul clearly said what he meant in the chapter before. Why would he make general statements about women and authority when there was no authorization mentioned for Timothy to do something about women or their authority? Was Timothy left behind to stop women from teaching? Or how about Timothy left behind to stop women from teaching until they had the proper authority to teach? Paul never gives a hint that this was on Timothy’s agenda.

But does Paul mention the need to stop certain people from teaching false doctrine? Certainly. Would the stopping of “a woman” from teaching in 1 Tim 2:12 fit into the known reason for why Timothy was left behind? It sure would. And the fact that the “student” held a marital responsibility to protect but was doing nothing would have required special attention from Timothy to this one teacher who also needed to be stopped. Timothy was only left behind to stop the teaching of error and to protect people from false doctrine. No other agenda is there other than this very clear confirmation of Paul’s.

The question I have asked myself, is whether it is more reasonable to understand that in a private letter from Paul to his representative in Ephesus, that the stated purpose for Timothy’s stay in Ephesus was to be accomplished in chapter 2 or that a completely different purpose for stopping teaching was interjected into chapter 2 without so much as an inclusion in the summary of chapter 1 or hinted at by any other Scripture or any other inspired writer? I think that logically we can only go by the facts we already have that the problem of teaching in Ephesus was not about men vs women or about needing human authority to use one’s gift of teaching, but about the problem of the teaching of error and the deception which was causing speculation, fruitless discussion and causing people to stray away from the faith.

If the “holes” that I have found are not “holes” and can be acceptably explained, then I would remove my objections. I do not think I am wrong, but I am always willing to view evidence to the contrary. God’s truth is way more important than human ego to me. It is like a pearl of great price that we need to sell all to obtain.

There are always “possibilities” of what is meant by the text. But “possibilities” usually have holes that keep them from being understood as the real meaning. Here is where I see the holes. If Paul left Timothy behind in Ephesus to stop the teaching that was going on, we might find an addition something like this:

1 Timothy 1:3 (NAS)
As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, …[and certain women not to teach in an authoritative way to men although they may teach in an authoritative way to women]

If teaching in an “authoritative” way was wrong if you aren’t an expert on something, then why were these “women” only restricted from teaching men this way? Why not also stop them from teaching women authoritatively?

Secondly, it appears that Paul’s concern was not “authority” but false teaching. In verses 4 & 6 Paul specifically mentions myths and endless genealogies which give rise to speculation and empty discussion.

1 Timothy 1:4 (NAS) nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.

1 Timothy 1:6 (NET) Some have strayed from these and turned away to empty discussion.

In these verses Paul did not state that myths and endless genealogies give rise to unauthorized authority. He could have added that if it was a key issue.

In verse 7 of chapter 1 Paul specifically makes a point of the Law that some wanted to teach.

1 Timothy 1:7 (NAS) wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

Note here too, Paul didn’t say that these ones wanted to be teachers with authority. And he doesn’t deny that some may be teachers. He only mentions that these ones are confidently teaching errors because they do not understand the purpose of the law.

The lawful use of the law was to bring knowledge of sin, not to bring perfection.

1 Timothy 1:8–10 (NAS)
8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

It appears clear to me that Paul’s concern was not an an “authority” that a person had, but the rightful use of the law as a tool to bring a person to Christ rather than to bring a person under bondage. Those who were to be stopped from teaching were bringing people into confusion. Are we to see Paul as stopping godly people from teaching true doctrine just because they did not yet have an acceptance from the church to teach? I can’t reason my way through that because Paul had in another place said that he was glad that he gospel was being preached even though the motives of preaching the gospel was to harm him. The preaching/teaching of the truth was never stopped no matter who taught the truth. Paul never ordered a man to be stopped from preaching the truth even if their motive was to hurt him. Certainly such a one would have no “authority” or trust in the congregation, but they were allowed to proclaim the gospel. So, was Paul really concerned about an “authority” that women had not yet earned? Or was he only concerned about false doctrine?

More in a bit….

230 Craig,

You said:

One of the staff at my church said egals use a “different hermeneutic”. I have often heard comps say it is a “liberal hermeneutic”. I don’t really understand what they mean, what is “liberal” about it, and why they say this. It doesn’t seem “liberal” at all to me.

Many people using “thought stopping” words that are designed to paint certain people as bad. This technique is used to stop others from considering the opposing argument instead of using the Biblical way of refuting bad arguments with gentleness and respect for the brother or sister we disagree with.

Recently I listened to a program where the Christian host used sarcasm, loaded language and misrepresentation to make another brother in Christ appear in a very bad light to the host’s audience. The issue had nothing to do with women in ministry at all and I did not bring it up. I emailed the host and with gentleness and respect, I reminded the host that we are commanded to love our brothers in Christ. If we have a disagreement with them we are to bring out the truth and refute error, but we are to do it with gentleness and respect. My advice was not accepted and I became the next one to be misrepresented. In a subsequent radio interview on someone’s else’s show, the first host related the email that was sent to him and he said it was from an “egalitarian” woman who said he was “mean and nasty”. What was the purpose of calling me an “egalitarian”? I had not mentioned it and the only way he could know it would be to google my name. The issue of egalitarianism was not the issue where we disagreed, but it was a “tool” to disregard me. It was an easy way for him to set aside my advice to him and cause people to see me as being the bad person. Then he misrepresented me as writing things I never wrote. What I did tell him was that mockery of a Christian brother was not the way of the Master. I did not all him names, nor attack his character. I reminded him of the goal that he had set up for his program concerning gentleness and reverence. Those who want to follow Jesus are commanded to love their brothers and to treat them as dearly loved brothers who belong to the same Lord and Master. It is my opinion that if you have to misrepresent your opposition and you fail to care about genuine brothers or sisters in Christ, then you have already lost the argument.

Many here may remember a complementarian accusing me of paying too much attention to the words and grammar of the Scripture. Those who pay attention to the inspired text, the inspired grammar and the inspired context are not liberals who place their own tradition as having more value than what God has said. The egalitarians here have shown that they are very interested in what God has to say and they want to know what the original languages mean so that they can truly understand God. Those who would call us “liberals” may be guilty of trying to win an argument by name calling rather than by rolling up their sleeves to get deep into the text with us.

The older I get, the more I realize that there are many who do not love truth more than they love their own position. When they find they cannot answer arguments or questions, they do not consider why. They just do the only thing they believe they can in the situation and that is to call names, question motives, attack the character of the opposition and run away. What does a person do about people who have dug their heels in and become abusive? Even a couple of years ago I used to think that if I was persistent, they were bound to see their error and consider what I have to say about the inspired text. But now I realize that it is an act of grace to let them leave. I realize that God doesn’t expect that I have the power to persuade everyone. What I can do is be faithful, be truthful and be gracious while speaking the truth with love. And maybe just maybe if I do not treat the opposition with unkindness and disrespect they may in their private times alone with their thoughts consider the seed that has been planted and God may cause that seed to grow at some point.

I now realize that it is okay for me to fail. I will continue to learn and grow and to become even more confident in the Scriptures as I treat the Word with respect as I hang on to each and every word that God has breathed out. In the end my success is not how many people are convinced that I understand the truth about a difficult passage. My success will come in standing before God and having Him say that I have been faithful in the handling of His word.

Craig, you really opened a can of worms inside my head with your question. I just had to come out of my sabbatical to give this “rant” about the importance of gentleness and respect rather than name calling. After all, one day we will surely find an area where we have not understood correctly and we will be greatly blessed by having our understanding challenged by a brother or sister in Christ who is able to speak truth to us in gentleness and respect so that we can hear and have a safe place to change our minds.

I really love you guys and miss you a lot. I just need this extra time away for some very needed rest. 🙂

Just a note to my blog followers: I thought I would be able to get back to blogging by this time, but I understand that I really need a break and so I am going to take time away until the new year when I am trusting that I will be able to be back and fresh after taking time to rest during the Christmas season.

No problem TL for placing your request here. I wish I had tentacles of knowledge and loads of time and I would help you myself. I pray for help for you. Technology can be very helpful but also very intimidating.

My thought is that he wants a forum where there are lots of other comps who can also chime in and help him. Here he thinks he might be on his own without help so he is uncomfortable with that. So perhaps respect is not as important to him as the comfort of having like minded men as a safety zone.

There are some forums that are known for their hatred and bad treatment of those who have opposing views. I am not aware that the particular forum he has suggested is one of those bad ones so it may be a good place for him to feel comfortable. It may also be a good place to get the message out. It is up to you. I can help as I have time but I am unlikely to have a lot of time available until January.

I should also add that I sincerely welcome complementarians to my blog who are interested in respectful dialog. We can be very passionate here, but we do appreciate our brothers and sisters in Christ who do not believe as we do about women in ministry. I would welcome any discussion/debate that Craig would like to bring here with any comps that would follow him. Christian brothers and sisters are all valued here.

Hi David and welcome to my blog!

Hi Everyone, I just finished getting my year end accounting and corporate taxes done so I will likely be back on my blog on and off this week. Time for bed now, but I look forward to having a little time again now that my biggest and most important task has been accomplished.