Craig

Hi Mark,
Just thinking aloud. A couple of questions come to mind that you may be able to help with Mark.
1. Is there a reason you left out Rev 2:20 and the “teaching” rather than “false teaching” of Jezebel? Sorry if you mentioned this verse and I just missed it.
2. In a situation like Jezebel, where a specific false teacher is known to both the writer and the recipient, is there a need to clarify that her “teaching” is “false teaching”? It seems that the answer is no. I can understand the need to use the word for “false teaching” where the recipient would not otherwise understand, but where the specific false teacher is well known, it may have not been necessary. Any thoughts?

Sorry Mark, but you lost me with your illustration. You may need to explain it a bit more for it to make sense to me.
You said

“I want all people will blonde hair to stand over to the left
Likewise i want all people with dark hair standing over to the right.
……………
Now the people with dark hair you should be …”
Are you saying these statements would be understood to only be referring to men?????

Also, could you please explain what you mean by “to stress it too far” regarding the word “likewise”.

You asked

“What was the particular concern in verse 11 that Paul states? Especially considering that ‘dignified’ the first qualification is EXACTLY the same word used as in verse 8. Therefore if verse 8 includes women why repeat himself?”

I’ll quote from Cheryl again.
“Paul lists an additional qualification that specifically deals with an issue that plagues women when he says “likewise” and that added qualification is the issue of gossip. In Titus 2:3 Paul again links women (and specifically older women) with the bad habit of gossip.”

I am still thinking through Cheryl’s ideas stated above. I think she would find this illustration OK for what she is saying. So time for the bathroom illustration again! (Just slightly modified)
I have some guests over to my house and I say
(3:1-7) ” If anyone would like to use the games room he must a good sport, not violent when losing…..etc.”
(3:8-10) ” If anyone would like to use the bathroom, be as quick and efficient as you can in consideration for anyone who may be waiting.”
(3:11) ” Women, don’t take too long doing your hair and putting on your makeup.”
(3:12) “Anyone who uses the bathroom please leave it tidy.”
(apologies to the women- I am just trying to make the illustration work:) Any help in “tidying up” the illustration would be welcome)
You could think that
1. only v 11 applies to women because women are not allowed to play games, but they may use the bathroom.
But it is also possible that
2. both men and women can play games and use the bathroom, but women need a particular mention about a matter that was a particular concern.
I used to read the passage as 1. but now I can see that 2. could also be a valid way of reading it. It depends on what we see the rest of the bible as teaching.
Any thoughts?

Hi Mark,
You said
“The shift to ‘gyne’ in verse 11 is obvious that the previous discussion therefore has not been applied to them. This is simple logic!”
I asked a related question a few weeks ago.
” But doesn’t the word “likewise” mean that he is now talking about women when he wasn’t before?

Cheryl answered it this way.
Craig,
To answer the question we just need to see what Paul has already said in the epistle. Paul is not excluding people from his instructions when he starts dealing with another “group”. For example just because Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:8 that he wants “men” to pray without wrath and dissension doesn’t mean that he is exempting women. What Paul does in 1 Timothy is join the groups together with the term “likewise” while setting apart kinds of people that have particular issues yet still not exempting them from being a part of the “whole”.

Why does Paul say “Deacons likewise” in verse 8 when deacons are also a part of 1 Timothy 3:1? It should be obvious that a deacon can desire to be an overseer as “anyone” may desire that work. Yet deacons are treated in a special way within the passage.

1 Timothy 3:8 (NAS)
8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,

If we treat the term “likewise” as if it excludes deacons as possible people who desire to be overseers, then we would come to a false conclusion. Paul isn’t excluding deacons in 3:1 nor is he excluding women in the previous verses either just because he says “likewise”. What he is doing is specifically addressing the concerns of women (a specific group) within the whole.

So women can desire to be overseers, and Paul lists an additional qualification that specifically deals with an issue that plagues women when he says “likewise” and that added qualification is the issue of gossip. In Titus 2:3 Paul again links women (and specifically older women) with the bad habit of gossip.

So I would ask if deacons are exempt from the ability to desire to be overseers because Paul lists them in the passage as “likewise”? If the term “likewise” cannot mean that they are excluded in the previous verses just because they have service as a deacon and the term “likewise” is used concerning that “group”, then logically it cannot mark out women as not included in 1 Timothy 3:1 either.

So if you ask me why did Paul use the term “likewise” with women? I think it was because he was going to add a special qualification that is more apt to be needed to be said when advising women. It is not uncommon for Paul to use this term but it is not meant by him to exclude people from the “whole”.

Thanks TL and Dave for your encouragement. I have passed on the question. I will let you know when I have a reply. I t might depend on when my friend has his next Greek lecture.

Thanks for doing this research Dave. It does seem a bit over my head.

I think the question I was trying to formulate in #179 is this:
“One of the tricky things about this passage is that there are 2 women mentioned- Eve and the Ephesian woman. I wonder what your lecturer would think if Paul had given a different reason for the prohibition (just hypothetically). If the reason didn’t mention Eve or any other woman, then the only woman in the passage would be the “woman” of v11,12. Then “”the woman” of v14b,15 would have to refer to the specific Ephesian woman. I wonder if there is anything in the Greek that can’t refer to a specific Ephesian woman if Eve was not in the passage? For example, if Eve was not mentioned, would there be any problem with the singular “woman” of v11,12, the conjunction “gar’, the anaphoric reference, the perfect verb considering the verbal aspect theory, the “she” of v15, or anything else pointing to a specific Ephesian woman?”

Do you think this is a reasonable question to ask?

I replied to my friend so I will wait and see what he says. Thanks again Dave- I used your thoughts in my reply- I hope they are not copyright 🙂
I decided not to use my ramblings in #179. I felt confused reading back my own ponderings!
Did anyone have any thoughts about the “perfect verb” in #173? I am afraid my friend lost me a bit with his explanation.
Thanks.

Thanks a lot Dave. That is very helpful.
I am just thinking of a hypothetical situation to help clarify things. 2 sources of confusion are that Paul uses Eve (a woman) in his reason for the prohibition and this passage is dealing with a controversial subject. I wonder if the same objections would occur if say an Ephesian woman was being physically violent to her husband. Could Paul have used the same sort of Greek language saying
“I do not permit a woman to be violent to a man. For Cain killed Abel. The woman has become a sinner. She will be …..if they continue……”
If Paul had written something like that I wonder whether there would be any objections to the Greek being understood in the natural way. Would “the woman” and “she” of 14b and 15 seem too far away from “woman” in v11,12? Would the anaphoric reference seem to naturally refer to the woman of v11,12 or would the conjunction “gar” make this impossible? I wonder….

This is the “meat” of the reply I am planning to send today.

“Thanks for the work you have done on this. Some thoughts that come to mind.
I agree that any language can be “more of an art in choosing from a number of possibilities rather than an exact science”.
I agree that by itself, the term “the woman” in v14b could refer to Eve, but I am not sure that I agree that it is the most natural or that v11,12 are “all the way back”. I could be talking to you about a woman, and then give a reason for her not to do something that could take several sentences to explain. But when I come back and mention “the woman” again you would know exactly who I am talking about.
Are you sure the lecturer is not making more of the “gar conjunction” separation than really exists? Paul seems to obviously be continuing on the same subject and giving the reason for what he has just said. There is no big separation that I can see. A new clause doesn’t mean the same thought process can’t continue. It is not a whole new subject. In the light of what I just said, the anaphoric use of the article would seem to very naturally refer back to the woman he is talking about in v11,12.
Are you really convinced about the faint echo idea?
Is your lecturer saying that the perfect verb can’t be referring to the Ephesian woman or just that it can be referring to Eve?
My understanding is that “woman” in v11,12 is singular but it is not quite accurate to call it “indefinite”. It is just “woman” and there is nothing “indefinite” in the Greek. It can be a specific woman or a general statement about women and we need to follow the whole passage to work out which it is. Greek experts on both sides that I have read indicate that there is nothing in the Greek of v11,12 to indicate specific or general. Look at Jn 4:7, Luke 8:43, 13:11. Is “woman” referring to a specific woman or women in general? There are numerous examples like this.
I would like to hear his defence of the NIV on v15. My understanding is that the Greek changes very clearly from 3rd person singular (she) to 3rd person plural (they). Does your lecturer know of any other time in the whole bible where 3rd person singular should be translated as plural? Any other time in Greek literature? If he finds one or some, is it common? One in a thousand? One in a million? What is the reason to translate it in a one in a million way? Why not just translate it as it actually says? Is it that it may not fit in with what they think the passage means? I think a better approach is to accept and try to understand what Paul actually wrote as inspired by the Holy Spirit. ”

Any other thoughts would be appreciated. I am no expert at all on these things. Thanks.

Hi TL,
He is meaning that he believes that v14b refers to Eve rather than to a specific Ephesian woman.

Hi everyone,
I have been having a discussion about 1 Tim 2 with a comp friend. He is in 1st year theological college. He asked his Greek lecturer about some of the things I had mentioned. My friend has relayed to me his lecturer’s comments but admits he may not have understood everything perfectly. I was wondering if there are any Greek experts out there with any thoughts? My friend wrote:

“1. re: The identity of the woman in v14b
a) The conjunction ‘gar’/for at the beginning of verse 13 marks quite
strongly the start of a new clause. Therefore the most natural context
for ‘the woman’ in v14b would be in verse 13, that of Eve. It would
seem strange to go all the way back to verse 11 to refer to the woman.
b) As to the anaphoric use of the article, my understanding of what he
said (but not totally confident) was: An article by itself can refer
back to a previous noun that matches gender (kind of like a relative
pronoun). This use is only one of many options for the article which
can be quite flexible. Either way, in light of above, it seems more
natural for ‘the woman’ to refer to Eve in the more immediate context
of verse 13 rather than all the way back in v11, especially going
across the gar conjuction. As to why he called her ‘the woman’ rather than
“Eve”, it could be that he wanted to have a faint echo of v11? Hope that
makes sense.

2. The perfect verb in v14b
   The translation of the perfect as a ‘completed verbal action that
   occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result
   that exists in the present’ is apparantly a slightly out-dated idea.
   The more recent understanding is that verbs centre on verbal aspect
   rather than time/tense as they do in English. Please ask about this if
   you want me to try and explain verbal aspect more … anyway from the
   verbal aspect perspective, verse 13 – 14 has the 3 or 4 aorist’ verbs
   then one perfect verb of ‘to become’. This would suggest that the
   Aorist verbs are kind of like the background story while the perfect
   verb is emphasised as the ‘main point’ of the phrase. This is in
   contrast to understanding Greek verbs as primarrly describing
   tense/time so to ask if the woman was alive isn’t really the right
   question to ask of the verb.

3. As to the translation of v11-12, he said given that it the noun for
   woman is singular and indefinite, it would more likely be a general
   statement rather indicating than a specific woman in Ephesus (though I
   think he said that was a possibility).

4. He did briefly defend the NIV translation of verse 15 but it was
   quite brief and I can’t actually remember what he said … sorry!

Any quick comments from anyone would be appreciated before I attempt a reply. Thank you.

Cheryl @61,
No worries. I appreciate all the time you put into the blog, and I realize that you have other important priorities that need your time and effort. Don’t run yourself ragged. My prayers are with you.

Kay @ 60,
It is interesting that you mentioned people who “wish to believe that Paul would have lumped the wife in with “household”.

This seems to be the view of the staff at our church. For example, one of the paid full time staff, our youth minister, who has a theological degree, had this to say 2 weeks ago on the youth group’s blog in response to a question on Eph 5.
“Submitting must mean obeying at some point if it means respecting…….” “….with this comes responsibility for the husband to lead his wife and his family. That doesn’t mean that he makes all the decisions for the family yet the example below indicates that he is to make decisions and the wife and family are to follow them.
“…the responsibility for the family making godly choices lies with him. Also, when the family makes dodgy choices, the responsibility is his too.
In practice, it means that when the family discusses things and makes decisions together, it is the husband’s job to make sure that Jesus comes into the picture. If it doesn’t, then the Bible says that he has done the wrong thing and he is responsible for the family’s poor choice.
This is where respect comes in. The wife is to recognise that it is her husband’s job to raise the family in Jesus -and then to let him do it!
Example: The husband gets a new job offer, but it involves moving. The wife doesn’t want to move the family. The husband and the wife (and family) would discuss it together. In the end, if the best thing for the family’s Christian growth is to take the job, then the family should submit to the husband exercising his responsibility. At the same time, the husband must only take the job if he is sure that it is the best thing for the family’s Christian growth.
Notice how sometimes the best thing for the family might not be what everyone wants to do? If the husband wimps out because of the pressure and doesn’t choose the best thing for the family, he is not taking his responsibility seriously.
So what does this mean? Wives, Sons and Daughters of Christian Husbands/ Dads: help them to fulfill their responsibility by listening to them and understand why they might stop you from doing something you want or make you do something you don’t want to. Talk to them about it when you disagree and ask them to show you why it is the most godly option. Pray with them and for them when they make decisions–they are responsible before God for you. And if you don’t agree with them–respect the role Jesus has given them by submitting to their authority and obeying them. ”
“……. the responsibility remains for the husband to raise his family in Jesus.”

My son leads one of the small groups in the youth group and he showed me what was written on the blog. We had a good discussion about it and he could see the glaring lack of scriptural support for all that was said.

Hi Dr James Willingham @55,
Many years ago I visited 10 different mission stations in New Guinea doing some short term missionary work. I do remember at least one of the places having to deal with this polygamy issue. I know that they were accepted into the church. I don’t know if the option of divorce was considered but it wasn’t mentioned in our very brief discussion on it.
I wonder if they were able to teach children or lead in anything? If they were a bad example as an overseer, wouldn’t they also be a bad example in any christian leadership?

Just to clarify a bit what I am asking here. Some passages seem to me to be very clearly in favor of an egal interpretation eg 1 Tim 2:11-15, 1 Cor 7:1-5, Mk 10:42-45 – the comp interpretation just doesn’t work at all. Gen1-3 also – comps have to read so much into it that isn’t there.
Others however just depend on what “glasses” you have on as to what you see. The best you can reasonably expect in a discussion is that a comp may see that their view isn’t as clear as they thought, and there is a very valid alternative that they may actually come to see as the correct interpretation after they have studied the rest of the bible on the subject.
So do you think 1 Tim 3 is a passage that clearly shows comps to be wrong, or one that just shows that egals could have a valid interpretation that is worth investigating.
I hope the question is clear. Thanks.

Friend: I can see now how you are reading 1 Tim 3 and how that could be true.
Craig: Yes, it seems like women elders and deacons could really be something God desires.
Friend: Well yes, but a comp interpretation of 1 Tim 3 can also work pretty well. “Anyone” can mean “men and women” as you say, but from what I understand, it can also just mean “men”.
Verses 1-10 could be just referring to men. There is nothing in them to say that women have to be included.
Vs11 about women could be just referring to women deacons because that is what the verses before and after it are about.
Therefore, 1 Tim 3 by itself isn’t really conclusive by itself. We will have to look at the rest of the bible to see what it says.
Craig: You may be correct, but I think the normal way of understanding “anyone” includes both men and women. The context would have to clearly indicate otherwise, and it doesn’t. I’ll check on the blog and see if there are any other arguments just from 1 Tim 3 that really favor an egal interpretation.
Thanks again everyone.

Thanks again Cheryl for an excellent answer. I think I am getting reasonably comfortable now with an egal understanding of 1 Tim 2 and 3, and feel better prepared for future discussions with comps on these issues.
I am glad you liked the toilet illustration Dave. I often feel like I am starting to understand something if I can find or make up a good illustration for it. I have tried briefly to work out one for the use of “likewise” in the chapter but I am not quite there yet and it is bed time. Good night all.

Cheryl,
Thanks for your reply, but I’m still struggling a bit to follow Paul’s mind working like that.
I can see my conversation going something like this.
Craig: Paul told Timothy “anyone” in 3:1. This is the same word used in the gospels in the salvation verses, so it is quite reasonable to assume he has both men and women in mind.
Friend: But he seems to clearly have just men in mind because he says that he must be “the husband of one wife”.
Craig: Let me give you an illustration. If I go to a home bible study group and the husband of the house gets everyone together and says “The toilet is just down the corridor on the right. Anyone may use it, but please leave everything tidy. Take careful aim and leave the seat down when you have finished. Are the women then to assume that they cannot use the toilet because he “obviously had men in mind”?
Also, if the phrase “husband of one wife” meant that only men could be elders, then it must also mean that only men can be deacons, and you don’t believe that do you.
Friend: I can understand your point. That makes sense. So therefore Paul is clearly referring to men and women in verses 1-7
Craig: Also, Timothy would have understood this because he knew Paul and how favorable he was toward women in ministry. So he would never have assumed Paul was excluding women.
Friend: Paul would therefore naturally have had both men and women in mind in v 8-10 and Timothy would understand this. There would be no reason for him to think otherwise, knowing Paul like he does and following on from v1-7 which is about men and women.
Craig: yes, that sounds reasonable.
Friend: But doesn’t the word “likewise” mean that he is now talking about women when he wasn’t before? Does the word “likewise” ever mean “As you know, I was talking about women in v1-8, and I just want to be sure that you know that”? Wouldn’t he have said “women especially are to be…” or “women particularly need to be…”?
Craig: Good question Friend. I need to get back to Cheryl and the others on the blog about that one.

Thanks everyone for the time and effort you put in to answering my questions. I greatly appreciate it and find it very helpful.

I had another question @31 which may have got lost so I’ll repeat it for anyone who may have any thoughts.
In 1 Tim 3:11, when Paul says “Likewise (or in the same way) women…. ” why do you think he put this where he does – in the middle of a passage about deacons. If he meant it to apply to both elders and deacons, why didn’t he put it in a more obvious spot?

Cheryl @ 40 you said,
“In 1 Cor. 11 Paul outlines that problem and gives the woman the authority to chose which way she will go. For if she unveils so that she does not shame Christ, she opens herself up to the accusation of shaming her husband by exposing what was considered her “private parts”.

If unveiling was considered to be exposing her private parts, then it certainly would have been quite distracting and not very helpful for the other men of the church! But then again, it may have attracted more visitors 🙂

This is an issue I have not thought much about before – I don’t have a lot of polygamist friends 🙂
Correct me if I am wrong. I think the key point that you are differing from me on is that you very clearly see that a polygamist who becomes a christian is continuing in sin unless he gives up his polygamy. Therefore he must divorce all but one of his wives to not be in sin. Then he is able to grow in godliness and could be a leader in the church. I can see how all this would make sense and fit in with the 1 Tim 3 passage and remove the inconsistencies I had wondered about. There is no way that a person blatantly continuing in known sin like this should be considered for leadership in the church.
I still wonder though whether the bible is all that clear on these issues. I can see that God’s intention from the beginning has always been one man and one woman in marriage. But on the other hand he seems to overlook the many examples of polygamy in the O.T. and if it was indeed a common practice in N.T times there is very little explicit condemnation of it and no details I can recall of how to deal with the problem in the way you suggest.
I have heard it suggested that it should be treated like the situation of a new christian not divorcing an unbelieving wife. He should stay in the situation he is in. I have heard of missionaries taking this approach when evangelizing areas where polygamy was common. One would want to be fairly sure before telling people that God says that polygamy is sin and the only way to be godly is through divorce.
What is it that convinces you that the bible is clear on the subject?

Hi Cheryl,
Bedtime for me now, but I have just quickly skimmed your comment. I will read it more thoroughly later.
Just a couple of thoughts. Paul was a murderer prior to becoming a Christian. He was an example to others of the wonderful grace of God. Couldn’t a polygamist be an example to others of God’s grace?
What sort of example is it to unbelieving polygamists- “the gospel is for everyone… er well… I think it is also for polygamists. I think all your sins can be forgiven. Hang on I will just check. Oh, it seems you can be a Christian but just a bit inferior to the rest of us. You are kind of accepted by God and the church but not as fully as the rest of us – just a few limitations. It will be a bit awkward trying to work out what you can and can’t do but we can make up a list of rules to help you with it…….

Hi Dave! Yes I do hope I haven’t given any polygamists reading this the wrong idea 🙂

I was wondering about another thing. In v11, when Paul says “Likewise (or in the same way) women…. why he put this where he does – in the middle of a passage about deacons. If he meant it to apply to both elders and deacons, why didn’t he put it in a more obvious spot?

Thanks Marg for your response and the helpful links.
I agree that the godly characteristic of marital faithfulness seems to fit better than the fact of whether a person had multiple wives prior to conversion. The other qualities listed are mostly aspects of godliness that we can work on, mature in, repent of if we fail, pray for God’s help in etc.
In contrast, if “husband of one wife” just referred to not having multiple wives prior to conversion, it would stand out as a characteristic that nothing could be done about. You couldn’t divorce or kill all of your wives except your favorite! You would be a Christian but one with a permanent stigma. The apostle Paul could be a past murderer of Christians and still be greatly used by God as a leader in the church. But not so for the polygamist. This doesn’t make sense to me. So “marital faithfulness” sounds a more likely meaning to me.

Just thought I would see if anyone had any thoughts about another question I have. It’s regarding the view that “husband of one wife” is primarily a reference to polygamy so I thought this old thread may be a reasonable spot to put it.
In your post Cheryl, you said
“Paul gives the final word by allowing polygamists into the church who come into faith after their multiple marriages had already occurred. The only prohibition was that polygamists were disallowed from serving the congregation as an elder or deacon.”
Wouldn’t this then put the christian with multiple wives in a somewhat similar predicament to women in a comp world today? What if he matured as a christian and God gave him leadership gifts? Would he be allowed to teach women and children but not serve as an elder or a deacon? Where should he draw the line about when he is “leading” and therefore setting a bad example to others? What other things do you know of besides polygamy that would be correct for him to continue in as a christian, but it meant there were certain roles in the church he could not serve in? Would Paul really have meant this man to feel equal in value before God but denied certain roles of service? Something seems inconsistent somewhere. Any thoughts?

Mark,
You said @147
“Why say he must do x, y, z if someone else can actually do it?”

Why tell Peter to go and tell the gospel to Cornelius if someone else can actually do it? God sometimes uses people to help others. This doesn’t mean God couldn’t find another way if he needs to.

You said
“Again this is an assumption. A) that a famale false teacher existed. B) she was married and the ‘they’ refers to the husband (what if she was a widow?)

If the available evidence points to the truth of a matter, sometimes it is reasonable to make an assumption that it is true. If it smells like a banana, tastes like a banana, and looks like a banana, then it may be reasonable to believe that it is a banana. Making assumptions isn’t wrong, – both comps and egals do it. But we need to realize they are assumptions and check out the evidence for them before believing them.

You said
“we are dealing with eternal salvation (according to Cheryl) not someone’s health problems”

Yes this is true. It is an illustration.

You said
“would a doctor really say that she will be healthy if they do… or would he/she say, “Betty, you need to eat healthy if you want to get better”.

I think if the doctor knew he was a nutritionist and could be a significant help in her recovery that it would be quite natural to say the former.

You said
“I’m not sure we are on the same page here. Let me emphasise the fact that this is eternal destinies at stake. Can we be so hap-hazard just to assume that someone else can bring her out? Can we assume that this is just a hypothetical situation about someone’s eternal destiny?
If we are going to allow this to actually speak about salvation, i think we all need to face the fact that this is a serious verse with serious consequences requiring serious conditions to be met.

Cheryl’s interpretation doesn’t seem at all haphazard or hypothetical to me, and seems quite serious, but encouraging, in the solution given to the problem at hand.

Mark,
@130 you said
“if we accept Cheryl’s exegesis we have two conclusions as i see it.
1. Verse 15 is simply saying that the wife will be saved by being brought out of decption by her husband.
2. Verse 15 is saying that the wife’s salvation is conditional on someone other than her own actions.”

There is a third alternative. Paul is actually meaning just what he says. He is saying that she will be saved, if they continue in faith…etc.
I gave an illustration @109 that I thought may have been helpful. Cheryl, Dave and TL all thought it was good. Did you read it? Was there any part you did not follow?

Mark,
How do you know Romans 10:9 is an exclusive statement about eternal salvation. From Romans 10:9 itself, or from your understanding of the whole of scriptural teaching?

Mark,
In my view you seem to be thinking Paul is suggesting things that he is not actually saying in both 1 Tim 2 and Romans 10.
In both passages he is making perfectly true statements and not suggesting anything about other alternatives. You are trying to make statements mean more than they actually say. You have to read the rest of the bible to find out the answers to your questions.
If Romans 10:9 was the only verse of the bible we possessed, we would not know if Jesus was the only way to be saved. But we do thankfully have the rest of the bible to tell us that Jesus is the only way of salvation.
I agree with Kay that sometimes you need to put away the microscope for a moment, take a step back and look with normal vision, and you may be able to see what’s going on more clearly.

Dave,
You said “For someone who was going to give up on this discussion I certainly have a lot to contribute. I hope it is helpful!
It certainly has been for me Dave 🙂
Your comments on Colossians and 1 Corinthians 11 were especially helpful. Thanks.