Dave

Hey Craig, you said, “Just to clarify. That bit was not actually my ponderings. I was rather hoping that if I said this to a comp it would make him ponder.”

I knew that, I was simply saying it was your pondering of what a comp would ponder, as you referred to them as your ponderings! It just got me thinking.

Just to clarify, my ponderings are based on more than simply Ephesians and Paul’s use of head. I am even thinking OT and the likeness of Israel to an adulterous wife and also Song of Songs (I follow Stanley Grenz’s thinking in regards to God also being a God of eros…not sure if I want to go into that right now!).

I am still without a clear cut scripture relating to Jesus as having authority over the church though I would want to clarify that I think there must be a bit of now-not-yet tension going on. In the future all authority will be done away with, and the church should be being prepared now to be the bride in the future. Perhaps this holds the answer?

Also there is the possibility that although Jesus might have authority over the church now, though this is not the relationship he chooses to have with his bride, or perhaps will not have in the future?

Craig, with regards to how Jesus can be our Lord as individuals, but not the church, scripture shows the church as different to individuals. The church has a relationship with Jesus that individuals do not. It is when two or three gather in his name. I am not the bride of Christ. God’s redemption plan was never for just Adam, or just Abraham (or Eve and Sarah even!), but for a people that would number more than the stars in the sky. There is something in the richness of community with Christ as head that is lost as an individual before Christ. I know I am not providing you with an answer as to how exactly, but there is a difference. These are ponderings, remember! Perhaps, indeed it is the same for us now as it is the church, that Jesus has authority over us now, but in the future authority will not be a dynamic in the relationship and we are talking a now-not-yet tension again.

I am not convinced by Revelations (though it was good thinking to bring it up), but I think I have answered enough of my own ponderings (though input would be appreciated). Sorry to have gone on – I was not trying to stress anyone out!

Hi Kristen,

I was not sticking to the metaphor that Paul makes, because scripture provides more on the metaphor than what Paul does in Ephesians. I agree with what you said in relation to what Paul says in Ephesians.

I accept that Christ is Lord of each of us in the church, but where are we told that he is Lord over the church, or Lord of the church?

You said, “It has to do with going down to the church’s level and raising her up to be “seated” with Him above all other things (per Eph. 1). ”
If this is the case, then how is Jesus Lord over her?

I see in John 15 Jesus telling his disciples to love each other – a new commandment. Thus he would appear in authority over them, and yet it is the command that he himself has obeyed and involves laying down your life – even to the point of death. He asks us to submit as he has submitted.

You said, “As the “body,” the church is raised up to be WITH Christ– it is everything else that is under His feet. The husband is to raise his wife up to be beside him in authority– not to consider her under his feet.”
Once again, I am not sure where this leaves us with Christ being in authority over the church. The church partners with Christ in his work, as indeed Eve was to do with Adam.

Not meaning to be a pain, but I have never thought this through all the way before. I am getting more questions than answers!

Dave

Craig, it was in your ponderings at the bottom of 189, “Would it without doubt mean that husbands are in authority over their wives, just as Christ is over the church?”.

Yeah, commands are an indication of authority, and Jesus does command us as his disciples. But where does he command the church? As individuals we are not the church.

I guess where I am going is, if we believe there are some similarities between husbands and wives and Christ and the Church (which is scriptural), then what do we do with authority if CHrist exercises authority over the church? I guess I want to first ask if Jesus does exercise authority over the church.

Think of the picture of the church from Rev 22:17…the Church works in unison with the Spirit, if not now, then in the future. Is it really a relationship of authority, or rather one of working together as we conform to the likeness of Christ (Rom 12)?

PLease don’t hear me wrong. As Jesus is the origin of all authority he has all power and dominion…but it this how he relates to his bride?

Just thinking out loud…because I have time at the moment!

Ahhh, if only CHeryl was here!

I enjoyed your ponderings Craig. Sorry I cannot answer the questions.

I your ponderings you mentioned that Christ is in authority over the church. I have done a bit of a search and cannot find scripture where it says Jesus in authority over the church. Can comeone help me?

I did find that Jesus is the origin of all authority.
I found that Peter describes the supreme authority we should submit to is the emperor!
I found in Corinthians that one day Jesus will destroy all authority.
I found that while on earth the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins.

I wonder how much we miss if we see Jesus as an authority figure as opposed to the source of all authority. I think there is a difference.

Just another question for you Craig. For too long you have been the asker…! 🙂

So if this is the case…perhaps someone would like to clarify why Paul exhorted the Ephesians to submit to one another out of fear of Christ!

I checked both of my Greek NT editions and they both have Christ, not God for 5:21. In case people are not aware, these NTs both have notes on any textal variant worth mentioning, for which they then list the manuscripts containing the various variants. This allows the reader to determine which might be the original. The reason I keep two editions is the older edition sometimes has variants that are now no longer considered worth mentioning.

Well, both editions have Christ and neither have any referance to a variant they consider worth mentioning. This very strongly suggests that the original is considered Christ, and has been for the past 40 years.

By the way, there is a committee who decide what is and is not worth mentioning. They provide notes for their decisions and how they made them. For them to not even mention ‘God’ as an option suggests a very strong case for accepting ‘CHrist’.

Hmmmm…. perhaps it is. I will check it out and get back to you.

It is nice to visit this lovely forum again!

I preached on Matthew 10:26-33 this morning. Jesus tells us not to fear men who can only(!) kill the body, but rather be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Thats God, by the way!

As Proverbs 9:10 reminds us, the Fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom. 1 JOhn 4:18 reminds us that [perfect love drives out all fear.

I guess Paul talked in terms of fear, but in the context of a letter that speaks about God’s perfect love in Jesus Christ (Eph 1:4-10, 5:1-2). But it all starts with a fear of the Lord, otherwise Grace is meaningless.

I note that in the Greek verse 21 actually says “Be subject to one another in fear of God”, not Jesus. This goes some way to helping us…I guess! Paul is not asking us to submit as a result of our relationship with the Son, but with God (Godhead? The Father?). It follows on from verse 20 that tells us to give thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

@ Craig, #172.

I would like to comment that Mark has assumed that when the church submits to Christ it does so because of authority – Christ’s authority. As I have argued many times, submission does not dictate authority. Add to this the words of Jesus in John 15:14-15 and we are reminded that Jesus does not see his relationship with us as one of master/servant, but friends. In saying this I am not denying who Jesus is, though scripture does not suggest he has authority but rather that he is above all authority (Eph 1:21) and the origin of all authroity (Col 1:15-19, 2:10). Jesus does not need authority…he invented it!

Now Paul might have been talking to an overwhelmingly patriarchal society at this point, but they were also a church and I assume they understood to some degree the relationship Jesus has with his brother and sisters (Eph 1:4-5, 5:1&8).

I don’t think Mark can reconcile these passages to an egal argument because he has not listened to an egal argument!

Interesting!

I think Mark needs to re-read Ephesians 5-6. To claim that Paul is NOT suggesting big challenges to the then understanding of slavery/master and parent/child relationships is plain wrong. To tell slaves to submit to their masters freely as to the Lord and to then tell the masters to treat their slaves in the same way IS A BIG DEAL!! For fathers to be told not to exasperate their children – A BIG DEAL!!

With respect (well…a little bit, perhaps) I think Mark is once again relying on longwinded but not well thought through arguments. I think what Paul wrote to a society that was patriarchal about marriage makes perfect sense for someone who was trying to introduce egal thinking – not reinforce patriarchal thinking. I have no doubt that the Ephesians understood marriage as patriarchal – which is exactly why Paul said what he did.

Mark also needs to go back to the beginning of Eph 5 where Paul tells everyone to imitate Christ who gave his life for others. This coupled with his statement that we should submit to one another are very radical statements to make in a patriarchal society. It is no wonder that he felt he needed to emphasise the point to husbands, slave owners and parents. BUT – how does emphasising the point to them somehow negate it?

How we can turn things on their head!

Sorry not to have excited you Douglas. I am trying to follow your thinking. It is hard because you have not backed your statements up with anything specific from what has been said. How is women’s ordination being justified in the way that you suggest? Has this happened here at this blog or in another place?
Also…

How does speaking the truth in love create a schism? If it does, should we not speak the truth in love? Unless you can point us to something that has been said that is in error, then we must conclude that only the truth has been spoken.

You make it sound as though errors in our thinking are obvious, but you do not seem to want to point to them?

Dave

Hi Douglas,
You said, “Did jesus ever say it was OK for woemen (unfortunate typo there Douglas…I hope!) to preach or teach? Can you tell be were this is written explicitly?”

Can I ask:
Where does Jesus say explicitly that they can’t preach or teach?

Where it is written explicitly that women teaching or preaching is a sin? (1 Tim 2 does not)

Where explicitly does the Bible say that God’s wrath is being visited upon women for being educated? (This seems to be contrary to the spirit of 1 Tim 2:12-15 where they are expected to be taught)

Where does it explicitly say that Mary was a ‘reporter’? (She was a witness who proclaimed the truth that Jesus had risen from the dead in response to instructions from an angel)

Where does it explicitly say that women have two different ways to be saved? (1 Tim 2 does not)

There has been some great info offered here by Cheryl, and comments by others. Why not interact with some things that have been said Douglas? It might be more helpful, especially as much of what has been says related to what Paul meant when he wrote to Timothy. If you have an issue with a specific thing said, then please draw our attention to it.

Cheers

Dave

Great points Kay! Thanks.

“simian acquired immune deficiency syndrome”

Don’t rule it out Craig!

Mark, in regards to your Hamburger quote, I agree with him. We cannot assume that Paul thinks teaching is positive or negative, and as we cannot (I assume) agree with authentein we have to see if there is something else in the passage to tell us whether or not Paul views teaching in THIS CONTEXT as negative. It is fair to say that under the circumstances Paul is addressing he sees it as negative, because he does not permit it.

Now, for you Mark I assume you will say that he does not permit it because a woman should not teach a man. Please note that this is ASSUMED. What we do know is that every time that Paul views teaching as negative in other contexts it is false teaching.

Your Titus example proves nothing. Yes, Paul uses a plural in 1:5 and switches to a singular in 1:7. We would do the same in English. Why? Because Paul has said he has left Titus to appoint Elders (plural). Then in 1:7 Paul outlines what is required for each one of these Elders.

This is different to what is happening in the 1 Tim passage. (Please note that when I said, “ In 6:10-11” I made a typo. I was not talking about ch 6 either…Titus does not have a chap 6! I meant 1:10-11). I 1 Tim 2 if it is a generic sing then it does not make sense.

Mark, you said, “Well that’s her assertion isn’t it. I would have thought a plural in verse 10 and then the singular in verse 11 is exactly the proof of a generic singular. Her assertion is simply that…an assertion.”

Sorry, not following. I see no proof, you will have to be more specific.

Mark, you said, “This is simple false Dave. Paul’s appeal back to creation (13, 14) has always been understood as granting more than a specific situation that needs to be addressed. His prohibition is rooted in the creation order. You may disagree wtih that, but your above assertion is a little overstated. Can we therefore say that ‘a woman false teacher’ is now aloud to authentein a man in our generation?”

Once again you take me where I am not going Mark. I take eternal truths from the way I understand the passage. I take it as a continuing principle that if we are not to be deceived we should be taught. I also take it that when we are taught we should listen, and not be argumentative. Why would I say that a woman false teacher was ok today? Paul has said it was not ok then and I believe it is not ok now. All I am saying is that Paul is dealing with a situation in Ephesus, and so what he has written needs to be understood in that context. THEN we can determine how it applies today.

So in regards to Schriener I believe that the passage tells us there was a specific situation that Paul was dealing with, but I believe that there are things in it that are normative for today, and therefore I believe it contains ‘directives’ for the church today.

Mark, you said, “Dave, final point. I am interested to know that if you think there is nothing IN THE TEXT to show it is more than cultural and contextual to the time, what do you find IN THE TEXT’S that prohibits homosexuality as wrong today? Remember, FROM THE TEXT. Please apply your own theory to this practice. I want to see how consistent you are.”

Speaking of moot points, this is one. I have not said that it is not relevant for today. Please make an attempt to understand me Mark. I gave you two examples, one of Timothy drinking wine and the Corinthians getting drunk on the Supper. I did that to highlight that we need to understand BOTH the local context of the passage AND then how it applies to us. I grow tired of having to defend myself against accusations regarding to things I have not said.

Now where is your exegesis? You will find it difficult to move anywhere in this discussion until you do. For example you believe that Paul appeals to creation as to why a woman should not teach a man, and yet you need to show some exegesis to back this up. Cheryl’s exegesis deals with this and shows that Paul is simply using an example to explain that ignorance leads to deception.
This actually fits in with the context!

Mark, you said, “We are always going to but heads. I recommend you read the scholarly work of comps such as that book i recommended before you continue to argue for Cheryl’s exegesis”.

Are be butting heads? Thats right, I forgot, you are the enemy. Thanks for the recommendation, but if you cannot express to me simply on a blog where I am wrong, then I do not think the issue is whether or not I should read a book you recommend. I would recommend you read Alice in Wonderland before you go discounting Cheryl’s exegesis!

Now, in regards to the use of the word “teach” and “authentein”, how can it be positive in this context? Paul is saying he does not permit it. Nowhere has Paul suggested that it is ok for anyone to authentein anyone else. He has not had a problem with anyone else teaching anyone else, unless they are false teachers (if I am wrong please show me an example). You have admitted that ‘teach’ can be positive or negative. Show me from the text that Paul thinks what this singular woman (this is not assumed – show me in the grammar where there is more than one woman) is doing is positive. Pretty hard since he is asking her to stop. I am happy that both the authentein and teach are negative…so thanks Mr Kostenberger!

Mark, you said, “Also Baldwin has done extensive research on authentein and concludes that there are 5 possible meanings. The common donominator is that they all represent authority of some sort. Now considering ‘teach’ must be positive to be consistent with the rest of the NT, authentein must also be. This is the only possible syntactical possibility.”

This only works on your unproven theory that teach is positive in this context.

Mark, I checked out Titus. Probably would be helpful if you told me exactly where you were in the text. Titus 1:7 speaks of a singular overseer, I assume a generic singular. In 6:10-11 it talks in the plural, but not about overseers, rather those who are unruly, eveil-doers etc (pretty sure they are NOT overseers). So Paul has not switched from using a generis singular to a plural for the same person, if that is what you are suggesting. Please note though that Cheryl’s exegesis accepts that there can be a singular generic, but that the context shows this to not be the case in 1 Tim 2.

Mark you quoted me, “There is no reason in the text to believe that the situation is more than something that was happening at the Church. ”

You then got all stressed out, “Are you arguing for an ad hoc situation here similar to Fee? If so, that is a dangerous hermeneutic to apply and is exactly what the Liberals tend to do. For example Galatians was written to a specific context and for a specific reason. Do we therefore say that Paul’s outline of the gospel is only relevant for that Church?”

Mark, please do not take me where I have not gone. Do you believe that in every church there is an overseer who needs to drink a little wine each day for his stomaches sake? Do you believe that in every church today there are people who get drunk at communion? I assume the answer is no. In the same way I am simply stating that we have no reason FROM THE TEXT to believe that Paul is not dealing with a situation here that was specific to this church – that there was a woman who was deceived and was falsely teaching and authenteining a man. To take this passage and say that women should not teach men is to adopt a liberal method of understanding scripture.

I thought this was all pretty clear, and I do not find any basis for you statement, “Your above quote begins the slippery slope to a complete rejection of Biblical authority and that is worrying. This is the whole problem of egalitarianismm, it adopts a liberal hermeneutic…you need to at least address this and be honest about it and try to rectify it.”

At the moment Mark, because you do not even want to seriously look at this passage and deal with the grammar, as Cheryl has done, then it appears as though you are rejecting Biblical authority. You’re right, that is worrying. How about you be honest and instead of storming off to cook up some more half-baked attacks on Cheryl’s exegesis you deal with the passage and either show from the text where Cheryl is wrong or at the very least present your own missing exegesis of the passage.

Mark, “C’mon mate, let’s be realisitic” is not a valid argument…especially when I am realistic! Kay responded on my behalf with regards to you first point. Thanks Kay, Mark did miss the point.

I should add that I do not see you as the ‘enemy’ Mark. You said, “I do think it is ok for women to co lead for example a bible study with their husband in private”.

Where in scripture do you get this from? I have been in Bible Studies with as many as 15-20 regular people attending – sounds like a 1st century church.. Is that still ok? Also, is that really in private? How are you Biblically defining ‘private’? Are we just expected to accept this view of yours?

You said, “The context of 1 Tim illustrates why this is related to public congregational setting. The scriptures also teach the responsibilty of the elders, that they are to be able to teach and that they did in fact teach. No where in scripture is it stated or shown that people outside of that sphere had the responsibility that elders had. Deacons did not, women did not. It was only for specific men to fulfill that role. This is plain scriptural fact, not legalism. As i said your proof cases actually prove my case and do nothing to challenge the comp interpretation of 1 Tim”.

1 Tim makes no mention of only Elders teaching and having authority over anyone, men or women. There is no reason in the text to believe that the situation is more than something that was happening at the Church. If so, please show me. The Bible does not teach the responsibilities of Elders (if you are referring to 1 Tim 3), but rather what a person who aspires to being an Elder should already be able to do, or rather already be doing. An Elder should be someone who is already ‘apt to teach’ before they are an Elder. To say more is to read into the passage. Your plain scriptural fact is not what you claim…plain, scriptural or factual! My proof case does what I claim. Stephen was not an Elder and he preached. He exegeted the Word of God. Read Acts for yourself. He was not handing out “Two Ways To Live” leaflets. If preaching is only to Christians then I do not know if I have ever preached. Not sure how they do it in your church, do you test people before you preach and only the ones who can respond with correct answers to the shorter catechism stay and listen? Look at what you are suggesting Mark, it does not make logical sense.

You said, “I don’t need to try and prove Cheryl’s exegesis wrong…it is wrong. No serious evangelical scholar considers it likely. It is based on assumptions and historical revisionism foremost, ignores the evidence of authentein, ignores the syntax parallels, ignores the positive use of ‘teach’ used always in the NT (except once in Titus where the immediate context shows it is false teaching), ignores that the singular can be generic (seen in Titus 1 where Paul switches from plural to singular similar to verse 11), ignores that Paul twice uses a different verb for ‘false teaching’ in the same epistle yet not here, assumes such a person existed, assumes this person was married, assumes this passage refers to them…the list goes on”.

Why, if Cheryl’s exegesis is wrong, is it so hard for you to prove it. No serious evangelical scholar says “I do not need to prove it wrong because it is wrong”.Remember last time you were here? You had nothing, though you claimed to have everything. I am an evangelical scholar, and I believe I am serious most of the time and I consider it likely. Problem for you is that I have not heard an exegetical scholar, comical or otherwise who has proved it incorrect. I, and I assume Cheryl, would love more to try as we are seeking the truth.

It appears as though you are ignoring some of the evidence of authentein, but Cheryl’s exegesis does not rest heavily on the meaning of this word anyway. What ‘syntax parallels are you referring to? Why do you discount the possible use of a negative use of teach when you can also cite an example of it? Correct, context is key, and Cheryl has shown how the context supports a negative use of ‘teach’. What verse in Titus 1 were you referring to?, you recognise that the context of the epistle has to do with false teaching (well done there!), Paul says such a person existed (it is not assumed), no one has assumed the person was married (the exegesis does not rest on this), yes, we are trying to understand the passage that is talking about two (or more) people…your list of ‘up the garden path leading’ claims goes on. Mark either deal with it properly or not at all. That reminds me, are you ready yet to offer your own understanding of this passage or does that continue to allude you!

In answer to your question, I have not read all of that book.
Finally, you said, “Final point Dave, i agree with you about Stephen. He did evangelise the Jews…i said that. But you have failed to show how that effects my view of 1 Tim 2, or how it effects the NT teaching on eldership”.

Yes I have, it is just that you refuse to accept it and dismiss it without showing why.

Mark, you said, “As i understand 1 TIm 2:8-15, the teaching restricted is that linked with authority in the public congregational setting. That is, the preaching from the pulpit so to speak. This is the responsibility of the elders.”

I think your understanding is wrong. I agree with Cheryl. Last time you were here you tried to prove Cheryl’s exegesis as wrong but failed. Also, why do you persist in your understanding that is not backed up from the text?

You said, “deacons again scripturally were never responsible nor did the authoritative teaching of God’s word in the Churches”.

So Stephen could do this outside the church, but not in the church? Look at what Stephen said. He taught ‘authoritatively’ God’s word in the synagogue. Can you provide for scriptural evidence for this being ok for deacons to do outside the church, but not inside?

You said, “But what you have done is try to confuse the issue. Again, to lump all ‘preaching’ or teaching together as one thing.”

I think you had tried to confuse things before I got here. Also, neither the word ‘preaching’ or ‘teaching’ is used to describe what Stephen was doing in Acts. So why are you trying to confuse things? If you think the two are different then give some evidence from scripture.

Look at what you are doing Mark. It is ok for a woman to TEACH in private, it is ok for a woman to PREACH in public, it is not ok for a woman to PREACH or TEACH in the church. You think I am confusing?

You said, “Let me be more clear, the teaching restricted in Paul’s epistle is the authoritative teaching of God’s word to the Church in which he (the elder/pastor) has the spiritual oversight. Deacons did not have this responsibility as seen most clearly in 1 Tim 3 where elders are to have a qualification of being able to teach. Deacons do not need this qualification. Likewise Paul specifically notes in 1 Tim 5:17, that ELDERS who labor in preaching and teaching are worthy of double honour.”

But I thought you said it was ok for a woman to teach in private. So a woman can be an elder if they teach in private? Legalism always produces more questions than answers.

You said, “So as i see it, my point still stands. No where in the NT do we see deacons given nor practicing that responsibility. Therefore Stephen, Pheobe, Priscilla are all irrelevant proof cases for the egalitarian”.

If you say so Mark! All I was doing was showing that Deacons can preach. If you look at what Stephen said, I believe it is fair enough to say he taught God’s word to the Jews. This is a problem for your claim.

I have nothing else to really say but I wanted to make comment 100.

Craig. A wonderful illustration! Women should never be allowed in the games room…so I read the passage as 1. 🙂

Mark, great to see you back. It is as if nothing has changed. No really, nothing has changed!

You said, “We have no evidence that the ‘deacons’ were responsible for the sheparding of the Church or the teaching of the scriptures”

You also said, “As i understand the NT, the office of ‘deacon’ were never responsible for the overseeing/shepharding of the church (as were the elders). The Book of Acts confirms this. Thus the elders are the responsible ones for the public teaching of the scriptures from which women are restricted.”

Have you considered Stephen. He was a deacon who was obviously a bit slack with the washing up, because he died preaching. I am not sure why he put the tea towel down…just shows what can happen when you don’t understand the ‘office’ you are given. Some one gets hurt! 😉

Mine too!

Some people have big questions about verbal aspect theory http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2008-November/047956.html

I hope an expert comes along to make a comment soon, but one of the concerns I have with things like this theory is that it provides an opportunity for people to throw into doubt a Biblical truth by quoting a ‘theory’ that is still not widely accepted, that has been shown to not be applicable in all situations, and that they will apply it even when the context of the passage in question does not lend itself to it’s application.

So, even when I read stuff by Con Campbell (the Moore College guru on the subject) I cannot see how verbal aspect theory impinges on our understanding in this passage as it is different to the examples he uses. It is different because according to them the verbal aspect must change in the middle of the story in 1 Tim 2
:14-15. Unless of course the woman is not Eve. I think the same rules have to apply.

If we see the verbs as temporal then the change in tense and the use of logic show we are talking about a different person. If the verbs are aspect related, then we have a change of aspect in the middle of the discussion. This must signify something! The stuff I have read does not allow for us to change aspect in the middle of a story…unless of course there is a purpose. The purpose here? The women is not Eve?

Can someone help me understand this better?!?!

http://andrewhongnsw.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!EEB36B88C6BA62C4!2488.entry
The above link is to a blog that has some info on verbal aspect theory. I wonder if it mentions the theological college where this lecturer is at? 🙂
I will try and keep reading stuff about it, but what I have read does not really back up what you are saying the lecturer has suggested. For starters, the verbal aspect theory does not throw out everything we know about verbs and how they operate. I will keep reading…!

“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.”

I think this is a week argument too. Mainly because that if we accept that “the woman” is Eve then it does not make logical sense. I have heard this type of reasoning before, and I usually conclude that what it comes down to is, “I am uncomfortable with what you are suggesting and so I will place great weight on weak arguments to wriggle out of being challenged about my position”!

Logically, with the way the “gar” should work you should be very prepared to go across it. If you seperate it you will not understand the point or reason for Paul saying what he is saying. This is how the “gar” functions.

The first point about the “gar” for, reflects poorly upon the theological Greek lecturer! “Gar” is translated as: “for”, “because”, “actually”, “after all” etc.
So, yes it marks the beginning of a new clause BUT it strongly links it to what just went before. STRONGLY! We only use words such as “because” when we are continuing to talk about the same thing, but are giving further explanation.

I tried to write a caption but I just keep getting waves of nausea when I think about it…I have had to unblock a few dunnies (Aussie term for toilet) in my time.

I love a good toilet illustration.

Any chance of a graphic Cheryl?!?

“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.”

Hmmm…I think you would want to be careful about how you preceed with that. You are providing a very good case for killing off all your wives except for the favourite as the stigma of murder is less than having them hang around! 🙂