Don Johnson

As I meditate on this more, I find that using 2 principles have helped me.

1. Start from the more clear and let the more clear help me understand the less clear. 1 Cor 11 is in the form of a chiasm, with the center at 1 Cor 11:10, this is the crucial part of the teaching to get correct and unfortunately, many translations add words to try to make sense of what they (mis)understand to be Paul’s argument. However, in the Greek 1 Cor 11:10 is very clear, a woman can decide what to do with her “head thing” (whatever it is), but a man is not to do the “head thing,” at least in the 1st century culture at Corinth. But if you stray from these 2 conclusions, you make a hash of the teaching and all too many interpreters do just that.

2. Per Acts 21, Paul was a Torah-observant Jew and agreed to pay for 4 Nazirite vows. There is simply NO WAY Paul was going to say long hair was wrong on a man or a woman (as this could easily happen if the Nazirite vow was long enough) if you think Paul is saying long hair is wrong, it is time to restart the analysis and you are missing something. Unfortunately, short hair on men is considered natural in our culture, but actually long hair is natural on both genders, unless it is cut. So it is easy for many people to just read the text as if it was written to people in our 21st century Western culture and totally miss what is going on, it is so (apparently) “plain” to them, what is the problem? We are just “twisting” the “clear and plain meaning” if you bring up how the text would be read in the 1st century! But actually we are just “untwisting” it.

Dana & Mantey is copyright 1957. Moulton is 1963. Deissmann is 1908.

Wallace is 1997 and his workbook for same is 2007.

I prefer more up to date information and I have to wonder why you do not. The area of Koine Greek is an area of increasing information, especially with archeology.

Methinks your assumptions are showing. In any case, Pinklight is correct that for all the options in understanding the subject of this verse, the minimum is 1 woman at Ephesus. If one wants to go beyond that, one needs to say why. I personally go beyond that and think that Paul was referring to a group of women at Ephesus as defined by the just previous text as I think that makes better sense of the she/they puzzle in 1 Tim 2:15, but hey, I might be wrong on that and as what Paul meant is anything but clear, due to so many translation choices and challenges. And a basic principle of prot Bible interpretation is not to use unclear passages for doctrine.

To claim that 1 Tim 2:12 is referring to all women for all time is an interpretive choice and one that tells more about one’s assumptions than what is actually in the text. But go ahead, teach what you will and let those that agree with you reduce the effectiveness of half the church. I just will not be a part of that.

“woman or women at Ephesus” referred to earlier in the passage.

Pinklight is correct. What is part of the challenge of 1 Tim 2:12 is that the noun is anarthous, that means it is without the definite article, and Koine Greek does not have an indefinite article. So there are 3 basic choices on how to read it.
1) Definite: referring to one woman at Ephesus (even tho there is no use of the article).
2) Indefinite: referring to a generic woman
3) As referring to a previously specified group: in this case it would be the woman or women at Ephesus.

See Wallace “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” on anarthous nouns.

So the only thing that can be said with certainty is that one woman

That is horrible what happened to you. May the God of Peace surround you with angels of protection.

All true but some distort what it says.

The pericope starts in Eph 5:15, btw.

I am egal, as you know.

My understanding of what a non-egal might says is:
Paul himself says to follow what he told them and what he wrote them, in another letter.  So it is not a new rule when Paul wrote it down, however, this may be the time it was written down.
They would also say that the context of 1 Tim is about church and so the whole letter is circumscribed by that context.  It is not that a woman cannot teach a man, it is that she cannot teach a man in church.

And we can see “throughout Scripture” some positions were reserved for men, the Patriarchs, the Mosaic priests and high priest, the 12, etc.  So it is not surprising that this “principle” continues.

You are welcome, I am glad to be a man speaking for Biblical equality.  In one forum some even wondered if I might actually be “Dawn” masquerading as a man, I took it as a supreme compliment.

There are 2 ways to interpret 1 Tim 2:15 in some strange way to be saved and in the normal way.  I interpret it in the normal way and think Paul is using Ephesian terms in a Christian way to show it can be done.  That is, the childbearing refers to Jesus being savior, the definite article is there in the Greek and for me indicates a special childbearring, the most special one ever.

That is, he just kicked out 2 teachers, which would rock them and perhaps lead them to stay WELL AWAY from what they taught, even going too far in the other direction.  Imagine this happening today, a missionary church planter finds out what is going on and kicks out 2 leaders of a local church.

P.S. The help we need is to try our best to discern the original intent of the author and how his original readers would understand Scripture.

FWIIW, I believe that people that claim to use the “Bible only” are mistaken, as this is simply not possible.  For example, the Bible gets to define the words it uses, when then trumps the normal definition, but it does not define ALL the words it uses, so for those you need to know the normal definition, including idiomatic phrases.  In other words, we need all the help we can get.

You deserve a break, so I am glad to hear you are taking one.

On what the woman and the man were capable or not capable of, since they blew it bigtime when it counted, I would not want to assume much else.  Gid gives us the ability to be mistaken.  Of course the woman was to be a ezer/help but she would not be a perfect help.  This is one of the amazing things about God, we are imperfect and he still loves us and works with us.

The creation stories do not have all the info we would wish.
It is possible the man taught the woman wrong.
It is possible the woman misunderstood.
It is possible that God gave the woman a different command from the man.  FWIIW, I consider this the most likely, but I am not 100% sure.

There might be other possibilities.  These stories are stripped down to essentials and some would say less than essentials, but I think God knew what he was doing, as the Bible is a mirror and reveals us.

For example, we see examples where Matt Slick claims God said something but God did not actually say it.  I think Matt just misunderstands and perhaps this is because he was taught wrong.  In other words, it is a shorthand to say “God said X” when X is really our interpretation, possibly wrong.

On 2, lots may be votes or they might be random, it is not clear.  Even if random the lot is in the hands of the Lord as they were acting in faith.

Rev 21:14

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Here we see there were 12 and only 12 names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb.  We both agree Judas is not there.  John wrote Rev around 90-100, in other words after the events in Acts, where Matthias was chosen.  Who would anyone think was the 12th apostle?  Before one might think Paul was the 12th you need to knock Matthias out of the running.  The question does not even come up if Matthias is the 12th.

Mat 28:16

But the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus appointed [or, designated] to them.

Mat 28:17

And having seen Him, they prostrated themselves in worship before Him, but some were doubtful.
Mat 28:18

Mat 28:19

“When you* have gone, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Mat 28:20

teaching them to be observing all [things], as many as I commanded you*. And listen! _I_ am with you* all the days, until the conclusion of the age! So be it!” [Gr. amen, and throughout NT].

And having approached, Jesus spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth was given to Me.
Here Jesus promised to be with the 11 (the you is plural) always.  Here is one reason I claim the 11 acting as the 11 COULD NOT make a mistake in choosing Matthias.

On the authority to do so, there is the bind and loose verse.
Mat 18:18

“Positively, I say to you*, whatever [things] you* bind on the earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever [things] you* loose on the earth will have been loosed in heaven.

This is using rabbinic terms to say that they (you plural again) can make decisions on things that have not already been decided.  They use this authority in Acts 15 and I claim they also use this authority in choosing Matthias.

The creation narratives do not tell us everything we might wish to know about creation, that is, from our perspective there are gaps in the stories.  How we fill in these gaps tells us more about ourselves than about the narratives.  It is quite amazing how a little filling in here and a little more filling in there will result in distortion, as it cascades.  It is so easy to say that God did X for Y, when the text just says God did X, etc.
On what the woman said God said, besides being a liar or stating the truth, she could just be mistaken, to be a liar you need to say something that you do not believe to be true.

To say that Gen says that the man taught the woman is simply not in the text, it is possible, but is far from sure.  When one is not sure, then the right answer is that one is not sure, and not to pretend being sure.

The key question is why would God be so vague about authority if this is supposedly so essential?  And as you point out, how does the man even know if he is in sin when he uses it?

Jesus not picking Matthias in the 40 days is an argument from silence.  There are lots of things Jesus did not talk about at all, or at least was not considered important enough to record.  Most scholars say that this is because much was assumed by a 1st century Jew and so does not need to be stated.  My poiny is when there is silence, fill in the gaps with the 1st century Jewish default understanding.  As a concrete example, Jesus is not recorded as speaking against fornication, houwever this was part of the general 1st century Jewish understanding of the OT.  So it is not too big a stretch to believe Jesus thought the same.

God knows everything that we will do, including what the 11 would do.  The 11 needed to start execising their authority, it is like learning to walk.  And Jesus had given them authority to execise, with the loosing and binding statements and others.

Interesting blog.

As an egalitarian, I use the ESV for 2 things:
1. To detect weaknesses in the non-egal position.
2. To sometimes quote as it cannot be accused of egal bias and is mostly pretty good, except they make all the choices they can in a non-egal way.
As a general rule, whoever REQUIRES ESV is probably non-egal, as using that translation easily is more than half way home to non-egalism.

Do you have a ref for Jewish women needing to cover their heads in worship for shame reasons?

Use a bad translation, get bad theology.  It is a garbage in, garbage out principle.

The whole “head covering” thing is 1st century cultural, which is why it can be hard to figure out what Paul is saying.  In 1st century culture a married woman wore a head covering when in public, it is similar to a wedding ring today.  When she was home or in another home, she took off her headcovering among friends.  The question is what is appropriate in church, which is a semi-public/semi-private setting.  Paul’s answer is brilliant, she can decide for herself.  If she is uncomfortable if a unfamiliar face shows up, she can wear her headcovering; if not, not; she is free.

Notice the men are NOT free, they are NOT to wear a headcovering.  Again this is for 1st century cultural reasons but is seldom discussed by non-egals, as this is an example where men are less free than women, if you can imagine that!

I am not offended by “divine Zookeeper” altho it is not a Biblical term.

My take is what we are supposed to see are the patterns of similar and different in the text of the Bible and esp. in Gen.  What the non-egals see is the similar and then proclaim that the same type of thing is going on, they simply fail to see the different.
Yes, God brought the animals AND the woman to the man.
But the text says God wants to see what the man will name the animals and nowhere does it say God wants to see what the man will name the woman, this is a difference in the text we are supposed to notice.  If you do not notice this, then you end up “helicoptering” that verse about animals into the verse about the woman.

FWIIW, I see Gen 1-11 as narrative with poetic elements or poetry with narrative elements.  Then the question is how much is poetry and how much is narrative and different people can think differently.  For example, my sis is a believer and she sees more narrative and less poetry in Gen 1-11 than I do. 
I see this as similar to the end times, there are various ways of understanding the end times and similarly, there are various ways of understand the beginning times.  It is exactly because I take it at face value that I think it does not tell us all we might wish to know.  But this is a tangent, so I will stop.

This is one thing that gender hierarchicalists do not seem to see, that there might be OTHER ways of faithfully understanding a verse than the way they do.  I have not seen the 2nd option being discussed by them, to them it seems “obvious” what Paul meant and not agreeing with them is quibbling with the Bible.  This is simply not true and egals need to stand firm and say that it is NOT clear what some verses mean and, as you point out, there is a good reason to think they mean something other than the non-egals claim.

I consider this should probably be the LOWEST priority thing on your plate and it is fine with me it it quiesces.

I do not see Paul being challenged by the other apostles, I do see him in battles with legalists (Pharisees) and antinomialists (Greeks who want only freedom).

Act 6:2

And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.

The question I would pose to you is how would the original reader understand this, specifically, what is meant by the twelve?

My claim is they would read it as including Matthias and the 11, since that is what was done in Acts 1.  They would not think it is just 11 and that the 11 made a mistake in choosing Matthias.  There is no claim in the Bible that they made a mistake in Acts 1 to Acts 6 and Paul is not yet a follower of Jesus.

For many reasons in the text, I do not try to make a synchronous way of trying to understand the 3 origins stories in Gen 1-5.  That is, I do not try to combine all 3 stories into a timeline, rather I see general principles being given in each of the 3 stories.

And others can see it differently, but that is how I see it.

Kaiser is great.

He points out that “helpmate” is a horrible mistranslation, one that Mr. Slick apparently likes to use.  “helpmeet” is a pretty good translation but is archaic and so many do not know what it means.

1Co 15:3

1Co 15:4

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

1Co 15:5

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1Co 15:6

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Co 15:7

After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1Co 15:8

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Here is how I understand this, the named James is not one of the 12, he is one of the brothers of Jesus that became a believer after the ascension and became the leader of the Jerusalem church in Acts 15.  It is not James one of the 12 as that one is already included in the 12.

There are different groups discussed, they are not all distinct but some are.  Apostles are listed separate from the 12 and given later, my understanding is that these are those apostles at the time that were NOT the 12, as the 12 apostles were already mentioned.

Paul is giving an order, but it is not every data point; yes Thomas was not there at first time with the 10 of the 12, but did see Jesus soon after.
So the question is whether Matthias saw Jesus, my assumption is he was certainly one of the 500, being a disciple from the beginning.  The question is what did Paul mean by the 12.  I agree it is possible he meant the 11, but it is also possible he meant the 12 at the time of his writing 1 Cor and the way the whole church understood the term, that is, to include Matthias.

In any case, it is clear (to me) that Paul when he wrote 1 Cor did not consider himself one of the 12.

2. Paul is one of the apostles.

2Co 11:4

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

2Co 11:5

Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.

He is competing with false teachers.  I am not sure why you refer to Gill, the immediate context of 2 Cor 11:4-5 seems clear to me.

FWIIW, some missionaries today claim miracles.

3. Paul is making his special claims to counter the false super-apostles.  He wants the Corinthians to make the right decision.

The Bible says believers will do GREATER things.

I do not see Paul as a secondary apostle, he is my hero, but that does not mean he is one of the 12.

4. I do not follow your argument here, so I will defer to concentrate on discussing the above and then get back to this once the above are discussed.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Co 15:4

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

1Co 15:5

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1Co 15:6

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Co 15:7

After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1Co 15:8

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Here is how I understand this, the named James is not one of the 12, he is one of the brothers of Jesus that became a believer after the ascension and became the leader of the Jerusalem church in Acts 15.  It is not James one of the 12 as that one is already included in the 12.

There are different groups discussed, they are not all distinct but some are.  Apostles are listed separate from the 12 and given later, my understanding is that these are those apostles at the time that were NOT the 12, as the 12 apostles were already mentioned.

Paul is giving an order, but it is not every data point; yes Thomas was not there at first time with the 10 of the 12, but did see Jesus soon after.
So the question is whether Matthias saw Jesus, my assumption is he was certainly one of the 500, being a disciple from the beginning.  The question is what did Paul mean by the 12.  I agree it is possible he meant the 11, but it is also possible he meant the 12 at the time of his writing 1 Cor and the way the whole church understood the term, that is, to include Matthias.

In any case, it is clear (to me) that Paul when he wrote 1 Cor did not consider himself one of the 12.

2. Paul is one of the apostles.

2Co 11:4

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

2Co 11:5

Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.

He is competing with false teachers.  I am not sure why you refer to Gill, the immediate context of 2 Cor 11:4-5 seems clear to me.

FWIIW, some missionaries today claim miracles.

3. Paul is making his special claims to counter the false super-apostles.  He wants the Corinthians to make the right decision.

The Bible says believers will do GREATER things.

I do not see Paul as a secondary apostle, he is my hero, but that does not mean he is one of the 12.

4. I do not follow your argument here, so I will defer to concentrate on discussing the above and then get back to this once the above are discussed.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1Co 15:4

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

1Co 15:5

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1Co 15:6

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Co 15:7

After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1Co 15:8

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Here is how I understand this, the named James is not one of the 12, he is one of the brothers of Jesus that became a believer after the ascension and became the leader of the Jerusalem church in Acts 15.  It is not James one of the 12 as that one is already included in the 12.

There are different groups discussed, they are not all distinct but some are.  Apostles are listed separate from the 12 and given later, my understanding is that these are those apostles at the time that were NOT the 12, as the 12 apostles were already mentioned.

Paul is giving an order, but it is not every data point; yes Thomas was not there at first time with the 10 of the 12, but did see Jesus soon after.
So the question is whether Matthias saw Jesus, my assumption is he was certainly one of the 500, being a disciple from the beginning.  The question is what did Paul mean by the 12.  I agree it is possible he meant the 11, but it is also possible he meant the 12 at the time of his writing 1 Cor and the way the whole church understood the term, that is, to include Matthias.

In any case, it is clear (to me) that Paul when he wrote 1 Cor did not consider himself one of the 12.

2. Paul is one of the apostles.

2Co 11:4

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

2Co 11:5

Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.

He is competing with false teachers.  I am not sure why you refer to Gill, the immediate context of 2 Cor 11:4-5 seems clear to me.

FWIIW, some missionaries today claim miracles.

3. Paul is making his special claims to counter the false super-apostles.  He wants the Corinthians to make the right decision.

The Bible says believers will do GREATER things.

I do not see Paul as a secondary apostle, he is my hero, but that does not mean he is one of the 12.

4. I do not follow your argument here, so I will defer to concentrate on discussing the above and then get back to this once the above are discussed.

1. Peter is one of the 12, the leader of the 12.  However, the 12 are 12, not 11, and are not Paul as he discusses himself later.  It is not the faithful of the 12, it is simply 12, so the 12 being discussed include Matthias.  That is, at the time Paul wrote 1 Cor, the 12 had a meaning that included Matthias and excluded Judas Iscariot.
2. Paul is in a contest with the false super-apostles.  He wants to win the hearts of the Corinthians or at least as many as possible.  They say they are better than Paul, he says they are not.  I am just trying to exegete 2 Cor on super-apostle.  You claimed that Paul is comparing himself to the 12 (eminent apostles), I do not think so in this verse.
3. On what other apostles claim, the Bible is selective in what is recorded, not everything is recorded.  When it is silent we simply do not know, so we do not know what signs and wonders, if any, were associated with other apostles.  But the reason Paul makes his claims in 2 Cor is because he is in a context with false teachers.
   4. A claim I am making is you used part of Acts 1:22 but not the whole sentence.  This is not consistent.  If you reject the process of choosing Matthias, it is ironic that you use part of this process to justify your position.  To be consistent, accept it all or reject it all; for example, I accept it all as Godly, the 11 were acting in faith based on their understanding after referring to Scripture and prayer, which is all that we can do today.

2Co 11:4 “For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
2Co 11:5 Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.
2Co 12:11
2Co 12:12
The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.

Paul is contrasting his apostleship with false apostles, who claim they are super-apostles. He is not contrasting it with the 12 or other true apostles.
Paul did see the resurrected Christ, but did not see Jesus between the resurrection and the ascension. He can testify to it, as Jesus told him about it.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas,
1Co 15:6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
1Co 15:7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
1Co 15:8
“Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”

In 1 Cor 15:5 who are the 12 that Jesus appeared to? My claim is that it cannot include Judas Iscariot and so must include Matthias. We also see that the 12 are NOT THE SAME as those called apostles.

2 Cor 12:11 “I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing.”