Don Johnson

I have a suggestion to improve your webside.  At the very beginning of the page, make a PDF downloadable file of the teaching.  This way a person can just download that and have it in a handy form.  CBMW does this for many of its teachings, and we can learn from them in this.

I would think another thing would be to date it, and note revisiions if needed.

I think the woe quote is from the Bible.

Your update is fine, you could show how Matt misses the gune in 1 Cor 7:10 yet verse 11 is a specific unnamed woman, as the verb is aorist which is a instant in the (historical) past.  This shows his “a woman” analysis as deficient.

I hope you have Wallace’s book and verify my summary.  It is considered a standard Greek reference work.

Keep on keeping on, knowing that the truth will out.

Smear tactics may convince some, but not me and not others.

Here is the terminology I use and how I see it.

1. There are the 12, apostles, and Scripture authors.

2. The 12 are apostles, but an apostle is not necessarily one of the 12.  Indeed they can be apostles today, but not the 12, as they are all dead.

3. The 12 were given authority to make decisions, including what is in the NT, indeed some of the 12 were Scripture authors.  John was the last survivor of the 12.

4. The 12 lost 1 of their group when Judas betrayed Jesus, in order to have 12, they needed to add 1, as these 12 map to the 12 tribes of Israel.  However, none of these final 12 were replaced when they died, such as James did but was not replaced.

5. James the brother of Jesus is called an apostle but he was not one of the 12, similarly Shaul/Paul is called an apostle but he was not one of the 12.  James became the leader of the Jerusalem church in Acts 15, even tho Peter was still around, and Paul became apostle to the gentiles even tho the first gentile to become a believer was due to Peter.

I agree with most of your analysis.

I think it could be improved by using the Greek terms actually in the NT and then translating them as you choose, based on the context.

Also, gune does not necessarily mean “a woman”.  I think this is conceding too much from the start and also making assumptions.  It is possible, but not required.  As there is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, the indefinite articles are a and an) it is POSSIBLE that “a woman” is meant, but it is also POSSIBLE that “the woman” is meant or even “a group that has the quality of being like a woman” (that is, women).

That is, the use of the definite article means the noun is definite, but the non-use of the definite article just means there are 3 possibilities, including possibly being definite.  See Wallace “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” on anarthrous nouns (anarthrous means without an article).

Everyone who wrote any books in the NT was inspired by God when they did it.  This does not mean they could never make a mistake, only Jesus has that attribute.  Since anyone might at anytime make a mistake (except when authoring Scripture), the solution is to give this authority of making decisions to the whole leadership.

Paul verified his teaching with the apostles. And it was also veriried with signs and wonders to his listeners. Peter said his collected writings were Scripture.  Paul is my hero, so I do not want to diminish him in any way, but I do not see him as one of the 12.

P.S. The author of James is thought to be the brother of Jesus, not the brother of John and he was not one of the 11 but is an apostle.

“binding and loosing” are rabbinic terms for forbidding and permitting, that is, deciding things, so I see this giving of authority by Jesus to the disciples as directly relevant.  Jesus had 3+ years of ministry, not everything was discussed that needed to be discussed and decisions were made later and God is backing them up with this.
Jews were familiar with the Great Sanhedrin and local sanhedrins deciding things.

The NT was written under the supervision of the apostles, so I do not want to abandon my claim that as a group they did not make mistakes.  Individuals yes, as a group, no.
I can agree that Paul is everything he wrote he was, but I do not see that he was the 12th apostle as he never wrote that he was. the 12th apostle. 
I also do not see any hint that what the 11 decided was considered wrong.  What they did is what we do today, they referenced Scripture and prayed about it and decided to act.  And there is no indication of error on their part, displeasure of God, etc.  This is exactly what we do today when we act in faith.

ALT 2Co 12:11

I have become a fool by boasting; _you*_ compelled me! For _I_ ought to be commended by you*. For in nothing did I fall short of those “super-apostles”-even if I am nothing.

At least this translation suggests that Paul is contrasting himself with some who think they are super-apostles and other translations do this same.

The thing I am concerned with is the idea that ALL EXISTING apostles could make a mistake in concert, esp. as the Bible does not say that and furthermore according to my understanding of binding and loosing says that this is not possible.

Recall that there were 70 sent out at one point and being sent out by Jesus meant that this group met one criterion for being “sent-out ones” or apostles.

P.S. The lots to select Matthias may have been votes.  It may also have been random.  I do not see enough info to decide.

Paul never claims to be one of the 12.

Someone today might have a vision or Paul-like experience and see Jesus and become an apostle but that does not mean they are one of the 12.

I do not see it as wrong for the first 7 deacons to be all male.  What they are is all Greek speaking Jews, in contrast to Aramaic/Hebrew speaking Jews, so this was an expansion of the leadership ministry, esp. as some went on to greater ministry.  And they were involved in physical labor, not that women cannot do that, but there might have been practical considerations. Another way to see it is that progressive revelation was continuing and did so until the NT books were all written.

Matt is trying to save face (his).   Given that he does not even acknowledge his abuse and disrespect on his talk show, I think Mat 18 applies.  This does not mean not to interact with him, but be wise about it.

Paul is my hero, but he does say he is the least among the apostles, which includes all the others named in Scripture at the time he wrote it.

But I have a big concern with your understanding.  It is that ALL apostles made a blunder.  I can see single ones making a mistake, like Peter and maybe Barnabas, but ALL?  How would we ever have confidence in what they later did?

Furthermore, my understanding of

Mat 18:18

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

is that Jesus is using Jewish rabbinic terms to say the disciples can permit or forbid (that is, decide Halachah) and God will back them up in their decision (as well as guide them).

In other words, they ALL decided on something, so God has promised that they can do this.

I noticed there are some formatting problems with my previous post, I have no idea why.

Act 14:14
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out,

Rom 16:7 on Andronicus and Junia

Gal 1:19
But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

infers that James, brother of Jesus, was an apostle.

1Th 1:1

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.
1Th 2:6
Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ.

taken together infers that either Silvanus or Timothy was an apostle and perhaps both.

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.

The point is there are the 12 and then there are other apostles. Apostle is a minitry gift from the Spirit.

Apostle means “sent out one” so it depends who is doing the sending.

Act 1:20
“For it has been written in a scroll of [the] Psalms: ‘Let his residence become desolate, and let no [one] be dwelling in it’; and ‘Let another take his position of overseer.’ [Psalm 69:25; 109:8]

Act 1:21
“Therefore, it is necessary of the men having accompanied us in every time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us-

Act 1:22
having begun from the baptism [or, immersion, and throughout book] of John until the day which He was taken up from us-[for] one of these to become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

Act 1:23
And they put forward two: Joseph, the one being called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

Act 1:24
And having prayed, they said, “You Lord, knower of the hearts of all [people], disclose which one of these two You chose
Act 1:25

Act 1:26
And they gave [fig., cast] their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

The use of the word “numbered” strongly indicates that he became the 12th apostle.

No one else makes a claim to be the 12th apostle. Acts 1 also shows they searched the Scriptures and prayed and acted based on these, with NO indication of God’s disapproval.

Mathias is not mentioned by name, but there are later verses that discuss all the apostles doing so and so, so it is implied that he is one of these now 12.
to receive the share of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”

One reason Fee questioned the authenticity of 1 Cor 14:34-35 is that these verses showed up at the end of the chapter in some manuscripts, indicating to him that some copyists did not know what to do with these verses. I agree that 1 Cor 14:36 repudiates the 2 verses before, another term for eta is expletive of repudiation. The closest in English is “Pffft!” but some do not know that word, so “Bunk”, “Garbage” or similar is also possible. This eta shows up a lot in 1 Cor. it is like Paul is speaking in person to the congregation.

In my understanding, the 11 were acting in faith in choosing Matthias. There are other apostles besides Paul mentioned in the NT that are not the 12 + Matthias. They were all apostles, but not the 12. The 12 needed to be 12 to map to the 12 tribes, 11 will not do. Judas was a traitor and so kicked himself out. But to be 12, they needed to add another, which they did in faith based on the verses they quoted and their process. They did not replace James when he died. The lot may have been random (as the lot is in the hands of the Lord) or it may have been a vote of the 11. Paul was not one of the 12. This is a tangent to women in ministry however.

Sounds like it is needed.

The first born in the Torah of Moses was to inherit a double portion.  The way this worked was the number of children was determined and 1 added and then each child got one share of that, except the first born got 2 shares.  For females, they got their share as part of the wedding dowry; for males when the father died.  This is part of the subtext of the prodigal, he has said in that culture that he wants his father dead.

Even the quotes Matt gives show that the rights of the first born can  be transferred to another.  And these rights were not authority over according to the Bible.

I was thinking about his format, not yours, with yours there is no moderator.

On demeaning others, I used to think I was supposed to destroy other’s arguments and if they could not handle the “truth” that was their problem.  God has been changing me, and in fact gave me a direct word that “Love is more important than being right.”  As I let go, I see that my actions were driven by fear and were not as loving as they should have been.

A debate where someone is both the debater and moderator is not a debate.

I also do not think a debate is the best way to advance egalitarianism (I think the best was is teaching), as it is a new idea to many and a new idea needs extra time to go thru stages of acceptance; at first it may seem preposterous, then strange, then possible, then voila! accepted, but this is a paradigm shift and also means admitting that one was not interpreting the BIble previously as well as one could.  But it might be a way, so I wish you the best.

FWIIW, I think it probably IS 2 things that Paul is prohibiting, but I also mention that it might be 1 thing.  I see the reason he is temporaily prohibiting any and all teaching (as there is no direct object) from the woman is that he is in a remote position, he cannot fine tune the rule; the right thing is for her to learn the truth and in the meantime, not try to teach anything.  And as she acts in faith, she MIGHT be restored so that she can teach, ala 1 Tim 3:1 and following.

And I think authentein andros has some specific meaning that is related to Ephesus and almost certainly Artemis, but so far has been mostly lost to history.

Grudem claims these verses are clear when they are anything but clear.  Every article that CBE and others write puts the lie to that claim, even those by CBMW.  We do not baptize for the dead ala 1 Cor as we do not understand what Paul is referring to, similarly, we do not restrict women from ministry just because some verses MIGHT be interpreted to say that, as the verses are unclear, perhaps not as unclear as baptism for the dead, but certainly not clear enough to permanently prohibit something

On 1 or 2 things, this is a challenging thing about interpreting text written by Hebrew thinkers in Greek in the 1st century when we are English speakers in the 21st century. Any part of a chain can simply be denied by those that do not want to agree or not seen even when one might want to agree. I did not make up the example from Matthew, but it was one that convinced me of the possibility so I incorprated it into my teaching; so I passed it on to you; if it does not convince you, it does not convince you.

There are quite a few places in the NT where there are various alternatives, including taking a Greek fork in the road or a Hebrew one; my preference is to take the Hebrew one unless there is evidence that the Greek one should be taken. But before I knew about the Hebrew fork, I found I just automatically took the Greek one, even tho I know think it is wrong in some cases.

On the scope of didasko, I have read this also, that it is unlimited in scope in the Greek. Just because ENGLISH may work one way does not mean GREEK works that way.

On whether didaskein and authentein are both positive or negative in connotation, I do not think the non-egals are being corrupt in reading them as both positive, just like I do not think the egals are being corrupt in reading them as both negative (assuming that is what they do [and is what I do]). It is because there is simply too much we do not know. There are some verses we need to put on the shelf and not claim too much knowledge about what they mean and this pericope has some famous ones, IMO. It is like these verses are a mirror, the interpretation shows more about the interpreter than about the text, as gaps get filled in based on the interpreter’s working assumptions.

I have read (but have not verified for myself) that all the sin offerings were for unintential sins, there were no offerings for interntional sins.  But David speaks prophetically about that.

We belong to a mutal admiration society.

In Hebrew thought, a neither/nor contruction can refer to one thing.  For example, when Jesus in Mat 6:20 where thieves neither break in nor steal (in the Greek, see ISA, some translation do not show it this way).  Jesus is making it memorable but the concern is about the stealing, the breaking in is an adjunct to the main concern.

This is another reason why the meaning of authentein is pivotal.  We cannot be sure if it is one or two things.

If it is 2 things then didasko/teach has no direct object and is therefore unrestricted in scope, which we KNOW is not true in general as Paul in other places says for women to teach other women; so we KNOW there MUST be a scope limitation somewhere in the sentence, else there is a contradiction.  My take is that a scope limitation is that the command is in the present tense, as in I am not now permitting….  But besides that, it is possible that it is one thing that is being discussed, not two, as in I do not permit a woman to teach nor do X; but we need to know what X is.

However, given all the challenges of interpreting this verse, it seems crazy to claim it is clear and furthermore that it clearly forbids women from some ministry.

Another parallel is there were 3 types of sinners in the garden:

1. a deceived sinner- the woman
2. a deliberate sinner- the man
3. a deceiving sinner- the serpent

There is a ranking in the sin/sinner in terms of consequences. The man/deliberate sinner is cast out of the garden; the 2 men in 1 Tim were cast out of the church.

This gets back to how one understands 1 Tim 2:12, certainly one way is to see specific refs to “a woman” and “a man” but that is not the only way.

1 Tim 2:12 meaning is dependent on what authentein means and no one is sure, they are not even sure if it has a negative or positive connotation. I have seen that the neither/nor contruction (as used here) everywhere else in the NT is used with either both negative or both positive connotations. The non-egals claims that as didaskein/teach is positive, then authentein is also (likely) positive. However, I think authentein is negative, as it originally meant to author the murder of someone a few hundred years before; and thyerefore the way didaskein is negative is because it is a decevied woman teaching that is being (temporarily) stopped from a distance by Paul.

So, assuming authentein is negative, I see “authentein andros” as possibly meaning something like “authoring man” ala the Gnostic teaching of the woman being first created; that is, ‘andros” in 1 Tim 2:12 does not refer to a specific man living in Ephesus.

This at least flows into 1 Tim 2:13 as Paul is then repudiating specific false teachings, not giving justifcations as the non-egals claim.
But we see thru a glass darkly in this case.

My take is that 1 Tim 2:15 is one of those verses that we will never by 100% sure what it means as we are not Timothy in 1st century Ephesus.  However, we can be assured that Timothy knew and therefore the word of God went forth and was effective.

For me, it is am important interpretation principle to say when I am not sure, then I am not sure and it would be wrong for me to claim to know more than I do.

I do think “tes teknogonias” is THE childbearing, namely the seed prophesied in Gen 3:15, which later is revealed as Jesus.  I believe the unusual way of phrasing it is due to Paul trying to use words used by pagans at the Artemision but in a faithful Scriptural way, in order to show that is could be done.  That is, this is Paul leaning over backwards trying to be redemptive.

I believe the “they” (3rd person plural in the verb meinosin/continue) is to be emended as “they each” as each person works out their own salvation.

Given this (assumed) emendation, I understand the “she” (3rd person singular in the verb sothesetai/saved) to be a dual reference, a dual she referring to both Eve who was deceived but later made faith statements indicating a saving faith and the un-named deceived woman at Ephesus who can be restored, if she accept the true teaching and acts in faith.  I see “saved” in this case refers mainly to the process of sanctification, which includes the steps of sinning and restoration.  In addition, Paul went thru this same process, so Paul is telling Timothy, JUST as I did it and Eve did it, so can this woman do it, as The Word is faithful (1 Tom 3:1 (pistos ho logos).

However, I agree that others can understand it differently.

ESV Gen 5:2

Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.

The ESV translation team stated it believes in male-only leadership in church and home.  The point is that names are not translated.  A name may have a meaning, but no one thinks the meaning is the name, EXCEPT in this case where they had a masculinist agenda.