Don Johnson

If I were doing this debate, here is how I would attempt to do it, take my ideas as suggestions.

1. Establish that in Greek grammatical gender does not imply physical gender. If he does not accept this, then 1 Tim 3:1 proves your case (at least to him) as overseer is feminine grammatical gender.

2. Establish that in Greek is is often possible for a term that refers to males or a male to also refer to a female, this is especially true for plural male forms.

More later.

1 Tim 2:11-12 have many challenges in translating them into English. Many translations do not adequately show the imperative in verse 11, while he verb in verse 12 can be translated to seem like an imperative or at least the point of the passage, when it is actually subordinate to verse 11.

1 Tim 2:11 IS the main point, as the verb is an imperative, while the verbs in 1 Tim 2:12 are not. The imperative (should) always take precedence in any understanding of a passage, this is the part that would have an exclamation or be in bold letters. This is the radical counter-culturual statement that turns pagan society upside down.

I do not think such courses should be segregated. The man being a househusband while the wife works is a valid choice for some couples. Even if the wife is a housewife, there can be times when the husband needs to take the role of househusband, it is certainly wrong to think that such is forbidden, that can be crippling.

Another example of Paul’s non-mention of a name is in 1 Cor 7:11, which is often missed due to translation away from the Greek. A good translation is “If she did leave, she must either remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.”

The past tense “did” (the aorist in a conditional provides a snapshot of something in the past), is often translated as “does”. This obscures the truth that Paul is writing to flesh and blood people.

As Cheryl wrote, Paul does not name people who might do wrong things when deceived (like the woman in the garden east of Eden), but does mention bad examples by name when they were doing it deliberately. I think this is a good principle for all Christians to follow.

Duh!, not charism (which means gift), but chiasm or inverted parallels structure which forms an X (chi in Greek) as in A B B’ A’, etc.

hesuchia is the repeated word that forms an inclusio in 1 Tim 2:11-12 which means 1 Tim 2:11 and 2:12 are to be taken together, like they are together with a parentheses around them.

Inclusio and charism are 2 data structures that are used a lot in the Bible but are not common today. Since they are not used today, many do not recognize them in the Bible, but part of the meaning is conveyed by the authors using them.

Strong’s
G2271 hesuchia
hay-soo-khee’-ah
Feminine of G2272; (as noun) stillness, that is, desistance from bustle or language: – quietness, silence.

In other words, you have a gentle spirit, like the woman who is the object of the command of being able to learn in 1 Tim 2 was to have.

Congratulations for giving us a great example of hesuchia. You display the attributes of a warrior of God. Keep it up.

I recommend you read Groothuis’ paped on 1 Tim availble for free from CBE website. It points out a lot of flaws in the hierarchical interpretation.

My take is to interject egalitarianism in any way, whether by leadership first or by marriage first, either is an advance in the Kingdom of God as I see it. And an advance in one place will work to advance it in the other. My pun on this is “Subvert the dominant paradigm!”

I do not see the unity of the faith coming about until the Lord returns, but I could be wrong and hope I am. But the emphasis is to strive to maintain the unity of the Spirit, which as I see it means maintaining fellowship, if not agreement, with other believers.

On a side note, as there are many baptisms in Scripture, one needs to discern which one is the “one baptism”. My understanding is that this is when one becomes a believer and the Holy Spirit baptizes them in Jesus.

Typo in above, for TOV, read TOB, the note is on p.646 note a.

Here is a link to Amazon France for this book
http://www.amazon.fr/Bible-TOB-int%C3%A9grale-Skivertex-bordeaux/dp/2204075671/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/403-1905912-0334001?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189616895&sr=8-2

Unfortunately, it is only available in French.

Nyland’s The Source text with notes for 1 Tim is available for free as softcopy from http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/resources/Source/source.htm

Bruce Fleming book on 1 Tim is available as a free download from http://thinkagainbooks.com/8book-series.html

As the male hierarchicalists realize they are losing, they will get more strident; this is the way worldly power works. It will become a test for orthodoxy in those churches where the majority believe it, withness the SBC. The slave owners predicted dire consequences FOR those not agreeing with their “plain meaning of Scripture”.

On 1 Tim 3:2 “one-woman man” both Bruce Fleming (in Familiar Leadership Heresies Exposed) and Ann Nyland (in The Source New Testament) translate this as “faithful spouse”. Lucien Deiss in the edition integrale (fullest set of notes) of the French Bible TOV says that this appelation in Greek is found on both male and female tombstones in Ephesus. This is one way to counter the claim that they never saw a woman who could be the husband of one wife. One needs to read the terms in 1st century context.

The point about believers having no infallible interpreters is a good one. In fact, history has shown that sometimes interpretations were made in order to reinforce the existing power structures, such as with the idea of the divine right of kings and the Southern Baptists, etc. splitting off to form their own group based on human slavery being OK. The point is we should resist the temptation to interpret the Bible to give a group we belong to an advantage over another group.

From the 2nd century until the 20th, it was just “KNOWN” that women are inferior to men, so it was mostly just accepted that men would be the leaders most of the time. THe male hierearchicalists cannot use this argument today, so they have to come up with entirely new ones, but all their arguments are recent inventions. So they try to make their answers sophisticated. What if someone taught today that blacks and whites have different but complementary roles to play? The answer is it would be seen as the racist rhetoric it would be. P.S. This WAS part of the argument in the 19th century for black slavery.

So the question becomes MUST one interpret some puzzling “women” verses to say that women cannot be leaders and the simple answer is that it is NOT true that one must do this. This is similar to whether one MUST interpret some puzzling verses on slavery to say that black slavery is OK. We know the answer to the latter.

P.S. When I was praying for you last night, I got a word that a faithful servant (you) were to be willing to “take an arrow” and not respond in kind and that this would allow the Holy Spirit to work on others, when they see your meekness when attacked.

I am busy Sep 19-21, but am rooting for you. One method I try to use is to just get people to study both sides to see who is right ala Proverbs 18:17. As I see it, there are a few things that need to be established.
1. The fact that any translation is a human effort and is subject to human error.
2. The fact that any translation involves interpretation.
3. The fact that we are not the original recipients of the NT letters and that we are, in effect, looking over their shoulders and trying our best to figure out what it meant to them.

That is, it is absolutely essential to establish that one needs to go to the original language in the original 1st century culture. I am sure you know all this. Unfortunately, most people do not know Greek, as in “It’s all Greek to me.”

If you cannot even get this established, then the debate will be settled in your opponent’s mind by those few verses from 1 Tim from his favorite translation.

I would also be very wary if he controls the microphone, this is an unfair advantage.

I will be praying for you.

I do not capitalize “apostle” as that tends to imply it is an office, which I do not see and I do not use it as a title, as I do not find the NT doing that. There are many others who are called apostles besides Paul and the 12 in the NT. Paul is of course the most famous besides the 12.

Yes, that verse is what I was referring to for “in the beginning” of Jesus’ ministry.

In my understanding there are the 12 (that Jesus called as aposles in his lifetime, minus 1 plus 1) and there are also (generic) apostles, which means sent-out ones, which we often call missionaries today. It is not possible to be one of the 12 today, but it is possible to be an apostle, if the Holy Spirit gives you that gift.

The qualifications for the 12 were that they needed to have been with Jesus “from the beginning” of his ministry, and that they needed to be witnesses (this explains the lack of women in the 12, as women were not accepted as legal witnesses in the cultues of the time). In other words, God worked in those cultures where they were at, just as God works in us where we are at.

You may wish to check out what Deborah Gill has to say on spiritual gifts. She has a DVD that is very good.

My understanding is that the only “office” is one of the 12, which is why Judas needed to be replaced and the reason for 12 is to map to the 12 tribes. Everything else is a gift, however, with the coming of hierarchy offices were created, such as the office of a bishop, etc. However, this is not warranted by the NT documents, it is always, Peter, an elder, or Paul, an apostle, NOT Elder Peter or Apostle Paul.

I am a “full egalitarian” in that I believe the Bible teaches both husband and wife are partners and co-leaders of the home. For example, Eph 5:22 is subordinate (I can use that word when referring to grammatical structure) to Eph 5:21, which teaches mutual submission and then follows it with 6 practical examples in the 1st century world as Paul’s commentary on Aristotle’s household codes. But this is not the topic of this forum, so I will stop there.

When I posted on some public forums other than this one, I was shocked at the amount of verbal abuse that some who do not believe in gift-based leadership are willing to display and this to a male, I can only imagine what it must be like for a female. Such antics bring disrepute to the cause of Christ and give reasons for non-believers to stay that way.

Here are some examples:
1. As my name is Don, I was accused on actually being a woman, Dawn.
2. I was accused of being a feminist, despite my repeated requests that I not be called that, as I am not that, I am an egalitarian.
3. I repeatedly asked that I not be misrepresented, to little avail.
4. I was repeatedly told that I was “changing the clear meaning of the Bible”.
5. One person in particular repeatedly try to bait me by making outrageous accusations and misquoting me. This person was essentially trying to bully me to be quiet.

At some point I realized that my challenges were slight compared to what many others have gone thru and that God was just allowing me to get a glimpse.

Those that are willing to publicly proclaim freedom in Christ have my deep respect.

I believe a person can be a believer and also be a Roman Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox, a Evangelical, or a Messianic Jew; yet these groups believe some very different things and even they are not monolithic on some things. There is a tendency to claim a “my way or the highway” method of interpretation, would it not just be simpler if everyone agreed with me?

I believe this temptation should be resisted.

Another point is that Jesus was CONSISTENTLY making people uncomfortable in some way by breaking their paradigms. If I am not changed by attending a church and studying the Bible, what is the point? Do I really think I know it all from the get go? The life of a believer is to be characterized by repentance, as one learns of one’s hidden sins.

Here is a college that thinks the gifts are segregated, they do not allow men to minor in homemaking!

http://www.parentdish.com/2007/08/24/get-college-credit-for-loading-the-dishwasher-but-only-if-your/

The article is incorrect in claiming that “evangelicals think X”, as pointed out by a comment.

As Jesus said, a Christian leader does not do this, rather they lead by example.

On the CBE website, there is a (free download) very good paper that won an award.

http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/cary_new_evangelical_subord.pdf

It is actually quite shocking what these gender hierarchicalists teach and shows just how far some people will go to remake God in their image; however, this should serve as a warning as it is a temptation for ALL of us.

The truth is many of our churches are segreated, in one form or another, perhaps by gender, perhaps by so-called race and/or perhaps by wealth. We need to be welcoming to all and as the Lord annoints, welcome anyone to be a leader.

The point is that the term “one-woman man” was a “buzz phrase” that meant someone who was faithful to their one spouse (assuming they had one). This is why it can apply to both men and women when found on a tombstone in Ephesus.

Pagan women were expected to be faithful, but pagan men were not.

The reverse phrase “one-man woman” is also in 1 Tim in discussing widows. We know women could not be polygamous in any Roman controlled area.

As there is a Jezebel who is bad in the OT and also one in the NT, I have heard of some that teach on a “Jezebel spirit” that has been used to say that a woman should not do something that a man can do. I completely reject that implication, of course, and am highly dubious of even the concept of a “Jezebel spirit” or similar.

Keith,

See the 1 Tim sections (on the column to the right). Cheryl’s insight is that this is referring to a specific woman.

There are also examples of bad women leaders in the OT and the same rationale applies, it is not that they were women, it is that they were bad leaders.

One is to use the Scriptural witness of both the good and bad examples for our education.

Also, I do not think they realized back then that the moon was a reflected light, the just called them the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night.