Don

Phoebe was a diakonos and Junia an apostolos.

On church and church leaders, it is all there in black and white what to LOOK for, but some miss it entirely.  Look for a serving church and look for serving leaders who are patient (etc.) and much of the rest comes out with the wash.  I can deal with a leader when I have differences in interpretation if they are gentle.

I do not think authoritarian leadership means there will be abuse, but I think it greatly increases the chances.  It depends on the authoritarian leader using their power for good.  The only one I can trust to do that consistently is God.

There are, sadly, many stories in history of a mostly good person being corrupted by the reigns of power, Christians know this is because of the sin nature in everyone.  The Lord of the Rings tells this story as a myth, it was exactly because the hobbits had little aspiration to power that they were considered the safest ringbearers and even then Frodo lost his battle with himself.

I am very proud of MY humility!

I agree the MINIMUM to read is a pericope.  In Proverbs that might be 1 verse, but almost nowhere else!

I was referring to 1 Tim 2:12 not having an article, later text does as Cheryl points out, but it is always a question on how one puts the pieces together.  I agree that Cheryl’s insight on those later verses is the best “fit” I know.

On 1 or many in 1 Tim 2:12, gune/woman might be specific (egal) or generic (non-egal).  It is underdetermined when considered by itself.

Yes, an egal scenario is that there was 1 woman that Paul was referring to.  However, Paul did not use the definite article, so we cannot be sure it was ONLY 1.

Here is how I would word it.  What we have is an underdetermined problem due to lack of context.  It is possible that the comp scenario for 1 Tim 2-3 is approximately correct and it is possible that the egal scenario is also.  What are we to do in this case, since one cannot be 100% sure?  Neither scenario can be proven wrong but this means neither can be proven correct.

My take is that given there are multiple plausible possibilities, this by itself is enough to caution against making rules from it for all time.  That is, unless the comps can show that their scenario is the ONLY playsible one, then it is a standoff.  A standoff means it is questionable to derive too much doctrine from these verses.

I was not saying 1 Tim was for the congregation.  I do think it was for Timothy but was pointing out that some point out the last verse.

My guess about what happened is Timothy tried to act as Paul instructed and if Timothy needed to do so, he might show the letter to selected people, to show he was acting as Paul’s agent.  Then when he died, he either gave the letter to the church as a treasure or it was found among his papers and treasured.  So the church at Ephesus was the source for Ephesians, 1 Tim and 2 Tim (maybe Rev?), like the church at Colossae was the source for Colossians and Philemon.

My take is Paul in realizing this potential for exposure would have reason to be circumspect on the woman in 1 Tim 2, as a dink from Paul would be ministry limiting.  I find this scenario far more plausible than MacArthur’s.

The last word in the last verse of 1 Tim is y’all or you plural. As far as I know, this is the only indication that 1 Tim MIGHT be for eyes beyond Timothy’s.  In any case, we know since we actually have the letter’s text that Timothy did not “burn upon reading” or even let it be lost in time, rather it was considered precious by the church at Ephesus and kept.

The more I hear about MacArthur’s teachings, the less I respect him as a teacher.  I do not even know why anyone sees him as a teacher, he seems more a teller of tales.  He makes up a story, which might even be possible, and just assumes it is what happened.

Being sure when one should be unsure is a way to be a false teacher.

Timothy is acting as Paul’s agent at a church Paul planted as an apostle to the gentiles, a church that has trouble.  This gives Timothy tremendous authority.  However, there is lots of context to the letter that we simply do not know, and therefore it avails itself to varying possible interpretations.

My take is the only book that is harder to interpret than the pastorals (1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus) is Rev.  This makes it imperative to get to these 4 books LAST when doing a subject teaching, such as the gender debate.  It is simply too easy to misunderstand something in these 4 books, especially without a thorough grounding in the counsel of the rest of Scripture.

Easy to say, hard to do.  It takes an active position on each of those things.

On people changing their mind and how hard it can be, I think there are a few relevant points.

1. We would be very ineffective if we were always bouncing among paradigms, so we have an inherent filter that keeps out anomalies, so that we can maintain our current beliefs.  In other words, we can deceive ourselves and are quiet good at it.  It takes work to investigate possible anomalies and is uncomfortable.

2. In the case of the gender debate, if the non-egals are wrong, they would need to repent.  Not wanting to repent is a big motivator and one that sometimes cannot even be acknowledged and is therefore the more powerful.

3. Then there is the peer question; if one changes one may be rejected by friends, or at least people you now see as friends.  All of us relate better with people that agree with us.

4. Finally, there is the inconsistency question.  Once someone has publicly stated a position, it becomes harder to change.  Psychologists have done experiments and shown we will justify beliefs even when tricked into thinking we believe something that we really do not believe, as we have a huge need to appear consistent, even if we are not actually consistent.

Yes, the actual suggestions about what to do were good, but the use of the strong terms could easily have turned me off after skimming unless I had the recommendation of Cheryl to read it.

I thought the article was very insightful.

A few points from me:
1. I would not have used the terms shame and aggresive for the things he was saying to do.  I would say it was being increasingly assertive.  I do not think it is ever correct to be aggressive in such a situation.  I would also say he was asking for courtesy, not shaming, at least I hope not, and being increasing blunt.

2. I would caution people to not use shame or aggressive methods.  Some people can react violently to shame and/or aggression.  The person may end up hating you, even if nothing happens.

3. If you feel getting caught up and losing your cool, you need to take a time out.

4. Have a safe place  and/or safe people to go to after a stressful encounter.  During this time meditate on what you could have done better and resolve to do that the next time.

kephale is on pdf p.801 of the bw LSJ file, at the link I gave that is awaiting moderation.  It starts at the bottom of the left col.

http://ia331343.us.archive.org/2/items/greekenglishlex00liddrich
is a free pdf of lsj.  It is true that classical Greek and Koine Greek are not the same, but it is in the sense of making things simpler.

On 1 Cor 11, my take is one needs to go thru the whole pericope and try to see what makes the most sense.  At the least no one is required to see head as authority in these verses.

Greek uses prefixes and suffixes to show the type of thing a word is, so andros is genitive noun and aner is nomitive, or in simpler English andros is a direct object in the 1st case and aner is a subject in the 2nd case.

IMO, the FIRST thing to see about 1 Cor 11 is that the argument Paul is making does not make much sense to us today.  This means it is a “puzzling passage” and requires digging.  In other words, while doing 1st century context for a NT passage is ALWAYS a good thing, in this passage it will be required.

Another aspect is that 1 Cor would be read to the congregation by a literate person.  There were various factions in Corinth and each faction would be looking to see where Paul agreed with them or not.

Another point is that “every man” is describing a group, as such it MAY include females under the Greek masculine plural usage.  It is not clear when it is first mentioned whether it does or not.  In any case, how exactly is Christ the “head” of every human or perhaps male human?  As you point out, many people/males do not accept Christ as their authority.

Putting these last 2 ideas together one can see there would be some dramatic tension as the letter was being read.  Who is Paul agreeing with?

Another aspect is the article usage “ho aner” in 1 Cor 11:3.  The Greek article is used to make a noun definite, as in a specific person.  When a man has been identified previously, then it is that man.  In this case, I think it is “the man” is identified afterwards, in 1 Cor 11:8, namely Adam.

So there is a lot of ambiguity in 1 Cor 11:3 when considered by itself, but I think the pericope helps explain it.

Carson has the wrong attitude on the lexicons.

First one needs to know what a lexicon IS.  It is simply a collection by the editor of various examples of usage of a word with their derived meaning.  Some think a dictionary DEFINES a meaning for a word, this is not correct, USAGE defines the meaning and a dictionary or lexicon follows along after usage.

A lexicon is a work of humans and can be improved as more info is gathered about usage.  Archeology is continually making advances and the latest info not in lexicons yet is there.  A lexicon is simply trying to form an organized base of knowledge based on what was (thought to be) known at the time it was edited.

The LSJ lexicon is about ALL ancient Greek, the Bauer lexicon is about NT Greek; so one should immediately see that Bauer is a subset of LSJ.  Furthermore, Bauer might think some meaning in LSJ is not a meaning in the NT and so not list it, but if it SHOULD BE the meaning, then Bauer can be misleading.  The point is that Bauer in trying to be helpful can actually be unhelpful.

However, many theologians use Bauer all the time and LSJ rarely.  Using Bauer MOST of the time is not a problem, but one needs to be willing to go to LSJ as needed.  However, when doing that one is playing in a bigger pond, which is more challenging.

Another aspect of the NT is that it was written in Koine or Common Greek.  It was NOT a special theological language, it was the language of the common people.  Some of the authors wrote in a very refined style, some not, but it was all intended to be able to be read by the literate.

Athena was said to be born from the head/kephale of Zeus, this was a very common theme in art of the time.  The head of a river is also the source of the river as it flows downstream, the Greek would put a bust of a head to mark the river’s head.  So this idea was imbedded in their culture in various ways.

Why not just pray before meals and set an example for your kids?

Everyone has a worldview which is used to fill in gaps in text with defaults.  But it is quite revealing what MacArthur’s defaults are.

Theosebeia is a term for a proselyte, a new convert.  It is quite likely she/they were converted from the Ephesian Artemis cult, as this dominated Ephesus.

So we have a rich recent convert who has been deceived and Paul ask Timothy to make sure she learns the truth.  And not to worry about impressing people with her wealth (part of the truth).

Context of a passage is crucial.

The (natural-only) pearls of the 1st century were more costly than gold and most women could afford neither.  Paul is discussing rich women who might naturally assume they were to be leaders in church as they were in society.  Braided hair was also a sign of wealth, as were fine clothes.

Theosebei

Cheryl,

That is encouraging news, I hope the meds work.  If the only cost is 2 weeks of antibiotics, it would seem rational to take them even if there was a very small chance of it being the curable case, if only to rule it out.

As you know, dianosis is an art and far from perfect and even with correct diagnosis, the state of the art of medicine advances as they learn more.

I can get atrial fib from stress so I know that stress can have physical effects.  I try to destress my life in many ways, knowing that a certain amount is useful but too much can be harmful.  I try to know my limits and respect them; knowing that sometimes others may not understand and think less of me when I decline something.

He needs to digest these anomalies in his paradigm.  But he needs space to do it.  When he is ready he will ask more.

Sounds like some serious R&R may be in order for you.

May God hold you in the palm of his hand.