Kristen

PS. 1 Tim 1:6-7 seems to bear out the above idea:

“. . . some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.” (emphasis added)
It could very well be the “a woman” of 1 Tim 2:11 who desires to be a teacher while still not understanding what she’s talking about; and it could be that in her desire to be a teacher, she is usurping authority (the authorization) to teach.

Craig, I am not saying so much that teachers have authority as teachers, as that they have been given authority (authorized) to teach— in other words, that they have a recognized calling and ministry, borne witness to by the saints and approved by Paul or other existing church leaders. I know that 1 Cor. 14:26 says that whenever the church comes together, “each of you” can have “a teaching,” but Eph. 4:11 says that “teacher” is one of the gifts that only “some” are given. I think there is a difference between “having a teaching” and being a “teacher,” and I think it is possible to usurp the place of a teacher by acting as if you have been authorized when you have not.
I do think “domineer” is another acceptable reading here– but really, the two are sort of synonymous in my mind. To seize something you are not authorized/recognized as having the congregation’s consent to have, is also to domineer, to throw your weight around, to force your own way.
But this is not the same thing as saying teachers have “authority” over the congregation. I hope that makes sense.

In other words, if you make a universal rule, it applies to all people. If you make a universal rule and state it in terms of a specific group of people, then it applies universally, but only to all the people in that group. Paul could not have meant that it was ok for women to pray with anger and disputing. Nor do we think he meant that only men have a problem with anger and disputing, and therefore women don’t need the rule.

Therefore, since he limits his words to men, he was not making a universal rule. He was only applying a universal rule to a specific group in a specific situation.

Craig, I agree that these commands are universal in the sense that you mean it. But what Paul was saying was directed to one gender and not the other. It is because of this that we must consider his words time/place specific.

Paul could have stated these ideas as universal rules, but the way to do that would have been to say, “Everyone must pray without anger or disputing. Everyone must dress modestly. And no one may teach in such a way as to authentein.”

It is because he APPLIED the universal rules to a specific group (either males or females) that we have to view his intentions as time-place specific. Otherwise, in reading his statements as universal rules WITHOUT a sense of specific application, we would have to infer that only men, universally, need to hear the first rule and only women, universally, need to hear the second and third.

Does that help?

Oops– that was meant to say, “I explained my position, and you still don’t see what I’m saying.”
Which is probably what you’re also feeling about me. (grin)
Be well.

Mark, “masculine” words in Greek do not mean the word is masculine. That’s a common mistake Enlish speakers make. The gender of a noun is part of the language; it doesn’t mean a “masculine” word therefore means a male thing.
This is plain to see if we look at modern French. The word for “table” is “la table.” This doesn’t mean the French think tables are feminine things. “La porte” means “door.” The French don’t think doors are feminine creatures. Oddly enough, in French a lot of words that refer to masculine articles of clothing are feminine, and a a lot of words that refer to femnine articles of clothing are masculine. This means nothing. Languages with gendered nouns don’t directly translate to masculine nouns being about male things, and feminine nouns being about female things.

“Anybody” may be a masculine-gendered word in the Greek, but the meaning of the word is gender-neutral.

As for Galatians 3:28, if you’ll read further on into Chapter 4, it becomes quite clear that Paul is talking about far more than salvation. He’s talking about the nature of the covenant community of believers in Christ, that they all have the same status as “adopted sons” — which was a term that referred to the full status of someone who had been adopted, as a freeborn male Roman citizen, with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. Paul says we are all adopted as sons– we all have the same “freeborn male citizen” status. The passage was not intended as a way to hand a sop to Gentiles, slaves or women and say, “There, you have salvation. Now be satisfied with that and let us freeborn male Jews have everything else.”
There are no poor, low-status cousins in the Kingdom. We are ALL SONS.
But you’re probably right to end the conversation– it’s getting nowhere. I explained my position on deacons, and you still see what I’m saying. I don’t see how we’re going to come to any agreement when we’re starting from such different foundations.

Mark said:
“I am still interested to know why you think ’one woman man’ is generic (and thus includes female overseers) and yet why Paul needs to single out ’gyne’ in verse 11 since in your own admission it is a restatement of verses 8-10. You seem to talk around in contradictions. I’ll leave it here for you to answer that one query of mine. If Paul is truly being generic (in verse 1-7) why do you state that Paul has instructions for men and then women (in verse 8-13)?”

You have to think about the way the original reader would think, and how the Greek worked. Now, I’m not a Greek scholar, but I do understand what inclusive male-gendered language is, because we used to do the same thing in English, and I am old enough to remember when it was very common.
So looking at the passage again:
Chapter 3 opens with “Whoever [the Greek word there is gender-inclusive] aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task.” Then it goes into the qualifications for an overseer, including “husband of one wife” (which is gender inclusive also. Now, even though Paul uses gender-inclusive language, he does not specifically mention women in the context of overseers. There, we are in agreement. But what Paul does by using gender-inclusive language is to allow for the possibility that women could aspire to this position. However, it is quite possible, since Paul doesn’t mention women specifically, that there were no women overseers at that time. However, he was not assuming that women could never be overseers, or forbid them from aspiring to the position. If he had been, he would not have used the gender-inclusive “whoever” at the beginning of this section.
Then Paul moves on to deacons. He uses the “likewise” to say that the qualifications for deacons are of the same general nature as the qualifications for overseers. Then he speaks of the qualifications for deacons as I described earlier. Now Paul does go ahead and specifically mention women. The thing about saying he is referring to deacon’s wives, and not female deacons, is that it raises the question of why he did not say anything about overseers’ wives in verses 1-7. Overseers were allowed to be married. If Paul is saying that in order for a man to be a deacon, his wife must also rise to a certain level of character, why no such qualifications for overseers’ wives?
It makes more sense that Paul is referring to female deacons. This does, as you said, raise the question of why, if the passage about deacons as a whole is considered gender-inclusive, does Paul specifically raise the issue of qualifications for female deacons? The answer, of course, lies in the mindset of the ancient Greek reader.
When the masculine gender in the English language was considered to be gender inclusive (it still is, in some ways, but is getting less and less so), a person reading about “men” could only guess from the context whether the writer was referring to a group of males only, or a group of males and females. The context was everything. If a writer starts out by talking about “men,” and then later in the same context, mentions “women,” the reader can from that context understand that both women and men are being included in the word “men.”
It would work this way with “deacons.” The word “deacon” could be construed as referring only to male deacons, or it could be construed as referring to male and female deacons both. The reader can only tell from the context. In this case, Paul starts out by talking about “deacons” in a sense in which it is not clear at all whether he means males and females, or males only. So by adding the section about “women,” and using the word “likewise,” he makes it clear that he intends to differentiate between male and female deacons, and yet to include both under the general word “deacon.” The qualifications for women deacons are, as I said, roughly parallel to the first set of qualifications– but also (as Craig said) slightly different, because women and men in that culture faced different sorts of temptations that deacons were expected to rise above.
The last section includes words about deacons’ relationships with their families. It is interesting to note that the passage says nothing about deacons– presuming they were male– properly governing their wives– no, only a deacon’s “children” and “household” are mentioned as being the subjects of such government.
Of course we know that both men and women should be faithful in marriage! But it would seem strange, since Paul took the trouble to set forth roughly parallel commands for men and women, if the commands about being a good spouse, parent and household manager only applied to men in this section. Later in 1 Timothy Chapter 5, verse 14, Paul specifically mentions that young married women (namely widows who have remarried), are to “rule their households (the word is “oikodespotes” — the noun form of this word was used by Jesus to refer to the “master of the house.”) Clearly household government was not restricted only to men. And surely Paul expected women to keep their children under control!
This is why it makes sense for “one-woman man,” among the other phrases referring to deacons’ family relationships, to be gender inclusive.

Mark said:
“Waht intrigues me the most is that most mainstream egals argue that ’one woman man’ is becasue men had more than one wife at that time (in fact iv’e seen Cheryl write that somewhere also), yet now you want to apply that phrase to women. Which way do you want it? When one argument fails another just seems to be advanced in its place. How much historic revisionism will egals continue to produce.”
I personally have never said that “one woman man” is specifically in reference to polygamy. If Cheryl says so, fine. But must all egals agree with one another? Not all comps do! In fact, there is a large group of comps who would restrict a woman’s teaching not just to “authority in the public congregational setting” but to any woman teaching any man anything related to spiritual matters or theology. This is why the Southern Baptist Seminary fired its woman professors.
As far as “historical revisionism,” that is simply unfair. History is just like any other discipline– as more research is done and new manuscripts are found, earlier ideas about what was actually meant by a particular text, may be replaced with newer understandings. That’s not “revisionist,” that’s just letting our knowledge of history develop.
The newest historical data says that “one-woman man” was an idiomatic expression that meant “faithful spouse.” Since the masculine gender in the ancient Greek language was inclusive, “one-woman man” (unlike “one-man woman) can include both sexes. They did not have the gender-neutral word “spouse.” “One-woman man” was the only way they could express the thought “faithful spouse” to include both men and women.

PS. Did Paul really intend to omit the requirement for faithfulness in marriage for women deacons? Given the parallel nature of the verse directed specifically to women, with the verses to men just before it– then if verse 12 is just to men, Paul was apparently exempting women from any requirement to be faithful to their husbands.
Does that even make sense?

Mark, look at the passage again.
Paul starts talking about deacons in 1 Tim 3:8. First he says deacons must be “reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money.” Then he says in verse 11 that “women” must “likewise” be “reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.” So if “women” here means “women deacons,” then Paul has addressed first men deacons, and then women deacons. And now what does he do? According to your reading, he goes right back to talking about men deacons, and the words about women deacons are sandwiched into the middle of two passages about men deacons. It isn’t until verse 12 that he says, “let deacons be the husbands of one wife,” and so on.
But it would actually make much more sense for Paul to speak of men deacons in verses 8-10, and then speak of women deacons in verse 11– and then in verse 12, speak of a all deacons as a whole group.
Why should Paul talk about men, then women, then men again? Why not just say everything he has to say about men, and then go on to talk about women? Doesn’t it make more sense that he would talk about men, then women, and then conclude with remarks about both?
(BTW, I agree with Craig’s statement that “likewise” means that general statements applied to men deacons do also apply to women– such as that they must “first be tested” before serving as deacons. But verses 8-10 and verse 11 are roughly parallel, with verse 11 basically saying in abbreviated fashion that women deacons must be like men deacons in the areas of reverence, control of their tongues, temperance with use of wine and money, and faithfulness. It is verse 12 that departs from this parallel structure with a statement about deacons’ relationships to their families. Therefore it makes much more sense to think verse 12 was intended for all deacons as a group.)

Actually, Pinklight, I did make a claim that the phrase translated “husband of one wife” in most English translations is indeed gender-inclusive in the original Greek. The actual phrase is a Greek idiom, literally rendered “one-woman man.” The thing is that the masculine gender in the Greek language is inclusive, just as the masculine gender in the English language used to be. Even today in English, we still understand the word “men” in some contexts to mean “humans” — “men and women” — particularly if we’re reading an old book (including most translations of the Bible).
It is my understanding that the only time you can use the feminine gender in the Greek language is if you’re talking about a group that is all women; hence, the use of the term “wife of one husband” (literally, “one-man woman”) to describe qualified widows (females only) later in the same letter to Timothy. But if you have a group of both women and men, and you are going to talk about them as a group, you would call them “men,” and if you were going to talk about them being faithful to their spouses, you would call them “one-woman men.”
Here is a link to Philip Payne, Greek scholar, explaining this (and quoting certain complementarian Greek scholars who admit that “one-woman man,” in and of itself, does not exclude women from the group.
http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=426

Mark,

If you allow that Phoebe “may” have been a deacon, and that 1 Tim 3 “may” refer to women deacons, then it follows that “husband of one wife” “may” be gender inclusive. And if it is, then it is gender inclusive when used of overseers just as it is when used of deacons.
It seems to me that you’ve either got to deny any possibility that Paul considered Phoebe a deacon or that he was talking about women deacons, or you’ve got to admit that Paul does not explicitly gender-restrict overseers by the use of the term “husband of one wife.”
I don’t think there is any basis on which anyone can authoritatively state that Paul intended deacons to be only male, even though he used the term “husband of one wife.” There is clear documentation that the early church did, in fact, utilize female deacons.
What I’m saying is that using the phrase “husband of one wife” as a way to categorically deny that women can be overseers, simply is not a very good argument given the use of the same phrase for deacons.

Mark, it seems to me that it’s encumbant on you to explain why “diakonos” doesn’t mean the same thing when it refers to Phoebe as it does when it refers to a “diakonos” having to be husband of one wife. The words are the same in the original text. It’s up to you to show why they don’t refer to the same thing.

Mark,
The point is that he used the exact same word for a group that he also said had to be “husband of one wife.” The Greek masculine form was gender inclusive as a rule. A group of women with even one man in it could be referred to as “men.” So “husband of one wife” is inclusive of “wife of one husband.” If it weren’t, Phoebe could not be in that group.

Paul calls Pheobe a “deacon.” Paul also says a deacon must be “husband of one wife.” So– either “husband of one wife” is gender-inclusive, or Pheobe was a man.
Simple logic.

If this is really the way Greek grammar works, then I concede the point. Paul is talking about one particular woman throughout. My real objection had to do with not wanting to read more into the words than were actually there (which is what the comps do all the time). I have always started from the premise that Paul was not only inspired, but an intelligent man and a scholar, and that he worded his letters exactly as he wanted them to read and said exactly what he meant to say. So that’s why I’m careful not to assume that Paul said something unless I’m convinced that’s what he meant to say.
Question: in the comparison with Adam and Eve, why do you think Paul puts an emphasis on Adam having been created first? Comps say that Paul is “grounding” male privilege in the creation order. I still think it means that because Adam was created first, he had more learning (ie, experience) than Eve and thus was not deceived: hence the instruction that this woman needs to learn [before she can teach]. Is that your understanding too, Cheryl?

I’ve been away at a family reunion, and I don’t have time tonight to read through all new comments since my last, but I did want to address this:

Cheryl said:
“If that is the case then all women were stopped from teaching because of verse 12 so that no woman would be singled out. I don’t think this works with the complete context of the passage.”

I believe the sense of the passage is not about “teaching” but about “teaching-and-authenteining.” The way I’m reading it, the policy is “no woman shall teach-and-authentein” her husband. So no, I don’t believe all women were stopped from teaching. I believe a general policy that women should not teach their husbands in such a way as to authentein them, is what is being stated. (Of course, men are not to teach-and-authentein either, but Paul is specifically addressing a problem having to do with a woman and her husband.)

I hope that clarifies. I’m tired now from our journey but will try to get back to this tomorrow.

I wanted to reply to Cheryl here:

Timothy 2:10 (NAS)
10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

This is a statement about all women “who are making a claim to godliness”. It appears that these are women who claim to have maturity and are godly examples of the faith.
Would Paul really be saying that only those women who claim to have maturity and are godly examples, should be dressing modestly? That only they should be focusing on inner character rather than outward adornment– while those women in the church who are immature Christians are exempt? This doesn’t seem likely. It seems to me that Paul is talking about all the women in the church here, as he was talking about all the men a verse earlier. Just as the men are to “lift holy hands,” the women are to dress modestly. “As is proper for women making a claim to godliness” seems to me to be saying, “Women who consider themselves Christians (ie., have repented of their sins and left their old way of life, thus making a claim to godliness) should dress modestly.”

“The women in vs. 10 needed a correction for behavior in the worship service that was inhibiting the spread of the gospel.”

I am not sure where you are getting this from other then this is typically what comp teachers say. Is the “correction” that Paul is giving a correction for behavior that is inhibiting the spread of the gospel, or is the correction the proper way to show their godliness through their inner character and not through expensive dresses and jewelry?
I’m not sure whether or not Paul is making a correction to the Ephesian church’s behavior or not. I think he’s simply saying, “In order to be a good witness to the surrounding culture, the men should have “holy hands” and the women should have “holy dress.” This doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t also have “holy hands” or that men shouldn’t also have “holy dress,” but it is referring areas of focus that are particular to women and to men, where the other area (holy hands for women and holy dress for men) does not need that focus.

Is verses 11 & 12 about a general “kind” of woman who is deceived and who needs to stop teaching her husband her errors and who needs to learn while verse 14 is about a specific woman who is called “the woman”? This would seem a bit odd if we consider that only one is said to be still in the transgression and results of it. Are we to think that there could be many women who are teaching their husbands false doctrine and none of the husbands are correcting them yet none of them are still in the transgression but one? If that would be the case, then there would be no reason for a generic example needed. I think that Timothy is smart enough to take Paul’s way of dealing with the specific case and using that as a template to deal with any further issues that may come up in the future.
I think it’s simpler than that. There is indeed ONE woman that both Paul and Timothy have in mind. But because Paul’s letter is about Timothy fixing the church, he speaks at first in terms of policy. He uses the non-definite singular to show that this policy COULD apply to any woman who might (theoretically, in the future) get into the same situation as this specific woman they both know they are really talking about.
An analogy would be a head boss giving a supervisor instructions on how to deal with a particular employee situation. They would both know they were talking about one employee, but the boss would be most likely to frame the issue in terms of policy (saying, in effect, this is nothing personal; this is not a singling out of this one employee– any employee who did the same thing would face the same policy). The supervisor might say, “Hey, John Smith keeps talking to his wife on the phone when he’s supposed to be working.” The head boss might reply, “An employee is not to make personal phone calls during his shift [stating policy]. The employee [now referring to John Smith in particular] is to be given a warning.”
No other employees are breaking the policy, but the head boss still makes his statement in terms of policy. It makes sense to me that this is what Paul could be doing here.

So we are back to why did Paul use the singular in verses 11 & 12 without the definite article and then choose to use the definite article in verse 14? Here is what I think. I believe that his pattern has been to not use the definite article when the context is clear to the audience that a specific person is in mind.
It could be as you say– but the examples you have given so far– “I know a man who was caught up to the third heaven,” for example– seem to always contain some kind of qualifier: a “who” statement that MAKES the context clear. I agree that possibly Paul was simply referring to this one woman both in verses 11 and 12 and in verse 14– but then (when it comes to verse 11, at least) we lose the strength of “let a woman learn!” as a POLICY. We also lose the “this is nothing personal, I’m not singling her out” idea that I think may very well be what Paul is saying here.
I do think that in verses 14 and 15 Paul is definitely talking about this one woman’s situation, this one woman’s salvation, and this one couple’s need to walk in sanctification.

I hope that makes it clearer why I like Gengwall’s interpretation so much.

All I can say, Gengwall, is that you’ve convinced me. I’m a paralegal, and I understand exactly what you’re talking about.

But even from a non-legal perspective, this makes sense. I mean, I’m the lead administrative assistant/paralegal for a small law firm. Suppose I were going on vacation, and before I left, one of the other assistants said, “I’m worried that we might have [a particular trouble] with client Jane Doe.”
I would not necessarily just say to her, “If Jane Doe does A, you say B.” I would say, “If a client does something like A, we would do B.” And then I might go on and say, “Now as to Ms. Doe herself. . .”

The thing is that Paul wrote this letter to Timothy to delegate to Timothy the authority to act as Paul would act, in Paul’s absence. Some of the things in the letter are probably things Timothy already knew (I mean, was it absolutely necessary to repeat, “As I told you, stay in Ephesus”?) The point is that if anyone objected to Timothy’s actions, Timothy could show them the letter and say, “Look, Paul laid down these policies. I’m just following them.”

So it makes sense for Paul to deal with this one situation (a wife “authenteining” her husband), in terms of policy not just specifics. And it totally explains why he uses “a woman” and “a man” rather than “this woman” and “that man” in his opening statement. As such, it completely removes all objections I had to this interpretation and turns it in my mind from a likely interpretation, to the most likely interpretation.

Holly,
If Paul had said, “husbands submit to your wives as to the Lord,” it would have been viewed as subversive by the Roman authorities, who did have agents that intercepted and read letters. The last thing the young Church needed was the Roman authorities deciding they were inciting rebellion against the established order of husband-rule! And that is how the Romans would have seen it.

Holly, with regards to Paul’s instructions for wives (and slaves and children) to be submissive– it was also very important that Christianity in its fledgling years in Gentile culture, maintain a good reputation. Paul was very interested in making the message palatable to the peoples who received it (see 1 Cor 9- “I become all things to all people, that I might by any means save some.”) Paul’s focus was on the spread of the gospel, not on social reconstruction; indeed social reconstruction would have worked counter to the spread of the gospel in that time and place.

Hence Paul’s instructions that those who were under authority in that culture, not buck that authority.

It is in his words to the various authorities (husbands, fathers, slave owners) that we really see the changes Paul is advocating. But the changes are to be from the inside out, not the outside in.

Sorry, what I meant to say was:
Remember the African-Americans who were attacked with firehoses during their peaceful marches. This was one of the things that turned the tide of public opinion against the oppressors.

From Martin Luther King, Jr’s, “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”:

“Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. ”

Here’s a link to the whole letter:
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

The reason the “demand for apology” had to be worded as a “demand” was that other avenues for communication have failed. This one is likely to fail too, but that doesn’t mean it will have no effect.
If the CBMW ignores the letter, then coalitions like this one must continue to cry out. If they answer with apology and don’t follow through, then the response must be formal rebuke. If (as I think will happen) CBMW answers with a dismissive and demeaning letter, then such a letter will work against CBMW– particularly if it can be brought home that they are dismissing and demeaning women who have legitimate complaints as victims of violence.

Remember the African-Americans who were attacked with firehoses during their peaceful marches. This was one of the things that turned the tide of public opinion against them.

It doesn’t matter whether a letter like this is perfect or not– it doesn’t matter whether or not we agree completely with its tone or manner of address. What matters is that people who are being oppressed in the name of Christ are lifting up their voices. I say let those voices be a catalyst for more tension, more non-violent confrontation– until organizations like CBMW HAVE to listen! More of us– especially men who support the cause of women’s freedom in Christ– need to speak up. If someone doesn’t like the format or tone of the letter, then let them add their own voice in whatever manner they think best. But the time for accommodation of abusive religion needs to be over.

Well, that’s the thing, Kay. If *no one* should “authentein” anyone else, then Paul saying, “I don’t permit a woman to authentein a man” is stating something that doesn’t need to be said. The prohibition makes no sense as written, because neither are women allowed to authentein women, or men allowed to authentein men or women. This is why it has to be “teach and authentein” together, as one thought. It’s the kind of teaching that “authenteins” that Paul appears to be speaking of.

Gengwall,

Yes, thank you, that makes sense. And it also applies to my question of why this was part of an inspired letter that God intended to be included in the canon of Scripture. If a later reader (who might be leading a church and be in a similar situation) can apply these instructions from the specific to the general as Timothy did, then it makes sense for the instructions to be there.

Also, I read not long ago a scholarly essay about how the words “teach” and “domineer” were constructed grammatically so that they were meant to work together, as in “I am not permitting a woman to teach in such a way as to domineer over a man.” Your exegesis makes sense out of this construction as well. I appreciate it.

Gengwall, I have prayed as you asked.

Cheryl– I have been lurking here a few days. I have not in the past been convinced of this view, but I am finding the grammatical arguments put forth by you and Gengwall to be quite persuasive– particularly the part about the grammatical construction that “the woman” “has come TO BE in transgression.” I always thought “she” referred to Eve (who was ‘redeemed” in a sense through the faithfulness of “they” — those of her descendents who come to and remain in Christ), but if “the woman” is STILL “in transgression,” obviously that can’t be right.

But I still have some questions. First, are there any articles in Koine Greek equivalent to the English “this” or “that”? In other words, I have had trouble believing that Paul would say simply “woman” (which is translated “a woman”) when what he meant was “that woman.” In English, we can say “a woman” can or can’t do something, and mean it collectively, even though the construction is singular. It is my understanding that this can also occur in ancient Greek– which is the source of my reservations. Generally when we mean a specific unnamed person, we say “this person” not “a person.” But if the Greek doesn’t have a way to say “this person” or “that person,” that would make sense.

I know you mentioned that in 1 Cor 5, Paul says “a man has his father’s wife,” and is referring to a specific man– but in the Greek, the word “man” does not appear in this passage. The phrase is not “aner has his father’s wife,” but actually says “someone has his father’s wife.” So I’m wondering if anywhere else in the New Testament, the word “man” or “woman” by itself can be used to refer to a specific man or woman when the context does not make it clear. I know that the stories about Jesus can begin with “A woman having an issue of blood” or “A man with a withered hand,” and we know by the context that it means “A CERTAIN woman or man.” But is this construction ever used elsewhere without such contextual clarifications?

Another question is, why did God allow such a personal letter from Paul to Timothy, including “inside” references to people only they would understand about, to become canon? I’m reading a book on the history of women in the church, and apparently this passage has been misunderstood almost since Paul wrote it, as a prohibition on all women teaching all men. It’s puzzling to me.

Any input from anyone here would be appreciated.

I wanted to add, Cheryl, that I think it was brave of you to obey the Spirit’s leading and open this topic even though you knew it would cause you pain. I think it is a very necessary discussion in the issue of women in ministry, because the nature of male-female relations as a whole is foundational to the issue of women in ministry.

I pray that you continue to find healing, and I admire your courage and your trust in God.

Yes, watch the movie! I swear on the soul of my father Domingo Montoya, you will reach the end alive.

Several times at church, on name-tag Sunday (about once a month everyone is encouraged to wear a name tag and try to meet new people) I have come within an inch of writing below the words, “Hello, my name is” — “Inigo Montoya; you killed my father, prepare to die.”
So far I haven’t quite had the gumption to call attention to myself like that. . .
I love the Princess Bride. The Princess herself is a bit passive for modern tastes, but it doesn’t matter. There’s never been a movie like the Princess Bride! Does anyone have a Holocaust Cloak?

The other thing is that there’s always a danger in forgetting that reading the Bible is for all of us a matter of interpretation. None of us are the original author or the original audience, none of us was taught Koine Greek as our first language. So when someone says: “Well, don’t get mad at *me*, it’s not like *I* set it up that way, *God’s* the one who made the rules, who are we to question?” — what they are really saying is, “The way it reads to me IS the true and accurate meaning, and you’d better just accept it!” They are equating the questioning of their interpretation with questioning God Himself. This is a dangerous practice and lacks the humility of wisdom spoken of in James 3.
Peter himself said that Paul’s teachings were hard to understand– and yet there are Christians who claim they know exactly what Paul meant at all times (particularly when it comes to verses about women), and I’d better agree with them or I’m rebelling against God!
Well, I don’t agree with them; I think they’re wrong. But I won’t tell them they’re in rebellion for not agreeing with me. I won’t tell them they’re rejecting the Scriptures if they reject my interpretation of it. And as for their marriages– if the husbands are loving their wives, serving and not oppressing them, they can be the leaders all they want. But they should let me and my husband have our mutual/egalitarian marriage, and respect that.