Mark

Retha,

The answer is no.

The ‘principle’ as you say is actually a result clause (so that).

In other words you do “A” (sensible, pure, workers at home) SO THAT “B” may be acheived (the word of God maligned).

You cannot simply change A to suit your own agenda or culture. To do so detracts from the authority of scripture and ironically in turn, “malignes the word of God”.

Believe the words of God and obey them. God’s instructions are for our good.

Cheryl,

Thank you for clarifying your question. Now i can see what it is you are asking. And please stop with your rhetorical hogwash, you sound like you’ve just stepped out of the 16th Century.

Now you claim ANY head covering shames Christ, correct? Male or female it shames Christ since you base this assumption on palestianian judaism correct?

Well as i said earlier and as i quoted NT scholar David Garland, i do not think this is the case. Primarily because the text in question does not say so and it seems much more likely that given the context of Corinth, a greco-roman custom is in view.

“Every man praying or prophesying, having anything down over his head shames his head. And every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered shames her head; for it is the same as being shaved”

So Paul says a man will shame Christ by covering his head. However shall a woman uncover her head, she will shame her husband. You claim that a woman covering her head shames Christ, yet this puts Paul in a pickle since he affirms that not to cover shames her husband. So is Paul really saying to cover to honour the husband, but yet not cover to honour Christ? I could hardly think so, thus why i want you to show me other people who agree with you to help clarify your position. Your ‘if’ argument must not be isolated from the text before it. The assumption in verse 6, “if it is shameful” is that it is shameful since Paul a verse earlier says so.

I would rather understand the head covering from the greco-roman viewpoint rather than the palestianian judaistic standpoint. The text makes much more sense from within it’s own historical context rather than asserting palestinian understandings.

Now i know we disagree, but can you now provide me with some links for your exegetical position. Thanks

P.S Don’t forget that Paul told us not to get involved in useless quarrels as well. I’d rather listen to that than misapply 1 Peter 3:15 in the way you have. If you wont/can’t show me some links to help me understand your position i’ll bail out of this one. Having been so involved in cultic ministry, i’m sure your aware of the individual, novel interpretations of scripture that they produce, and i simply want to see some other serious commentators believe the same exegesis as you..egal or comp.

Cheryl,

You obviously misunderstood. Your asking me to answer or prove something i never claimed. I never claimed the head covering (of the woman) shames Christ. I showed this to you, since i asked you the same question you are now asking me (see #177) . I fail to see the challenge. You have simply misread me somewhere along the line.

Also, i have not seen any links regarding 1 Cor 11 that show the commentators that agree with you. Please provide a link if you have one so i can have a look. Thanks

Finally, your 1 Peter 3 text if you look in the context is telling Peter’s readers (who are being persecuted and suffering) to be ready to give an answer to their hope. That is, their hope during suffering may give an opportunity to express their hope- they should be prepared for that. Unless you think i am persecuted and suffering i fail to see why you quote that at me. That’s an aside anyway.

Hi Cheryl,

“You do not answer questions and you won’t allow yourself to be challenged to produce an interpretation on these hard passages of Scripture on which you know very little. Perhaps you will change your ways and actually try next time.”

So this isn’t rhetoric?

“Has not your own tradition of male supremacy been exchanged for the real truth of God’s Word? It sure appears that is has to me.”

This musn’t be either then? These are simply ‘challenges’ to use your words…yeah right!

“So are you going to even try to answer my challenge to show why the head covering shamed Christ?”

This is incredible Cheryl. I asked the same thing in #177. Here is what i said…
“Where does he say that the WOMAN covering her head shames Christ?”

Another misreading Cheryl, and another charge of me saying the opposite of what i actually said. Again i’ll simply assume it was another misreading of yours, but maybe not after a third time! You have one chance left 🙂

Anyway, i’ve read through your attached links to this topic and your above comments and i’m still a little perplexed. Can you please give me a link to a commentator/paper/essay or whatever of someone who agrees in essence with your position to help me understand it better before i comment further. I need some other clarification. Thanks.

Cheryl,

I beg to differ on a few points.

1. There are two direct imperatives in these 16 verses. One in verse 13 and one in verse 6, “Let her cover herself”. This is a command of Paul that the women SHOULD cover herself.

2. NT scholar David Garland saids the following…”Paul is not imposing Palestinian customs on the Corinthians” (1 Corinthians BECNT, 520)

I agree with this for the following reason. In Josephus, J.W. 2. 15. 1 Jospehus informs us that a shaved head for a woman was an acceptable practice as part of a vow service.
Paul, however in these verses saids that a shaved head would be shameful for a woman. Clearly Paul does not have Palestinian Jewish customs in view.

Also, there are no contextual markers in 1 Cor 11 to assume that Palestinian Jewsih customs are somehow involved in this Pagan gentile city under Roman rule. This is a biased assumption made on the text unwarranted. The text itself does not lead this way.

Therefore, it seems apparent that you Cheryl are being selective in which ‘Jewish’ texts you select to lay your foundation. I have shown that this foundation is not right, therefore what are we to make of your exegesis? Questionable? Your historical selection is sketchy and selective to suit your own exegetical view.

They are the only points i wanted to make on this subject

Ok Cheryl you win…

I give up in this debate. You say Paul says it shameful…Paul says the opposite that a woman should wear it…

If we cannot agree on the simple reading of the texts that i provided then we will never agree. Paul never saids that the head covering represents a shameful picture of sin, this is your hypothesis or historical revisionism of jewish texts. You are then applying this to a gentile city under Roman rule when Paul does no such thing. Again more of your argument(s) is based foremost on your own historical reconstruction.

Paul says that a woman should cover her head when she prays/prophesies. To NOT do this would be shameful according to Paul, yet you wish to make us believe the opposite of what Paul states.

I’ll sitck with the inspired scripture thanks.

Speak soon

Cheryl,

“We can’t agree here at all because my point is that the “cultural practice” of the head covering is an ungodly practice and Paul states so by saying that it shames Christ.”

Yes, for the male. Not so however for the female. The opposite is true…

“but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head UNCOVERED dishonours her head” verse 5
“for a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” verse 7

Therefore the head covering of the woman is a cultural way of showing her respect for her husband.

“A practice that shames Christ (an ungodly practice) cannot be implemented in the congregation to demonstrate the implementation of a godly principle.”

I agree, but where does Paul say it is shameful for the WOMAN to cover her head? Where does he say that the WOMAN covering her head shames Christ? My point all along has been that the head covering of the woman is a culturally appropriate way (and indeed encouraged) of showing her respect to her head, her husband. This whole ‘practical’ concept is grounded on a theological OT principle in the creational order. This principle remains, where as the practice may change depending on the culture.

Do you in your congregation now stop men from entering your church with a baseball cap on?

Cheryl,

Again, go and read the comments. We have been having a healthy discussion in your absence. Prior to your arrival i stated that i was busy for a period so i was leaving for a while. I am not stopping because of your supposed ‘challenge’ which is actually a mis-reading of what i said. We probably actually agree that we need to distinguish between biblical priciples and cultural practices which implement the principle. Your sunday school example shows this.

But you are more interested it appears in debating over non-issues that reading the comments properly. Especially when you come out blazing in a polemical attacking mode. Please read the thread before making any further comments which highlight your mistake.

Thanks

Cheryl,

“You say that the head covering is God’s principle.”

It may be helpful for you to go back over the discussion before making comments which are obviously wrong. Here is what i said in #162, apparently the comment of mine you read and had to respond to…

“So to clear things up, i am not saying the head covering is the principle”

So please spare me from this conversation which you have founded on a mis-reading of me. I was quite clear in what i said and remarkably said the opposite to what you accuse me of. I’ll believe it was a mis-read on your part, fair enough! Your polemical nature mixed with mis-reading makes this whole conversation not worth while.

Ok two comments…

Cheryl, do you/your church pray standing? Sitting? Eyes open? Eyes Shut? Bowing? Prostrating?

Are you/ your church a product of your culture? Does your culture define some of your ‘practice’? What about a church in the middle east? Should it behave the same way as you in its practices?

Are many of your practices Biblical or cultural? Do you sing facing a band? Sitting? Do you clap? Lift hands? Do you sing Psalms only? Do you dance?

Like it or not, practices change from culture to culture. The issue is maintaining the principle in focus. A head covering in Corinth was an appropriate way to display the Biblical principle Paul lays down.

Ok i’m out…

Hi Cheryl,

I have only one comment to give since i am very busy with other things. Your rhetoric and polemics does nothing but confuse the issues we have been discussing. As for the bait and switch…well here is a good example of it…

“The “practice” was a humanistic cultural one, not a “practice” of the church. Is Paul demanding that the church follow the culture of the day and bring it into the church? The context defies that understanding. ”

Your words not mine and words i never suggested or hinted at. Please spare me with polemical, un-helpful dialogue. I’m not going to waste my time. I’m more interested in serious dialogue.

Kay,

It’s the principle that doesn’t change, not the practice. The practice will change from culture to culture. The priciple in both texts is one of male leadership whether that is in the marriage or in the church. Paul supports both arguments for this from the creation account. The practice at the time in 1 Cor 11 was a head covering for a woman. This practice will change from culture to culture.

Thus why when i outlined the different practical issues facing comps earlier (some apply to church, some to government ect) this is a great example of trying to implement a practice in our own culture that remains loyal to the principle. We see this extended in seminaries also with the discussions of how much women should ‘teach’ or what they should ‘teach’ before it raises issues with the principle of 1 Tim 2 or 1 Cor 11, 14.

The challenge for any generation is how to apply the scriptural principles we see in the Bible. This will extend to singing, praying, or whatever.

The comp issue as i see it is rooted in application. The egal issue as i see it is still rooted in exegesis.

So to clear things up, i am not saying the head covering is the principle, it is the practice of implementing the principle at the time. It seemed like you thought i was saying the head covering was the principle.

Kay,

We’ve been over this many times before so there is no point going over it again. Distinguish between principle and practice in your hermeneutics and you will see again that in 1 Cor 11 there is a principle that is rooted in creation (the husband/man is the head of the wife/woman shown through the creational order) and then there is a cultural practice to implement this teaching (head covering).

So there is complete consistency in these texts. I’m sure you know this already, so why keep asking?

Cheers

Kay,

Just for you…not all comps believe what you have said, that is too much of a generalisation. Some comps do see the somewhat inconsistency in saying a woman can be in civil leadership/authority and therefore apply the teaching to that spectrum aswell as the church.
Other comps do not do that. They simply say that these instructions are for the church and therefore only apply in the Church, since the Church is God’s household.

So i would not say that all comps apply this teaching the same way. Some stick simply to the context, where as others apply it more broadly to everyday life. Either way it is a matter of application that is the issue, not a matter of exegesis. Exegetically, they both believe the same thing about what this text is saying.

Egals on the other hand have differing opinions on the exegesis (see for example the Fee, Bruce, Kroegers, Payne, Schatz etc) whereas the application is more consistently applied for obvious reasons.

That’s the best i can offer at the moment on your question/query

Anyway as i’m sure your aware, comps understand 1 Tim 2:13-14 as Paul drawing on an OT principle in creation to argue for his position on women’s teaching/oversight, NOT the reverse. He is not trying to show that Gen 2 is about worship, but that rather in the Christian Church there are male/female differences that have their root/principle in the creational order. Similarly in 1 Cor 11 he uses the creational order to highlight why he believes a women should cover her head and not disgrace her head. Same thing in Eph 5 about marriage. He is using the creation account as a basis for his principles regarding gender, not vice versa. This is common of Paul, who uses OT scripture to reinforce his argument in his letters.

To all,

I’ll have to leave it there for a bit as i have a lot of other stuff to do. At least we can agree on one thing, that 1 Tim 2:12 is either both positive or negetive. It’s good to end on a high. A few final points to wrap up.

Kay,
Yes that quote is an assertion of Kostenberger, but if you read it in context of his essay, you will see that it is based on facts. He researchers ALL similar constructions in the NT. He then also researchers all extra biblical constructions, which leads him to the above comment. The syntax of 1 Tim 2:12 as his extensive research shows has to be one or the other. Phil Payne did a similar research years back which Kostenberger uses as a beginning ground and expands upon. It is a helpful piece of research in understanding this text.

Also, i’m not going to go over the same discussion i already had with Dave. The comp position on 1 Tim 2:12 is that this passage restricts women from a certain teaching and exercise of authority, NOT that women cannot teach in other circumstances e.g to other women. To adopt (2) is possible wihtout contradicting other NT texts.

“After all, if it was a universal rule of such great importance as comps assert, it certainly would be expected that Timothy would have been aware of this rule already. ”

Let me counter respond… After all, if this was about a false female teacher, it certainly would be expected that Timothy would have been aware of this rule already…

Marg,
The quote i gave was out of the printed book. I couldn’t see his essay anywhere on line, although it may be. The book is ‘Women in the Church, A fresh analysis of 1 Tim 2:9-15’ and the quote is on page 89. After doing research on extra biblical documents he gives the same conclusion on page 99. Please note: I quoted the first edition and there is a second edition out now which may change page numbers.

Final issue about hermeneutics. We need to distinguish between principles and practice. For example, praying with lifted hands… the principle is that we should pray, the practice with lifted hands. Now the practice may change (sitting, standing, bowing etc), but the principle remains. Likewise, the prohibition is rooted in creation therefore the principle remains binding on all churches of all generations. To say this text is simply practice (like Fee) is based on his own presupposition and not the text.

Anyway, i’m gone for a bit with other things i need to do. Thanks for the discussion

Craig,

If you accept that 1 Tim 2:12 is ‘false teaching’, can you tell me from the text what exactly was false. In other words what content of the teaching is ‘false’? Can you show me that from the text?

To say it is just ‘false teaching’ is to miss what i have said. In Rev 2:20 there are qualifiers to tell us what is ‘false’ about it…e.g “to practice sexual immorality and eat food sacrificed to idols”.

Where in 1 Tim 2:12 or indeed in the whole epistle does Paul outline the ‘content’ of this supposed singular false female teacher?

Do you see what i am asking and distinguishing between? This is exactly Kostenbergers point, when teach is used in the absolute sense with no qualifiers. 1 Tim 2:12 falls into this category, Rev 2:20 does not

Dave,

“Now, in regards to the use of the word “teach” and “authentein”, how can it be positive in this context? Paul is saying he does not permit it. Nowhere has Paul suggested that it is ok for anyone to authentein anyone else. He has not had a problem with anyone else teaching anyone else, unless they are false teachers (if I am wrong please show me an example). You have admitted that ‘teach’ can be positive or negative. Show me from the text that Paul thinks what this singular woman (this is not assumed – show me in the grammar where there is more than one woman) is doing is positive. Pretty hard since he is asking her to stop. I am happy that both the authentein and teach are negative…so thanks Mr Kostenberger!”

Let me respond with Kostenberger

“Before deciding on one of the two patterns for 1 Tim 2:12, a preliminary clarification needs to be made. A distinction should be drawn, especially in the first scenario, between the fact that two activities or concepts are viewed positively in and of themselves, and their prohibition due to circumstances. In the case of 1 Tim 2:12, the writers “I do not permit” has apparently at times been taken to mean that he views the two activities, themselves negetively…However, one should keep in mind that it is possible for the writer to evaluate negetively the exercise of activities he generally views positively, due to certain circumstances, without tainting the two terms themselves.”

You said
“Mark, I checked out Titus. Probably would be helpful if you told me exactly where you were in the text. Titus 1:7 speaks of a singular overseer, I assume a generic singular. In 6:10-11 it talks in the plural, but not about overseers, rather those who are unruly, eveil-doers etc (pretty sure they are NOT overseers). So Paul has not switched from using a generis singular to a plural for the same person, if that is what you are suggesting.”

I did say i din’t have a Bible handy…please forgive me. But here you are. Titus 1:5 says…” and appoint ELDERS (plural) in every town as i directed you”. Then in verse 7, like you said, it switches to the singular… “for an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach…”

Chapter 6 is not even in view. Here we have the same switch from plural to generic singular as in 1 Tim 2:10-11. Therefore to rely heavily on the singular in the exegesis is a moot point. It is grammatically possible to have generic singulars.

“Please note though that Cheryl’s exegesis accepts that there can be a singular generic, but that the context shows this to not be the case in 1 Tim 2.”

Well that’s her assertion isn’t it. I would have thought a plural in verse 10 and then the singular in verse 11 is exactly the proof of a generic singular. Her assertion is simply that…an assertion.

“I assume the answer is no. In the same way I am simply stating that we have no reason FROM THE TEXT to believe that Paul is not dealing with a situation here that was specific to this church ”

This is simple false Dave. Paul’s appeal back to creation (13, 14) has always been understood as granting more than a specific situation that needs to be addressed. His prohibition is rooted in the creation order. You may disagree wtih that, but your above assertion is a little overstated. Can we therefore say that ‘a woman false teacher’ is now aloud to authentein a man in our generation? As Schreiner notes…

“It would be a grave mistake to argue as follows:
1. First Timothy was written to counteract a specific situation in the life of the Church.
2. Nothing written to a specific situation is normative for the church today.
3. Therefore, 1 Timothy contains no directives for the church today.”

Dave, final point. I am interested to know that if you think there is nothing IN THE TEXT to show it is more than cultural and contextual to the time, what do you find IN THE TEXT’S that prohibits homosexuality as wrong today? Remember, FROM THE TEXT. Please apply your own theory to this practice. I want to see how consistent you are.

Craig,

You can argue with Kostenberger over your issues, but your up against all the evidence. Here is what he saids…

“These example set forth the NT evidence that ‘oude’ joins terms that denote activities that are either both viewed positively or negetively by the writer or speaker. The implication of this observation for 1 Tim 2:12 is that there are only two acceptable ways of rendering that passage: (1) “i do not permit a woman to teach (error) or to domineer over a man,” or (2) “i do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man””

Thus the argument that Paul links the two terms to mean one idea is false. Thus, it cannot be translated, “i do not permit a woman to teach a man in a domineering way”. If one adopts this interpretation it goes against ALL the evidence.

Continuing on with Kostenberger…

“That this is indeed the case is strongly suggested by the use of the term ‘didaskein’, which is consistently viewed positively in the New Testament, including the pastorals, when used absolutely, that is, unaccompanied by contextual qualifiers such as those denoting the content of someone’s teaching”

” And when the Kroegers contend that ‘the verb here forbids women to teach a wrong doctrine, just as 1 Tim 1:3-4 and Titus 1:9-14 also forbid false teaching’ (also Cheryl’s view), it must be asserted that in 1 Tim 1:3-4 it is ‘eterodidaskalein’, not ‘didaskein’, which is used, while in Titus 1:9-14 there is ample contextual indication that false teaching is in view, a feature that is absent from the context of 1 Tim 2:12″

“Since, therefore, the term ‘didaskein’ is used absolutely in the NT for an activity that is viewed positively in and of itself, and since ‘oude’ coordinates terms that are either both viewed positively or negetively, ‘authentein’ should be seen as denoting an activity that is veiwed positively in and of itself as well.”

I could go on. Kostenberger then reseachers all the extra biblical literature coming to the same conclusion. The only way that Cheryl’s interpretation can continue to be considered is if it can be shown that ‘didaskein’ here is negetive, which would be the only NT instance of this happening like this.

Craig,

Good question re Revelation. The best way to look at your question is to quote Kostenberger as its his work not mine. I will do that for you tomorrow, but for the mean time here is how i understadn what he saids.

In 1 Tim 2 we have ‘to teach’ in what is described as an ‘absolute’ sense. That is, there is no mention within the verses of the ‘content’ of the teaching, thus we cannot know whether it is positive or negetive in that sense.

Looking at Rev 2:20 we know the ‘content’ of the teaching. Therefore, Kostenbergers research looks into all the NT uses of ‘to teach’ in the absolute sense, as in all the cases where ‘to teach’ is used but no mention of the content of the teaching. His research shows that they are all positive except Titus 1 as i said.

But more tomoz

Kay,

I’m some what in agreement with you about interpretation. Thus a good proper solid exegesis is required.

It is not simply good enough to say…’well that doesn’t apply ot us anymore’, nor is it exceptable to say that ‘everything literally applies’.

The former is what Fee offers for 1 Tim 2 and seemingly what Dave suggested. This is a pure liberal hermeneutic. That is not rhetoric but fact.

Thus something else must help us. Consider that ALL Paul’s teaching on these issues are grounded in creation. Therefore, there is something significant about it. A holy kiss on the other hand is never associated in the same way and linked to the OT in it’s command. Therefore again, we need to distinguish the two.

To simply dismiss 1 Tim 2 ad hoc is a liberal hermeneutic and DOES open the way to BIblical rejection. We have seen this in the past, the most telling for egals was when CBE had to branch off from it’s sister organisation who went completely liberal.

I’ll comment more later Craig and Marg

Dave,

We are always going to but heads. I recommend you read the scholarly work of comps such as that book i recommended before you continue to argue for Cheryl’s exegesis.
s
Kostenberger has conclusively shown that in that syntactical construction both teach and exercise authority must either be positive or negetive. Therefore we need to consider if it can be negetive. The immediate context does not allow for ‘teach falsely’ unless you stretch right back to 1:3. Also Paul twice in this same epistle uses a different verb for ‘teach falsely’ that he does not use here.
All other uses of ‘teach’ in the NT bar one exception like i said where the immediate context (as in the verses surrounding the word) are positive. Therefore teach must be positive in 1 Tim 2.

Also Baldwin has done extensive research on authentein and concludes that there are 5 possible meanings. The common donominator is that they all represent authority of some sort.

Now considering ‘teach’ must be positive to be consistent with the rest of the NT, authentein must also be. This is the only possible syntactical possibility.

Look at Titus 1:6 i think it is…i don’t have a Bible handy. Paul uses ‘bishops’ in the plural. Then in verse 10 or 11 (again check more closely cause i don’t have a bible here) Paul switches to the singular… ‘an overseer…’. Clearly though, Paul has all overseers in view in the qualifications not just one person. Therefore the singular acts as a generic singular as with 1 Tim 2:11ff.

Final point i want to address and then i’m out…you said

“There is no reason in the text to believe that the situation is more than something that was happening at the Church. ”

Are you arguing for an ad hoc situation here similar to Fee? If so, that is a dangerous hermeneutic to apply and is exactly what the Liberals tend to do. For example Galatians was written to a specific context and for a specific reason. Do we therefore say that Paul’s outline of the gospel is only relevant for that Church? Is 1 Corinthians therefore no longer applicable? Where do we draw the line? Almost the whole Bible was written for a particular audience to address a particular context? Your above quote begins the slippery slope to a complete rejection of Biblical authority and that is worrying. This is the whole problem of egalitarianismm, it adopts a liberal hermeneutic…you need to at least address this and be honest about it and try to rectify it.

Marg,

You may have misunderstood me. I am not saying Pheobe was a ‘servant’ in the sense of master/servant, simply that ‘diakonos’ means ‘servant’ literally. Therefore is does not necessarily mean Pheobe was a ‘deacon’ in the official sense. She could have been simply a ‘servant’ in the same sense Paul uses it of himself, Timothy and others, as in the ‘service of God’. That is different to a deacon’s position aswell as the ‘real’ servant. Take for example Luke 10:40

Martha is there ‘serving’ in the kitchen. This is the same root word. But it does not mean Martha is a deacon or a leader of a church. Nor does it mean she was a ‘real’ servant with a master. She is simply a ‘servant’! This is equally possible for Pheobe. She was simply a servant of the Church, she served the Church.

As for your claim she was a leader, well i’m sure your aware that that word is again heavily disputed. Do you think Paul really intended to say she was a leader (patron) over him? Did she really have authority over Paul, the apostolic founder and missionary of the gentile Churches. Or is more likely that she has ‘helped’ him and therefore the Romans should ‘help’ her? Note also Paul immediately talks about Priscilla and Aquilla who were ‘fellow- workers’. It seems much more natural to me to say Pheobe was a servant of the church who had helped Paul in his ministry, similar to Priscilla and Aquilla in the following verse. But i realise we cannot be certain about that. We can not know simply exegetically.

I have been quite up front that i don’t know what is the best way to interpret this verse: it could go either way without much difference. So i have to protest that my bias is interferring here. I would have thought the opposite may be true considering you are the one so certain she was a deacon/leader without acknowledging that there are other exegetical possibilities which appear to be more likely given the rest of NT teaching.

Thanks Marg for the chat!

Anyway thanks all for the chat.

God bless

Kay,

We are never going to agree on Gal 3. The epistle is an extroadinary outline of the gospel and soteriology. Paul is addressing the galatian heresy so YES he was talking about how you are saved and what is salvation. For example Paul outlines justification by faith and not works. It is littered throughout the whole epistle.

Paul is arguing against the Judaizers who had come to galatia making the gentiles be circumcised. THus Paul responds that there is no need for the old law in Christ. Regardless of who you are; male/female, slave/ free, jew/ gentile etc…we are all one in Christ. Salvation is for all who come to Him in faith.

To argue for ecclesiology as the primary function just doesn’t fit the context, nor the content of the letter, nor the overall purpose of the letter.

Kristen,

Thank you for answering my question- it is helpful. But your whole answer is like is said earlier…historical revisionism. You say we need to think the ways the greeks did and i agree. Yet why is it that the early church did not understand all this the way you claim?

As for your ‘inclusive’ claims on certain words you must know that they are actually all masculine which means they are well…masculine. ‘Anyone’ is masculine, ‘bishop’ is masculine… In fact most of the whole structure is masculine with the exception of a few words like ‘ecclesia’ which is feminine. I agree some words can be gender inclusive but there needs to be proof to show this. You say ‘gyne’ is proof which is ironic really. I’m not sure any greek speaker would understand it the way you say, unless you can show me some evidence from the early writings?

Anyway i appreciate your thoughts, but it confirmed what i thought. There is actually no exegetical evidence to show that this is gender inclusive and that the whole argument is a hypothesis. If you have links or sources to show this is the way a naural greek would understand the grammar and the shift to gyne i’d love to see it!

Craig,

Whats the evidence that women struggle more with that or at least did in Paul’s time?

Why can it not just be what it says…simply a qualification that applies to women or wives?

This is the historical revisionism that i was talking about.

Concerning my illustration…yes they only apply to men…we know this by the specific instruction given to the women. Not also to miss the clear masculine connotations in Paul’s writing that my illustration has left off. The point is, a modern illustration is subjective to ones interpretation and intent in the illustration. Your’s for example was done to stress the possibility of Cheryl’s point. As i stated (and proved about hosautos) the likewise is being stretched in that scenario beyond what Paul himself shows us a few verses earlier.

Kristen

“Since the masculine gender in the ancient Greek language was inclusive”

Not always. You need to show why it is inclusive within this context? The natural meaning is refering to men…the context must insist us to believe that it was inclusive. You haven’t done this. Plus again, the shift to gyne in verse 11 disproves the point you try to make.

Dave,

C’mon mate, let’s be realisitic. The scriptures are clear that Priscilla taught in private with her husband. The scriptures are clear that Stephen evangelised. The scriptures are likewise clear on Paul’s prohibition…so something must give! What is you believe comps teach? Sounds like you don’t understand and insist that we keep women quiet for all time at every time. Don’t distort what your ‘enemy’ actually teach. At least be fair to what they actually say! I do think it is ok for women to co lead for example a bible study with their husband in private. I do think it is ok for a woman to be involved in evangelism. I do not think it is ok for a woman to lead the church and have the spiritual oversight of it. Nor do i think it is ok for a woman to expound the scriptures to a mixed congregation of believers.

The context of 1 Tim illustrates why this is related to public congregational setting. The scriptures also teach the responsibilty of the elders, that they are to be able to teach and that they did in fact teach. No where in scripture is it stated or shown that people outside of that sphere had the responsibility that elders had. Deacons did not, women did not. It was only for specific men to fulfill that role. This is plain scriptural fact, not legalism. As i said your proof cases actually prove my case and do nothing to challenge the comp interpretation of 1 Tim.

I don’t need to try and prove Cheryl’s exegesis wrong…it is wrong. No serious evangelical scholar considers it likely. It is based on assumptions and historical revisionism foremost, ignores the evidence of authentein, ignores the syntax parallels, ignores the positive use of ‘teach’ used always in the NT (except once in Titus where the immediate context shows it is false teaching), ignores that the singular can be generic (seen in Titus 1 where Paul switches from plural to singular similar to verse 11), ignores that Paul twice uses a different verb for ‘false teaching’ in the same epistle yet not here, assumes such a person existed, assumes this person was married, assumes this passage refers to them…the list goes on.

Let me ask just one question from you Dave. Have you read the book by Screiner and Kostenberger on 1 Tim 2:12, ‘Women in the Church’? At least good solid bible scholars like Gordon Fee, FF Bruce and even our own aussie Kevin GIles realise the text saids what it saids- they just dismiss it’s implications.

Final point Dave, i agree with you about Stephen. He did evangelise the Jews…i said that. But you have failed to show how that effects my view of 1 Tim 2, or how it effects the NT teaching on eldership.

Craig,

Final thought. You said

“2. both men and women can play games and use the bathroom, but women need a particular mention about a matter that was a particular concern.”

What was the particular concern in verse 11 that Paul states? Especially considering that ‘dignified’ the first qualification is EXACTLY the same word used as in verse 8. Therefore if verse 8 includes women why repeat himself?

Hi Dave,

Yes i have considered Stephen, but again like Pheobe it is irrelevant to the argument. Maybe i should have been a little clearly with the quotes you gave of me.

As i understand 1 TIm 2:8-15, the teaching restricted is that linked with authority in the public congregational setting. That is, the preaching from the pulpit so to speak. This is the responsibility of the elders. ( I would have thought you knew comp theology well dave??)

Now was Stephen involved in that specific action. NO! He was not the spiritual overseer of the sheep of the Church. He was ‘evangelising’ for simplicity sake, to unconverted Jews. Now, i have no issue with women evangelising. It is a great ministry for women to do aswell as men. But Stephen aswell as Pheobe (if she was a deacon) were neither doing what Paul prohibits. Deacons may teach in the sense of evangelising or even singing spirtual songs to each other (as should everybody else), but deacons again scripturally were never responsible nor did the authoritative teaching of God’s word in the Churches.

But what you have done is try to confuse the issue. Again, to lump all ‘preaching’ or teaching together as one thing.

Let me be more clear, the teaching restricted in Paul’s epistle is the authoritative teaching of God’s word to the Church in which he (the elder/pastor) has the spiritual oversight. Deacons did not have this responsibility as seen most clearly in 1 Tim 3 where elders are to have a qualification of being able to teach. Deacons do not need this qualification. Likewise Paul specifically notes in 1 Tim 5:17, that ELDERS who labor in preaching and teaching are worthy of double honour.

So as i see it, my point still stands. No where in the NT do we see deacons given nor practicing that responsibility. Therefore Stephen, Pheobe, Priscilla are all irrelevant proof cases for the egalitarian. None of these people challenge the traditonal position. In fact, i agree with you all that these people had good ministries. What this shows is actually more evidence for the comp position since all three show that they were NOT doing what Paul prohibits them from doing.

Craig,

Illustrations fall down. Let me explain. Your illustration is one way to make a scenario. But consider this…

I want all people will blonde hair to stand over to the left

Likewise i want all people with dark hair standing over to the right.

Likewise women you stand here at the front.

Now the people with dark hair you should be …

It is quite easily to manipulate one’s own illustration to prove a point. The question is how does ‘hosautos’ (likewise) function. As i said earlier, to stress it too far is not right unless you are trying to manipulate it to your agenda. Consider my example above. Clearly the likewise does not include every single person. It is simply a connective word, as seen in Paul’s epistle.

Take another example, this time from Paul himself.

Look at 1 Tim 2:9. The same word, hosautos is used there as in 1 Tim 3:8 and 11. But consider the context. 1 Tim 2:8 deals specifically with the men. Verse 9 then switches to deal specifically with the women. The two are joined by ‘likewise’. Now clearly Paul is not intending a generic understanding between the verse 8 and 9 since he specifically targets one verse to men and another to women. The ‘likewise’ simply acts as a connective. The context reveals this. The same is true in chapter 3.

That’s all i want to say on this really. It’s a force of the meaning to push it any further. Just consider for a moment the way you would use the same word in a sentence.

Kristen,

Thanks for your imput. It is not uncommon for Paul to divert for a moment from his logical argument (as seen in verse 11) and then return to the original thought (verse 12). There is no exegetical reason i can see why verse 12 must mean ‘all deacons’.

Re #95, you are really just reaching for straws there. Just because something is not discussed does not mean it isn’t appropriate. Scripture interprets scripture and we know that both men and women should be faithful in marriage. Of course this whole point you made stems from your certain belief that gyne refers to women deacons and not simply wives of male deacons which cannot be proven decisively.
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 as a comp, find it very difficult to take seriously. Just to prove my point, how much of the Kroegers original work is now considered as true?…not much!

Anyway Kristen we are butting heads here. 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)? That’s a contradiction as i see it! Especially since you lean heavily on the ‘likewise’ hypothesis. If verse 8 refers to ‘male’ deacons (as you say) and Paul says ‘likewise’ there, does that therefore not exclude women from verses 1-7 by your own argument.