pinklight

‘Your claim that one specific wife is in view is based on 1) the singular form ‘a woman’ in verses 11-12, 2) the shift from ‘she’ to ‘they’ in verse 15, and 3) your claim that Paul is talking about a husband and wife. Your claim that the woman is a false teacher is based on a contextual argument that depends largely on 1 Timothy 1:3ff.

As to the first point, the singular form ‘a woman’ presents no problem for the patriarchalist view. William D. Mounce writes in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (specifically 1 Timothy 2:11), “The anarthrous ????, ‘woman,’ functions as a generic noun here as in v 9 and v 12 (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 253-54), appropriate in the statement of a general truth.” (William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, no. 46 (Nashville: T. Nelson, 2000), 117-118). This means that ‘a woman’ is not referring to a specific woman, but to a typical member of a group. In English, this means any woman.’

Chris,

There is no way for the patri/comp to prove that Paul stopped more than one woman, so it doesn’t matter what their argument is since that’s the bottom line. What can only be proven from the passage in regards to who Paul stopped from teaching, is that he stopped one woman since one is the smallest number. That’s the big ‘duh’. But then, funny thing is, that the patri/comp does actualy want to claim that Paul used ‘a woman’ specificaly but only in v14 (as a reference to ‘Eve’)! But when they interpret vv 11 & 12, they want to claim that Paul uses the same singular genericaly, though they cannot prove it. So they want thier cake and to eat it too. They believe then that Paul uses the singular to refer to a specific woman but only when it suits their interpretive purposes. Simply, Paul uses the singular ‘a woman’ 3 times throughout the passage to refer to the same woman.

‘Your claim that one specific wife is in view is based on 1) the singular form ‘a woman’ in verses 11-12, 2) the shift from ‘she’ to ‘they’ in verse 15, and 3) your claim that Paul is talking about a husband and wife. Your claim that the woman is a false teacher is based on a contextual argument that depends largely on 1 Timothy 1:3ff.

As to the first point, the singular form ‘a woman’ presents no problem for the patriarchalist view. William D. Mounce writes in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (specifically 1 Timothy 2:11), “The anarthrous ????, ‘woman,’ functions as a generic noun here as in v 9 and v 12 (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 253-54), appropriate in the statement of a general truth.” (William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, no. 46 (Nashville: T. Nelson, 2000), 117-118). This means that ‘a woman’ is not referring to a specific woman, but to a typical member of a group. In English, this means any woman.’

Chris,

There is no way for the patri/comp to prove that Paul stopped more than one woman, so it doesn’t matter what their argument is since that’s the bottom line. What can only be proven from the passage in regards to who Paul stopped from teaching, is that he stopped one woman since one is the smallest number. That’s the big ‘duh’. But then, funny thing is, that the patri/comp does actualy want to claim that Paul used ‘a woman’ specificaly but only in v14 (as a reference to ‘Eve’)! But when they interpret vv 11 & 12, they want to claim that Paul uses the same singular genericaly, though they cannot prove it. So they want thier cake and to eat it too. They believe then that Paul uses the singular to refer to a specific woman but only when it suits their interpretive purposes. Simply, Paul uses the singular ‘a woman’ 3 times throughout the passage to refer to the same woman.

‘unbiblical male domination disguised as biblical manhood.’

It’s also clearly hatred of some kind for woman.

STILL ROTFLOL!!!

‘The fourth point here is that God told Adam alone that he would die. But Eve died, too. Why then did God pronounce the death sentence on Adam alone? Because, as the head goes, so goes the member. [emphasis mine]’

I think that his eyes are not on the scriptures close enough when he says ‘God told Adam alone that he would die’. Just ask Eve! LOL!

Gen 3
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”

It’s right there as ‘you’ in the Hebrew is plural. God said that they will die according to Eve’s testimony of God’s word.

Otlund needs to listen to a woman more often! lol!

Jennifer,
We’ve not met online that I know of. Just saying, ‘Hi’!

Mary said: ‘Patriarchy (including the versions masquerading as “complementarian”) pits women and men against each other, as thought “man” and “woman” are antonyms.’

Now that’s a way to put it!!

‘I know your mad. But it is okay. Don’t be mad at them for me. We are fighting a common enemy, but they have been deceived to think that they will win or look good by taking a strip of off us (or me!)’

I heard the prophecy…

Down is going up and up is coming down.

And Hi Jennifer! It’s good to see you posting here! 🙂

Why doesn’t everyone on the CCC thread just come on over and we can have a group hug?? Yeah!!! *hugs* 🙂

About the CCC thread, what’s funny is that they are making this place sound as if it’s scarry! Oooh s c a r r y!! Boo! LOL! Stay away LOL!!

Happt Promise Keeper,

‘I challenge any of you here to quote anything from CBMW to prove that women are being somehow “suppressed” and “the turning away of many from the gospel” is caused by CBMW.’

The above is what I responded to. I did not have to provide a quote because we all know that CBMW holds the belief that women are not to teach men in the church. I claimed that women are suppressed under this teaching. I contrasted being human with being a woman, since to teach would be a human function, something that a woman could do. Then I gave reason for why this belief is held by CBMW and followers being a biased interpretation of 1 Tim 2.

Now IF the belief that women are not to teach men in church is false, then we can conclude that women have been held back not because of the truth of scripture, but because of false teaching and under false teaching they have been suppressed from something that God never prohibited them from doing.

So how do we know if it is a false teaching? Well, it’s NOT possible for anyone to be able to PROVE that Paul stopped all women from teaching in 1 Tim 2. How can 1/2 the church body JUSTIFIABLY be held back from doing something that cannot even be proven to be true from scripture through Paul? What we have is definately OPPRESSION since it is belief that people use to hold back women and not scriptural FACT. This is not opinion. This is the way it is. It is a fact that no one can prove that Paul stopped more than 1 woman from teaching in 1 Tim 2.

So let me make sure that I understand you correctly. You think that women should be held back from teaching men in the church when you yourself cannot even prove that Paul prohibited them from doing so? If this is true then you are the one with opinion, and you are the one who needs to justify the oppression of women.

‘I challenge any of you here to quote anything from CBMW to prove that women are being somehow “suppressed” and “the turning away of many from the gospel” is caused by CBMW.’

I’ll hit you up on one, someone else can take two.

Women are suppressed when they are taught that thier kind is not given the role to teach doctrine in the church. Humans gifted by God can do that, but not women we are told by CBMW leaders and followers and they base this belief on a biased interpretation of 1 Tim 2.

Adam (the human) said woman was taken from man (eesh, male person, male human). So I think he was a human male before woman was taken from him because Adam himself speaks as if he were male before she were taken from him.

‘While God says that he made mankind in his image, he specifically goes on to say that it is male and female that he made in his image.’

1 Co 11 says that the man is the image of God (doesn’t mention the man being made in the image of God). I take that to mean a human being who is male reflects the image of God.

‘I am so grateful to God that he specifically said that male and female were made in his image because I am certain that if he had not been specific that men would have denied that we were direct image of God. Oh, wait….so many do deny that women are in the direct image of God! But so many more would deny it if it was not clearly stated.’

I agree with the concepts I think you are saying, I just wouldn’t phrase it as ‘God made male and female in his image’ and specificaly because I don’t find it wworded that way in Genesis. In Gen 1:26-27 we see that those terms for male and fermale are the same ones used for animals describing their sex. Since sex is not made in the image of God because God has no gender, I think that intentionaly the author of Genesis said that ‘God made adam (humanity) in his image,’ but when the author speaks of sex using the Hebrew words for male and female whether animal or human, he says, ‘male and female he made them’.

Did I explain well enough what I’m trying to say?

‘This is 1 Corinthians 11. The woman is the glory of God AND the glory of man. The woman is in the image of God AND in the image of man. The woman is the only one with two glories and two images. And…she is the only one that has two heads. While scripture says that the husband is her head, scripture also says that if she is a Christian that Christ as head of the church is her head.’

Thanks, Cheryl.

1 Co 11 says that woman is the glory of man but it does not (no way) say that she is the image of man or even made in the image of man.

Also I see a difference in ‘being made in the image of God (humanity – Genesis) from ‘being the image of God (aner – 1 Co 11).

‘Then in verse 27 God speaks about the creation of the man (the noun is definite) and after that point, God will use the plural for male and female. This proves that both male and female were created in God’s image, not just the male.’

I need some clarification here. I read that he made ‘adam’ (humankind’ in his image, and them (a reference to adam) male and female, therefore male and female were not made in his image – their gender was not, but only their humanity.

‘First of all the scriptures declare clearly that he had dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea, which means he used to fly. ‘

Ah, ha ha ha ha! LOL! Kidding me!!

Ya no, that means he could, FLY! ROTFLOL!

‘When God first created Adam, he created man in His image and then God created the woman in both the image of God and the image of man.’

Cheryl, what is this?

Adam could have said ‘for she was taken from adam’ rather than ish.

Matthew 19
“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Genesis 2
23Then the man (Adam not ish) said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman, (ishshah)
because she was taken out of Man (ish).”
24Therefore a man (ish) shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife (ishshah), and they shall become one flesh.

Jesus, in Matthew 19 quoted Gen 1 and then coupled it with Gen 2. He combined them. Since the reason why a man leaves his parents and cleaves to his wife is given in Gen 2 which is, “Adam (human) said, ‘this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman (ishshah) for she was taken from man (ish).'”, another way of saying the same thing is as Jesus did, ‘he made them male and female.’ But what I see is that ‘she was taken from ish (male) therefore Adam was already a male as far as I can see.

What he is saying in his message above is very cruel.

I’m thinkin of children who terrorize other children…

This stuff is just so bad.

‘And he interprets the woman not only for his own understanding of her, but also for her self-understanding.’
‘He allowed Adam to define the woman, in keeping with Adam’s headship.’

Obviously he believes that men are given the task to define what it means to be a woman, hence they are the ones alone who are to teach doctrine, even the doctrine of man. (Grudem set out on that task in one of his books) And walla, the title ‘Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’, says it all. So women do not have the human right to define themselves since they are under male headship. This is a teaching worse than spiritual slavery. This is beyond, beyond.

‘If the woman had been created from the dirt beside the man, she would not have been flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.’

Yes, and we would not have recorded for us, Adam pronouncing her equality. ‘This is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone’. While we have men today pronouncing woman’s inequality we have Adam having done the opposite in scripture.

‘God did not make Adam and Eve from the ground at the same time and for one another without distinction.’
This creates a thought on Genesis where it is written that God created Adam from the ground.

‘Neither did God make the woman first, and then the man from the woman for the woman.’
Then this connects the first thought above (Adam created from the ground in Genesis) to 1 Tim 2 ‘Adam was created first’ and also to 1 Co 11 ‘8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.’

‘He could have created them in either of these ways so easily, but He didn’t. Why? Because, presumably, that would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood that He intended to make clear.’
So, I wonder where does he see the nature of manhood and womanhood? 1 Tim 2 and 1 Co 11? How he interprets the order of creation then is attatched to how he interprets 1 Tim 2 and 1 Co 11 for there are no other verses that mention the creation order of Adam and the source of woman’s creation in the NT, except for those 2 and in them he sees apparently the nature of manhood and womanhood.

And who said women aren’t followers? lol!

[quote]First of all let’s look at all the bible verses that say that the male is to have leadership over the female because of his first creation. There are exactly zero verses in the scripture giving first creation status to the male for leadership over the female. The only verses that talks about a cause and effect regarding the order of creation are in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14.

1 Timothy 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
1 Timothy 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. [/quote]

One of the most important thoughts in comp theology is that (1) Adam was created first therefore (2) he is the leader or had ‘headship’ over Eve. These two ideas are tied together in comp thought, but they are not so tied together in the written scriptures. When Paul wrote ‘Adam was created first’ (1 Tim 2) he did not write/tie it to ‘leader’ or ‘head’ (interpreted to mean ‘headship’) and when he did write ‘man/husband is the head of the woman/wife’ (1 Co 11, Eph 5) he did not tie it to ‘Adam was created first.’ 1 Tim 2:13 must be lifted out of it’s original home and helicoptered over to 1 Co 11:3 and dropped into that new context so that the two ideas can be seen tied together or vice versa. 1 Co 11:3 and Eph 5 which do speak of ‘head’ (some see this to mean that the man/husband is the ‘leader’) unlike 1 Tim 2, do not say anything about the order of creation, Adam first then Eve. Yet it is still managed by comps to see creation order in those 2 passages when it’s simply not there, or to see ‘head’ (made into ‘headship’) in 1 Tim 2. I ask why?

I like the coulda, shoulda, woulda, that’s funny!

If Eve had given her own understanding then she would have said, “God said that we are not to…” By using the plural word “you”, this shows that Eve is not giving her own understanding but quoting God.

Yes, like what she did say, ‘We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden’ before her switch to quoting God with the pl ‘you’.

I feel like counting. 🙂 And I like the text myself.

This is 6, count ’em 6 additions to the Genesis text:

1Eve hadn’t even known that there was a “problem”.

2But the Serpent’s prejudiced question unsettles her.

3It knocks her back on her heels.

4And so the Serpent engages Eve in a reevaluation of her life on his terms.

5She begins to feel that God’s command, which Adam had shared with her has to be defended…

6Eve’s misquote reduces the lavish generosity of God’s word to the level of mere, perhaps grudging, permission…

Where are all of these accusations against Eve coming from?

Humm…interesting question. Don’t get me fired up, Cheryl!!

‘The International Council for Gender Studies (ICGS) is formed of evangelical Christians in America and Europe who are committed to speaking the historic Christian faith to this generation.  We think that non-biblical egalitarian tenets about the nature and relationship of men and women are not only corrosive to society at large, but also pose a threat to the spiritual vitality and integrity of the Church. Persuaded that God has spoken through the Prophets and Apostles in the Bible concerning human sexuality, we have joined together to call Christians to reaffirm and to live anew the whole counsel of God as He has spoken concerning gender issues.’

If I were you, I’d be very concerned too…