Cheryl Schatz

Hey Mark, I am delighted that you are still reading here on my blog. And I am very glad that you found some time to try to point out any weaknesses that you think might be in my argument. It gives me a wonderful opportunity to show that there are no weaknesses at all and for that I am very grateful for your challenge. I do hope that you keep reading and will respond once in a while. Maybe you can even catch us up on your family and your new baby.

1. You said that my interpretation is based on a ‘hypothetical’ false teacher. Actually it seems to me that it is you who break the rules of hermeneutics not me. Paul didn’t say that Timothy was to stop the false teachers from teaching AND women who are teaching the truth to men. Since the stopping of true teaching is not in the passage and is not in the Bible as a whole, it would break the rules of hermeneutics to create a special class of people who are not permitted to teach the truth of the gospel to another special class of people. I am just following the proper hermeneutic to show that only error is silenced and not truth. The burden is on you to show a pattern in the Scriptures where truth is silenced depending on a person’s social standing, their nationality, or their gender. The only other option we have is that she was silenced just the same as all the other false teachers. I submit that your ‘hypothetical’ true teacher(s) who are being silenced from the truth of God’s word is impossible.

There is no ‘external’ evidence to support your case, so your exegesis needs to be taken with caution as any solely ‘internal’ exegesis does.

What is truly amazing is that you could even say something like this. You are round about admitting that I have “internal” evidence yet the what I also have is both internal and external consistency of God’s word which does not silence true witnesses of God who are teaching truth. You have neither internal nor external evidence which should be evident to all.

This hermeneutical approach is not a good one as i’m sure you are aware.

This reminds me of the first time that I was asked a teach a class of second year Bible students. Their professor brought me in to teach and I started with asking them a basic question about the gospel and not a single one of those young men who were on their way to becoming pastors could answer me. It is also discouraging to think that many of these places of higher learning are turning out pastors who actually think that a good approach is to accept a view that has no evidence at all within the text or external to the text and yet call this “good hermeneutics”.

It’s basically a ‘guess’ on the grammar with no coroborating evidence, let’s at least be honest about that.

It is not a guess at all on the grammar. Grammar has rules and there is no need for guessing. We can see what applies to Eve and what doesn’t by the precise grammar that Paul used.

2. You asked:

Why is the woman not already saved, when it appears she already has faith.

The answer is deception. Just like Eve was deceived into moving away from the truth about God, so the false teachers strayed from love from a pure heart, a good conscience and from sincere faith according to 1 Timothy 1:5, 6.

We know this because the ‘if’ clause states according to YLT ‘remains in faith.’ You would assume to remain in faith, one would already have faith and to have faith is to be saved!

First of all there is no question on his salvation, just hers. “She” will be saved…if…. Secondly the false teachers all come from within the church. There is no problem in saying to one who has left the boat, “if you remain in the boat you won’t drown”. It isn’t limited to those still in the boat (the man) but to the one who has strayed from the boat. It is perfectly logical to say this to one who has left the boat and the grammar fits perfectly.

Mark, I will continue to answers your points in the next comment.