Frank

Hi, Cheryl. It’s been a while since I last visited your site. Sorry to learn about your trials and tribulations with the robbery and the various changes occurring in connection with your ministry. I will remember you in my prayers.

Quite a lively discussion on 1 Tim. 2:15! And there is not much I would add. Just these brief comments and observations:
1. I forget where he made the comment, but Mark said something about Paul being the only one in the NT who taught the doctrine of justification. It would be more correct to say he more fully developed this doctrine; for Jesus, in seminal form, taught it in Luke 18:9-14. However, I agree with Ralph Martin and N.T. Wright that the heart of Paul’s theology and gospel preaching is the concept of “reconciliation”–“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19)–a vast and cosmic redemption by Christ, of which justification is one small, though important element. So I do not agree with those who reduce the heart of the Gospel to justification alone. There is much more to the Gospel than that.
2. As for Mark’s concerns regarding the Greek word “zozo,” it must be admitted that it has a rather large semantic range in meaning, which is determined by its context. The core meaning of the word, according to The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, is “rescue from some life threatening danger” (p.540). So in some contexts it refers only to deliverance from some physical threat to God’s servants (e.g., Acts 27:20, 31), or from the danger and suffering Jesus predicted that would occur during the future tribulation (e.g., Mt. 24:13, 22). But in other contexts, it refers to God’s action in Christ to deliver us from the power of sin, death and Satan, “which drain life on earth of it joy and threaten each person with eternal loss” (EDBW, p. 541) Therefore, both grammar and context must be adequately addressed by an interpretation if it is to be considered a valid and satisfactory explanation of this text. Now, it might be true that Cheryl’s interpretation is flawless; but it has a far better fit than what is proposed by Mark.
3. Regarding Mark’s comments on biblical hermeneutics, I would again point out that not only do the majority of biblical interpreters agree that all doctrine must be understood and applied in the light of what the Bible, as a whole, teaches on these issues, but the clearer portions of Scripture are to be given greater weight than those that are less clear. Consequently, it is clear from the rest of the NT that Paul was an advocate of women, honoring them as co-workers in evangelism, discipleship and church planting, such as Junia the Apostle in Rom 16:7, and in Phil. 4:2-3, Euodia and Syntche; that he not only encouraged men and women to pray and prophesy together in congregational worship (1 Cor 11-14), but himself also listened to the proclamation of God’s word by Philip’s daughters who were prophets and carried on a continuing prophetic ministry (Acts 21:7-9)–this all ought make us aware that 1 Tim. 2:11-15, which Mark essentially admits is obscure and difficult, is exceptional and circumstantial in nature, and should not be allowed to negate the signficance of Paul’s overall teaching and practice that our role in ministry and leadership is determined on the basis of our maturity, gifting and calling–not on the basis of our race, nationality or gender.