Browse / Scripture Commentary / Comment
gengwall

gengwall

2011-04-18

Payne’s argument flows along the same lines with the mushy middle egalitarian arguments about 1 Tim 2 being situational to Ephesis alone and not universal. Although it is a nice attempt to argue against complementarianism, or more specifically, male dominance, it is not supported in the verses in question, as Cheyl points out, or in the subsequent verses which complete Paul’s instruction.

Your Tags

Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.

...more

Original Article

1 Timothy 212 Prohibitions Revisited

2011-04-14