Cheryl Schatz

Ah, I see that while I was typing, further comments came in. I will try to get a few more answers in before I retire for the night.

Patrick you said:

Don’t get to caught up in the story, it’s not meant to be analogous in every way to 1 Tim 2, so many of your points made above aren’t really applicable. All i was trying to show was (a) within a overall context of generic men and women, one can use a singular and it still be understood generically and not necessitate the claim that it is a specific woman/man.

The issue is 1 Timothy 2. My comments to you show that when you change from plural to singular, the nuances change. I am not saying that the use of the singular necessitates the meaning of a specific woman. I am saying that the change of the plural to the singular needs to be noted especially when the change is unnecessary. The context will define whether it is a specific woman or not. The context will also remove the generic application with specific language.

If you think otherwise, can you show me how in my example the singular would be understood by all as not applicable to them.

Sure. When you said that a woman is not to be upstairs “or be accompanied by…” This is a statement of allowance not of unilaterally restricting all of those women invited to your house.

Also, please avoid straw men that you then proceed to knock down, e.g “To say that a God-given gift is bad just because of the gender of the person who has the gift or just because of the gender of the person who receives the gift, is something that is never found in the Scriptures.”

I never said such a thing. Again my point was simple (or so i thought). 1 Cor 12-14 shows the limiting of speaking in toungues.

Actually that is not true regarding any permanent limiting of the gift. While only two or three are to speak in one meeting so that the edification of the church can happen unhindered, the one with the gift is free to speak at another time as there is no permanent injunction. Also Paul makes it clear that the one with the gift for tongues is to pray and ask God to give him/her the interpretation, thus the 1/2 gift will become the full gift without a hindrance. This is completely unlike the tradition that stops the teaching of the truth of the gospel for the common good.

Presumably, such a gift was good and encouraged and taught the congregation, although only if used appropriately. I see a similiar parallel to 1 Tim 2. Therefore, it is not only false teaching that Paul prohibits, but as seen in 1 Cor 12-14, a good God given gift that was being abused.

As Paul relates, the purpose is for public edification. It is not for purpose of restricting any of God’s gifts as the one gifted is instructed to ask for the corresponding gift. Encouragement to release the gifts by asking God for the corresponding gift in no way corresponds to a universal prohibition of a gift for the benefit of males.

I would sure like to hear your explanation of why Paul never stopped the teaching of the truth even by those who had less than pure motives? Paul’s actions were very consistent with a sincere desire that everyone should participate with God’s gifts that edify the church and that all should be allowed to speak for the common good.