Mark

Craig,

Whats the evidence that women struggle more with that or at least did in Paul’s time?

Why can it not just be what it says…simply a qualification that applies to women or wives?

This is the historical revisionism that i was talking about.

Concerning my illustration…yes they only apply to men…we know this by the specific instruction given to the women. Not also to miss the clear masculine connotations in Paul’s writing that my illustration has left off. The point is, a modern illustration is subjective to ones interpretation and intent in the illustration. Your’s for example was done to stress the possibility of Cheryl’s point. As i stated (and proved about hosautos) the likewise is being stretched in that scenario beyond what Paul himself shows us a few verses earlier.

Kristen

“Since the masculine gender in the ancient Greek language was inclusive”

Not always. You need to show why it is inclusive within this context? The natural meaning is refering to men…the context must insist us to believe that it was inclusive. You haven’t done this. Plus again, the shift to gyne in verse 11 disproves the point you try to make.

Dave,

C’mon mate, let’s be realisitic. The scriptures are clear that Priscilla taught in private with her husband. The scriptures are clear that Stephen evangelised. The scriptures are likewise clear on Paul’s prohibition…so something must give! What is you believe comps teach? Sounds like you don’t understand and insist that we keep women quiet for all time at every time. Don’t distort what your ‘enemy’ actually teach. At least be fair to what they actually say! I do think it is ok for women to co lead for example a bible study with their husband in private. I do think it is ok for a woman to be involved in evangelism. I do not think it is ok for a woman to lead the church and have the spiritual oversight of it. Nor do i think it is ok for a woman to expound the scriptures to a mixed congregation of believers.

The context of 1 Tim illustrates why this is related to public congregational setting. The scriptures also teach the responsibilty of the elders, that they are to be able to teach and that they did in fact teach. No where in scripture is it stated or shown that people outside of that sphere had the responsibility that elders had. Deacons did not, women did not. It was only for specific men to fulfill that role. This is plain scriptural fact, not legalism. As i said your proof cases actually prove my case and do nothing to challenge the comp interpretation of 1 Tim.

I don’t need to try and prove Cheryl’s exegesis wrong…it is wrong. No serious evangelical scholar considers it likely. It is based on assumptions and historical revisionism foremost, ignores the evidence of authentein, ignores the syntax parallels, ignores the positive use of ‘teach’ used always in the NT (except once in Titus where the immediate context shows it is false teaching), ignores that the singular can be generic (seen in Titus 1 where Paul switches from plural to singular similar to verse 11), ignores that Paul twice uses a different verb for ‘false teaching’ in the same epistle yet not here, assumes such a person existed, assumes this person was married, assumes this passage refers to them…the list goes on.

Let me ask just one question from you Dave. Have you read the book by Screiner and Kostenberger on 1 Tim 2:12, ‘Women in the Church’? At least good solid bible scholars like Gordon Fee, FF Bruce and even our own aussie Kevin GIles realise the text saids what it saids- they just dismiss it’s implications.

Final point Dave, i agree with you about Stephen. He did evangelise the Jews…i said that. But you have failed to show how that effects my view of 1 Tim 2, or how it effects the NT teaching on eldership.