Cheryl Schatz

pinklight,

We certainly can be sure that Paul stopped one woman from teaching.  The interesting thought that goes with this, is that Paul didn’t need a “law” to stop one woman from teaching.  If there was a problem person or a problem situation, Timothy was to deal with it.  One doesn’t need to create a brand new law to deal with such a situation.  It makes far more sense that 1 Timothy 2:12 is about the specifics of a situation in Ephesus that than it was a universal law for all times.

Don,

Paul did use the definite article in verse 14 and the grammar shows that the problem was on going so that would eliminate Eve.  Complementarians have a huge hurdle in verses 14 & 15 with the grammar in both verses.  I have yet to hear an explanation from that camp that didn’t have huge holes in their argument.  The fact is that verse 12 cannot be taken without verse 15 since verse 15 is directly connected with “but” and gives the expected outcome from the prohibition.

My challenge to anyone who thinks that verse 12 is very “clear” that it is a universal prohibition, is to tell me how verse 15 universally completes the prohibition if “all women” is in view.  I do ask anyone who wants to take the challenge to be very careful to not disregard any piece of the inspired grammar from verses 11-15.  There are more than one red flag in this passage that should effectively stop us from using it as a universal prohibition for all godly women using their gifts in the church.