Mark

Kay,

regarding your comment #95. This is an interesting line of argument you have suggested, that being that 1 Tim 5:17 MUST include women as elders because of the masculine and feminine nouns earlier in the chapter. I have never had anybody attempt to push this line. A few things that must be considered.

1. Just because there is a feminine and masculine form at the beginning of the chapter to attempt to prove that the ‘plural’ form 15 or so verses later includes both genders, is a stretch. On top of that verses 1-2 have nothing to do with ‘elders’. Although a similar base word is used in the greek, it does not mean that these verses ought to be tied to verse 17. The context clearly shows that it isn’t. Verse 1 and 2 are about the older men and women. Verse 17 is about elders. The two are not connected.

2. Remember that chapter 3 can only ever be masculine when Paul outlines elder qualifications. For your theory to stand strong you must some how prove that women are included in chapter 3 where Paul explicitly is talking about elders. Unless you can do this, it is inappropriate exegesis to say that just because it is plural, women must be included. THe best way to know whether women are included in 5:17 as ‘elders’ is to see Pauls actual teaching on elders and see if women are included there. If you wish to attempt to prove this from chapter 3 go ahead, i would love to see you try this. But quite frankly what you have proposed is pure speculation rather than strong exegesis, which is actually contradicted by Pauls actual teaching on elders.