Cheryl Schatz

Mark,

You said:

1. You quote Macarthur but ignore his clear expression ‘can mean…’ because elsewhere in scripture it does function the way he says.

I don’t know how you are reading what I write, but I didn’t ignore MacArthur’s “can mean”. In fact his quote that says:

The normal meaning of pastor is “shepherd,” so the two functions together define the teaching shepherd.

…I summarized as:

In other words in MacArthur’s world a pastor is the teacher.

Since it is you that has identified me as ignoring MacArthur’s words, then you would do well to prove where I ignored his words or his conclusion. I do not believe that I have done that.

You also said:

Now obviously the context will decide which best description for ‘kai’ it will be in Eph 4. So Macarthur is not wrong to suggest his interpretation because scripture agrees elsewhere with him. That is your first fundamental mistake.

While the grammar can have two nouns where only one has the definite article and they are joined together with “kai”, and it references one person, then the two nouns must refer to that one person. A good example of this is when Jesus is called the Lord and Savior. Both Lord and Savior must refer to Jesus.

But it is different when it is plural and no one person to refer back to. Ephesians 4 says teachers and pastors – plural. They can have a common function but it is not possible to meld them together in this passage as if one cannot be a teacher without being a pastor. Other examples of the correct reference to two nouns for one person does not fit in this passage. Also the fact that “teachers” are not ever attached to “pastors” but are on their own is another very strong case against removing women’s gifts as teachers.

You also said:

2. Your ‘other’ examples of the two nouns being governed by the one article are slightly diffenrent to Eph 4:11. In both the texts you cited both nouns (pharisees/scribes, chief priests/scribes) are being compared against something. In Matt 5 they are governed around the ‘righteousness’ and in Matt 2 they are fitting around the ‘gathering together’.

Sorry but this won’t help you. The issue is not about the other thoughts in the text but about whether the two nouns that have one definite article and joined together with “kai” are equated as melded into one “thing”. I have proven that it cannot be in other instances. Whatever else is going on, whether a list of other gifts or a comparison or righteousness does not negate the grammar. The grammar is identical and it was interesting to see you try to wiggle out of it. Good try but it is not my “mistake”.

You said:

Now in EPh 4 we do not have this grammatical set-up. Clearly the pastor/teacher association is supposed to be more than you are suggesting. This is your second mistake.

Sorry, but it isn’t “clear” in Ephesians 4:11 that there is no teacher who isn’t a pastor. There is no second witness of such a “clear” reading of this passage and the fact that God has gifted many women as teachers who may not also be gifted as evangelists or pastors also removes the legs from your argument. You cannot just say “it is so” and then fail to give any evidence at all to back up your view just won’t work. I am glad that you are still trying. But I wish you have something that would challenge us to look at your view.

Mark, you said:

Also you have failed to address why Paul uses ‘kai’ in between Pastors and teachers, where as with the apostles/prophets/evangelist he uses ‘de’ instead.

Paul uses different conjunctions in lists. For example see 1 Cor. 12:28.

1 Corinthians 12:28 (NASB95)
28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

In Paul’s list he has an ordinal before three gifts, and he connects the next couple with “then”, but the last three gifts have no ordinals and no connecting “then”. They are simply listed together without anything that would separate them. Are we to assume that gifts of healings, helps and administrations are all tied together so that one cannot have one gift without having them all? I don’t think that would be wise to assume. While there are different ways of connecting gifts, we cannot disregard any one gift just because of there is or isn’t an ordinal and there is or isn’t the word “then”.

The fact is that there are different ways to connect lists and using different connectors in the same sentence doesn’t mean that we can cut out one gift and attach it to another gift. It is going to take real proof before one removes a gift like this from the Holy Spirit’s ability to gift women.