Answering Matt Slick on she and they from 1 Timothy 2:15

Answering Matt Slick on she and they from 1 Timothy 2:15

This is a continuation of my evaluation of Matt Slick’s articles on women in ministry. Matt has been working for weeks to try to refute my interpretations. I welcome a challenge and I believe that truth will stand up to the test while error will not stand up to the challenge. Matt on the other hand apparently is not comfortable with a challenge on the women’s issue and has not allowed me to challenge him publicly even in a respectful way. ***Matt Slick said that I was not welcome to come back on his radio show unless I could limit my comments to 1.5 minutes. How many people would agree to that? I did agree and Matt backed down. I challenge Matt to a written debate since he cannot speak to me without limiting my audio responses, I think the written format would be a great one. I challenge Matt Slick to come on this blog and continue a public dialog with me on the women’s issue. I have created a public debate post here. He can say what he wants without my editing him and I will respond and then we can let the readers challenge either one of us during question period.*** His vice-president has gone so far as to forbid people from mentioning my name or the name of my blog on CARM’s discussion board and she has either blocked my posts or held them in moderation without warning. While I am appalled at the milieu control that goes on in Matt Slick’s discussion board, I do believe that Matt’s articles that he has written in response to my interpretations are worthy of answering and so the next few posts will be dedicated to refuting of Matt’s reasoning on women in ministry.

The article that I will be referencing from CARM and Matt Slick is called “1 Timothy 2:15, she, they, and salvation through child bearing”. Matt says:

“One of the arguments from the egalitarians use to deny Paul’s prohibition against women being in positions of spiritual authority in the church is that “she” in v.15) refers to the same “a woman” (a particular individual) mentioned in verses 11 and 12. This specific women (sic) had been deceived by someone and had been teaching false doctrines to her husband. So, Paul, to be polite, didn’t name her and just said “a woman.

While Matt characterizes my position as just Paul being “polite”, I don’t see it as “polite” but a concern for those whose names could be connected to false teaching for all of church history. When the teachers who have been deceived are taught the truth and they come to know the truth, their names would still be written down in scripture for all church history as an example of their shame. Paul had no problem exposing those who acted as deliberate deceivers (Hymenaeus and Alexander) or who were acting hypocritically (Peter) but those who were deceived because of their ignorance were never named. I believe that the Holy Spirit kept their names out of scripture so that there was not a legacy of their error connected to their name. These people were eligible to receive God’s grace and they may well turn and receive forgiveness. It is God’s grace that kept their names out of the scriptures.

Matt next says that the text of 1 Timothy 2:12 referring to “a woman” who was a particular individual had been already refuted, but that is not the case. My last two posts here and here reveal the holes in Matt’s arguments. So what is Matt’s answer to who is the “she” and who are the “they” in 1 Timothy 2:15? Matt says:

“He first speaks of women as “she” by analogy in reference to Eve (she) and then moves to “they” as he speaks to women in general, applying the principle of Eve’s “womanness” to them…”

This explanation of the “she” and “they” problem in verse 15 is quite telling. By this reasoning, Matt shows that:

She = women (in general with Eve as an analogy)

They = women in general (with Eve presumably part of the general women’s group)

Therefore “she” is the exact same thing as “they”. This is unreasonable in the precise grammar that Paul uses. A singular cannot equal a plural. I would like Matt to give me another example in scripture where it is permissible to use a singular “she or he” to be equal to “they”. It isn’t anywhere in scripture because it is improper and illogical grammar. Where does he get the idea that one can transfer a “womanness” by making “she” to be equal to “they”? What Matt is doing is trying desperately to ignore the clear meaning of the text. When Paul said “she” AND “they”, he meant exactly that. He was referring to a specific single woman and by “they” Paul means more than one person. “She” can be a part of “they” but “she” cannot be the exact same as “they” or there is a violation of grammar. This is a very weak point in Matt’s argument and an obvious attempt at noodling with the grammar and the text.

The other point that causes Matt a problem with his interpretation is that Paul says that “She will be saved…” Eve cannot be an analogy in a future tense. Eve is dead and cannot do anything about her salvation and neither can all women (they) do anything about Eve’s salvation. Once again Matt’s interpretation have more problems then they solve, if they solve anything at all!

Next Matt tries to give his interpretation of “she will be saved through the childbearing”. Matt says that the phrase is probably a play on words occurring in the Greek. He writes:

“…when it says “she will be saved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith…”

The first thing that I note is the quote that Matt gives is not the correct grammar from the passage. “The child bearing” is a noun not a verb and it is singular (the) not plural.

Matt continues:

“Paul may very well have been referring to this goddess (Artemis) by saying that the Ephesian women who were converts from the cult of Artemis/Soteira were to trust in Christ to deliver them through childbirth instead of looking to the pagan goddess.”

There is a major problem with this view. The grammar in verse 15 is a promise with conditions. “She will be saved through the child bearing if they….” However if we take this passage to mean that the Ephesian women would be saved from harm during the childbirth process then God lied because many Christian women have died giving birth to children. It also does not make sense for Paul to be making a salvation promise by making a side reference to a Greek goddess when it is “THE child bearing” (a specific noun) that is referenced and there is no such reference to ONE child in this goddess worship. Matt’s arguments are not logical in context. There is no biblical support for taking a single “she” and making it equal to a plural “they” nor is there any reference to Artemis in 1 Timothy for Paul to be referring back to, nor is a single childbearing (specific – THE) something from the Artemis worship. Additionally salvation through the birth process was not an actuality so such an interpretation would fall to the ground making God to be one who doesn’t keep his promises.

The plain reading of 1 Timothy 2:15 is that THE seed of the woman (the Messiah) is the one who will bring salvation (as originally promised in Genesis 3:15) and “she” is a single woman who Paul has been talking about who is not the same as “they”. If “she” indeed is a single woman as the grammar proves, then “a woman” and “the woman” from verses 11, 12, 14 are all references to the single deceived woman in Ephesus who Paul has stopped from teaching the man whom she has been influencing in her deception.

20 thoughts on “Answering Matt Slick on she and they from 1 Timothy 2:15

  1. My take is that 1 Tim 2:15 is one of those verses that we will never by 100% sure what it means as we are not Timothy in 1st century Ephesus.  However, we can be assured that Timothy knew and therefore the word of God went forth and was effective.

    For me, it is am important interpretation principle to say when I am not sure, then I am not sure and it would be wrong for me to claim to know more than I do.

    I do think “tes teknogonias” is THE childbearing, namely the seed prophesied in Gen 3:15, which later is revealed as Jesus.  I believe the unusual way of phrasing it is due to Paul trying to use words used by pagans at the Artemision but in a faithful Scriptural way, in order to show that is could be done.  That is, this is Paul leaning over backwards trying to be redemptive.

    I believe the “they” (3rd person plural in the verb meinosin/continue) is to be emended as “they each” as each person works out their own salvation.

    Given this (assumed) emendation, I understand the “she” (3rd person singular in the verb sothesetai/saved) to be a dual reference, a dual she referring to both Eve who was deceived but later made faith statements indicating a saving faith and the un-named deceived woman at Ephesus who can be restored, if she accept the true teaching and acts in faith.  I see “saved” in this case refers mainly to the process of sanctification, which includes the steps of sinning and restoration.  In addition, Paul went thru this same process, so Paul is telling Timothy, JUST as I did it and Eve did it, so can this woman do it, as The Word is faithful (1 Tom 3:1 (pistos ho logos).

    However, I agree that others can understand it differently.

  2. The problem I see here is that “she will be saved…” is connected to “if they”.  How can her salvation or her sanctification be connected to generically everyone else and what they do?  However if “she will be saved…” “if they” is connected to the “a woman” and “a man” we can see him helping her to come out of her deception and it makes sense that a husband’s intimate connection with his wife would make him vital to her exit from deception.  It doesn’t make sense to me that every Christian’s actions have anything to do with a specific woman in Ephesus so it would be hard for me to see this application.  I am willing to be convinced of an alternative view if there is a view that fits the context without contradiction.  I believe that “a woman” as “she” and “a woman and a man” as they fits Paul’s concern about her salvation and the words that Paul’s uses for what needs to be done to bring her to truth are the exact same words as Paul had already used in chapter 1 when he said that some had left these things aside to follow error.

    I love hearing other’s thoughts too.  It helps one to be stretched biblically!

  3. This gets back to how one understands 1 Tim 2:12, certainly one way is to see specific refs to “a woman” and “a man” but that is not the only way.

    1 Tim 2:12 meaning is dependent on what authentein means and no one is sure, they are not even sure if it has a negative or positive connotation. I have seen that the neither/nor contruction (as used here) everywhere else in the NT is used with either both negative or both positive connotations. The non-egals claims that as didaskein/teach is positive, then authentein is also (likely) positive. However, I think authentein is negative, as it originally meant to author the murder of someone a few hundred years before; and thyerefore the way didaskein is negative is because it is a decevied woman teaching that is being (temporarily) stopped from a distance by Paul.

    So, assuming authentein is negative, I see “authentein andros” as possibly meaning something like “authoring man” ala the Gnostic teaching of the woman being first created; that is, ‘andros” in 1 Tim 2:12 does not refer to a specific man living in Ephesus.

    This at least flows into 1 Tim 2:13 as Paul is then repudiating specific false teachings, not giving justifcations as the non-egals claim.
    But we see thru a glass darkly in this case.

  4. I see so many parallels in this passage and the Genesis account. Eve was deceived. We know that for a fact. I think it is interesting to read Genesis and see Eve admitting to God she was deceived.  Yet Adam blamed the woman.

    Then we know that through her, the ‘seed’ would bring Messiah. Eve was even thinking Cain was that ‘seed’!

    I just see clearly that Paul was making parallels here with Eve being deceived and the seed that came through a woman by the ‘The Childbearing’ which is a noun as you say, Cheryl.

  5. Another parallel is there were 3 types of sinners in the garden:

    1. a deceived sinner- the woman
    2. a deliberate sinner- the man
    3. a deceiving sinner- the serpent

    There is a ranking in the sin/sinner in terms of consequences. The man/deliberate sinner is cast out of the garden; the 2 men in 1 Tim were cast out of the church.

  6. Don,
    Your list of the 3 types of sinners in the garden was just excellent.  It is also interesting that people like Matt Slick say that God doesn’t make a distinction regarding one’s motives, yet the list you give shows a definite distinction regarding how God treated the 3.  God cursed the serpent who was the deliberate deceiver.  Neither the man nor the woman was cursed although the serpent and the ground were.  Although the man and the woman got the same punishment – they both died because of eating the fruit – it was the man who received God’s actions against him as he was kicked out of the garden.  The women was not kicked out of the garden although she went willingly as she desired the man.  So we have the deliberate sinner receiving expulsion from the garden and the deceived woman receiving the greatest mercy.  She received God’s promise that the Messiah would come through her seed.

  7. Don,
    I have heard the interpretation before about the Gnostic teaching that woman authored the man. Although I do believe that it is possible that Paul could have somehow been referring to this teaching, I have doubts about it because of problems with the text. I myself do not subscribe to an egalitarian interpretation if I can see contradictions or holes in the argument. Here is where I see a problem and why I don’t hold to that view. If we understand Paul as saying that he does not allow two things (neither/nor) then it would be difficult in my mind to justify the interpretation that Paul is not allowing the teaching that woman authored the man because this is one thing (teaching) not two. Rather it appears that there are two things that are forbidden: 1. teaching 2. authenteo a man

    It appears to me, unless I am wrong, that a right interpretation would have to include two things not one. Also it appears that the two things are either both a good thing or both a bad thing. Some argue that didasko is a good thing and not bad, so authenteo must also be a good thing. However we can see in Rev. 2:20 that teaching (didasko) has a negative connotation because Jezebel is “teaching” and “leading” men into error. In this case didasko definitely has a bad thing not a good thing. It also has a parallel to 1 Timothy 2:12 as there are two things that are both spoken of in a negative way.

    Rev 2:20 ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

    Because of Revelation 2:20 we can be sure that both the teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12 and authenteo can be a negative thing.

    You said:

    “So, assuming authentein is negative, I see “authentein andros” as possibly meaning something like “authoring man” ala the Gnostic teaching of the woman being first created; that is, ‘andros” in 1 Tim 2:12 does not refer to a specific man living in Ephesus.”

    If that is the case then the teaching is also not referring to a specific man. However this doesn’t fit the context unless I don’t quite get it. If I understand this interpretation correctly, you are saying that Paul is instructing the specific woman not to teach that the woman has authored the man. That would certainly fit if there was only one thing forbidden but it appears clear to me from the construction of the Greek that it is neither/nor which would mean there is neither this nor that which are two things. I don’t see how forbidding the teaching that a woman has authored the man to be two things. If you can make it two things, then I would certainly reconsider. Also the man is only said once so the teaching and the authenteo is both toward the same man. If authenteo a man isn’t about a specific man, then neither would be teaching a man. It just doesn’t add up but I can admit that perhaps I don’t understand the point fully.

    When I come to scripture, I tend to be very precise believing that God didn’t say anything that he didn’t mean in context. Therefore if there is a precise word or precise piece of grammar, I want to understand it with the precision that it has been written. If I ignore that Paul is prohibiting two things and not one, then I would think that I would be ignoring part of the word to make my idea fit and that doesn’t seem right to me. I think my interpretation fits the context without ignoring any of the words or the grammar. If we say that Paul is stopping a specific woman from teaching or spiritually murdering (this is one meaning of authenteo while another would be to dominate him as to control him or force him to go along with her) a particular man with her error then this would fit the context of deception and error and it would allow there to be two things that are forbidden to this specific woman – two things that she is practicing.

    I do admit that I am not infallible but I have never seen another interpretation that didn’t have holes in it. If the holes I see have an explanation for them that fits the text, I will gladly reconsider.
    My belief is not based on an egalitarian agenda and I think this can be proved by my rejecting as many egalitarian arguments as I do complementarian ones. I am just very interested in getting to the bottom line of what Paul meant and I do believe that God meant us to understand Paul. Granted, I do think it takes a lot of work to understand Paul. I think one of the problems is that we all have come to the passage with our own preconceived notions of what the text says. In my desire to be faithful to the text, I have rejected every interpretation that does not fit with verse 15 and also all interpretations that do not consider all of the words in verse 12. So at this point, I have to say that Paul is prohibiting two things unless I can be shown how the Greek proves that Paul is only stopping one thing. It doesn’t appear to me that Paul is stopping abusive teaching which would make authenteo an adverb instead of an action. I think that without allowing emotion to get into our interpretation, we can see that Paul is disallowing two things. My interpretation fits this wording and it fits verse 15 perfectly.

    If my interpretation has any holes, I haven’t seen them nor has anyone pointed out what actually were real holes. If someone has an hole to point out to me, I would love to see it. I mean that very honestly because for someone to hold onto a false understanding isn’t helpful nor wise. I hold onto my interpretation because of the inspired words in the text, not in spite of them.
    Having said that, I always appreciate reading other people’s thoughts. I also like finding out why people think their interpretation might fit with the context. This is how iron sharpens iron and it is very helpful to me and I am sure to everyone who reads this blog.

    Don, you have a very succinct way of putting truth into a logical format that really drives home the point. Your list of deceived/deliberate sinner/deceiver was so clear and very helpful to see it listed that way. Thank you!

  8. We belong to a mutal admiration society.

    In Hebrew thought, a neither/nor contruction can refer to one thing.  For example, when Jesus in Mat 6:20 where thieves neither break in nor steal (in the Greek, see ISA, some translation do not show it this way).  Jesus is making it memorable but the concern is about the stealing, the breaking in is an adjunct to the main concern.

    This is another reason why the meaning of authentein is pivotal.  We cannot be sure if it is one or two things. 

    If it is 2 things then didasko/teach has no direct object and is therefore unrestricted in scope, which we KNOW is not true in general as Paul in other places says for women to teach other women; so we KNOW there MUST be a scope limitation somewhere in the sentence, else there is a contradiction.  My take is that a scope limitation is that the command is in the present tense, as in I am not now permitting….  But besides that, it is possible that it is one thing that is being discussed, not two, as in I do not permit a woman to teach nor do X; but we need to know what X is.

    However, given all the challenges of interpreting this verse, it seems crazy to claim it is clear and furthermore that it clearly forbids women from some ministry.

  9. “Another parallel is there were 3 types of sinners in the garden:

    1. a deceived sinner- the woman
    2. a deliberate sinner- the man
    3. a deceiving sinner- the serpent

    There is a ranking in the sin/sinner in terms of consequences. The man/deliberate sinner is cast out of the garden; the 2 men in 1 Tim were cast out of the church.”

    You know, With the above in mind, I was reading through Leviticus a while back and noticed that God had specific laws/rules for those who “broke the law” unintentionally. They were still guilty but He does acknowledge this. This jumped out at me as I had not noticed it before.

    Here are few examples.
    Leviticus 5:14-16
    Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: If a person commits a trespass, and sins unintentionally in regard to the holy things of the LORD, then he shall bring to the LORD as his trespass offering a ram without blemish from the flocks, with your valuation in shekels of silver according to the shekel of the sanctuary, as a trespass offering. And he shall make restitution for the harm that he has done in regard to the holy thing, and shall add one-fifth to it and give it to the priest. So the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.
    Leviticus 5:17
    If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he does not know; yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity.

  10. Lin,
    I don’t know where all that ‘code’ came from.  Did you by any chance create the comment in another program and copy and paste?  I will see if I can fix it.

  11. I have read (but have not verified for myself) that all the sin offerings were for unintential sins, there were no offerings for interntional sins.  But David speaks prophetically about that.

  12. Nope, I wrote it right here and it was fine before I posted it. Strange. Thanks for fixing it….drives me crazy trying to read them when they show the code.

  13. Don,
    You said: “In Hebrew thought, a neither/nor contruction can refer to one thing. For example, when Jesus in Mat 6:20 where thieves neither break in nor steal”

    I still don’t see this as one thing. There is a crime of breaking and entering. That is trespassing. You can do that without stealing. Or you can break in and steal which is two things.

    You said: “This is another reason why the meaning of authentein is pivotal. We cannot be sure if it is one or two things.” I think we can be sure that it is two things unless the bible uses a similar wording that is clearly one thing. By law, breaking in is one crime and stealing is another. You can be guilty of only theft or only breaking in but you can also be guilty of both. I still don’t see it as one thing, but I may be dense. Perhaps I am a tough nut to crack or a “confounded skeptic” as I have been called.

    You said: “If it is 2 things then didasko/teach has no direct object and is therefore unrestricted in scope, which we KNOW is not true in general as Paul in other places says for women to teach other women; so we KNOW there MUST be a scope limitation somewhere in the sentence, else there is a contradiction.”

    I believe that there is a definite scope. I think that it is along the lines of “I do not allow my girls to kiss or hug boys.” Who are the girls not allowed to kiss? The word boys would be understood to go along with both “kiss” and “hug”. I think the same construction is found in “I do not allow a woman to teach or to authenteo a man”. Here “a man” would be one whom she is not allowed to teach or authenteo. It would also make sense that if she is deceived, that she should not teach women or children either. However from the sentence construction, I am convinced that she is only teaching one man privately and not everyone publicly. I am also convinced that the touchy issue of interfering in a marriage is why Paul make a special issue of commanding Timothy to get involved and to make sure that the woman learns and stops teaching. Most people would hesitate to instruct someone else’s wife when the husband is doing nothing to stop her. I believe that this is why Timothy needed a push by Paul.

    You said: “But besides that, it is possible that it is one thing that is being discussed, not two, as in I do not permit a woman to teach nor do X; but we need to know what X is.”
    I think it is very helpful for us to know what X is. But even without knowing what X is, I think that we can establish that it isn’t a good thing and it is not for all women.

    It is just such a sad thing that people have used this passage to forbid women to speak in church, be a bible teacher in their home where men attend, give directions to a lost man on the street and on and on… So many men haven’t tried hard enough to think through this difficult passage so that their sisters in Christ are not stumbled or restricted. Yet for those men who have worked hard to think through the passage, I am so grateful for those who support women and risk being treated badly for doing so.

  14. On 1 or 2 things, this is a challenging thing about interpreting text written by Hebrew thinkers in Greek in the 1st century when we are English speakers in the 21st century. Any part of a chain can simply be denied by those that do not want to agree or not seen even when one might want to agree. I did not make up the example from Matthew, but it was one that convinced me of the possibility so I incorprated it into my teaching; so I passed it on to you; if it does not convince you, it does not convince you.

    There are quite a few places in the NT where there are various alternatives, including taking a Greek fork in the road or a Hebrew one; my preference is to take the Hebrew one unless there is evidence that the Greek one should be taken. But before I knew about the Hebrew fork, I found I just automatically took the Greek one, even tho I know think it is wrong in some cases.

    On the scope of didasko, I have read this also, that it is unlimited in scope in the Greek. Just because ENGLISH may work one way does not mean GREEK works that way.

    On whether didaskein and authentein are both positive or negative in connotation, I do not think the non-egals are being corrupt in reading them as both positive, just like I do not think the egals are being corrupt in reading them as both negative (assuming that is what they do [and is what I do]). It is because there is simply too much we do not know. There are some verses we need to put on the shelf and not claim too much knowledge about what they mean and this pericope has some famous ones, IMO. It is like these verses are a mirror, the interpretation shows more about the interpreter than about the text, as gaps get filled in based on the interpreter’s working assumptions.

  15. Don,

    “It is like these verses are a mirror, the interpretation shows more about the interpreter than about the text, as gaps get filled in based on the interpreter’s working assumptions.”

    You are exactly right here.  We all have working assumptions and how we interpret certain texts is a big mirror to show these assumptions and sometimes eve our heart attitude.  I think sometimes it is just easier to take our assumptions and run with them than to push into the text to see past these assumptions.  For example if a person said to another person “You are not to smile” we can see this command in different ways.  Why are you not allowed to smile?  Is smiling a bad thing?  Smiling isn’t a bad thing so there must be something wrong with “you”.  This is where the assumptions can come in.  Maybe there is something wrong with you because you are the wrong color, or the wrong class or the wrong gender.  But maybe there is something else going on that we haven’t considered because we think there are only two options.  We think that either there is something wrong with smiling or there is something wrong with the person because they are told that they can’t smile.  But maybe, just maybe we have stopping thinking with two options when there is a third or fourth option that we haven’t considered.  Maybe it isn’t smiling that’s wrong or the person that is wrong by nature to smile, but maybe it is the circumstance where it is wrong for everyone to smile.  Maybe this instructing someone how to tell a person that their loved one has died.

    Maybe 1 Timothy 2:12 is one of those cases.  Maybe it is okay to have Paul prohibiting two things because if a person is completely deceived there are several things that they must not do.  Sometimes I think we are afraid to say that a woman cannot teach, but I think that the prohibition would have been no different if it was a man who was deceived and a wife that was the one who was not deceived but who was allowing her husband to carry on in his error and teaching her things that are opposite of what she knows to be true.  Would Paul have said “I do not allow a man to teach or push his way onto a woman (or spiritually murder her by teaching her his error?)”  I think that he would have said that same things, but I think we would not have considered Paul stopping all men from teaching all women.  The reason we make this a general prohibition instead of a specific situation is because many of us have been raised to think that women are somehow less than a man.  So many of us immediately take the position that there must be something wrong with all women that make them not good enough to teach men.  When we come to the text with a preconceived notion that women are not good enough or the quality of their work is inferior to a man’s work, then we can read into the text an agreement with our internal values.

    What I want to bring to the table is not to have to do anything about changing the two things that are prohibited into one negative thing, but allowing the context itself to determine the negative.  I want to propose that the negative meaning of the prohibition comes from the example that Paul gives for the reason for his prohibition.  Paul states that it is connected to the situation in the garden with the first marriage couple and the fact that one wasn’t deceived and the other one who was created second was deceived.  There is so much in that statement that needs to be explored but the very foundation is embedded in deception.  If the prohibition’s foundation is to be looked at through the lens of deception then we should be able to see that Paul’s prohibition has nothing to do with gender or with good teaching at all.  It has everything to do with spiritual death.  Someone who is spiritually dead is offering the “fruit” of what has caused their spiritual death to the person who they love but who is also the one who is still alive.

  16. FWIIW, I think it probably IS 2 things that Paul is prohibiting, but I also mention that it might be 1 thing.  I see the reason he is temporaily prohibiting any and all teaching (as there is no direct object) from the woman is that he is in a remote position, he cannot fine tune the rule; the right thing is for her to learn the truth and in the meantime, not try to teach anything.  And as she acts in faith, she MIGHT be restored so that she can teach, ala 1 Tim 3:1 and following.

    And I think authentein andros has some specific meaning that is related to Ephesus and almost certainly Artemis, but so far has been mostly lost to history.

    Grudem claims these verses are clear when they are anything but clear.  Every article that CBE and others write puts the lie to that claim, even those by CBMW.  We do not baptize for the dead ala 1 Cor as we do not understand what Paul is referring to, similarly, we do not restrict women from ministry just because some verses MIGHT be interpreted to say that, as the verses are unclear, perhaps not as unclear as baptism for the dead, but certainly not clear enough to permanently prohibit something

  17. Excellent thoughts, Don!  And thanks for clearing up some of my misunderstanding on your view.  We completely agree on the purpose of the prohibition.  It is good to keep pushing for understanding.  That is what I LOVE in this forum.  We can push and passionately talk about our views and there is no disrespect or dishonor or name-calling!  This is not the way of some who are steeped in the mandate of “men ruling women” who love to dominate and control.  I have never understood how some get their joy from demeaning other Christians who merely disagree on secondary doctrinal issues.  We may not agree on everything but I have great joy in learning from you and disagreeing with you in love, yet from pushing the edges finding more that we agree on.  It is such a pleasure for me and I love having ones like you visit my blog.  This is what makes this place a meeting place of brethren in Christ who follow Christ’s mandate to love one another.  I am so thankful to God for people, most of whom I have never met, but who have dialogged with me with love and respect.  What a tremendous blessing to me personally!!

  18. On demeaning others, I used to think I was supposed to destroy other’s arguments and if they could not handle the “truth” that was their problem.  God has been changing me, and in fact gave me a direct word that “Love is more important than being right.”  As I let go, I see that my actions were driven by fear and were not as loving as they should have been.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.