![\"Cheryl](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/09\/fight10.jpg?resize=450%2C271\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Neopatriarch has taken a second stab at trying to refute my teaching on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as he has rewritten his article<\/a><\/strong>. \u00a0Once again he has failed to poke a hole in my argument but this time he has dropped the charge that I am exasperating. \u00a0Good for Neopatriarch for taking a much kinder tone in his introduction! \u00a0He nows calls it his \u201ccanned response\u201d. \u00a0 From reading the comments, it appears that Neopatriarch has come to the understanding that brothers and sisters in Christ can argue their position passionately without attacking the other person\u2019s character and their motives. \u00a0This is certainly a change in his approach and I commend him for that.<\/p>\n I must also give Neopatriarch credit for trying to answer my interpretation when others who make their living off of promoting the complementarian message just run and hide. \u00a0However Neopatriarch has major flaws in his argument and his argument fails to present contradictions or holes in my own argument so I am very pleased to be able to present this second refutation of Neopatriarch\u2019s attempt to tear down my argument.<\/p>\n I will start my response by saying that I have no doubt that Neopatriarch is a brother in Christ. \u00a0However on the issue of patriarchy he is dead wrong. \u00a0It is a loving thing to confront a brother in Christ with his errors so that he can learn from his mistakes. \u00a0I am certain that Neopatriarch continues to read my blog, even though he doesn\u2019t want to post here any longer, and since my blog seems to have a higher following, I am posting my response here.<\/p>\n At this time I would also like to commend Mike Seaver for his willingness to debate me in this public setting. \u00a0I do not take this kind of bravery for granted. \u00a0Although Mike\u2019s answers were not very weighty, the fact that he was willing to work with me to bridge the gap between complementarians and egalitarians was truly a remarkable act on his part. \u00a0Hats off to Mike for being brave, loving and kind!<\/p>\n Now back to Neopatriarch\u2019s second attempt at refuting me. \u00a0Neopatriarch writes:<\/p>\n Schatz\u2019s view has cropped up in various discussion groups like CARM and Worthy Boards, and, you might see it in various blogs as well.\u00a0 If you\u2019re thinking about engaging her in a debate or discussion, you might first want to listen to this debate between her and Matt Slick:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Neopatriarch linked to the audio with Matt Slick where Slick refused to allow me to finish my argument on 1 Timothy 2:15. \u00a0 I would recommend that Neopatriarch take a more fair approach and link to my article<\/strong><\/a> where I give my full view which includes verse 15. \u00a0I make this recommendation so that Neopatriarch doesn\u2019t come across as being biased and merely seen as trying to stack the deck by only a partial view of my position. \u00a0If Neo believes that he is right and I am wrong, it would only be fair to link to a proper and fair presentation of my view.<\/p>\n After giving a quote from John Calvin, Neo writes:<\/p>\n As Calvin explains, Paul continues on the topic of modest conduct by forbidding women to teach or exercise authority over men.\u00a0 From verses 9-10 we know that Paul is addressing the conduct of women (plural).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n While John Calvin may have believed that teaching the truth of God\u2019s word to men was immodest conduct, the context of this passage does not list it this way. \u00a0Instead we find a clear break in verse 10 where Paul is referencing women who have a claim to godliness. \u00a0These godly women were to be encouraged to dress modestly so that their godliness would be shown from their good works rather than from their outward apparel. \u00a0Would teaching the truth of God\u2019s Word be a good work? \u00a0Of course! \u00a0There is not a single reference in the Scriptures instructing the church to stop the teaching and preaching of the truth of the gospel. \u00a0So we have godly women referenced in verses 9 and 10. \u00a0Does the reference to godly women continue? \u00a0It does not. \u00a0Here is where the break comes. \u00a0Paul goes back to the theme of chapter one where he references the stopping of teaching and here in chapter two deception as the reason given for the stopping of teaching. \u00a0In 1 Timothy 2:9-10, 11-12 \u00a0not only does Paul go from plural to singular, but Paul goes from godly women (women who profess godliness) to the certain ungodliness in the issue of sin through deception. \u00a0The two portions of this chapter do not go together in one flow. \u00a0Godliness does not connect with transgression and deception no matter how much Neopatriarch would like to think it does.<\/p>\n Neopatriarch continues:<\/p>\n Since context determines the meaning of a word, the reasonable presumption here is that \u201ca woman\u201d refers to\u00a0any<\/strong> of the women (plural) whom Paul is addressing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Context certainly does determine the meaning of a word. \u00a0A \u201cwoman\u201d is connected to deception. \u00a0Now tell me, are all women to be considered as deceived? \u00a0Are all women continuing in the transgression (verse 14)? \u00a0The context simply cannot fit all women.<\/p>\n Neopatriarch then quotes Rev. Lane Keister \u00a0as writing:<\/p>\n I believe that Paul has in mind already the reasons in verses 13-14, which require a singular to connect with Eve as a representative. Therefore, Paul is using a generic singular to make his point. Mounce argues that a general principle is being stated here, and that the singular is most apropos. I think this is borne out further by Paul\u2019s argument in verses 13-14, which speak of Adam and Eve as representative of male and female.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s test this by the Scripture. \u00a0Paul has already been using a generic form for women in verse 10 although he states that these are women who have a claim to godliness. \u00a0Are they now to be included in verses 12-15? \u00a0The claim that this is a \u201cgeneral principle\u201d can only stand if it fits the context. \u00a0Let\u2019s continue to test the context.<\/p>\n Where does Paul speak of Adam and Eve as representative of male and female<\/em><\/strong>? \u00a0Paul speaks of Adam as a man who was created first. \u00a0Are all men<\/em><\/strong> now to be considered created first? \u00a0Adam is said not to be deceived. \u00a0Are all men now to be as Adam and not deceived<\/em><\/strong>? \u00a0These facts of Paul\u2019s do not fit generic men. \u00a0How about Eve? \u00a0Eve was created second and like Eve \u201cthe woman\u201d in verse 14 was deceived. \u00a0Is Eve representative of all women? \u00a0In what way is Paul making Eve connected to all women<\/em><\/strong>? \u00a0Unless Neo can show a representative nature<\/em><\/strong> in this passage, he cannot add to what God has inspired to make the passage say more than it is saying.<\/p>\n Neopatriarch then writes:<\/p>\n But Schatz interprets in a way that disrupts the flow and coherence that verses 11-15 have with the preceding verses.\u00a0 Indeed, she claims there is a \u201csharp\u201d shift to the singular4<\/sup>, and thereby isolates verses 11-15 from the immediately preceding verses.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is not true. \u00a0Here is the coherence \u2013 in chapter one Paul has reminded Timothy that he left him behind in Ephesus to rstop the deceived teachers who are teaching error. \u00a0The <\/span>only teaching that is stopped according to Paul\u2019s command in chapter one is that of the false teachers who are teaching strange doctrines. \u00a0Paul continues in chapter one to describe his compassion for those who have been deceived by comparing them to his own actions done in ignorance. \u00a0Paul says that he received mercy because he had done his wicked deeds ignorantly and in unbelief. \u00a0Paul then moves on in chapter two to say that God <\/span>desires all to be saved and this would have to include <\/span>even the ignorance deceived teachers. \u00a0Paul\u2019s word to men about not praying with wrath and dissension fits in perfectly with the exasperation of the elders who were responsible for fixing the problems. \u00a0They were \u201cfixing the problem\u201d by arguing and this appeared even in their prayers. \u00a0Paul says that this wrath and\u00a0dissension\u00a0should not be shown in their prayers. <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n The next group to be dealt with are the women who would be the mature believers and who have <\/span>works of godliness. \u00a0They are to reveal their godliness by their acts, not by their dress. \u00a0They too would have been called on to deal with the error that had crept into the congregation especially if it was a problem with a woman. \u00a0Paul connects the issue of the salvation of all men to the importance of godly leadership by saying \u201ctherefore\u201d and \u201clikewise\u201d. \u00a0But there is no connecting word in verse 11. \u00a0Check it for yourself. \u00a0The first word is \u201cwoman\u201d and it is disconnected to the grammar of verses 9 & 10. \u00a0The disconnection here cannot be ignored. \u00a0Paul is not talking about the same group of women. \u00a0The women in the previous verses are women with good works claiming godliness.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n So how does verses 11-15 \u201cflow\u201d from the\u00a0preceding\u00a0verses? \u00a0The beginning of chapter 2 shows some of the problems in that the leadership is not handling the problem of the false teachers very well. \u00a0The arguments are carrying into their prayers. \u00a0Even the mature women are not relying on their godly character to handle the issue but setting forth their \u201cclass\u201d or their right to be heard by their elaborate dress. Paul breaks from the instructions for Timothy regarding the leadership and goes back to the sore spot regarding deceived teachers. \u00a0Paul lays out the solution for the one deceived teacher who has been a thorn in their side. \u00a0She is to be stopped, but Paul is sure that with immersing her in sound doctrine \u00a0she will be saved and come to know the truth of the gospel. \u00a0Paul\u2019s whole thought flows from deception to leadership dealing with deception back to the deception again and the final solution is how to bring the deceived one to a solid foundation in salvation that was promised after the very first deception happened on this earth. \u00a0The very first one who experienced being deceived would be used by God to bring forth the Messiah who would then make it His mission to destroy the deceiver and set the captives free.<\/p>\n Neopatriarch\u2019s view, on the other hand, does not flow. \u00a0Neopatriarch cannot successfully connect Adam and Eve to all men and women<\/em><\/strong> since he has no basis to make \u201ca woman\u201d to be generic because of Eve. \u00a0Eve is not a representative of all women Neither can Neo make \u201ca man\u201d generic because of Adam as the reference to Adam\u2019s first creation and his not being deceived is not applicable to all men. \u00a0Neo also cannot connect all women to the deception of Eve nor can he connect the ongoing transgression of one woman as it does not fit in context with all women. \u00a0Lastly his position cannot connect all women to the key verse which is the end result of the prohibition. \u00a0Not all women are deceived so it fails the text of context to question the salvation of all women.<\/p>\n Neopatriarch continues:<\/p>\n First, we normally read a pericope from start to finish so that contextual resources are provided to us as we move from one verse to the next.\u00a0 With Schatz\u2019s approach, the reader must wait until he reaches verse 15 to decrypt what Paul meant by \u201ca woman\u201d in verses 11 and 12 because Schatz has made verse 15 the interpretive key for 11 and 12.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Neopatriarch, has again failed to consider the context. \u00a0Paul is writing directly to Timothy, not directly to us. \u00a0Timothy didn\u2019t need to wait until verse 15 to understand what verses 11 & 12 meant<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0Timothy knew all about the situation in Ephesus. \u00a0We, on the other hand, have to do our homework before we can understand the passage. \u00a0Some of Paul\u2019s writing is difficult to understand and verse 15 is the verse that dismantles the complementarian argument because they cannot make it fit in their view that Paul is talking about all women.<\/p>\n Neopatriarch writes:<\/p>\n The conjunction, \u201cfor,\u201d at the beginning of verse 13 could be understood in the causal or illustrative sense. The causal sense would mean that Paul is giving us\u00a0reasons<\/strong> for his proscription. The illustrative sense would mean that Paul is simply giving us an example.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul is not simply giving us an example. \u00a0The \u201cfor\u201d must mean Paul\u2019s reason for the prohibition otherwise the prohibition would not make sense in the Christian worldview that never had a law that prohibited a woman from teaching men. \u00a0The only thing that makes sense is that \u201cfor\u201d gives the \u201creason\u201d for the prohibition. \u00a0If there is no reason then there cannot be a claim to a law since the Old Testament never carries such a law against a woman\u2019s teaching abilities.<\/p>\n But if (the Greek) is used in the illustrative sense, then Paul did not ground his proscription in the order of creation. Instead, he appealed to Genesis 2-3 as an example of what happens when a woman teaches a man false doctrine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This could not possibly be Paul\u2019s meaning since Eve did not teach Adam \u201cfalse doctrine\u201d<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0In fact not even a single one of Eve\u2019s words to Adam is recorded. \u00a0One cannot get the interpretation that Eve taught Adam \u201cfalse doctrine\u201d without doing violence to the Scriptures. \u00a0We know for a fact that Adam was not deceived and we also know from Genesis that Adam was there with Eve when the serpent was speaking to her. \u00a0Where is the doctrine that came from Eve\u2019s mouth to Adam? It isn\u2019t in the Scripture. \u00a0Secondly if this an example<\/em><\/strong>, then Neopatriarch just spoiled his own case. \u00a0He attempts to prove that Paul is stopping all women<\/em><\/strong> from teaching correct Biblical doctrine<\/em><\/strong> to men but with Neo\u2019s \u00a0admission is that the example<\/em><\/strong> Paul gives is about false doctrine<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0Which way is it? \u00a0Is it a \u201creason\u201d for the prohibition (false doctrine) or is it an \u201cexample\u201d (false doctrine)? \u00a0No matter which way Neopatriarch turns, he cannot make the passage say that Paul is stopping the teaching of true doctrine.<\/p>\n This could still be taken as justification for proscribing\u00a0any<\/strong> woman from teaching\u00a0any<\/strong> man false doctrine. After all, why would this example apply to only one woman?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But why should we stop with the men? \u00a0With Neopatriarch\u2019s view that it could also be taken as stopping any woman from teaching any man false doctrine, he refutes himself since he will now have to justify why Paul only stops all women from teaching all men false doctrine but doesn\u2019t stop them from teaching false doctrine to other women and children<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0At every turn, Neo\u2019s claim that this is generic women and generic men just doesn\u2019t fit. \u00a0 Also Neopatriarch has another dilemma. \u00a0Why would Paul have to say anything about all women\u2019s false teaching if he already stopped the false teachers in chapter one? \u00a0If there wasn\u2019t one sticky situation with one woman which was also concerning false doctrine, verses 11-15 would not even have to be written. \u00a0Certainly if there were multiple women teaching multiple men, women or children, Paul would have used the plural just as he did in the previous verses. \u00a0There would be no need to change the plural women to singular woman.<\/p>\n Neopatriarch continues:<\/p>\n Also, how does the fact Adam was created first illustrate the claim that only one specific woman is not to teach false doctrine? The illustrative sense fails to explain verses 13-14 as well as the causal sense. Therefore, we should understand verses 13-14 as\u00a0reasons<\/strong> for Paul\u2019s proscription in verse 12.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So now Neopatriarch takes us right back to the \u201creasons\u201d \u00a0for the prohibition, the exact position that I have. \u00a0Now the \u201cexample\u201d fails the test and we are back to square one. \u00a0We must ask how does the fact that Adam was created first give us the reason<\/em><\/strong> for why she is stopped from teaching? \u00a0Because the first one created one had sound doctrine to immunize him against the deception of the serpent. \u00a0Remember Paul started with verse 11 saying \u00a0that she must learn? \u00a0Learning sound doctrine is the key here. \u00a0Adam knew the truth and he was not deceived. \u00a0But Adam failed to speak out and stop Eve\u2019s deception, just like the woman\u2019s husband in Ephesus. \u00a0He was another Adam and Timothy had to go past her husband to command her to stop. \u00a0The reason for the prohibition was because of deception and the non-involvement of the one who was not deceived fits perfectly with why Timothy was being pushed to step in and stop her himself.<\/p>\n Neopatriarch continues:<\/p>\n Since presumption favors our initial conclusion that\u00a0any<\/strong> man and\u00a0any<\/strong> woman are meant in verse 12 and verses 13-14 function as reasons in Paul\u2019s argument, the most natural reading takes Adam and Eve as representatives of any man and any woman.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I ask if Neo\u2019s admitted \u201cpresumption\u201d favors his conclusion that any man and any woman are meant, then I ask him to please explain how any man is not deceived<\/em><\/strong> and any woman is deceived<\/em><\/strong>? \u00a0Neopatriarch has failed to give \u00a0any viable explanation for the connection to all of us as women. \u00a0There is a very strong connection to a couple<\/em><\/strong> in the same condition as Adam and Eve<\/em><\/strong> were, but there is no connection<\/em><\/strong> to godly men and godly women who are not in error.<\/p>\n In his first reason, I submit that Paul is alluding to the steward-helper relationship between Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2:7, God created Adam and gave him the garden mandate not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (2:16-17). Adam was hereby entrusted with stewardship of God\u2019s word and consequently of moral life in the garden.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Neopatriarch is alluding to the teaching that only Adam was entrusted with God\u2019s word, but this cannot be proven since Genesis 1:26-29 describes the creation of the man and the woman and the prohibition is included within the list of what they could eat since they are given permission to eat from every tree except for the one tree that had no seed bearing fruit. \u00a0Eve also describes God\u2019s Word given to her so there is no proof at all that only Adam was entrusted with God\u2019s Word. \u00a0There is also nothing that says that Adam was given the stewardship of the moral life in the garden. \u00a0The Bible does say that he was entrusted with guarding the garden but this is a far cry from being responsible for Eve\u2019s sin. \u00a0He was responsible for warning her but not responsible for her moral life.<\/p>\n Eve was not around when God gave Adam the garden mandate, but apparently he taught it to her because she repeated it, albeit not exactly, to the serpent (3:2-3).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As I wrote previously, Eve was given God\u2019s Word about what she could eat and it was her testimony that she was also told by God what she was not allowed to eat. \u00a0Although Neopatriarch used the word \u201capparently\u201d it is clear that he knows that there is no Scripture that says that Adam was responsible for teaching Eve the prohibition. \u00a0Eve walked with God too and her testimony counts as it came from a sinless woman before sin entered the world.<\/p>\n Consider an illustration of this idea: A father tells his first son to remove a boulder from the yard, but, seeing that his first son is unable to do it by himself, he sends his second son out to help. It is understood that the first son is still in charge of the boulder removing project and that the second son receives instruction from and is subordinate to the first. The second son does not take over the project. What this means for Paul\u2019s proscription is that women are not to take over the teaching and leadership duties that belong specifically to the office of the steward of God\u2019s word. Only other men are to be in the position of teaching and exercising authority over men.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What Neopatriarch has failed to do is to pay attention to what God said. \u00a0While he can make up all the illustrations that he wants, these illustrations do not correspond to the Scriptures, because God said that they both were to rule. \u00a0There was not one ruler and a subordinate helper. \u00a0There were two rulers<\/em><\/strong> over God\u2019s creation.<\/p>\n Gen 1:26 \u00a0Then God said, \u201cLet Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.\u201d<\/p>\n Gen 1:27 \u00a0God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.<\/p>\n Gen 1:28 \u00a0God blessed them; and God said to them, \u201cBe fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Neopatriarch started with a false premise and continues on the wrong path when he writes:<\/p>\n In his second reason, we see the consequences of reversing the steward-helper relationship. The first part of verse 14 says, \u201cAdam was not deceived.\u201d He was not deceived by the serpent. Instead, he listened to wife, and God faulted him for it (Genesis 3:17).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There is no steward-helper relationship. \u00a0There is a God-given ruler-ruler<\/em><\/strong> relationship. \u00a0The helper then is defined by God as an equal ruler. \u00a0How do we reverse the ruler-ruler relationship? \u00a0Here it is: \u00a0ruler-ruler. \u00a0Does it look different? \u00a0It can\u2019t look different because God\u2019s Word is what counts and He made them both rulers.<\/p>\n Secondly God faulted Adam not for being nagged into eating the fruit (because there are no words recorded of Eve speaking to Adam) but God faulted Adam for remaining a silent watchman as his wife spoke to the serpent and was deceived. \u00a0This is the serious issue. \u00a0It isn\u2019t an issue about a nagged husband but about treason. \u00a0God says that a watchman who fails to sound the warning is a traitor and deserves death. \u00a0Adam listened to the voice of his wife while she was speaking to the serpent. \u00a0He heard the deception. \u00a0He heard her as she was being deceived\u2026 and Adam did nothing. \u00a0This is what God called treacherous (Hosea 6:7)<\/p>\n Neopatriarch continues:<\/p>\n The implication is that Adam should not have listened to his wife. Why? I think the best explanation is because she was not the proper steward of the garden mandate. She did not have the authority to instruct him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Where is Neopatriarch\u2019s proof that Eve spoke to Adam and instructed him on anything? \u00a0It isn\u2019t in the text. \u00a0It is the tradition of complementarians, but it isn\u2019t Scriptural. \u00a0Where does God say that Eve took her own authority to instruct Adam? \u00a0It doesn\u2019t. \u00a0Adam doesn\u2019t blame Eve for \u201cinstructing\u201d him. \u00a0He blames her only for giving the fruit to him. \u00a0Surely if she had sinned by \u201cinstructing\u201d the man without proper authority, then someone would have said something about this sin. \u00a0Where is Neopatriarch\u2019s proof? \u00a0He has none.<\/p>\n Neopatriarch now quotes Andreas K\u00f6stenberger:<\/p>\n Eve, Paul implies, was not kept safe at the Fall; she was deceived. Why? Because she left her proper domain under her husband\u2019s care. What happened as a result? She became an easy prey for Satan. How can women under Timothy\u2019s charge (and in churches everywhere) avoid repeating the same mistake? By \u201cchildbearing,\u201d that is, by adhering to their God-ordained calling, including a focus on marriage, family, and the home. 1 Timothy 2:15 thus turns out to be Paul\u2019s prescription for women as a lesson learned from the scenario of the Fall described in the preceding verse.7<\/sup>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I have already discussed with Andreas his position and I have given him the reasons why his view cannot be correct. \u00a0His view has major holes in it. \u00a0He was not to answer \u00a0my questions because his view doesn\u2019t fit.<\/p>\n The first problem is that there is no indication that Eve was given instruction to be under her husband\u2019s care. \u00a0Eve did not have to ask Adam to have a conversation with an animal. \u00a0When Eve was fully convinced by the serpent that God was holding back on her and that she would not die but receive the ability to be like God, the fruit became to her not a prohibition, but a blessing. \u00a0She did not have to ask Adam for his permission to eat any fruit. \u00a0She was a free moral agent who fell into sin through deception. \u00a0She did not leave her proper domain under her husband\u2019s care. \u00a0It was Adam who left his position as guardian of the garden<\/em><\/strong> and he is the failure who did not speak out about the deception when he knew the truth. \u00a0Noepatriarch\u2019s position is an invalid charge of sin against Eve and a failure to charge Adam with his treason. \u00a0The fact is that Eve became a prey for satan because the man failed to speak out and expose the lie. \u00a0Where did God ever blame Eve for stepping outside her \u201cdomain\u201d<\/em><\/strong>? \u00a0God<\/em><\/strong> did not blame her for this. \u00a0He blamed Adam for listening to his wife while she was being deceived. \u00a0This was a serious sin. \u00a0It is an amazing thing to me that Neopatriarch continues to blame the deceived one and let the one who was the silent watchman go scot-free. \u00a0In Neopatriarch\u2019s quote below the Greek words do not show up as my blog is not able to show the Greek.<\/p>\n Neopatriarch writes:<\/p>\n Eve was tricked by the serpent. The consequence was that she became a transgressor. The identity of womankind with Eve is expressed by Paul\u2019s switch to \u201cthe woman\u201d and the perfect tense \u00a0\u201chas come into transgression.\u201d So what is predicated of Eve is predicated of womankind, through the typology. That is, any woman who is typologically represented by Eve has become a transgressor through deception and continues in the state of transgression.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Neopatariarch wants all of us to think that the identify of all women (womankind) is first of all sure because Paul said \u201ca woman\u201d and now it is identified with Eve because all women (plural) are \u201cthe woman\u201d (definite singular)? \u00a0That is impossible. \u00a0First of all the perfect tense is not<\/em><\/strong> the future tense here. \u00a0The perfect tense is maintaining that at the time of Paul\u2019s writing \u201cthe woman\u201d was in the transgression<\/em><\/strong>, however she will be saved<\/em><\/strong> (future tense) if\u2026 (verse 15) \u00a0All of womankind is not even alive at the time that Paul wrote this so the perfect tense cannot apply to them<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0Also Paul could not have predicted<\/em><\/strong> that all of womankind would come into transgression through deception<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0He would have to say that all womankind will come into transgression (future tense) if<\/em><\/strong> they fall through deception. \u00a0This is not even close to what Paul actually said.<\/p>\n Either Paul was inspired and his grammar was inspired or it wasn\u2019t. \u00a0Which is it? \u00a0I choose to believe that Paul said exactly what the Holy Spirit inspired. \u00a0\u201cThe woman\u201d was a woman in the Ephesian congregation who had been deceived by the lie. \u00a0She was like Eve in that the one who could protect her was sitting on his duff doing nothing. \u00a0He was another silent Adam allowing his wife to continue in her deception. \u00a0Timothy was to take Paul\u2019s authority and stop her. \u00a0Timothy can now go to the woman and bypass her husband and say that \u201cPaul is the one who is not allowing this\u2026\u201d \u00a0Timothy will have courage to do this necessary work of stopping this woman and he does so with Paul\u2019s full authority and Paul\u2019s encouragement.<\/p>\n Neopatriarch tries to sum up my view by saying:<\/p>\n Now we come to the crux of Schatz\u2019s argument. Essentially, I believe her argument is this: In verse 15, either \u201cshe\u201d refers to the specific woman and \u201cthey\u201d refers to the woman and her husband, or \u201cshe\u201d and \u201cthey\u201d have the same antecedent. But \u201cshe\u201d and \u201cthey\u201d cannot have the same antecedent because the antecedent cannot be both singular and plural. Pronouns must agree with their antecedents in number. Therefore, \u201cshe\u201d must refer to the specific woman Paul is correcting, and \u201cthey\u201d refers to the woman and her husband. She may further claim \u201cshe\u201d refers to \u201cthe woman\u201d in verse 14 because it is the nearest candidate for an antecedent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is correct. \u00a0We cannot have hanging pronouns without the original nouns that they refer back to. \u00a0Let\u2019s see how Neopatriarch tries to wiggle out of this one.<\/p>\n First, it should be recognized that the nature of Schatz\u2019s argument as a disjunctive syllogism requires her to eliminate disjuncts to establish her own view. While she may have eliminated the disjunct she tries to pin on the patriarchalist, she presents us with a false dilemma. \u201c[S]he\u201d and \u201cthey\u201d in verse 15 do not need to have the same antecedent in the patriarchalists\u2019 view. Instead, the chiastic structure of verses 8-15 reveals the correct pronoun-antecedent relationships:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A (9-10) Christian \u201cwomen\u201d (plural) Women are the topic of both \u201cshe\u201d and \u201cthey,\u201d but, grammatically, they have different antecedents. The pronoun \u201cshe\u201d refers to \u201ca woman\u201d, and the pronoun \u201cthey\u201d refers back to \u201cwomen.\u201d In other words, \u201cshe\u201d refers to\u00a0any<\/strong> woman, and \u201cthey\u201d refers to\u00a0every<\/strong> woman. Hence, \u201cshe\u201d is not a specific woman, but any woman who is represented by the woman Eve. Schatz\u2019s argument fails at least so long as this is a live alternative.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s see if we can unravel this womanly<\/em><\/strong> mess. \u00a0\ud83d\ude42 \u00a0What Neopatriarch is saying, is that all godly Christian women are to be clothed with good works (verses 9 & 10) however it is forbidden for any Christian woman to teach any Christian man (verse 12) because Eve was a representative of any Christian woman<\/em><\/strong> (verse 13) and \u201cthe woman\u201d meaning any Christian woman is in sin right now and is still in her transgression<\/em><\/strong> (verse 14) and has been deceived but any Christian woman will be saved from her deception if all Christian women continue in faith<\/em><\/strong> and love and holiness with self-control. \u00a0This is illogical to have all Christian women in sin and all Christian women represented by Eve, but the thought that no Christian woman can be saved unless all Christian women continue in faith is untenable.<\/p>\n In essence there is no difference between \u201cany Christian woman\u201d and \u201call Christian women\u201d and it is by necessity that \u201cany Christian woman\u201d must be included with the \u201call Christian women\u201d and \u201call Christian women\u201d can be broken down to \u201cany Christian woman\u201d so there is no difference between the two groups. \u00a0For example I would ask Neopatriarch which group his own your wife belongs to? \u00a0Is she one of the \u201cany Christian woman\u201d? \u00a0Or is she one of the \u201call Christian women\u201d? \u00a0She is by necessity a member of both so the antecedent is of necessity the same. \u00a0Not only does Neopatriarch\u2019s explanation make a mockery of Paul\u2019s words by attaching all women to the deception of Eve<\/em><\/strong>, but the Bible never uses Eve as a representative of all women. \u00a0 Also since the \u201cany\u201d and the \u201call\u201d cannot be shown to exclude any particular Christian woman, by necessity the \u00a0sides are equal and Neopatriarch\u2019s \u00a0own convoluted explanation \u201cshe\u201d = \u201cthey\u201d. \u00a0This is illegal grammar.<\/p>\n If the reader has trouble figuring out Neopatriarch\u2019s explanation, it is no wonder. \u00a0His explanation is nothing more than double talk. \u00a0He has no way to show that \u201cany Christian woman\u201d cannot fit both into the \u201cshe\u201d group and the \u201cthey\u201d group so although he tried to explain that these were different things, they are not. \u00a0 Neopatriarch has only succeeded in trying to make Paul look foolish with confusing words that mean the same thing and the questioning of all women\u2019s salvation which surely would spark the thought that women are somehow spiritually inferior to men whose salvation is never questioned in the Scriptures as a group.<\/p>\n Also I also ask Neopatriarch to show me how any Christian woman<\/em><\/strong> can be said to be in transgression right now<\/em><\/strong> because of her deception? \u00a0His explanation doesn\u2019t hold water. \u00a0I would also like to ask how Timothy would have understood all of that \u201cshe\u201d = \u201cthey\u201d stuff? \u00a0And how does all of this fit in with the specific deceived teachers at Ephesus? \u00a0The thought that Paul would have connected all Christian women to the deceived Eve and said they were all in transgression in deception is so far fetched that I can\u2019t believe that Neopatriarch could think that his explanation would refute my straightforward interpretation of the passage that allows the grammar to be followed exactly as it was inspired?<\/p>\n Second, although the nearest candidate for a pronoun antecedent is often correct, we must remember that context is king. As I\u2019ve argued above, we ought to understand (a woman) as an indefinite noun referring to\u00a0any<\/strong> woman. Hence, we choose the antecedent for the pronoun \u201cshe\u201d that makes the best sense in the context.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So \u201ca woman\u201d must mean any woman and \u201cthe woman\u201d must mean any woman. \u00a0That makes no sense at all. \u00a0So why did Paul write these verses with what appears to be \u00a0illegal grammar instead of staying with either \u201cshe\u201d or \u201cthey\u201d? \u00a0He could have said \u201cshe will be saved if she\u2026\u201d or \u201cthey will be saved if they\u2026\u201d \u00a0And what does a single Christian woman have to do with all Christian women? \u00a0So I can\u2019t be saved unless all Christian women stay in the faith? \u00a0Or your wife cannot be saved unless all Christian women, (including me!) stays in the faith? \u00a0And of course that means all Christian women past, present and future!<\/p>\n Neopatriarch, your interpretation is nonsense. \u00a0I think you had better try one more time to see if you can get it right. \u00a0You have not found a way to poke a hole in my interpretation, but your own interpretation is so full of nonsense that we (all Christian women) could drive a Mac truck through it.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s sum it up with Neopatriarch\u2019s final words:<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nB (11-12) \u201ca woman\u201d (singular indefinite noun) \u2013it means any Christian woman.
\nC (13) \u201cEve\u201d (generic \/ representative woman)
\nC\u2019 (14) \u201cthe woman\u201d (generic \/ representative woman)
\nB\u2019 (15a) \u201cshe\u201d has the antecedent \u201ca woman\u201d
\nA\u2019 (15b) \u201cthey\u201d has the antecedent \u201cwomen,\u201d Christian women in context<\/p>\n