Interview with the Apostle Paul

Interview with the Apostle Paul

paul on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

This post will be a simulated interview with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.  We are interested in asking Paul his reasons for what he wrote about women and what he thinks about the present day church regarding women’s ministries.  However the interviewer that gets first “crack” at Paul will be a complementarian Christian who strongly believes that women are restricted from teaching men in the church.  The interviewer’s name will be “Doug”.

Doug: Hello Apostle Paul.  I am delighted in having the opportunity to meet you.  I am also delighted that you have agreed to this interview.

Paul: Please just call me brother Paul, after all we are all brothers in Christ.

Doug: Well, yes, we are all brothers in Christ, but you are special since the Holy Spirit used you to write the scriptures.

Paul: Ah yes, the Holy Spirit was gracious to use me to speak forth His words.  That doesn’t make me a more special sinner than you are, but I am truly grateful to God because He is a gracious Potter who saw fit to use this mere piece of clay for His glory.  I am amazed to be here in the year 2009 and to see the body of Christ from the standpoint of the future.  So much of what I wrote in scripture was with the future church in mind.  I was in your church yesterday and I was amazed to see such a disproportionate amount of men doing the ministry work.  Where are your women?

Doug: Well brother Paul, you know where they are.  They are set in their place just like you instructed.  They don’t minister in public.  If you went to the children’s quarters you would find many of the women there.  But we know from your writings that women are to be silent in church and they are not to teach men.  We are very proud that we have resisted the way of the world and we have kept your law.

Paul: What!  Where did I give you a law that commanded women to be kept “in their place”?  I have always been a strong advocate of women.  Didn’t you read about Priscilla and Phoebe and all the other women that I commended?  Do you think I kept them in the children’s quarters and didn’t release them for service to the full body of Christ?

Doug: But brother Paul, you only allowed these women to minister to other women.  You never commended women for doing men’s work.

Paul: There is no such thing as “men’s work” or “women’s work” in the Kingdom of God.  Where do you get such an idea?  Didn’t you read the book of Romans?  In Romans 16:1, 2 I said:

Rom 16:1  I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchreae:

Rom 16:2  Welcome her in the Lord as is appropriate for saints, and provide her with anything she may need from you, for she has assisted many people, including me.

Doug: (sputtering) But Paul, Phoebe wasn’t a real Deacon, she was just a Deaconess who worked with the women.  You commended her for her women’s work.

Paul: Nonsense!  Phoebe was a servant of the church.  If I meant that she was a servant “of the women” I would have stated that.  She served many very well including myself.  Am I a woman?  How could you understand Romans 16:2 to be anything other than that Phoebe assisted both men and women?

Doug: But she certainly didn’t teach men!  That of course is forbidden.

Paul: Where did the Holy Spirit ever forbid women from teaching men?  What has happened to the church that you are now forbidding parts of the body of Christ from using their spiritual gifts for the common good?

Doug: But it was YOU who forbid it!

Paul: I bear you witness that I never forbid such a thing.  Where are you reading that women in the body of Christ are not allowed to teach their brothers in Christ?

Doug: You said it very clearly in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Paul: Doug, my brother, that was written to Timothy concerning a problem situation that I was helping Timothy deal with.  I left Timothy behind in Ephesus to deal with some specific problems regarding false teachers and false doctrines.  Why would you take this verse to mean that it is applicable to all godly women?

Doug: It cannot be taken any other way!

Paul: On the contrary, 1 Timothy 2:12 cannot be taken as a general law regarding all women.  Think about it carefully.  Did the Holy Spirit ever restrict women from teaching men before I came on the scene?

Doug: Well, no.  I don’t know any Old Testament scripture that  forbid women from teaching men, but your law is good enough, isn’t it?

Paul: If it was a valid and documented law of God, that would be right.  But is what I said qualified to be a valid and documented law of God restricting only the women who happen to be alive after I became an apostle?  How unlucky for those women, don’t you think?  Let us reason this through.  I want to help you to be a Berean.  We have established by your own admission that there was no such law before my writing that restricted all women.  Good.  Now here is a test for you.  Do you remember the Bereans?

Doug: Of course I do.  They were commended by you for testing your teaching by the Old Testament scriptures.

Paul: Good, good…so,  how would they have tested a “law” that had no connection at all to the Old Testament?

Doug: (Silence)….I never thought of that.  How would they have tested that law?

Paul: The test was always against what God had already written.  It is time to think and to think clearly.  Believers in 2009 should not be any less careful than our noble brothers in Berea.  Doug please tell me, what are the qualifications for a judicial ruling against a person?

Doug: What do you mean?

Paul: Come on now, this isn’t too hard.  What was required to find a person guilty of an offense?

Doug: Okay, I get you now.  You are talking about two or three witnesses aren’t you?

Paul: Absolutely!

Doug: Brother Paul, what is your point?

Paul: Where is the documented second witness for the “law” that takes all women who are unfortunate to be born after I became an apostle and forbids them from teaching the truth of God’s word to men?

Doug: But doesn’t God only need to say things once?

Paul: God has sovereignly chosen to command that every documented judicial matter must have a second or third witness.  He has done this for our good and I heartily agree.  Brother Doug, even Jesus submitted himself to the necessity of having a second or third witness.  In John 5:31, 32 Jesus said that His testimony alone would be considered untrue without a second witness.  So now, brother Doug, please tell me why my testimony would not have to have a second witness if even the testimony of Jesus required a second witness?

Doug: But…but….

Paul: No “buts” about it – every single law of God has the required second or third witness.  God was very consistent.  Didn’t you think that it was odd that I wrote a “law” regarding all women and placed such an important universal law only in a one letter written specifically to one person?  Didn’t you think that it was odd that I didn’t tell any other church that women could not teach men?

Doug: Well, no.  I didn’t think it was odd.  I agreed with your law.  I think women should let us men do all the teaching to the brothers.  It makes me feel kind of special.

Paul: (Sigh!)  You are special, brother Doug.  But you are no more special than our sisters in Christ.  God would never create a law that restricted all of his women “sons” and not give the required validating witness.   I myself thought so highly of the need for a second or third witness that I practiced it continually in my letters.  Don’t you remember what I wrote to the Philippians?  I wrote in chapter 3 verse one:

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.

 

Does that sound like I practiced saying important matters only once?

Doug: Well, no, it doesn’t.  But what about 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35?  You wrote that women were to be silent in the church.  I realize that you didn’t write that women cannot teach men in that passage, but silence is silence, isn’t it?  And didn’t you write 1 Corinthians to an entire church?

Paul: There are some important things in my letter that I will highlight for you so you can understand that passage.  But I must run for now.  I will be back again for another interview shortly, God-willing.  I am off to inspect this 2009 culture that seems so strange to me.  I received an invitation to stand behind the “pulpit” of John MacArthur’s church.  I don’t know what a “pulpit” is or why a church is named after a “Johnny Mac”.   Someone also told me I should check out their new “hard drive” on their “hot computer” that allows them to minister to the lost all the way to Australia and South America.  Hard drive??  Hot computer?? Australia??  South America????  I am totally lost…(turns to leave muttering to himself)….(turns around and lifts his hand in blessing) but grace and peace to you from our Lord Jesus.  Until we meet again.

{Note:  Does anyone have any questions for brother Paul that Doug could ask him about the women’s issue?  Feel free to record your questions or comments in the comment section.}

Part two of the Interview with Paul is here.

89 thoughts on “Interview with the Apostle Paul

  1. Interesting conversation … I look forward to more.

    Strange, though, that apparently neither “Doug” nor Paul knew that it was Luke, not Paul, who commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures…

    🙂

  2. cute 🙂

    Technically it was Luke who reported the facts. It was the Apostle Paul who accepted the Berean’s testing him and likely the term “noble” came from the one who was tested.

    By the way, welcome! I am so glad you stopped by. I’ll pass your comments on to the Apostle to see what he has to say next 😉

  3. Good stuff Cheryl! You even answered the charge that Paul need only say something once for it to be a binding law for all time. And that’s the real rub here.

    Was Paul legislating new law in an Old Testament sense when he wrote to the various fellowships throughout the old Roman empire, or was he only expounding on what was already written in the Old Testament and fulfilled in Jesus?

    That’s the real question here, and I think Christians of every persuasion will agree and disagree on this until Christ returns for his church.

  4. Thanks missional girl and Greg! I used to write 5 to 7 minute sermons every week for our phone message that we set up to share the gospel with Jehovah’s Witnesses. The most popular messages were the dialogs I created between a Christian named Chris and a Jehovah’s Witness named Joe. For some reason the dialogs helped people to see things that otherwise went right over their heads. We always got requests to put the Chris and Joe talks back on the line. It also gives me more freedom to have a little fun 🙂

  5. Deu 19:15 A single witness may not testify against another person for any trespass or sin that he commits. A matter may be legally established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

  6. Lin,
    The Jews considered that a man’s personal witness and his written witness were two witnesses. Paul apparently took this view as he said:

    2 Cor 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES.

  7. ESV 2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

    The context is Paul is being challenged, so he wants to claim he passes the test.

    2Co 13:2 I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them–
    2Co 13:3 since you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you.
    2Co 13:4 For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.
    2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?–unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
    2Co 13:6 I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test.
    2Co 13:7 But we pray to God that you may not do wrong–not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed.
    2Co 13:8 For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.
    2Co 13:9 For we are glad when we are weak and you are strong. Your restoration is what we pray for.
    2Co 13:10 For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.

    2 Cor 13:1-10 is the pericope, the teaching unit explaining the context.

  8. 2 Cor 13:2 I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them–

    This takes on great significance as Paul points out that his “witness” comes both in writing and in person. The Talmud documents the Jewish understanding that a person’s testimony is considered two witnesses if it is in writing and in person. I have the documented quote from the Talmud someplace on my computer as I used it on an online debate I was having when someone challenged me about the “two” witnesses being one person argument. When I get a chance one day to go through all of my computer files, I will have to post that reference again. Jesus of course would have been considered only one witness since his testimony was in person only.

  9. Schatz,
    Regarding your two witness requirement, I’ve read Matt Slick’s response:
    carm.org/apologetics/women-ministry/only-one-verse-prohibits-women-teach-men-so-it-doesnt-apply-whole-church
    And I’ve read Diane’s response to the argument at CARM’s discussion boards. In effect, the law requires two witnesses before a person can be found guilty in a court proceeding. This is different from requiring a law itself to be repeated twice in order to be valid.
    But I have yet to find a satisfactory defense of your two witness requirement against Slick’s and Diane’s reproof. Nevertheless, and as far as the success of your argument is concerned, it wouldn’t matter if you were right in claiming that two witnesses are needed to establish the patriarchalist reading of 1 Tim 2:12 because a modus ponens argument can be made in favor of the claim that the proscription against women teaching men is found in the OT. Roughly, the patriarchalist argument runs like this:
    [P1]Women are not permitted to teach or exercise authority over men. (1 Tim 2:12)
    [P2] If [P1] is a conclusion Paul draws from OT teaching, then OT teaching (properly understood) implies [P1].
    [P3] Paul appeals to (OT teaching) the creation and fall of Adam and Eve to justify [P1].
    [P4] Therefore, the explicit NT proscription against women teaching men repeats the implicit OT proscription that Paul finds in the account of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve.
    Patriarchalists affirm the antecedent in [P2] because first, it is supported by the most natural reading of verses 12 to 14; second, this is the position the church has held to historically; and third, the proscription against women teaching in verse 12 is justified in Paul’s argument by an appeal to the account of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve in verses 13 and 14.
    I understand that many egalitarians will take issue with the consequent in [P2]. They can find no teaching in the account of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve or anywhere else in the OT that explicitly or implicitly teaches [P1]. Consequently, they argue that Paul is not proscribing women from teaching or exercising authority over men. The egalitarian argument runs like this:
    [E1] If [P1] is a conclusion Paul draws from OT teaching, then OT teaching (properly understood) implies [P1].
    [E2] There is no OT teaching that implies [P1].
    [E3] Therefore, [P1] is false.
    [E4] If [P1] is false, we have misunderstood 1 Tim 2:12.
    The claim in [E2] is a strong claim, but if egalitarians want to establish the conclusion of this modus tollens argument with necessity, then [E2] must be this strong. The trouble is that [E2] is too strong. Egalitarians could tone it down to say something like:
    [E2*] Egalitarians can find no OT teaching that implies [P1],
    But this seems more like a criticism of their ability to understand the OT than a justification for rejecting [P1]. Even so, a patriarchalist might likewise claim he can find no OT teaching that implies [P1]. He can confess ignorance about how Paul derived his conclusion [P1] and still consistently maintain, according to the logic of the patriarchalist argument, that [P1] is true. Further, he can also maintain that the consequent of [P2] is true! If Paul says the teaching is there in the OT, who am I to challenge Paul? God forbid that I should be so intellectually arrogant as to suggest I know more about the OT than Paul does.
    Now your understanding of 1 Tim 2:12 is different from that of most egalitarians. You might rewrite [P1] to say:
    [P1*] There is one specific woman in the church who is not permitted to teach one specific man in the church.
    If you replace [P1] with [P1*] in the patriarchalist argument, what you get is an extremely specific application of a general principle which is repeated in the OT. It is not clear how your two witnesses requirement becomes unsatisfied with respect to 1 Tim 2:12.

  10. Well, Diane (aka Chris) nice of you to show up on my blog. Shall we dance?

    I will let anyone here who would like to answer you first have a say and I will answer tomorrow. I am so glad that you posted because it gives me a wonderful opportunity to respond to the slick errors. 🙂

  11. It is especially interesting to note that “Chris” claims to have read Diane’s rebuttal to me when in fact Diane has removed all of my posts off of CARMs discussion board so my argument hasn’t been seen there since at least September 2008. Interesting.

  12. One last thing that is interesting…no one has called me “Schatz” before Chris showed up. No doubt meant to be a disrespectful term, but in its language of origin it means “treasure” or “love”.

  13. Hahaha! I’m not Diane. . . . I’m not Slick either.

    see:
    christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=96420 (you may not be chattykathy, I don’t know, but she is making your arguments)

    I use just last names sometimes because I’m a veteran, and we often used just last names. So don’t read too much into it.

    Also note that I lost some formatting with a cut-n-paste. It’s not clear, but there is more than one paragraph in post 16.

    I probably won’t have too much time to respond. I’m an applied math major at WMU and I have tests coming up.

    My intent in post 16 is to show the logic of the patriarchalist view on 1 Tim 2:12-15 against your two witnesses requirement. So any egalitarian here who actually understands the patriarchalist view should realize *why* the two witnesses requirement will not be effective against the patriarchalist view on 1 Tim 2:12-15.

  14. Cheryl wrote: “Shall we dance?”

    I warn you, I’ve had 4 years of ballroom dance instruction. I doubt you can keep up.

  15. I’m sure Cheryl is shaking in her shoes at the prospect of facing the all-too-typical overconfident college student. But at least they can be entertaining. It’s been a while since we’ve had a good laugh.

  16. Chris (aka slickster, Diane, whoever)
    If you are not MS or DS, then please tell me how you are able to get past my security? How are you posting without you showing up on any record? What are you hiding?

    I am not chattykathy and the CARM team who keeps accurate stats knows this very well. I am perfectly capable of giving my own argument. As I said I have been wiped clean off of CARM by those who fear my argument. The fact that you claim to have read my argument is suspect.

    I plan to answer your questions on my next post. I think it will be good to let the Apostle Paul answer the questions as he is the very best at it. It wouldn’t do to just let the answer be hidden in the comment section.

    As far as dancing, I don’t dance at all. My dad was a pastor and it was considered a sin to dance when I was growing up so I wasn’t allowed to participate. However since I am all grown up now, I can see from the scriptures that dancing isn’t listed in Paul’s lists of sins so I offer to keep up with you although I warn you I am likely to step on your toes!

    My intent in post 16 is to show the logic of the patriarchalist view on 1 Tim 2:12-15 against your two witnesses requirement. So any egalitarian here who actually understands the patriarchalist view should realize *why* the two witnesses requirement will not be effective against the patriarchalist view on 1 Tim 2:12-15.

    And the apostle Paul intends to show why your objection holds no water. Fair enough?

  17. “Chris”
    I also do not go on the CARM boards anymore as the unChristlike attitude of the “staff” gave me a massive headache. I won’t be clicking on your links to CARM.

  18. For general information, modus ponens is defined in this article:

    The argument form has two premises. The first premise is the “if–then” or conditional claim, namely that P implies Q. The second premise is that P, the antecedent of the conditional claim, is true. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q, the consequent of the conditional claim, must be true as well. In Artificial Intelligence, modus ponens is often called forward chaining.
    An example of an argument that fits the form modus ponens:
    If today is Tuesday, then I will go to work.
    Today is Tuesday.
    Therefore, I will go to work.

    This argument is valid, but this has no bearing on whether any of the statements in the argument are true; the validity of modus ponens means that the conclusion must be true if all the premises are true. An argument can be valid but nonetheless unsound if one or more premises are false; if an argument is valid and all the premises are true, then the argument is sound. A propositional argument using modus ponens is said to be deductive.

    As you can all see, “Chris” presumes the correctness of both premises, yet we know that the first [P1] is one of the points being debated, meaning “Chris” has made the foundational premise out of an assertion and not an undisputed fact. That is, an attempt is being made to make the conclusion one of the premises. Such fallacious tactics are common.

    And [P2] is hardly an obvious implication of P1. In fact, it is a tautology to impose that implication on the OT when that is part of the point under debate. Again, logically fallacious. Likewise, P3 presumes the reason for Paul to refer to the OT instead of citing any kind of proof.

    Overall, as is obvious here, the male supremacist cannot cite anything more than presumed implications from dubious premises to justify their conceit in the flesh. I’m also observing the attempt here at using big, scary college words to try and intimidate the humble readers here. This same approach is commonly used by atheists/evolutionists who then return to their supporters to report their great victory and gloat over their superior intellect.

    In stark contrast, a true Christian does not seek preeminence, does not crave rule over others, and does not aggressively pressure others to conform to their will. Jesus laid aside power and position to serve His bride; any believer who does not stoop that low is unworthy to go around teaching anyone.

  19. Paula,

    [P1] does not imply [P2]. [P2] and [P3], by modus ponens, implies [P4]. The warrant for [P3] should be obvious: The causal ‘gar’ in 1 Tim 2:13. Understanding my argument requires some understanding of the patriarchalist view. So, I’m asking you to accept some things to see where the internal logic of the view leads, and why Cheryl isn’t going to make much headway with her two witnesses requirement when speaking with patriarchalists.

    I only grant [P1] for the sake of showing the logic of the patriarchalist argument. It is an assumption, the purpose of which is to show how patriarchalists can derive the conclusion that the OT teaches [P1] as well as the NT. Paula, you have misunderstood my argument.

    Speaking of logic, it is ad hominem to call me a “male supremacist” and conceited.

  20. “Chris”
    I would also like you to answer the questions that I brought out regarding your connection to CARM and how you post here without a trace. What are you hiding?

  21. “Chris”:

    P –> Q reads “If P, then Q”, which means P necessarily implies or causes Q. Yet P is the point under debate and thus cannot be used as a premise. And your using P where you should be using Q isn’t helping to clarify your argument at all. (i.e., using the term P4) I realize you’re trying to use P to designate “patriarchy” and E for “egalitarian”, but at least give the conclusion some other designation than making it look like another premise. If you want to impress everyone with what you’re learning in logic class, you need to be more careful. And no, I have not misunderstood your argument, but you surely have misunderstood ours.

    I called PMS conceited. If you took it personally, that’s fine, but it’s no ad hominem on my part.

    Although I’m sure Cheryl will easily handle your “causal gar” question, again you seem to try to put the conclusion in the premises. Paul appeals to the OT but not for the reason you assert.

    I suppose at this point I should also address the straw man portion of that first post. That is, “Chris” has attempted to construct an argument egals do not make and then burn it down, using the term “modus tolens” which is basically modus ponens in reverse.

    E1 is a disputed point and thus not one egals make. Instead, we say that Paul is not appealing to the OT for the purpose PMS (patriarchy/ male supremacism) alleges. We say Paul appeals to the OT on the matter of deception, not authority, and more appropos to this argument, that he isn’t talking about ALL women at all; he is talking about A WOMAN who is teaching falsehood, and this because she had been deceived. Thus the appeal to Eve’s deception is completely natural in the context of false teaching. Authority is not in view; neither is true teaching forbidden to women. But, alas, I despair of the PMSers to ever grasp this point of our argument.

    E2 is correct as stated. But E4 misstates our conclusion; we say not that 1 Tim. 2:12 has been misunderstood, but that the PMS interpretation of it has been a deliberate error perpetuated for most of church history by those who take pride in male flesh and think God is really a respecter of persons.

    We also observe the fallacious statement to the effect that “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof” in the statement “… [E2] is a strong claim, but if egalitarians want to establish the conclusion of this modus tollens argument with necessity, then [E2] must be this strong” . “Chris” hopes we haven’t noticed the attempt to get us to say we overlooked something, because that is a much easier straw man to burn. The fact remains that E2 is a true statement; no one can find scripture to show it to be false. The burden of proof is on PMS to find it, not on egals to simply concede the point PMS wishes us to hand them on a silver platter. If our argument is too strong for them, let them find their own rebuttal.

    “Chris” goes on to build on this foundation of sand by trying to make the baseless P1 assertion equal to the E2 premise which no one has refuted.

    In the end, “Chris” has done all this for no reason, since the matter of two witnesses has not been addressed at all. It was a diversion from the start. “Chris” simply wishes to redefine the terms from establishing laws to applying them, yet ironically, it is PMS that insists upon saying Paul is making a new law here.

    Yes, it’s all been very entertaining, but merry-go-rounds get boring.

  22. FWIIW, I cannot tell whether Chris is egal or non-egal, as he does not say and simply stating how one side views something is not the same as agreeing with that side.

  23. I should also point out that “Chris” committed the tu quoque fallacy in trying to pin ad hominem on me, as if it negates my argument.

  24. Paula wrote: “The fact remains that E2 is a true statement; no one can find scripture to show it to be false.”

    This is just dogmatic assertion. How do you know there is no OT teaching that implies women are not to teach or exercise authority over men? And how do you know “no one can find scripture to show it to be false”?

  25. “Chris”, are you actually asking me to prove a negative? It is your point to prove false; all you have to do is find scriptures that state what I say isn’t there. My assertion is grounded in fact, because no such scriptures exist, so in order to prove me wrong you only need to supply scriptures that prove otherwise.

    In contrast, a dogmatic assertion is one like the PMS argument of authority by virtue of chronology. There are no scriptures to support it and plenty that prove it wrong, such as Jacob over Esau, David over all 7 of his older brothers, etc. Man was created last, not first, yet Man has authority over all the animals. If chronology = authority, then Eve had authority over Adam. So we see that scripture does not support the PMS view and has explicit evidence against it.

    So again I challenge you: find scripture, in context, that clearly falsifies my claim.

  26. P.S.:

    Whether my claim is a dogmatic assertion is irrelevant to whether yours is. In fact, to launch this counter-claim is a red herring.

  27. Paula: “‘Chris’, are you actually asking me to prove a negative?”

    Yes, absolutely! Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason has shown that negative synthetic statements incur the burden of proof.

    Paula: My assertion is grounded in fact, because no such scriptures exist, so in order to prove me wrong you only need to supply scriptures that prove otherwise.

    You’re just saying that! Besides, I have supplied scripture to show otherwise. Paul refers to it in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. So, it is there.

    There is no red herring here since this point is germane to my argument.

  28. I am making a claim on a finite topic: the words contained in the Bible. I have examined it all and found it devoid of proof for your position. Therefore my claim is not groundless but established. If you claim it is false, then you are making the assertion that proof exists. It is therefore your case to make. Far from “just saying that”, I’m challenging you to back up your own assertion. Can you do that?

    It is your counter-claim that is germane to your argument. That is, you claim proof exists so you must show it. So far you’ve only asserted the conclusion in the premise. Your interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:13-14 is not a proof but an opinion, the one under debate. And it is circular: you presume Paul appeals to the OT as a matter of authority and then read that presumption back into the text. The egal argument is that Paul appeals to it as a matter of deception, which fits perfectly into the context.

  29. Paula,
    You are doing an excellent job of arguing against logical fallacies.

    “Chris”,
    Answer my questions about why you are hiding behind a spam program that lets you hide your IP address? If you are not MS or DS why do you need to hide? My guess – you are the real thing – MS in person. Prove me wrong 😉

  30. By the way for the information of everyone, “Chris” has found a way to come onto my blog without any evidence that “he” is here. No IP address shows up on my software when he posts and he comes here completely invisible. As far as I know, no one else has ever posted here in this “invisible” way. I want to know why. Diane doesn’t think this way but slickster does. Come on admit it. “Chris” is playing slick’s game. Why does an apologist who has hasn’t been able to answer my arguments have to come here invisibly to try the logical fallacy game? Perhaps we should just call you “slick Chris” until you stop hiding your identity. Is this fair?

  31. Paula,
    It isn’t a proxy that he is using. He has made himself invisible. Proxys just hide the IP address but they still show up. This guy has a way to make himself completely invisible. Nothing shows up at all and my blog trapped him in the spam box just like all the other invisible spammers who also come onto blogs invisibly.

  32. Sorry about this, but I am now inspired… ;-P

    “Do you suffer from it? Lots of guys do. You become nervous, even fearful around women. It has been identified and has a name:

    Gynophobia.

    If you suffer from gynophobia, please see your doctor and get some help. Ask for our new formula called Myproxyzfalen and start noticing improvement in as little as two days. Side affects are temporary and may include dizziness, mockery from other guys, a feeling of helplessness and vulnerability, irritability, and having to eat crow.

  33. I am still laughing. Paula, you are a funny gal! Just a note – I just changed a setting on my blog and that changed the time. It made it look like you posted about an hour after I did, but you posted about the same time as I did with the time change that I made.

  34. Cheryl, I’m not sure why you can’t read my IP, but I do run NoScript (its an anti-malware tool) on my computer so your sitemeter is being blocked. Why are you so determined to believe that I am Matt Slick or Diane?

    Cheryl: “If you are not MS or DS why do you need to hide? My guess – you are the real thing – MS in person.”

    Um, why would MS or DS need to hide?

    Paula: “I am making a claim on a finite topic: the words contained in the Bible. I have examined it all and found it devoid of proof for your position.”

    Thanks for confessing your ignorance but, given your wacky interpretation of my posts, I don’t trust your reading comprehension.

    Paula: “That is, you claim proof exists so you must show it. ”

    No. I don’t have to show it. It is sufficient for my argument to show *that* it is exists, not to show what it is or how Paul derives it. I’m taking it on Paul’s authority that it is there, implicitly at least, in the creation account.

    You seem to be shifting the burden of proof:

    Here is an example of this kind of bad logic from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html:

    “Bill: ‘I think that some people have psychic powers.’
    Jill: ‘What is your proof?’
    Bill: ‘No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.'”

    In this case:

    Egal: There is no OT proscription against women teaching men.
    Patriarch: What is your proof?
    Egal: No one has been able to prove that there is such an OT proscription.

    PS I’ve posted a response to Cheryl’s 1 Tim 2:11-15 position here:
    http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/02/what-does-1-timothy-211-15-mean/

  35. MS and DS are the kind of people who would stoop so low as to buy up a bunch of “cherylschatz” domains in order to try and take away traffic from this blog. I wouldn’t put anything past them.

    Your own ignorance and ad hominem is showing, “Chris”. My interpretations are legitimate and logical. You disagree. But that’s hardly a debate, now is it. Is that all you’ve got? Is it somehow okay in your “wacky” world to call names while trying to condemn me for the same? And do you expect to win anything but our contempt for setting up even more straw men?

    Yes, you do have to show proof for your claims, especially when you demand it from your opponent. Unless you’d like to admit to being a hypocrite. And far from shifting the burden of proof, I’m only preventing you from slipping out of what is rightfully your burden to bear. You won’t escape.

    So tell us, what is YOUR proof for male supremacy? Does “not so among you” not apply between the sexes? Where does it say that ANYONE is to model the Father’s “rule” over the Son? Where does it say that women ALONE model the Son’s EARTHLY submission to the Father? And what kind of Christian even would want authority over another?

  36. “Chris”,
    Email me back on the email I just sent you. I need proof that you are not slickster.

    It is also time to take the challenge and prove your case. If not, go back to CARM and let the “staff” know that you failed.

  37. Let’s keep the current comments on this post. Some comments have been placed on a very old post of mine and those comments won’t be seen by many so please post them here. Or you can post them on the interview #2

    For a more complete listing of my exegesis below is the most complete form of my view.
    http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/30/the-rest-of-the-story-1-timothy-211-15-and-matt-slick/
    Please do not post comments on the link above as not many will see the comments as the older post.

  38. For the record, none of this identity checking would have been necessary without past experiences from those who “Chris” admires. He can thank them for the background check.

  39. ‘Your claim that one specific wife is in view is based on 1) the singular form ‘a woman’ in verses 11-12, 2) the shift from ‘she’ to ‘they’ in verse 15, and 3) your claim that Paul is talking about a husband and wife. Your claim that the woman is a false teacher is based on a contextual argument that depends largely on 1 Timothy 1:3ff.

    As to the first point, the singular form ‘a woman’ presents no problem for the patriarchalist view. William D. Mounce writes in his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (specifically 1 Timothy 2:11), “The anarthrous ????, ‘woman,’ functions as a generic noun here as in v 9 and v 12 (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 253-54), appropriate in the statement of a general truth.” (William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, no. 46 (Nashville: T. Nelson, 2000), 117-118). This means that ‘a woman’ is not referring to a specific woman, but to a typical member of a group. In English, this means any woman.’

    Chris,

    There is no way for the patri/comp to prove that Paul stopped more than one woman, so it doesn’t matter what their argument is since that’s the bottom line. What can only be proven from the passage in regards to who Paul stopped from teaching, is that he stopped one woman since one is the smallest number. That’s the big ‘duh’. But then, funny thing is, that the patri/comp does actualy want to claim that Paul used ‘a woman’ specificaly but only in v14 (as a reference to ‘Eve’)! But when they interpret vv 11 & 12, they want to claim that Paul uses the same singular genericaly, though they cannot prove it. So they want thier cake and to eat it too. They believe then that Paul uses the singular to refer to a specific woman but only when it suits their interpretive purposes. Simply, Paul uses the singular ‘a woman’ 3 times throughout the passage to refer to the same woman.

  40. I got Chris’s reply by email but he has not yet moved it here, so I’ll include it as a quote:

    Paula: “Note also that the tense of ‘has become’ shows continuing action in the present, meaning the woman Paul refers to is not Eve but a woman living at the time, since whoever she is she is STILL in a state of error as of his writing.”

    In 1 Timothy 2:14 “ginomai” is in the perfect tense.

    http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#PERFECT:
    “The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action. ”

    The action is not continuing in the present as you claim. As the definition says, “The progress of the action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on.”

    I see no problem here for the patriarchalist view since they will certainly agree that Eve’s completed action has continuing consequence

    Chris,

    The definition you supplied is exactly what I was trying to convey, that is, that Paul is addressing a situation that still existed at the time of the writing. My choice of the word “action” was perhaps confusing to you.

    Now let’s take your interpretation into the verses and see how it works. You say Eve is “the woman”:

    For Adam was first formed then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived and continues in the transgression. Notwithstanding, Eve will be saved in the childbearing if women who came after her continue in faith and charity…

    You err in overlooking the fact that the woman who was deceived is the one continuing in transgression— which is impossible for Eve. If “a woman” is Eve, then it is Eve who continues to suffer the effects of her sin!

    You have acknowledged that the Greek verb has continuing consequences, but on whom? And the “she” of vs. 15 is still that same woman, whom you say is Eve. Explain. Are you actually saying that Eve’s sin has been conferred upon all women for all time– yet somehow Adam’s sin has not? And if his sin has been conferred upon all men for all time, then all men are guilty of failure to lead and protect!

    You can’t have it both ways. Either Eve is still suffering the consequences of her sin and can only be saved if future women remain in faith, or you believe that all women are deceived like Eve, in spite of being in Christ, because you think Paul only charges women with having to remain faithful.

  41. Paula: “You have acknowledged that the Greek verb has continuing consequences, but on whom? And the ‘she’ of vs. 15 is still that same woman, whom you say is Eve. Explain.”

    From http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2499, Terri Darby Moore writes:
    “Most commentators and scholars see these two verbs in 1 Tim 2:15 as both referring generically to all women, with the conditional clause qualifying the discussion to refer to Christian women in particular. The singular swqhvsetai applies collectively to the whole sex while referring especially to the representative woman, Eve, mentioned in the previous verse. The shift to the plural in the conditional clause makes it clear that the entire sentence refers, not merely to one woman, but to the women addressed in the entire passage.”

    When you understand that “the woman” in verse 14 represents all women it makes sense for translators to translate verse 15 like this:

    15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (TNIV)

    15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (NIV)

    15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (NASB)

  42. I will let others comment here for now as my whole next post will be on the “a woman” “women” concept along with the connecting “for”. Interview with Paul part 3 coming your way soon 🙂

  43. As you surely know, “most commentators” is an appeal to popularity. Commentators can be anybody, so when you say “most” you first have to establish how many commentators there are, eliminate the non-experts in Greek, and then show that a majority agree and that no other experts have challenged them. But more importantly, the accuracy of one’s view of the Greek is not determined by popular vote but by showing that the Koine Greek of the first century supports the claim.

    Bible.org is staunchly male supremacist, and they are as biased as anyone. Yet instead of showing how the grammar of the first century Greek must mean what they say, they simply assert it as being so. How do they justify claiming that “the singular swqhvsetai applies collectively to the whole sex”? They don’t. They just assert it. And contrary to their claim, “the shift to the plural” is hardly “clear” at all, but instead is a glaring rebuttal to their claim. They want to gloss over Paul’s choice of words and replace them with their own. This passage, to use your own approach, is held by “most commentators” to be one of the most difficult in all of scripture, yet you would try to pass it off as clear and unambiguous.

    Again I challenge you to make sense out of claiming that Eve’s deception applies to anyone but her, from the actual Greek grammar. The whole debate here is on what Paul meant, and you still can’t make the conclusion into a premise no matter how many people wish it to be so. “She will… if they” cannot be muddled into “They will… if they” without altering scripture itself.

  44. Paula: “As you surely know, ‘most commentators’ is an appeal to popularity. ”

    Not really. See http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html:
    “If an elite group of people are in a position to know of what they speak, their authority is relevant and should not automatically be discounted. E.g., to remark that most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy, so that it follows that persons who have a high fat diet should change their eating habits, is to make a legitimate appeal.”

    If a few of most commentators are nonexperts, this is no great moment since you still have a legitimate appeal to authority with the experts.

    Paula: “Bible.org is staunchly male supremacist, and they are as biased as anyone.”

    You’re poisoning the well. And I seriously doubt they are male supremacists. In my experience with others egalitarians, they believe that anyone who advocates role subordination for women teaches, by implication at least, that women are subhuman somehow. This perspective is practically axiomatic for them and warps their understanding of patriarchalism and complementarianism into something that is antithetical to what they actually teach.

    Paula: “Again I challenge you to make sense out of claiming that Eve’s deception applies to anyone but her”

    God made Adam a steward of moral life in the garden by giving him the garden mandate (Gen 2:15-17). God then declared that Adam was not sufficient to complete the tasks God had set before him alone (Gen 2:18). So, he created Eve to help him (Gen 2:21-23). Adam’s role as steward was denied when Eve took it upon herself to break the garden mandate (Gen 3:6). When Eve reversed this order of creation (Adam first, given the mandate. Eve second, to help Adam) she opened herself up to Satan’s deception, ate the fruit, and fell into transgression. Adam followed Eve (again reversing the order of creation) and sinned too (Gen 3:6). Now, we all have to deal with the consequences of the fall. In the curse God had specific words for the man (Gen 3:17-19), and specific words for the woman (Gen 3:16).

    This relates to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 this way: Men in the church today are to be stewards of the gospel as Adam was steward of the garden mandate. This responsibility for men has not ceased with Adam. We are still stewards of the gospel and women are not supposed to take over this responsibility lest they fall into deception like Eve did. If they fulfill their role as women (taking “childbearing” in verse 15 metonymically) continuing “in faith and love and holiness, with self-control”, then they will have protection from deception by the proper stewards of the gospel.

    In context, proper stewardship of the gospel is necessary to prevent false teaching and deceptions. This is why Paul also says the elders of the church should be men.

    Whew! This explanation is a little quick and dirty so I guess I’ll have to trust your reading comprehension to help make up for its lack of thoroughness. I know, I know. I’m taking an awful risk.

  45. If a few of most commentators are nonexperts, this is no great moment since you still have a legitimate appeal to authority with the experts.

    And who are the experts you appeal to? You did not name them. Even the example– “most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy”– can be and has been challenged due to evidence that it is a high carb diet that is unhealthy. Again, truth and fact are not a matter of popularity, even among experts. Proof or strong evidence, with none excluded, must be offered, regardless of credentials.

    You’re poisoning the well. And I seriously doubt they are male supremacists. In my experience with others egalitarians, they believe that anyone who advocates role subordination for women teaches, by implication at least, that women are subhuman somehow.

    … he said, poisoning the well in return.

    Fact: read http://www.fether.net/2008/01/19/bible-dot-arrrgh/ and http://www.fether.net/2008/01/18/vows-and-wows/ for my personal observations of their bias. See, I’m documenting my claim, something you need to pick up on. And if what you read there from them isn’t teaching the sub-humanity of women, then we’re wasting our time.

    God made Adam a steward of moral life in the garden by giving him the garden mandate

    And what was that mandate? To “keep” which means to guard, protect. In contrast, the command to RULE was given to both of them in Gen. 1:28.

    God then declared that Adam was not sufficient to complete the tasks God had set before him alone (Gen 2:18). So, he created Eve to help him

    Note that an ezer kenegdo is “a strong one facing him”, an equal partner in battle. God Himself is described in such terms as well.

    3). Adam’s role as steward was denied when Eve took it upon herself to break the garden mandate

    Hogwash. Show me where any scripture puts that interpretation into Genesis. Show me the scripture.

    In fact, I refuse to allow you to discuss anything else until you answer this. And when you realize there isn’t a shred of scripture to back up this assertion and opinion of yours, then I’ll go on to the rest of your claims.

  46. Good work Paula! You fight this battle while I bring the interpretations to “Paul”. “Paul” will take the reasoning process and dismantle the argument. I may not be as fast as I would like because of other ministry obligations, but the answers will be in my “Paul” dialogs and I think the format will help a great many people to “get” it.

  47. You guys are typing too fast for me to keep up. I will have to read the entirety of the comments this weekend. But Paula’s early statement (#25) made me chuckle:

    [blockquote]This same approach is commonly used by atheists/evolutionists who then return to their supporters to report their great victory and gloat over their superior intellect.[/blockquote]

    I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing as I was reading through your post. It just goes to show that if one repeats a baseless presumption over and over to one’s self, almost anything can sound like fact.

  48. “In fact, I refuse to allow you to discuss anything else until you answer this. And when you realize there isn’t a shred of scripture to back up this assertion and opinion of yours, then I’ll go on to the rest of your claims.”

    I agree, Paula. If one cannot get Genesis right without reading into it what is NOT there, then why bother with anything else.

    Chris is ignoring Gen 1. They usually do.

  49. ‘Adam’s role as steward was denied when Eve took it upon herself to break the garden mandate (Gen 3:6).’

    So Eve ends up breaking God’s command (seen in Gen 3:6) through denying Adam’s role. And this sounds similar to some of the underlying messages that women today receive from the institution…

  50. ‘God made Adam a steward of moral life in the garden by giving him the garden mandate (Gen 2:15-17)… Adam’s role as steward was denied when Eve took it upon herself to break the garden mandate (Gen 3:6)…

    This relates to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 this way: Men in the church today are to be stewards of the gospel as Adam was steward of the garden mandate.’

    The comp position then threatens women who would teach and lead and be stewards of the gospel alongside men with satan and being deceived by him. If women deny the stewardship of men in the church as Eve denied Adam’s stewardship of the garden mandate, then they will be deceived as Eve was.

    Just thinking on how odd it is that if work is done in the area of teaching correct doctrine that those who would do the work are threatened by the darkside according to the comp position. Isn’t that odd?

    Women, don’t work equaly alongside men for the sake of the gospel or satan will get ya! Hello? Now why would such threats need to be made? I find the threat very odd. How do you keep 1/2 the body from the stewardship of the gospel alongside the other half? Threaten them with the devil ofcourse.

  51. ‘So Eve ends up breaking God’s command (seen in Gen 3:6) through denying Adam’s role.’

    I also find it interesting that the focus is put on a false ‘how’ she broke God’s command to not eat – through denying the man’s role! The message is clear – women today will sin or find themselves in sin if/when they deny special male steward of the gospel. lol!

  52. I will enjoy picking apart the rest of the claims, but I’m giving “Chris” the weekend to answer the question. Being a student and all, I’m sure the weekend is a time of, um, catching up on studies. Or something.

  53. Ha! The security word is Adam! 🙂

    Well, no “answer” has arrived yet. But I’ll go ahead and examine the rest of it.

    Genesis 2 provides detail to the overview that is Genesis 1. Yet of course it does not negate ch. 1 but magnify portions of it. And in that first chapter we see a chronology, an order, a sequence of events– but nothing about authority until both male and female are created. Order, if equated with hierarchy, would make mankind the lowest life form. Yet no one can deny the supremacy of humanity over other life forms, so one could perhaps then see a reverse hierarchy in chronology. Yet that would put woman over man, since Eve was created last. PMS reacts to this, not by acknowledging either that there is no authority inherent in chronology, or that woman must be superior to man, but that hierarchy by chronology only applies between Adam and Eve! Yet the scripture clearly states, near the end of chapter one, that the only authority there is was granted directly and explicitly by God to both Adam and Eve over other life forms, not each other.

    So as we enter chapter two we have only seen that God granted both male and female authority over other life forms. Then we are told that God placed Adam into Eden, having formed him from ground outside of the garden (a fact that will have significance later on). And the stated purpose of Adam there was to do two things: cultivate the garden, and protect it. And then we see God expressly state the prohibition against eating of the tree in the middle of the garden. PMS likes to emphasize the fact that Eve was not there to hear the command. But it conveniently forgets this point when the question of authority comes up. This is where the alleged “garden mandate” gets interesting.

    If Eve did not yet exist when this “mandate” was given by God, then pray tell, how does it amount to a divine sanction of male over female? Who was Adam ruling besides lower life forms when no equal to him had yet been made? Where was the “family order” when only one human existed? And here’s another angle: Some teach that we all sinned “in Adam”, as “federal head”, citing Heb. 7:10 as establishing this principle. Yet if this is true, then was Eve not “in Adam” when God gave dominion over all the lower life forms? Was she not “in Adam” when God gave the “garden mandate”? Did Adam have rule over himself then, since Eve was “in him”? PMS can’t have it both ways. Either Eve was given the same mandate, or there was no “family order” set up before she existed. And if such order did not exist before Eve, then PMS will have to look elsewhere besides creation order for their alleged authority.

    The Bible never tells us why God (not Adam) stated it was “not good for the man to be alone”. Every attempt at an answer is sheer speculation, and no one opinion is superior to another. But I suspect that if God had wanted us to know, He would have told us. At any rate, the fact is that Adam was in need, incomplete. This touches on the issue of being made “in the image of God”, in that such image is not dependent upon marriage. Those who advocate marriage as a necessary component of the complete image of God will have to deal with the fact that no one ever suggests Adam lacked this image before Eve, so it follows that Eve (or any woman for that matter) is not to be considered “incomplete” or of a lesser or merely reflected image of God on the basis of singleness.

    So God creates Eve to be a strong companion, a rescuer of sorts. Never is she portrayed as an underling, secretary, slave, or auxiliary (I detest that term used for many women’s organizations!). She is strength to his weakness and thus completes him, not in the image of God, but in humanity. As Adam himself exclaimed, she is his own flesh and bone, of the same (equal) substance, unlike the animals God showed him earlier. Those animals were made from dust as Adam was, but Eve was made from Adam’s own flesh. Genetically, Eve was his clone! So where is superiority here? Scripture says no such thing. It speaks of strength, equality, and unity. It is only by imposing an unscriptural meaning for “help” that PMS can wedge hierarchy into this.

    So there was no order for Eve to reverse, no hierarchy to usurp. Noplace in all of scripture ever even hints that Eve lusted after some imaginary position of power over Adam, and only ever speaks of her being the victim of deception. And though a victim, note that she nonetheless took responsibility for her actions: she “owned” the fact that she ate the forbidden fruit. Adam, on the other hand, dared not only to pass blame to Eve, but also to blame God Himself for her! He was a traitor to God and to Eve. Eve did not sneak around behind Adam’s back; he was there watching the whole temptation, per Gen. 3:6b. There is nothing whatsoever in that text or any other to suggest that Eve was focused on anything at all but the fruit and its being the key to unlock wisdom. She, the inexperienced one, was an easy target, and Adam completely failed to guard.

    Many have claimed that Eve tempted Adam but that is a lie. They claim she lusted after Adam’s alleged authority, but that too is a lie. They assert that Satan tempted her because she would in turn tempt Adam, but that is another lie. Eve was the target because she, unlike Adam, never observed God’s creative power. Sure, that’s speculation too, but at least it doesn’t malign the character of Eve nor exonerate the character of Adam. Only Adam is blamed for sin, and with good reason. Genesis 3 makes it quite clear, without added footnotes or fine print, that Eve accepted the consequences for her sin while Adam turned against her and God.

    While the serpent and Adam were told by God, “Because you have done this…”, Eve was not. And it was Adam, made from dust, who alone was driven out of the garden (3:22-24); it was due to Adam alone that the ground was cursed; to Adam alone is sin attributed (Rom. 5:12). A “steward of moral life”? I don’t think so.

    “Chris” made the claim that Eve “opened herself up to Satan’s deception, ate the fruit, and fell into transgression”, yet what does the scripture say? It says the exact opposite: that only after the serpent tempted and deceived Eve did she consider eating the fruit. She did not “open herself up”, and Adam was standing there yet did nothing to prevent it. Deception is always given as the reason for Eve’s sin, not the result. After all, if she first of all lusted after power or fruit or whatever, that was her sin, yet scripture plainly states that her sin was in eating the fruit. For people who like order so much, PMSers sure are quick to ditch it when it suits them!

    Now we come to the matter of the extent of Eve’s actions. We have seen that she was deceived, and that this only applied to her; it is never said to be a curse passed on to others. “Chris” tried to switch horses in midstream by implying that “now we all have to deal with the consequences of the fall” is ultimately the result of Eve’s actions, but scripture only ever lays the blame for the fall at the feet of Adam; it is never attributed in any way to Eve. If women are still prone to deception, then surely Adam is still passing the blame!

    “Chris” then tries to make this all a permanent condition of all people when connecting it to 1 Tim. 2, as if we all suffer Adam’s “nature” but only women suffer Eve’s being deceived. Yet scripture never says any such thing. And then to claim, as “Chris” does, that “men in the church today are to be stewards of the gospel” is sheer fantasy. Where does the NT ever even hint as such an idea? 1 Tim. 2? Circular reasoning. If, as we’ve seen,

    there is no hierarchy for Paul to refer to in Genesis, and
    the whole topic of the letter to Timothy is stopping false teachers, and
    the woman he mentions “has fallen into” sin due to deception,

    then one can only claim Paul is mandating perpetual second-rate citizen status to all women by inserting hierarchy into the text he uses for his argument. So when we read Genesis we cannot presume hierarchy since that is the point under debate. And Genesis never hints at any rank or order between Adam and Eve until after she follows him when he alone is banished from the garden. Her legacy is not deception but oppression, while Adam’s is not only causing sin to enter the world but also keeping women oppressed. That is the root and cause of patriarchy.

    It falls upon PMS to cite scriptural support for the claim that all women are prone to deception and to usurping an imaginary divine decree that puts male over female, a ranking by the flesh that has no place in Christianity. If they wish to continue labeling all women in this way even without scriptural mandate, then let them also accept the blame for all men being rebellious against God in a way that women are not, and for keeping women beneath them. Eve’s greatest blunder was to follow Adam instead of God, which is the core teaching of PMS today; they are actually encouraging women to follow Eve in this great error! And it is idolatrous to put any man in a place of spiritual supremacy or to usurp the place of Christ in a woman’s life.

    “Chris” and all the other PMSers believe that they must restrain women “lest they fall into deception like Eve did”. Yet as we’ve seen, they have the order of events wrong in the first place, so their conclusions are in error as well. Lack of restraint has nothing to do with Eve’s deception, and Adam’s example, if it shows anything, tells us that men are completely worthless in this task! If “this responsibility for men has not ceased with Adam”, then neither has their inability and unwillingness to protect. Adam was the poorest guardian and thus the poorest role model for men.

    Lastly, “Chris” actually argues that the only other way to keep women from deception is for them to “fulfill their role as women”, under “Adam”s watchful eye. (uh huh) Are only women supposed to “continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control”? Are they in sin if they fail in this, while men would not be in sin? Do they actually believe that a man is sinning if he does not restrain women and resist every effort for a Christian women to preach the correct gospel, teach, etc? No wonder they fight so hard to keep preeminence! And it’s all an elaborate house of cards they themselves made up.

    What we actually read in Genesis is far different from the highly speculative assertions of PMS. They read their desired conclusions into the premises, putting more fine print into Genesis than there are actual words. They circularly argue that Paul must refer to Genesis to establish authority and then read that back into the context of 1 Tim. 2, completely ignoring the topic of deception, the specific grammar shifts between singular and plural as well as the continuing nature of sin of the woman at the time, and the actual words of Genesis. They ignore Paul’s letter to the Romans which lays all the blame on Adam and none on Eve, along with Paul’s expressed statements to even whole congregations that deception is hardly the sole domain of women (2 Cor. 11:3). They ignore scripture’s description of Adam as the rebel (Hosea 6:7, Rom. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:45), not Eve. In short, they must ignore much scripture and replace it with their own in order to construct their argument.

    I’m not impressed. And I will not, like Eve, follow any man “out of the garden” and away from my Savior. I have no other Priest, no other King, and no man emits any magical mystical covering to protect me, as if the Holy Spirit cannot do the job without their “help”. Pride in the flesh, especially that which puts the other half of humanity behind them, is the real sin.

  54. Paula: “Again, truth and fact are not a matter of popularity, even among experts.”

    The argument is a legitimate appeal to expert opinion. The fact that there is expert consensus serves to demonstrate that some quirky individual wasn’t chosen for the ‘expert’. As you know you can find an ‘expert’ to support almost any position you want to take but, by backing up the expert with a second opinion, peer review, or other experts, you can avoid committing the fallacy of unrepresentative sample. The ad populum fallacy is not an issue here.

    Paula: “Even the example– ‘most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy’– can be and has been challenged due to evidence that it is a high carb diet that is unhealthy.”

    I’m sure a high carb diet is unhealthy too. The dose makes the poison 😉 . But your counter-argument is irrelevant to the question. The fact that experts can make unsound judgments doesn’t make the appeal to expert opinion an invalid argument form. It just means the truthfulness of the expert’s claim should be judged on other grounds. All other things being considered equal, if someone can support their claims with expert opinions, the burden of proof shifts to the person without the support expert opinions.

    Paula: “And who are the experts you appeal to? You did not name them.”

    I’ve named and quoted a couple, but why is it necessary for me to name all the experts involved? This would be a huge task and one which space does not permit on this blog. It seems to me, thus far at least, that Terri Darbi Moore’s point that “[m]ost commentators and scholars see these two verbs in 1 Tim 2:15 as both referring generically to all women, with the conditional clause qualifying the discussion to refer to Christian women in particular” stands until a good argument can be made to reject it.

    Now I know you guys have a peculiar take on the grammar in 1 Timothy 2:15, namely, your claims about the shift from ‘she’ to ‘they’. It seems like you have a mental block in place when it comes to understanding what ‘she’ and ‘they’ are referring to, and I’m not sure how to get you past it. IMHO, Moore’s explanation was fairly clear. Are you saying that if ‘she’ refers back to ‘the woman’ in verse 14, then ‘the woman’ in verse 14 cannot be put for all women collectively because ‘she’ is grammatically singular? If so, please defend this claim.

    Personally, I’m inclined to agree with John MacArthur when he says, “The salvation spoken of here is not salvation from sin. It cannot refer to Eve since the future tense is used (“she shall be saved”)” (see http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg54-17.htm). When ‘she’ in verse 15 refers back to ‘the woman’ in verse 14 it is not referring to the woman *as* Eve or *as* the woman herself but rather the woman as the representative of all women collectively. Using the singular ‘she’ is fine grammatically because ‘the woman’ in verse 14 is singular, but it should be understood that all women are meant because, conceptually, ‘the woman’ stands for all women. The plural ‘they’ in verse 15 refers to all women collectively.

    Cheryl doesn’t like the idea that ‘she’ refers back to its nearest candidate for antecedents in verse 14 so she says, “The only ‘she’ in this entire passage that verse 15 can refer back to is ‘a woman’ from verse 12.” But this is an ad hoc hypothesis designed to prevent her pet interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 from being falsified. The fact that she has to go all the way back to verse 12 for an antecedent that works in her theory begins to reveal how weak her view really is. Generally, though I will certainly grant not always, the nearest antecedent is correct (note: I’m not thinking of demonstrative pronouns here). The patriarchalist view accepts the nearest antecedent.

  55. Paula: “Hogwash. Show me where any scripture puts that interpretation into Genesis. Show me the scripture.”

    You’ve failed to understand the nature of the argument. Partly, post #16 was intended to reveal the internal structure of the logic of egalitarian and patriarchalist arguments regarding 1 Timothy 2:12. The patriarchalist makes a modus ponens style argument and the egalitarian responds with a modus tollens. So, the patriarchalist accepts the view that verse 12 proscribes women from teaching and exercising authority over men, and that Paul makes this conclusion from OT teaching. Accepting this, and of course I realize you don’t, the patriarchalist naturally concludes that the proscription is implicit in the order of creation to which Paul appeals. After this, he needs only to reason back to the best explanation (an abductive argument) to understand what Paul probably meant . As far as the patriarchalist is concerned, your protestations about there being no such proscription in the order of creation or the OT anywhere puts you in conflict with the apostle Paul.

    So, the scripture is 1 Timothy 2:12-14 (after the antecedent in [P2] is established). Regarding this, I’ve given arguments in post 31 under:

    http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/12/02/what-does-1-timothy-211-15-mean/

    It is interesting to note that one of your own scholars, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis says, “I am not persuaded that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 speaks only to one specific woman. Although I suppose it could be possible, the Greek text does not clearly state this to be the case. As NT scholar Craig Blomberg explains it, although the nouns (“a woman,” “a man”) are singular, they “are indefinite; hence ‘I do not permit a woman to. . .over a man.’ The nouns thus become generic. If they were definite–‘I don’t permit the woman to. . .over the man,’ one could argue that one specific man and one specific woman were in view. But if I write, ‘I don’t permit a child to sleep on a concrete floor,’ I am making a more general statement about not allowing any child to sleep on any concrete floor. ‘I don’t permit children to sleep on concrete floors’ is the semantic equivalent, meaning exactly the same thing.” see: http://menandwomenleaderstogether.blogspot.com/2008/05/adam-and-eve-in-genesis-and-first.html

    Up until verse 11 Paul has been giving instructions for men and women using the plurals “men” and “women”. He hasn’t ceased giving instructions to men and women by the change to the singular. The generic singular is used in verse 12 because Paul intends to connect with Eve as the representative of all women collectively.

  56. I asked you a very simple question, Chris. You claimed in #62 that “Adam’s role as steward was denied when Eve took it upon herself to break the garden mandate”. I challenged you to show scripture to support your claim. You say Adam’s role of steward included not only what Genesis says– cultivate and guard the garden– but also that he ruled over Eve. And you say that Eve “broke” this imaginary rule somehow.

    Show me the scripture.

  57. Oops, pressed return too soon…

    You are arguing in circles. Paul appeals to Genesis but Genesis says nothing about authority. You then read this imaginary meaning back into 1 Tim. and call it proof that Paul had authority in mind. You have yet to establish your premise that Adam had a mandate to rule over Eve, and that Eve usurped it.

    Did you read my long post at all, where I pointed this out?

  58. I suppose I should spell out the circularity of your argument.

    You say 1 Tim. 2 is about authority of all men over all women for all time because Paul refers to creation order.
    You say creation order must therefore be about authority because Paul refers to it in 1 Tim. 2.

    That’s a tautology.

  59. Paula wrote: “I suppose I should spell out the circularity of your argument.

    You say 1 Tim. 2 is about authority of all men over all women for all time because Paul refers to creation order.
    You say creation order must therefore be about authority because Paul refers to it in 1 Tim. 2.

    That’s a tautology.”

    I’m not sure what you are getting at because if evaluate modus ponens with truth table, you will see that it is a tautology since all the values under the main connective are true.

    Maybe you meant to say I’m question begging (a type of circular reasoning), if I read you right. But I am not. If Paul’s argument implies that the proscription (vs. 12) is in the OT, then his proscription really *is* in the OT. Patriarchalists accept the antecedent on Paul’s apostolic authority.

    At any rate, you’ve horribly misrepresented my view. I’ve already said your reading comprehension is bad, and this helps to confirm it. I never said anything like “1 Tim. 2 is about authority of all men over all women for all time because Paul refers to creation order.”

  60. No Chris, your insults will not deter me from holding you to supporting your assertions. I have been challenging your premises from the start and you just keep re-asserting them.

    An example of your own case of misrepresenting or poor reading comprehension is in your statement about Paul’s proscription in the OT. The whole point of contention is NOT whether he’s doing that, but why. You claim that his merely citing creation order is proof of your interpretation of hierarchy, yet I have shown that the context of Genesis to which he refers has nothing whatsoever related to authority between Adam and Eve. She had nothing to usurp, and scripture never says she lusted after anything of Adam’s. And the context of 1 Tim. 2 is clearly about deception, and this deception, per Paul’s explicit statements, is due to Eve’s being created last.

    And you have in fact been arguing for exactly what you now say you aren’t, namely, that Paul’s statements in 1 Tim. 2 are applicable for all women for all time, because Paul refers to creation order. If you’re trying to make some other argument, you have yet to begin. You expressly stated earlier that Christian men today are to restrain Christian women today to keep them out of deception. So you take Paul’s words to Timothy as about men ruling over women even today, 2000 years later.

    Ask yourself this question: If Paul wanted to appeal to the OT to bolster a new command, one never seen before, then why doesn’t Genesis contain the necessary language to indicate the authority you allege existed between Adam and Eve before the fall? It is not there, as I thoroughly explained. No one before Paul ever cited Genesis as making such a statement, and since Paul’s reason for citing it is the very point of contention, asserting that point in your premises will never win the argument no matter how often you repeat it.

    The context of 1 Timothy is deception and how Timothy must stop it. Good reading comprehension makes this clear. And good reading comprehension of Genesis 1-3 easily sees that Eve never sinned until after she was beguiled, all while her alleged “covering” stood by and watched like a coward or a traitor.

    You have muddled the order of events, relied on special pleading to make only the chronology between Adam and Eve have significance related to hierarchy, invented a “family order” when only one human existed, and ignored the context of Paul’s letter to Timothy. Again, I’m not impressed, and though that hardly matters to you, here’s something that should.

    Jesus laid down his power and position to serve His bride (Phil. 2:5-11). He left His Father’s house to redeem us, went back to “prepare a place”, and left us the Spirit to distribute gifts as He wills– NOT as MAN wills. Before He made that sacrifice, Jesus told His disciples “not so among you”. Do you remember that? Do you think it doesn’t apply to you? How then can you put yourself above any of your spiritual siblings? You cannot say that the left hand must ask the right hand’s permission to act (woman must go through man); you cannot put yourself between any woman and her Savior, for that would be idolatry; you cannot rise above your Master by claiming preeminence over half His Body.

    What kind of Christian wants to rule over another, and thinks God is now a “respecter of persons”? What kind of Christian thinks God now “looks on the outside”? What kind of Christian seeks power and control? I’ll tell you what kind: the proud kind, proud of his flesh. But remember this: “many who are last will be first, and the first will be last”. You want first place in this life? Fine. Take it. All I want is to serve Jesus and His people, to free the oppressed, to get truth out of the Bible instead of trying to over-write it with my own assertions. I want to use my spiritual gifts and talk directly with my Savior, without a human priest, without worldly ambition.

    Want to be great in the kingdom of God? Be the lowest slave. That’s what Christianity is all about.

  61. Just passing through.
    Only read part one.

    1st Timothy 2:11-12 Is not written just about women.

    The Church is the Bride.
    Is the Bride to teach Jesus?
    For Eve was deceived.
    Adam was not deceived.
    Adam sinned willingly.
    Adam was the head, created first and given the law.
    Eve added to the Word. (Neither shall we touch it).
    She was deceived.
    Adam sinned willingly. knowingly.
    Born again, let women be silent in learning.
    Let the church be silent in learning.
    Let the Word teach…

  62. The born again church will learn by reading the Word.
    By letting the word teach and instruct.
    2nd Timothy 3:16

    As the bride, we need not to add to the Word.
    Letting the Word teach.
    Adam was given the garden and the rules of the garden, then he was given a help meet. Adam named all of the animals and was given dominion over the earth. Eve added to the Word “Neither shall we touch it.”
    Satan then said, surely you won’t die….
    He knew she could touch it and not die.
    She added to the rules…
    Satan lead her to question God.

  63. James, that is a very odd way of taking one passage from Ephesians and laying it over the top of another in 1 Timothy– without any justification that I can see. Did Paul INTEND to have his idea of the church as the Bride, apply to 1 Timothy 2? Did he in any way remind Timothy (his original audience) of his words to a totally different audience years before in Eph. 5? Did he intend any connection to be made such that 1 Timothy 2 is supposed to be referring to the church as Bride? Not that I can see.
    This kind of interpretation can lead to all kinds of problems.

    Then there is the fact that Genesis 1 gives both the man and the woman dominion over the earth, not just the man. You say not to add to the word; don’t take away from it either. And it is taking away from the word to erase the woman from God’s words to male and female in Genesis 1.

    And we don’t know for sure that Eve added to the word. God never told her she had sinned by adding to His words, did He? The Bible is silent on where Eve got the idea “you shall not touch.” She could have got it from God. Or not. But it is adding to the word to claim we know for certain that she added to the word.

    The important thing is what the text really says, and doesn’t say.

  64. I am glad you responded to such an old post.. Wish we were neighbors, you have such an unshakable and interesting point of view..
    Would you agree that the bride of Christ (the New City Revelation 21:2) will submit to her Husband, Our Lord, Our Creator?

    Anyways, I love your strong unshakable beliefs..

    As a free gift, I will give you something to add to your side of the argument.

    I do not agree with this interpretation, but it will work well for your side of the street…

    1st Cor 14:35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

    1st Cor 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

    You will note: In this passage Paul was addressing some of the many issues that had cropped up in the church. He was addressing their idea of women keeping silent.

    So, what did he say about this? 1st Cor 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
    He could have been arguing that 1st Cor 14:35 was their (the church’s) wrong way of thinking..

    The fact is Christ died for our sins.

    Christ is the “only” way to salvation.

    Oprah is wrong..

    The issue is not about keeping silent in church.
    The issue is our Salvation and the Kingdom to come.

    I truly believe we would make great neighbors..

    Please use the King James Version and read the following verses.
    Luke 17:11-12
    Gen 2: 16-17 the law of the garden.
    Gen 2:18-20…

    Then Gen 2:21-23
    The Bride will be taken from the Body of Christ..
    Just like a rib (Close to Adams Heart) was taken from Adam
    (Oh my, did I open a can of worms here)..

    Eve Was in the Garden.
    The Serpent was talking to Eve.
    The Serpent started with a question to raise doubt about the Word and also Gods motive for not allowing them to eat of the tree.
    Gen 3:1-4
    Eve was deceived..
    The Serpent was not there when she and Adam were together. Gen 3:6
    She did eat and then she did offer the fruit to Adam and their eyes were opened.
    The Serpent talked only to Eve.

    So, is it a stretch to say women are supposed to keep silent?
    Women are a help meet.
    The woman was deceived.
    Adam was not.. He fell.
    He knowingly and willingly broke the law.
    Genesis 3:6 She saw the tree was good: She saw it as a tree to be desired: she did eat and gave unto her husband..

    In her innocence she listened to her heart and her desire to be wise.
    Adam knew he was doing wrong.. I could take this further, but if we can not get past this first point, then there is no point going beyond.

    I am sorry I only read part one and only a few of the responses to your series. When I get off work tomorrow I will read a little deeper.

    You were kind enough to respond. May God be with you..
    I was just passing by and saw the thread.. So,till tomorrow I am waving my hand..

  65. James, I am not the blog owner, nor am I the author of this post. That would be Cheryl. I simply saw your comment in the recent comments section, and responded– that is all.

    I appreciate your words about 1 Cor 14; I was aware of that interpretation already.

    I don’t think we can see eye to eye on Genesis 2-3. The words “help meet” in the Hebrew are “ezer kenegdo.” Almost every other time “ezer” is used, it refers to God as the “help” of humankind. “Ezer” implies no inferiority, but means “strong aid.” “Kenedgo” means “facing him.” So “help meet” would be better rendered, “face-to-face strong aid.”

    The passage about the temptation says Adam was right there with Eve when she took from the tree. And she didn’t “offer” him the fruit, she “gave” it to him. There is no indication she had to talk him into taking it. The Bible is silent on whether Adam heard what the serpent said, but the way the story is put together seems to imply that he was standing right there with her throughout the entire temptation, and he certainly was with her when she took the fruit.

    I have no idea what Luke 17, about Jesus meeting the lepers, has to do with Genesis 2.

    To say the Bride is taken from the Body of Christ is odd. The church is the bride; the Church is also the body. She is not “taken from” the body.

    If the issue is our salvation and the Kingdom to come, the silencing of women has no place in either one. If women are not to be free in the Kingdom, then they are never to be free. But it is for freedom that Christ set us ALL free– so I will not be subject to a yoke of bondage. Gal. 5:1. In Christ there is not male or female, for we are all one in Christ, and all adopted as sons (this phrase in the original Greek meant we ALL have the rights and privileges pertaining to freeborn male citizens. There are no differences in rights and privileges in the Kingdom). Galations 3:28-4:6. The Bible should not be used as a gag on the mouths of half the church.

    The issue of the church’s submission to Christ, as it relates to wives’ submission to husbands, is a complex one. I do not disagree about wives’ submission, but this passage has been interpreted to mean many things which it doesn’t actually say; and the cultural-historical context, as well as the context of this passage within the whole letter to Ephesus, has been largely ignored, in order to subordinate women unjustly. I suggest you read Cheryl’s other posts on this topic.

    For the rest, I find your way of writing confusing and indirect. Why not just come out and say what you mean?

  66. Kristen,

    I was going off of memory with the Reference to Luke.. I meant 2nd Luke. (ACTS) when Paul was at Mars Hill…

    There is a Bride, There is a New City, There are Nations and there are Kingdoms and Priests on the New Earth. There are Rewards. So yes, the New City is the Bride. The Bride will be a Mature Bride.

    Many References to Eve being deceived and Adam Not being deceived..

    I will give you a few.. The Point is we were Created and we will see His love.. but yes, we will all submit to the will of the King…

    Heading to Work, but again. This has been a good discussion.. Sorry I messed up on the LUKE/ACTS from Memory Scripture…

  67. James,

    I don’t dispute that Eve was deceived and Adam was not. Why does that mean all women should be silenced?

    Why does submission of the church to the will of the King, mean women must treat their husbands as if they were Christ? Isn’t this idolatry?

    In the New City, we are all kings and priests. Not just the males.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: