I don’t know of many more controversial issues in the church than issues regarding women in ministry. It is not controversial whether or not women can do ministry or be effective in ministry, but whether or not they can teach and preside in positions of authority over men. The most controversial issue aspect of this issue, of course, is whether or not women can hold the position of head pastor or elder in a local church.

There are two primary positions in this debate; those who believe that women can teach men and hold positions of authority over men in the church and those that do not. Those that do, normally go by the name “Egalitarians.” Those that do not, go by the name “Complementarians.” I am a complementarian but I understand and appreciate the egalitarian position. In fact, the church I serve at most often is an egalitarian church. (However, I don’t want you to think that my complementarianism is not important to me. There is much more to complementarianism than whether or not a woman can preach!)

There are a lot of passages of Scripture which contribute to the debate, but one stands out more than all the others. 1 Tim. 2:11-15:

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

I don’t want to debate whether or not this passage teaches either position. I am simply going to assume the complementarian position and attempt to deal with the sting of “I don’t allow a woman to teach.” It does have quite a bit of sting.

I like to make the Scripture pragmatically understandable. In other words, I want to not only understand what it says, but to rationally understand why it says what it says. Why does God give this instruction or that? What practical rationale might be behind the instruction of God? I know that we cannot always find it and our obligation to obey transcends our understanding but, in my experience, more often than not, our understanding of the command can accompany our obedience so that we are not so blind.

“I do not allow a woman to teach.” We think of this as coming from God. God says, “I do not allow a woman to teach.” Teaching is something that requires _________ therefore, women are not qualified. You fill in the blank:

1. Intelligence

2. Wisdom

3. Love

4. Concern

5. Rational

6. Persuasiveness

While I think the sting of this passage assumes that Paul is speaking about one of these, I don’t choose any of them. I think Paul (and God) has something different in mind.

The other night, at 3am there was a sound in our living room. Kristie woke up, but I did not. She was looking out there and saw the lights go on. She got scared.

Pop quiz: What did she do next?

a. Got a bat and quietly tip toed out there to see who it was.

b. Got a gun and peeked around the corner.

c. Woke me up and had me go out there.

Those of you who choose “c” are both right and wise. You are right because that is what happened. (It was my 2 year old Zach who decided it was time to get up.) You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.

Now, let me give my short and sweet answer as to why Paul did not allow women to teach:

Paul did not let women teach due to the often aggressive and combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine. Men must be the teachers when combating false teaching. However, because the role of a teacher in the church is so often to combat false doctrine, and because false doctrine is always a problem, generally speaking, the principles are always applicable. The “exercising of authority” is inherently tied to teaching and its necessary condemnation of false doctrine.

The combative nature of teaching is particularly relevant to a broader understanding of the characteristics of men and women.

The best illustration in the real world that I could use to help you understand what I am saying is that of a military commander in charge of leading troops into battle. Of course there might be an exception here and there, but do a study and you will find that no matter what the time or culture, men are always leading here. Why? Because men are simply better equipped and more followed. There are certian areas where men and women have a unique stature. I believe, like in military, the position of head pastor is the same. Not only are they better equipped for the issues that will arise, but they are followed more readily.

Let me give you another example: Two years ago, my wife was confronted by another couple who did not believe that she was doing what was right. She used to do princess parties where she would dress up as a princess (Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty) and go to little girls’ homes and entertain them for an hour or so. She was really good at this. After we moved from Frisco to Oklahoma, she still had one party on the schedule. She called her boss and let her know that she could not do it since we had already moved. Her boss became very angry and began to threaten her. She also said that she was going to bring in her husband (who was a lawyer) and sue Kristie. Kristie became very scared and did not know how to handle this situation, especially since her boss was now using her husband as part of the threat. She told me about this and I told her not to speak to her boss anymore, but to let me handle it. I did. I stepped in and confronted both her boss and her husband’s threats concerning the issue. In the end, they backed off.

I felt that it was my duty and obligation to step in and be strong on behalf of my wife as the situation became confrontational. Kristie is both tender, gentle, and, in those situations, frightened. She was going to give in and travel back to Texas to perform this last party even though she would lose money in the gas it took to go there and back. Her boss refused to pay her mileage.

My point is that men are conditioned to handle confrontation better than women. It is not that Kristie could not have done the same thing as me, it is just that this was not her bent. Women, generally speaking, are not bent to deal with confrontation the same way as men. Teaching in the church involves, more often than not, confronting false understanding.

Can women teach? Absolutely! Can women understand and think as well as men? Most certainly. But the bent of a man is better able to handle the type of teaching that is always necessary in the church.

Would I let a woman teach from the pulpit from time to time? Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority (confrontation).

The role of head pastor, I believe requires confrontation. That is not all there is, but it is there and it is very important. It is because of this, I believe, Paul said that women cannot teach or exercise authority over men.

See follow-up posts here and here.

Comments are open again. Be safe. Read the rules.


C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo House Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Find him everywhere: Find him everywhere

    1,432 replies to "Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors"

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Michelle:

      The Bible is the BIBLE folks. God is the ultimate author of the Bible. If we say we follow God, we follow what HE says. The Bible says what it says, it does NOT matter if you agree or disagree. YOUR PERSONAL OPINION does not matter. All that matters is what GOD says.

      I TOTALLY AGREE. But what if you are completely misreading what Paul meant by this passage? Is that not possible? 1 Tim 2 is addressing an issue with a certain woman and a certain man (a husband and wife, in fact), and the woman is teaching false doctrine and also leading her husband astray. Since she is deceived, her name is not mentioned.

      Do you think that women will be saved by childbearing? Look at the Greek… its refering to “the childbearing”. They will be saved only by the Messiah, not through bearing children!!

    • Gary Simmons

      Ryan, it doesn’t have to be the childbearing. It can mean “the bearing of children” just as well. The definite article in Greek doesn’t work the same way as in English. Take, for instance, the fact that it’s used with names.

      It’s also used with abstract or verbal nouns. It doesn’t have to have a deictic or specifying force, though it can do so.

    • Michael T.

      Ryan,

      We probably agree more or less on the issue of egalitarianism vs. complementarianism. That being said if you are going to claim the interpretation that you do for 1 Tim. 2:15 I think you need to interact with those who have considered your interpretation and argued that it is impossible. For instance the following is a note from the NET Bible on this issue

      This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret, though there is general agreement about one point: Verse 15 is intended to lessen the impact of vv. 13-14. There are several interpretive possibilities here, though the first three can be readily dismissed (cf. D. Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” TJ 1 [1980]: 70-73)…..(3) Despite the sin of Eve and the results to her progeny, she would be saved through the childbirth – that is, through the birth of the Messiah, as promised in the protevangelium (Gen 3:15). This view sees the singular “she” as referring first to Eve and then to all women (note the change from singular to plural in this verse). Further, it works well in the context. However, there are several problems with it: [a] The future tense (σωθήσηται, swqhshtai) is unnatural if referring to the protevangelium or even to the historical fact of the Messiah’s birth; [b] that only women are singled out as recipients of salvation seems odd since the birth of the Messiah was necessary for the salvation of both women and men; [c] as ingenious as this view is, its very ingenuity is its downfall, for it is overly subtle; and [d] the term τεκνογονία (teknogonia) refers to the process of childbirth rather than the product. And since it is the person of the Messiah (the product of the birth) that saves us, the term is unlikely to be used in the sense given it by those who hold this view.

    • Hodge

      I would add to Michael’s quote of NET and say that if one takes this as a reference to Christ then “she will be saved”. . . “if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint” would be pretty odd. Eve is saved only if other women continue in godliness? The “she” must be generic and refer to all women; hence, the 3d fem. pl. That’s not to mention that fact that you essentially make salvation a matter of Christ’s birth (as opposed to death and resurrection) plus a godly life the basis for salvation.
      As Gary said, Greek articles do not function as they do in English. Paul morphologically tags this like an abstract, and the article, therefore, should be taken as an emphasis marker rather than a reference to a specific event. This makes sense since the argument Paul is making has to do with the role the woman plays as mother rather than father/patriarch.

    • EricW

      Patriarchal hierarchalism in the church is just plain silly. If God in Christ is that way, then God is silly.

      But He’s not.

      In Christ there is not male and female, but a New Creation.

      God’s Spirit is poured out gender-indiscriminately on all His menservants and maidservants.

      If 1 Tim 2 is interpreted to mean that all women in Christ are forbidden to teach any or all men or to hold positions of authority in the church, simply because they are women (i.e., double-x chromosomed rather than single-x chromosomed), then such an interpretation is wrong. Gravely wrong.

      And silly.

    • Hodge

      Eric,

      That was almost as intelligent as your blah, blah, blah argument. What’s silly is your superficial understanding of gender roles and more than casual dismissal of those who would argue otherwise. If you have something to argue, then let’s hear it; but the objections in your posts are just plain silly.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Gary Simmons:

      Ryan, it doesn’t have to be the childbearing. It can mean “the bearing of children” just as well. The definite article in Greek doesn’t work the same way as in English. Take, for instance, the fact that it’s used with names.

      Looking at 1 Timothy 5:14 where Paul says, “Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children…” (NASB). Here “bear children” is a verb in the present, active, infinitive. In 1 Tim 2:15 (a few chapters earlier), the same author uses different grammar: “and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith…” First, I believe the grammar is ackward, but I believe it is inspired and was put there for a reason. This occurence of childbearing is a noun in the genitive, singular, and feminine.

      Why would Paul use different grammar in these two instances? I don’t think your explanation makes any sense.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Gary: (…con’t)

      The three things together (definite, singular noun) make it very clear that it isn’t about all women having babies. If Paul had meant that he used a nonsensical phrase.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Michael T:

      This view sees the singular “she” as referring first to Eve and then to all women (note the change from singular to plural in this verse).

      No, I don’t think that this is possible since the inspired grammar is future tense and Eve cannot do anything about her salvation. Also what is it that “all women” have to do to guarantee Eve’s salvation? Surely you don’t believe in a works salvation that saves the dead, do you?

    • EricW

      “Gender ‘roles”‘?

      Oh, please….

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Michael T:

      [a] The future tense (σωθήσηται, swqhshtai) is unnatural if referring to the protevangelium or even to the historical fact of the Messiah’s birth;

      It is only unnatural in the future tense if it is referring to Eve (a dead woman). 1 Timothy 2:14 is referring to a specific woman (the woman) and her deception is described as “being” (perfect, active, indicative) which only has application for “the woman” (Eve is dead) and it is this woman then that is said in verse 15 to be the “she” who will be saved in the future. “A woman” in verse 12 is a reference to “the woman” of verse 14 and it is her future salvation that will come after her prohibition that Paul is concerned for.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @EricW: No need to react… the facts are on our side. Just gotta work through them methodically. This is a tough passage.

      @Michael T:

      [b] that only women are singled out as recipients of salvation seems odd since the birth of the Messiah was necessary for the salvation of both women and men;

      This would be odd except that it isn’t women in general that are singled out for a promise of salvation; rather, it is one woman who is steeped in error that is causing a special problem to Timothy that is dealt with by Paul.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Michael T:

      [c] as ingenious as this view is, its very ingenuity is its downfall, for it is overly subtle; and [d] the term τεκνογονία (teknogonia) refers to the process of childbirth rather than the product. And since it is the person of the Messiah (the product of the birth) that saves us, the term is unlikely to be used in the sense given it by those who hold this view.

      It isn’t subtle to Timothy who would be the one person who got the message. The book of 1 Timothy was written specifically to Timothy and about problems that Timothy was intimately aware of. The issue is about stopping the deceived teachers and Paul never says that he left Timothy behind to stop the false teachers AND the women. Deception was the issue, not gender.

      I love the NET translation, and esp. the notes. But the interpretation I am sharing with you fits like a glove.

    • Hodge

      Ryan,

      I really think your whole world would be shattered if you were to actually learn Greek. Greek scholars, on either side, would never use these incredibly bad arguments about the tenses, switch in grammtical person, that it’s a noun (not sure what that’s supposed to prove), etc.

      To start, you ought to read Porter, Fanning and McKay on the Greek verb. Then come back and see if you can argue the way you are. All the evidence is on your side. The problem is that it’s fabricated.
      Reading does a theology good, so read up.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Hodge:

      I would add to Michael’s quote of NET and say that if one takes this as a reference to Christ then “she will be saved”. . . “if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint” would be pretty odd. Eve is saved only if other women continue in godliness? The “she” must be generic and refer to all women; hence, the 3d fem. pl.

      It certainly would be odd if other women must continue in godliness for Eve to be saved. Eve is not the “she.” But it would also be bad grammar to refer to generic women as both “she” and “they” as that is mixing singular and plural for the very same people…and then adding in future tense! Paul is very specific with his grammar and I believe he chose it to convey precisely what he meant. “She” is consistent from verse 11, 12, 15 and all refer to “the woman” from verse 14 then the consistent answer is that there was one special deceived woman who needed help…

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Hodge: (cont’d…)
      …and her situation with the man was very much like the silence of Adam with the deceived Eve. Someone had to step up to the plate to say something when the silent one was standing by the deceived one. Paul goes on to assure Timothy that the end result would be positive. She would be saved if they continued together in the truth so that she would be kept away from the error she was entangled by. A very understandable solution to a problem woman who wasn’t being mentioned by name (as Paul names others) as she was deceived.

    • Truth Unites... and Divides

      “Ryan,

      I really think your whole world would be shattered if you were to actually learn Greek. Greek scholars, on either side, would never use these incredibly bad arguments about the tenses, switch in grammtical person, that it’s a noun (not sure what that’s supposed to prove), etc.

      To start, you ought to read Porter, Fanning and McKay on the Greek verb. Then come back and see if you can argue the way you are. All the evidence is on your side. The problem is that it’s fabricated.

      Reading does a theology good, so read up.”

      In addition to Hodge’s recommendation, here’s a recent post on Parchment and Pen that will be helpful as well:

      Common Errors in Biblical Interpretation.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Hodge:

      That’s not to mention that fact that you essentially make salvation a matter of Christ’s birth (as opposed to death and resurrection) plus a godly life the basis for salvation.

      Salvation through Christ’s birth would be especially applicable as He was the promised seed that came through the first deceived woman! If the woman at Ephesus was in the same position, the promise that salvation was still a there for another deceived woman, makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? It makes no sense with all women who are not deceived and all births especially since many woman will not and cannot conceive.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Hodge:

      As Gary said, Greek articles do not function as they do in English. Paul morphologically tags this like an abstract, and the article, therefore, should be taken as an emphasis marker rather than a reference to a specific event.

      While this may be true with just one tag (the definite “the”), don’t you think that using a definite, singular noun is so out of the norm that it should never have been taken to refer to all women?

      This makes sense since the argument Paul is making has to do with the role the woman plays as mother rather than father/patriarch.

      It makes no sense with the millions of women who cannot have this “role” as a mother. It actually causes more confusion then it could possible solve. The fact is that there has never existed a “law” that forbade women to teach men. If there is such a law, why don’t you show it to me.

    • Hodge

      Ryan,

      “She” is consistent from verse 11, 12, 15 and all refer to “the woman” from verse 14 then the consistent answer is that there was one special deceived woman who needed help…”

      The problem is that the “they” is connected to the “she.” So the “they” is the same as the “she.” You think there is some need for Paul to use the same person, but this is exactly what we would expect when a collective is used. Eve represents all women, so “she” is “they.” The woman is being spoken of here as a kind/species. It’s like saying, “The lion is a carnivore and they will survive mainly on gazelle during the dry season.” We’re not talking about two groups here because of the change in person, nor am I talking about only one lion.
      Are you seriously suggesting that Paul skips over vv. 13-14 and has “she” refer to someone specific in vv. 11-12? How is it one woman in v. 15 when it says “they”? Again, this is your jumping around the text to try to get it to say what you…

    • Hodge

      want it to say rather than following the text’s own logical flow (sounds like a previous conversation we just had).

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Hodge: (cont’d…)
      The law did not exist and Paul was not referring to a new law that he just made up. It has no backing in the New Testament, it is never mentioned again by anyone or any authority, it is not said to be from God, nor is it written to the church at large and it would be the only “law” of God that satan would love. Satan loves when any Christian is stopped from using their gifts for the benefit of other Christians.

      Ryan,

      I really think your whole world would be shattered if you were to actually learn Greek. Greek scholars, on either side, would never use these incredibly bad arguments about the tenses, switch in grammtical person, that it’s a noun (not sure what that’s supposed to prove), etc.

      Hodge, this is ad-hominem. You are avoiding dealing with my argument, which, if it was wrong, could be disproven easily. I have a lot to learn about Greek, but why don’t you refute me and contribute to this conversation?

    • Hodge

      “If the woman at Ephesus was in the same position, the promise that salvation was still a there for another deceived woman, makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?”

      Um, not actually. How is the woman, who is not Eve, going to be saved by Christ’s birth? Others had always argued that Eve was saved because Christ was born eventually from her, or her descendant Mary. How is this unrelated woman saved by His birth. Shouldn’t it say that she will be saved through His death or just through Christ? What’s with the birth thing being brought in to an argument based on gender roles?

    • Hodge

      “While this may be true with just one tag (the definite “the”), don’t you think that using a definite, singular noun is so out of the norm that it should never have been taken to refer to all women?”

      What? Using a definite singular noun is out of the norm? Again, Ryan, start learning some Greek. It should take you about 5-10 years until you can get to the place where you can understand the language fairly well.

      “It makes no sense with the millions of women who cannot have this “role” as a mother.”

      So your objection isn’t really biblical. It’s just that you don’t see how motherhood can apply to all women, is that right?

      “The fact is that there has never existed a “law” that forbade women to teach men. If there is such a law, why don’t you show it to me.”

      LOL. I don’t view the Bible as a “law” book. I try to understand what is pleasing to God both through the revealed order He has set in place, expressed in both explicit and implicit teachings of a text.

    • Hodge

      Just to clarify, Ryan. My comment is sincerely a statement of fact, not an ad hominem. I’m not attacking you. I’m saying that your bad arguments and false statements about the Greek are directly related to you not knowing Greek. You are constantly trying to argue from the Greek on various issues, and I have yet to see you bring up a single point that was remotely in line with what is known about Greek grammar and syntax. Just look at me like a judge on American Idol. It’s nothing personal. You just can’t sing. Go back and practice.

    • Hodge

      “Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God [first] went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize [this], he is not recognized.”

      1. A previous law is mentioned. 2. A new law imposed. 3. This is a second mention as a backing in the NT by an authority, the Apostle Paul himself. 4. It is said to be a commandment of the Lord (i.e., sent from God). 5. And it is to all the churches. 6. We’re told that God, not Satan, is a God of order, and thus, limits a chaotic use of gifts to an ordered use where only a select few rather than everyone can use them.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @TUAD:

      In addition to Hodge’s recommendation, here’s a recent post on Parchment and Pen that will be helpful as well:

      Common Errors in Biblical Interpretation.

      Given that Hodge’s recommendation is supposed to take me 5-10 years, your recommendation was surprisingly short! I read through those fallacies, and I’m pretty sure I’m not committing any of them. Thanks for the heads up.

      @Hodge:

      All the evidence is on your side. The problem is that it’s fabricated.

      Nice argument, Hodge.

      @Hodge:

      The problem is that the “they” is connected to the “she.” So the “they” is the same as the “she.”

      It does not follow that she (singular) and they (plural) are the same simply because they are being connected by Paul. The most natural reading is that the specific woman and her husband are the they, and this correlates exactly with Adam and Eve (another husband and wife). You haven’t disproven my point at all. Try again.

    • Hodge

      So she will only be saved through Christ’s birth if both of them continue in godliness? I’m not following how that works out here.

    • Truth Unites... and Divides

      “Just look at me like a judge on American Idol. It’s nothing personal. You just can’t sing. Go back and practice.”

      Who knew that Hodge is a fan of Simon Cowell!!

      That was LOL funny!!

      (No offense Ryan, but that was just funny.)

    • Michael T.

      Ryan,

      Like I said earlier I probably agree with you mostly on the issue of women in the Church and I strongly disagree with Hodge (something he is well aware of). That being said Hodge is very knowledgable in the original language and has spent years studying it. While I don’t think he is always right in his interpretation in this case I can’t find a single resource from someone with great knowledge of Greek grammar that is going to support your side. If you don’t know Greek you should probably avoid making arguments about the Greek to someone who has spent years studying unless you are going to bring some heavy hitting scholarship to back you up. So far you’ve brought a wet noodle to a gun fight.

      Also as to your response about the NET Bible. Simply saying it wouldn’t have been overly subtle to Timothy doesn’t really address the argument. Additionally that was just one of multiple points made.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Hodge:

      “While this may be true with just one tag (the definite “the”), don’t you think that using a definite, singular noun is so out of the norm that it should never have been taken to refer to all women?”

      What? Using a definite singular noun is out of the norm? Again, Ryan, start learning some Greek.

      Hodge, are you honestly trying to tell me that the Greek form for childbearing in 1 Tim 2:15 is common? So you are going to put your Greek credentials on the line for that?? Ok, you know the Greek, so why don’t you show me ONE other place in the Bible where the Greek word for childbearing is a definite, singular, noun.

      @Michael T:

      So far you’ve brought a wet noodle to a gun fight.

      I’m bringing the Greek grammar to the table, and that’s not a wet noodle! Hodge said that childbearing as a definite, singular, noun is common, so let’s see if Hodge has anything in those big guns of his.

    • Hodge

      Ryan,

      You’re statement had to do with nouns in general. If you want to say that it’s uncommon for teknogonia to be used this way, it’s an equally uninformed statement, as this word is most likely made up by Paul from the word tekna and its relation to childbearing in the LXX of Genesis 3:16. It does appear elsewhere in secular Greek, but scholars will note that Paul is most likely forming it himself, since it’s not a common word. So it’s just as common to use the article as it is uncommon. There’s no substance to your argument here.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Hodge:

      I’m saying that your bad arguments and false statements about the Greek are directly related to you not knowing Greek. You are constantly trying to argue from the Greek on various issues, and I have yet to see you bring up a single point that was remotely in line with what is known about Greek grammar and syntax.

      Hodge, which of my statements about the Greek is false? You said that “she” is the same as “they.”

      I challenge you to find ONE place in the Bible where generic woman or man is called both “she” and “they” (or “he” and “they”). You find that, and I’ll lay down my wet noodle.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Hodge:

      Ryan,

      You’re statement had to do with nouns in general.

      No, it wasn’t. You ACTUALLY think that I was arguing that it is uncommon to find a genitive, singular, noun?? I own Logos… there are thousands of references with this type. We were talking about teknogonia.

      It does appear elsewhere in secular Greek, but scholars will note that Paul is most likely forming it himself…

      So what you’re admitting then, is that Paul is not referring to women bearing children as he did in 1 Tim 5:14, but the seed of the woman, or the Messiah? That was my point.

      So it’s just as common to use the article as it is uncommon. There’s no substance to your argument here.

      I was saying that there are three markers – definite, noun, singular. Three markers together are what make it very unusual.

    • Ryan Schatz

      I better clarify before you assume again that I know nothing. The three markers are in reference to teknogonia. I am not making a general statement about all nouns.

      @Hodge:

      So she will only be saved through Christ’s birth if both of them continue in godliness? I’m not following how that works out here.

      The wife who is deceived and teaching false doctrine will be saved through “the seed of the woman” (Eve was also a woman deceived in a similar situation). And Adam was right there with Eve, with knowledge, like a watchman on the wall, but saying nothing to help her. So here, Paul’s reference back to Adam and Eve is to highlight that this husband and wife are in the same situation. She needs his help in order to come out of this. She’s confused and deceived, and she hasn’t eaten the fruit yet. Paul’s admonition is that the husband step up to the plate (unlike Adam) and intervene, she will avert the danger! The last phrase is a reference to 1Tim…

    • Hodge

      “I challenge you to find ONE place in the Bible where generic woman or man is called both “she” and “they” (or “he” and “they”). You find that, and I’ll lay down my wet noodle.”

      “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Gen 1:27).

      “No, it wasn’t. You ACTUALLY think that I was arguing that it is uncommon to find a genitive, singular, noun??”

      Well, actually, because you’ve been arguing the way that you have, yes, I did think you were arguing it; but I accept your clarification. The problem is that you seem to repeat it again.

      “I was saying that there are three markers – definite, noun, singular. Three markers together are what make it very unusual.”

      The word is uncommon. The definite on an abstract is not unusual; a noun in the singular is not unusual; and a noun in the singular is not unusual–nor are all three of them together unusual.

    • Hodge

      You’re trying to argue that this is an anomalous use of this particular noun when it’s a hapax.

      I would suggest to you that Logos is your problem. You seem to be using it like JW’s use their diaglot. “Oh look,” they say, “theos doesn’t have an article and means a god. It’s as plain as day.” And it is as plain as day, as long as you don’t understand the grammar, syntax, context and lexicographical rules that go into interpreting semantics. As they often say in first year Greek courses, “A little Greek is a dangerous thing.”

      “So what you’re admitting then, is that Paul is not referring to women bearing children as he did in 1 Tim 5:14, but the seed of the woman, or the Messiah? That was my point.”

      I’m not sure how you got this. The referent has nothing to do with Paul coining the word.

    • Hodge

      “She needs his help in order to come out of this. She’s confused and deceived, and she hasn’t eaten the fruit yet. Paul’s admonition is that the husband step up to the plate (unlike Adam) and intervene, she will avert the danger!”

      There’s a lot of stretching the meanings of words going on here; but it still doesn’t work. If you were right, the passage would essentially say that if the man does not continue in godliness they woman will not be saved by Christ’s birth. You seem to be ignoring the conditional there. X will happen if Y happens. If X can happen on its own, it seems odd that Y was brought up as a conditional.

      BTW, how many times in Pauline literature is Christ’s birth referred to as the means of our salvation?

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Hodge:

      “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Gen 1:27).

      Huh? “…male and female He created them.” Two people are a them. How about a she being a they or a he being a they like I asked? Try again.

      You’re trying to argue that this is an anomalous use of this particular noun when it’s a hapax.

      I was arguing that this was a unique construction for childbearing. Isn’t that really what a hapax is?

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Hodge:

      X will happen if Y happens. If X can happen on its own, it seems odd that Y was brought up as a conditional.

      My point is that the deceived person usually doesn’t come out without help. Eve is a perfect example. X is unlikely to happen on its own, so Y (as the knowledgeable watchman) is included.

      BTW, how many times in Pauline literature is Christ’s birth referred to as the means of our salvation?

      This is the only time childbearing is referred to in this way – but it is clearly not a normal any child-any woman reference. It is a reference to the ‘seed of the woman,’ but it cannot be talking about all women or he would use words that make sense to all of us. But the fact that it is unique should point out to anyone that this is not the same. Why is this so difficult to understand? You are trying to force a completely unique word into the normal verb for women giving birth to children.

    • Ryan Schatz

      @Hodge:

      I would suggest to you that Logos is your problem. You seem to be using it like JW’s use their diaglot. “Oh look,” they say, “theos doesn’t have an article and means a god. It’s as plain as day.”

      First you say I believe what Pelagius taught (which I denied), now you say I’m mangling the scriptures like the JW’s?!

      PLEASE actually show me where I have made a grammatical error where you haven’t misread my post.

    • Hodge

      “X is unlikely to happen on its own, so Y (as the knowledgeable watchman) is included.”

      That’s not what it says. It says that if “they” i.e., both of them continue in godliness, then she will be saved through childbearing. If the “they” are both of them, then both of them must complete the condition in order for her to be saved. What this does is make her salvation contingent upon his godliness. That’s much more patriarchal than I would ever be.

    • Hodge

      I’m going to bed now, Ryan. You can have the last word again, as this has turned out to be much like our other discussion. I feel like you turn the Scripture into a pretzel and then say, “This is clearly the interpretation that makes the most sense.” I’m sure it does to you, but I think the flow of the text makes perfect sense without switching verses around, ignoring immediate referents, stretching the meanings and even supplying new meanings to words, etc.; and I think anyone could get anything they wanted out of the text if this were the standard procedure in biblical interpretation. Good night.

    • Ryan Schatz

      Good night, Hodge. I’ll leave you with the last word, as before.

    • Rev. Beth Wright

      False assumptions here! First of all, this is PAUL speaking, not God–as Paul makes clear. Secondly, the kind of “confrontation” the author refers to in preaching is NOT the same kind of confrontation involved in, say, an attack, where physical size and force are advantageous. (This is also a non-issue, at least in my church, where half the women I know are licensed to carry and DO!) Addressing the truth is an intellectual and emotional confrontation, and truth is truth, no matter who presents it. The author has insulted my intelligence as a reader by trying to slip in these comparisons, assuming I wouldn’t notice. I did, and that dog won’t hunt!

    • Alida Sewell

      I haven’t read all the comments – too many! I would recommend the reading of “Why Not Women? A Fresh Look at Scripture on Women in Missions, Ministry, and Leadership.” (Seattle: YWAM Publishing, 2000) by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton. Amongst other excellent insights, it has a superb exegesis of the disputed passages such as 1 Timothy 2. Sincerely recommended.

    • Ramona Cook

      There is no lack of response to this subject, not ever!

      “Paul says many things hard to be understood,” and you cannot connect the lines between them sometimes, not easily anyway.

      On marriage and the Church:

      Marriage is all about gender.
      Marriage is a symbol of the structure of the Church.

      BUT in the Church, Christ, not the male is the Head and further, there is no male or female in the structure of the Church because it is about spiritual intimacy with Christ and not about gender or sexual relationships, which Paul himself, says does not exist therein.

      So how can the absence of certain anatomical structure be a deterrent to women preaching or doing any other ministry?

      What is the power possessed by the presence of such anatomical structure?

      These are the questions that I have for those who say that women are not permitted ministry in the pulpit.

      The power for ministry is from the Holy Spirit and gender, which does not exist in the Church doesn’t…

    • edavis

      Ramona Cook you commented “BUT in the Church, Christ, not the male is the Head and further, there is no male or female in the structure of the Church because it is about spiritual intimacy with Christ and not about gender or sexual relationships, which Paul himself, says does not exist therein.”
      I beg to differ with you on the idea that “in the Church” there is neither male or female. I believe scripture says “in Christ there is neither male or female”. I think it is very important to differentiate between being “in Christ” and being “in the Church”, The Church is not Christ but His body. We don’t cease to be male or female because we are in Christ. Otherwise why are there different roles for men and women in the Church? Misconceptions about this very important distinction is at the root of the misunderstanding about the roles of men and women in the Church. New birth does not mean new gender-or no gender-not while we are still in the flesh. Christ was a…

    • edavis

      The last part of my comments were “Christ was a man – 100%”. The Bible seems “clear as day” on the distinct roles of men and women in the Church.

    • Ramona Cook

      edavis, I think Jesus would like to know that there is a difference in His Body and the Chruch which is His Body. ??? Connect the lines.

      In Christ everything is made new.

      But I would ask you what was it that Peter was talking about when in the first sermon of Pentcost he said “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy?”

      If you follow that through it goes on until the end of time, and we are not there yet. Phillip the evangelist had four daughters who prophsied and Paul stayed at their house. He didn’t think it a sin, I would say, or he wouldn’t have slept there.

      No I did not quit being a female of the earth when I became the Lord’s, but I am not consigned any specific role except if I choose to be a wife. Gender authority is delegated to the marriage relationship. The Church is no marriage relationship between the earth folks. It is a marriage to Jesus and you dear bro are no male in that setting and I am no female. How can you be a Bride if you are a male?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.