I do appreciate the reply back, but I have decided to cease my interactions here. It has nothing to do with you or your specific questions and comments.

I am choosing not to become so obsessed with keeping up with the back and forth.

I am sending this comment to let you know that I am not purposefully ignoring you nor am I conceeding your points due to silence. (I do have specific rejoinders to each of your points.) I am just choosing to move on from these interactions. (Not interactions with you specifically, but with all.) I bid adieu on Monday on the Russell Moore comment section and posted a final comment on the Albert Mohler talk show comment section.

Blessings on you, your further study of the Word and whatever ministry the Lord has for you,

David Rogers

I think your statement of belief in inerrancy seems to me to be tainted by a refusal to observe the details of certain texts that question some already assumed conclusions. … These Hebrew words have clear associations with leading, governing, authority.

From my perspective I can say the same about you. Let me remind you that I clearly said “While Deborah might be the best argument for female leadership it is still ambiguous.” I acknowledged that in Judges 4 does give suggestive implications since all other Judges are always male with clear leadership. What you’ve failed to address is what I pointed out with Barak.
Let me remind you what I said and I would like to see you address my specific points.

The best evidence that Deborah was not in the position of leadership comes from her own mouth. When it came time to “lead” an army, Deborah instructed by the Lord to call a “male” Barak to be the leader, not Deborah. Unfortunately, Barak was an egalitarian so he insisted Deborah to go with him. Deborah being a complementary prophetess of God knows better, and said to him because of your misguided egalitarian thinking, the honor will not be your but it will go to a woman. The army followed Barak in battle not Deborah. Male leadership is implicit and ordained by the Lord.

What you’ve failed to address is why was Barak even necessary if Deborah was the undisputed “female” leader of Israel? There was never any need by another male judge to ask another male or female to command the army, is there?

David said,

The Huldah passage is similar.

Absolutely not. Huldah’s position was nowhere close to what Deborah’s was. All Huldah did was gave a prophetic message on a couple of occasions. There was no mention about judging. This I think is an indication why I think egalitarians are grasping at straws.

David said,

I commented that I think it is primarily a husband-wife context because I note the following reasons:

a. the Greek words do allow that translation

b. similarities with the 1 Cor. 14 has a husband-wife context

c. the shift from plural references to single reference (gune) to single reference
(andros)

d. Adam and Eve were husband and wife

e. the mention of “childbirth” is usually associated in Christian contexts with marriage

f. many of the themes in the rest of the book rotate around domesticity in the home

g. public nagging of a husband would bring disrepute to the Gospel in the Greco-Roman world and thus that made it a major concern
Philip Towner’s commentary on 1 Timothy mirrors some of my notations and he demonstrates much research that would lend itself toward those ideas. (Not that he would agree with all I think.)

I will respond point by point.

a. Although Greek words do have nuances in meaning, the question is what is the probable and what is possible? From Strong’s “AV translates as “women” 129 times, and “wife” 92 times. 1 a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow. 2 a wife. 2a of a betrothed woman.” What is your exegesis justification for choosing this particular definition of gune and aner?

b. To which verse are you referring to in 1 Cor 14? It seems to me 1 Cor 33-35 is amply supportive of the complementary view. 1 Cor 14:35 does refer to the wife but the context of that passage is undoubtedly addressing all females.

c. Again this is an argument I think supports the complementary view. This shifting from plural to singular is generally indicative of a more generic use of the word. More importantly if Paul wanted to restrict this to a husband and wife relationship, why didn’t he use a definite article or a possessive pronoun in front of andros?

d. So? Isn’t it obvious the emphasis was not about their relationship but rather the creation order and thus male leadership?

e. Childbirth? If that is correct, is Paul telling only husbands to lift up their holy hands in prayer? Only wives should dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes? All unmarried women can dress indecently? Only wives need to do good deeds, appropriate for who profess to worship God? All unmarried women can do evil deeds? Only wives should learn in quietness and full submission? All unmarried women can be loud and rebellious? Your connection does not make much sense to me.

f. Does that mean this passage refers to domestic guidance? The context in Chapter 2 and 3 certainly has no indication that it is domestic in nature.

g. If public disrespect of the husband I wonder if the public teaching and authority over the husband would be a problem? For the sake of argument, let’s assume you are right about everything you’ve said. You view then is that women can teach and have authority and thus become overseers and pastors in the church. Does this mean her husband has to attend another church because she is not allowed to teach him or have authority over him?

Since you’ve brought up 1 Cor 14, in vv 33-35 it makes it clear that what Paul is instructing women in all congregations to keep silent and be in submission to the authority those leaderships. It is kind of hard to teach without speaking, don’t you think? Paul even goes so far as to say that even if she has questions, she should save it until she gets home.

Also in the last part of v35 and this goes back to your point about the switch from plural to singular. Here Paul makes the switch back to gunaiki to refer to females, in generic, are disgraceful to speak in the church.

David said,

but taking a flattened literal reading and application for every passage will eventually lead to foolishness for some passages.

I’ve already noted elsewhere about those who fudge on letting women wear jewelry. A “literal” application to all people and all times would require prohibition of jewelry wearing for today.

You seem to have an incorrect view of literalist. If you remember I did say I take a historical-grammatical literal hermeneutic of the Bible. This means that I consider the mean in the context of history, culture and textual considerations to understand what the message the inspired authors were trying to convey. It seems you are the one who is forcing a wooden interpretation on the literalist, because the view that I’ve explained on the wearing of jewelry makes logical sense through the historical-grammatical method.

One reason why I said you sound close to a liberal is that you implied before and repeated again here, is that it is foolish to take the Bible literally and therefore it must have a different application to different people and different times. If that is true then the inspiration of authorship is irrelevant but the inspiration of interpretation is crucial. How is divinely inspired interpretation to be established? The other problem with your hermeneutics is can you tell me for every Bible verse which culture does it apply to and for how long? But most importantly, where do you get your authority to make such a determination? And please don’t tell me that it is from the Bible because that would be circular reasoning.

I have not debated theology with other Christians for a long time. In recent years I spend most of my time debating atheists on the topic of Intelligent Design and Darwinian evolution. Unfortunately I have not had much time lately to do either. To be honest, I’ve just stumbled on to this blog topic and decided to jump in.

If you do depart, please leave us a place where we can go to further read your writings regarding your exegesis. I have found your comments at once compelling, articulate, intelligent, and always patient, even when not warranted. I’ve found a way to keep tabs on Sue’s findings (BBB)…do you have a blog or site where we can read of yours?

On the basis of the first sentence of your last paragraph we could still continue this discussion because I do indeed believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

I, however, think that your second sentence in the last paragraph is too vague and will eventually lead you to have to re-state and re-explain “the principles, commandments and guidance in the Bible” as being “timeless for all people”.

I think your statement of belief in inerrancy seems to me to be tainted by a refusal to observe the details of certain texts that question some already assumed conclusions.

You have clearly stated that Deborah was not in a position of leadership and yet you have still not dealt with the “literal” verb and noun “shaphat” and “mishpat” that was used of her. These Hebrew words have clear associations with leading, governing, authority.

shaphat –

1) to judge, govern, vindicate, punish 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to act as law-giver or judge or governor (of God, man) 1a1a) to rule, govern, judge 1a2) to decide controversy (of God, man) 1a3) to execute judgment 1a3a) discriminating (of man) 1a3b) vindicating 1a3c) condemning and punishing 1a3d) at theophanic advent for final judgment

mishpat –

1) judgment, justice, ordinance 1a) judgment 1a1) act of deciding a case 1a2) place, court, seat of judgment 1a3) process, procedure, litigation (before judges) 1a4) case, cause (presented for judgment) 1a5) sentence, decision (of judgment) 1a6) execution (of judgment) 1a7) time (of judgment) 1b) justice, right, rectitude (attributes of God or man) 1c) ordinance 1d) decision (in law) 1e) right, privilege, due (legal) 1f) proper, fitting, measure, fitness, custom, manner, plan

I have already stated that I think the text shows that this is a regular and public work of some kind of authority. Sure, Barak was a leader also, but she was acting as one also as the text indicates and she comes off with a better portrayal in the text.

The Huldah passage is similar.

I used to be a pure complementarian, but as I was driven to examine these texts and others I came to realize that my position forced me to conclusions that either ignored passages or that they must contradict one another. Neither of those were an option. So I had to re-examine all the passages to see if there was some kind of resolution that would resolve the appearance of contradiction.

On re-examination I noted that the prohibition of a “gune” teaching an “aner” (1 Tim. 2:12) was located in a personal letter which specifically notes that it was an encouragement about dealing with a particular situation in Ephesus. I listed above some reasons for my adopting a position that it also was referring to a prohibition about a “wife” and a “husband.” I also have noted that there are other injunctions in this letter that situationally are contrary to Paul’s sentiment in another letter (the counsel about widows re-marrying).

I could not come to a conclusion that these are contradictory so I attempted to see them in the context in which they are presented and which God decided to inspire them: dealing with an Ephesian situation.

Now, this does not mean total rejection of everything which you seem to think I am saying and I have said no such thing. I have presented initial ideas and asked exegetical questions. Our back and forth dialogues have not approached my conceptions about today’s application. You have jumped to that with your conclusions about what you think I would do. You have suggested that I am close to “existential liberal theology” and yet I am perplexed how that is so, since we have not finished our conversation. I’ve been making exegetical comments. You have not interacted with some of them. You have leapt to some place that you think they are going without actually following the journey there.

The exegetical journey would not go there, but I am doubting more and more whether it really is worth the time conversing in this format. It is taking too much time and the interaction is not exegetical enough. And there seems to be little patience to proceed step by step to see where the evidence takes us. (And I am willing to recognize my own impatience.)

I’ve been thinking lately that I am not suited to regular blog commenting. I am becoming too obsessed with checking in and responding. The format is not really conducive to rigorous exegetical analysis and back and forth scholarly commentary.

I do appreciate the time you have spent in the discussion thus far, but I see we are coming close to frustration, and I do not wish to become too snarky, sarcastic, and dismissive.

I think the best I can suggest is that we retreat to our own corners and each of us continue the important work of exegesis and investigation. I will continue to read those works which would question my current positions and I would hope that you would be willing to go to all the texts and see if they really support all the conclusions you have been told previously.

You may come to the same conclusions after the study, or you may change, or you may adapt here and there, whatever the outcome, the work of study of the inerrant Scriptures will indeed be time well spent.

Exegesis, exegesis, exegesis of all passages with willingness to hear what the passage says as the text presents it, as you can truly surmise how the author intended it.

I have not yet revealed all I think on this matter in these comments, but I don’t think that this will be the place if I should write it all out.

I’ll probably bid adieu to other commenters on the latest comment that seems the most recently posted and the most relevant.

Blessings in Christ,

David

I’m a little amazed at how you’ve take my comments.

Actually what I was responding to your implication that what Paul wrote was only applicable to the Church at Ephesus. That sounds too close to existential liberal theology. Is Paul’s letter to Timothy applicable to the church at Galatia and Corinth?

Are you implying that Paul is saying women are not allowed to teach at Ephesus but it is fine at Corinth? Or are you implying Paul’s prohibition for women to teach will expire in 10yrs, 50yrs, 500yrs, 5000yrs? Is there any indication in the Greek syntax that would give rise to such time limit? What’s the difference between the Church at Ephesus in the first century compared to the Church today? Isn’t the only difference is in today’s society most find it socially unacceptable to prevent women in leadership and to teach men? God’s mandates have not change but we have.

I don’t find much point in continuing this discussion unless with someone who accepts the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. That means the principles commandments and guidance in the Bible are timeless for all people, because the Lord is the God of all.

I say we need to interpret “carefully” and you say that I’m implying “we can just throw the Bible out the window because the entire Bible was written for someone else and not for us.”

You also read me as implying it is an “antiquated document” and that it is an “anachronistic document”.

Wow.

If that is how you read what I typed then I really don’t see much point in proceeding in conversation.

I asked specific questions.

E.g. the meaning of the verb “was judging” with regard to its use for male judges.

I see no comment from you on that.

I commented that I think it is primarily a husband-wife context because I note the following reasons:

a. the Greek words do allow that translation

b. similarities with the 1 Cor. 14 has a husband-wife context

c. the shift from plural references to single reference (gune) to single reference
(andros)

d. Adam and Eve were husband and wife

e. the mention of “childbirth” is usually associated in Christian contexts with marriage

f. many of the themes in the rest of the book rotate around domesticity in the home

g. public nagging of a husband would bring disrepute to the Gospel in the Greco-Roman world and thus that made it a major concern

Philip Towner’s commentary on 1 Timothy mirrors some of my notations and he demonstrates much research that would lend itself toward those ideas. (Not that he would agree with all I think.)

I bother to study and interpret the Bible because of 2 Tim. 3:16, but taking a flattened literal reading and application for every passage will eventually lead to foolishness for some passages.

I’ve already noted elsewhere about those who fudge on letting women wear jewelry. A “literal” application to all people and all times would require prohibition of jewelry wearing for today. If you think “literal” doesn’t mean that, then I can’t do anything more to help with that.

Paul “literally” commanded Timothy to drink wine for his stomach. Is that for all times and all people? I’m taking your hermeneutic seriously. How historically and grammatically can you say it does not apply now?

I’ve already asked you about Paul wanting younger widows to “literally” get married and he used a decisive word literally “I want”. You mentioned “cultural elements” in a previous reply and yet now you say “applicable to all people and all times.” Which is it? Do you culturally dismiss some commands and not others.

A “literal” hermeneutic for all passages requires a “literal” application for everything for all times and all people in all places.

I still desire blessings on you and yours, but I am increasingly getting weary of replies to things I do not say and that I honestly cannot see as the only implication for what I have said.

Plus, I have to work on a paper presentation for a conference in July so I may only hang out here for a little longer since time constraints limit me.

Blessings,

David

Did the male judges in the book of Judges exercise any authority, any leadership? … So what does “was judging” mean and does it contain any “leadership” nuances?

I’ve answered this in my previous comment.

David said,

Is it at all possible that the “I AM NOT PERMITTING . . .” prohibition was speaking to a particular Ephesians situation? … Thus, as I see it currently, Paul by referring to “Adam was formed first” was not necessarily saying anything about Adam as representative male or representative husband having absolute universal authority over all females or every wife but instead the reference was an indication that a husband should be respected and treated with respect especially in the assembled congregation.

Your view is extremely unlikely. You’ve completely ignored the context of that passage. There is very little doubt that Paul is speaking of women and men in general and not in the context of a husband and wife relationship. If he meant how a woman should act towards her husband in public, Paul would have specified it as such in so many other passages of his epistles. And let’s not forget this is just before his mandate on male Church leadership.

David said,

Being formed first is not an absolute universal status of authority over all that come later.

But you’ve left out the fact that Eve was created as a ”helper” for Adam. She was created out of Adam with his rib. It was the woman that was deceived not the man. What do you think was Paul’s purpose for pinpointing the woman on these things? Do you really think it is for the wife to stop nagging the husband in public?

David said,

1 Timothy is a personal letter written for an Ephesian situation.

1 Timothy is also inspired by God.

So, how do we interpret and apply in our chronologically, culturally, situationally separated context an “inspired personal situational letter”?

Very carefully.

Why bother? If what you say is true then we can just throw the Bible out the window because the entire Bible was written for someone else and not for us.
Why would you want to put your faith in an antiquated document written to an unenlightened patriarchal society? What authority can you possibly have to urge someone else to accept any application that you might divine from such an anachronistic document?

I take the Bible literally (historically and grammatically) and to be the inerrant Word of God. As such, it is applicable to all people and all times.

1 Timothy is also inspired by God.

So, how do we interpret and apply in our chronologically, culturally, situationally separated context an “inspired personal situational letter”?

Very carefully.

Some things we apply totally, some partially, some with alteration.

We make our best efforts at trying to understand what Paul was saying to Timothy in his Ephesians context and we try to then also ask what is the Spirit intending for those of us who are not 1st century Koine Greek readers, not Timothy, not Ephesian Christians, not ancient world thinkers but instead 21st century people.

Some things we transfer totally, for some we make analogies, and some we leave in the first century (Paul’s command to send the parchments mentioned in 2 Timothy; however we can learn the lesson that study is important by analogy).

The debate over 1 Timothy and all Bible texts for that matter is to develop a consistent hermeneutic which can attempt to formulate principles which will attempt to resolve inconsistencies between one text and another.

This will involve some speculation, some more definite conclusion, and some mystery.

All we can do is make our best effort with humility, be open to learn and listen and most of all yield to the Spirit and not lose the primary point of it all: worship of Jesus Christ.

Blessings,

David

A few coments/questions and then I have to go.

Of course, both of us has a burden of proof for our argumentation. My comment about burden of proof was focused on the meaning of “judging”.

Did the male judges in the book of Judges exercise any authority, any leadership? Does the Hebrew verb “was judging” contain any sense of “authority” or “leadership”? That’s what my question was focusing on. My conclusions about what Deborah was doing should be drawn from what the text says she was doing. She “was judging the sons of Israel”. So what does “was judging” mean and does it contain any “leadership” nuances?

If you have any insight that the verb does not contain any “leadership” or “authority” nuances, then consistently we should go through the other male judges and remove any sense of “leadership” and “authority” from the passages where the same verb is used.

I said nothing about the New Age or sin being dumbed down or anything like that. I don’t claim to have the same conclusions as other “egalitarians” whatever or whoever that is or means. I just want to know, when Paul said “I WANT young widows to get married” was he then establishing a from then on universal injunction? Or, was he responding to a specific situational context in that Ephesian community that needed a firm “I WANT” without absolutely speaking to all situations.

Is it at all possible that the “I AM NOT PERMITTING . . .” prohibition was speaking to a particular Ephesians situation?

The “Adam was formed first” may mean that he was formed first and therefore deserved respect, especially in public. Could it have been that Ephesian Christian wives were publicly disrespecting their husbands with their teaching and their nagging in public and Paul wanted them to show decorum and respect for their husbands and thus he referred to the Genesis account that the first husband was “formed first” and thus an “elder one” deserved proper decorous respect?

Being formed first is not an absolute universal status of authority over all that come later. God reversed chronological firstness all throughout the OT and NT. Esau born first, Jacob was the chosen pathway. Saul was first king, David the chosen pathway. David himself was way down the line of his father’s children. So was Joseph. But what is common to all these examples, the first in the line did deserve respect and proper decorum of treatment, but their “firstness” did not convey automatic authority for all times.

Thus, as I see it currently, Paul by referring to “Adam was formed first” was not necessarily saying anything about Adam as representative male or representative husband having absolute universal authority over all females or every wife but instead the reference was an indication that a husband should be respected and treated with respect especially in the assembled congregation. A Spirit-filled prophecy receiving wife cannot claim her spirituality as a trump over the call to treat her husband with proper respect. Adam was formed first thus deserving respect and the first wife was deceived, so all you Ephesian women who are listening to these false teachers should show respect for your husbands and also learn biblical doctrine with respect and realize that your spirituality does not trump your marital and household duties.

The prohibition of a wife teaching and compelling a husband was spoken in light of that situation.

I know that is speculation, but almost all our interpretive efforts have some “speculative” aspects to them.

Have to go now but will return later, maybe today or tomorrow or later.

Blessings

David