1Timothy2 Challenge

[razzelflabben]

personally, I've seen challenges to pretty much so every argument presented, I've even offered a few myself, but instead of getting down and dirty with the word of God, we make excuses for why our interpretation is right...sounds much like the church today and why we have so many different denominations, because we insist on being right rather than explore all possibles.

 

[CmRoddy]

It is you that are trying to use these verses to restrict women instead of it's intented use of restricting polygamy.

It's so obvious to me (and probably everyone else) that it's shocking to me everytime anyone tries to use this argument (which is few and far between thankfully).

It isn't simply restricting polygamy; it is a requirement/qualification of being an elder. This is why 1 Tim. 3:2 says that the elder "must be [insert requirements here]." It does not say "The elder should be [insert requirement here]."

My post stands unchallenged. A woman cannot be:

• Be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6)
• Manage his own household well, care for God's church (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
• Keep his children submissive (1 Tim. 3:4) and his children are to be believers (or “faithful”), not insubordinate (Titus 1:6)

 

[CmRoddy]

so is "elder" the only teaching position in the church?

Anyone can "teach" outside the church. We are told to tell the world the Gospel and to do so we must be able to teach. But "elder" is an official position in the church; and as it is described in 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 1, it is explicitly restricted to men.

personally, I've seen challenges to pretty much so every argument presented, I've even offered a few myself, but instead of getting down and dirty with the word of God, we make excuses for why our interpretation is right...sounds much like the church today and why we have so many different denominations, because we insist on being right rather than explore all possibles.

Interesting that you say this. I have used the word of God alone (and even explained my position based on the Greek) to demonstrate the truth of my position and that doesn't seem to be making a difference with the egalitarians on this thread.

Seems like there is another motive (among the egalitarians) other then upholding the truth of Scripture, no matter where it leads...

 

[LJSGM]

It isn't simply restricting polygamy; it is a requirement/qualification of being an elder. This is why 1 Tim. 3:2 says that the elder "must be [insert requirements here]." It does not say "The elder should be [insert requirement here]."

My post stands unchallenged. A woman cannot be:

• Be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6)
• Manage his own household well, care for God's church (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
• Keep his children submissive (1 Tim. 3:4) and his children are to be believers (or “faithful”), not insubordinate (Titus 1:6)

Your argument has no standing whatsoever.

Paul mentions the requirements for women to be deacon/elders, and perhaps he put that in there for those that like to pervert the truth.

 

[student ad x]

Friends,

Whether you accept what Scripture plainly states, both deacon & elder is a position of authority (an office) within the unit of the local church. Any position of authority in the church whether deacon (ministering servants) or elder (superintendent/guardian) is for men only (CMRoddy has more than adequately presented this from Scripture, English & Greek in this thread) who have been consecrated/ordained to service for the Lord; whether in discipleship or in administering disciplinary action within the church body itself. Arguing a contrary position is a heterodoxy to Scripture and practice of church polity.

Just my

on proper orthopraxis

 

[CmRoddy]

Your argument has no standing whatsoever.

Blank statement that means nothing considering how you have done nothing to deal with the arguments I have presented. My argument stands as unchallenged and correct.

Paul mentions the requirements for women to be deacon/elders, and perhaps he put that in there for those that like to pervert the truth.

As I said, you are completely ignoring the entire context of v. 11 in order to hold your egalitarian position. You are making Paul contradict himself withing the same chapter. Tell me, how is it simply a "suggestion" (as you claimed a few posts ago) when he says the elder "must be [insert requirement here]"?

 

[CmRoddy]

Anyone else want to tell me how a woman can:

• Be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6);
• Manage his own household well, care for God's church (1 Tim. 3:4-5);
• Keep his children submissive (1 Tim. 3:4) and his children are to be believers (or “faithful&#8221, not insubordinate (Titus 1:6)?

 

[NorrinRadd]

First of all, nowhere does it say that Paul "functioned in such a role" as elder. This is nothing but pure eisegesis.

Scripture nowhere "says" that God is a "Trinity," and yet most of us accept that it *does* say so.

Support for the idea that Paul "functioned" as an elder/overseer:

-- 1 Tim. 5:17 indicates that three of the "functions" of elders are "ruling" (proistemi, also translated "lead" and "manage" elsewhere in Paul), "preaching," and "teaching."

-- It is apparent from Php. 1:1, 1 Tim. 3, and Tit. 1 that "elders" and "overseers" are virtually if not actually synonymous. It is apparent from 1 Pet. 2:25 that "pastor/shepherd" and "overseer" are virtually if not actually synonymous. It is apparent from 1 Pet. 5:1-2 and Acts 20:17 with Acts 20:28 that "elder," "pastor/shepherd" and "overseer" are all virtually if not actually synonymous.

I really don't understand how anyone can deny that Paul functioned in roles of teaching, preaching, "shepherding," and oversight.

Paul was an Apostle which was a unique function of the early church that doesn't exist today.

The verb form of "shepherd" is applied to Peter in John 21:6. That suggests that "apostles" are functionally closely related to pastors/overseers/elders.

The verb form of "overseer" is applied retroactively to Judas in Acts 1:20. That also suggests that "apostles" are closely related to pastors/overseers/elders.


There is no reasonable Scriptural basis for asserting the cessation of the gift of apostleship without also asserting the end of pastors, teachers, and evangelists.

Secondly, Paul is not speaking about the office of elder in 1 Cor. 7, he is speaking to men in general. To once again assume that Paul is doing this is to perform eisegesis. Your claims about Paul in both cases are unsubstantiated.

I never said Paul was talking about elders in 1 Cor. 7. For you to get that from my words required no shortage of eisegesis on your own part.

The point is that the usual understanding of 1 Cor. 7:7 is that Paul was unmarried. That makes him the husband of "zero" wives. If we are going to apply the "requirements" of 1 Tim. and Titus strictly and universally, Paul was not qualified to fulfill the roles he clearly *did* fill.

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd Can you prove to me that the word you have chosen to highlight -- "his" -- is actually present in the Greek?


First of all:

1 Tim. 3:4
He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
​

τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον, τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος·
​

Yes, the term is present in the Greek. Now, while the same term can be used in reference to a woman, the only way to know is to look at the context. Since the context dictates that the position of elder (the subject of the passage) can only be male ("husband of one wife" or literally "a one woman man") this verse, along with the one below, cannot be referring to both men and women.​

I could see that the Greek for "(one's) own" was there, but nothing *explicitly* underlying the "his." I realize that context does support the idea that "own" has a masculine referrent, but I think it's more than a little imprecise and misleading to highlight *only* the "his," when that word exists only implicitly, not explicitly.

Secondly, to (*sigh* once again) assume that Nympha was an elder simply because there was a church in her house is once again performing eisegesis to be able to find a way out of what 1 Tim. and Titus teaches about the eldership. Nowhere does it actually say that she was an elder and no where will you find an example of a female elder in the New Testament.

No, it is neither eisegesis nor any such attempt to circumvent the alleged teaching of 1 Tim. and Titus. It is the natural way one would interpret Col. 4:15 if one read it before being inculcated with the hierarchical interpretation of 1 Tim. and Titus.

Thirdly, 2 John 1:1 does not teach that a female was an elder. A simple word study would reveal this.

In 2 John 1:1, the term "elder" (an adjective) is "presbuteros" (Grk: πρεσβύτερο&#962. It is speaking of the literal age of the person as being older (c.f. Acts 2:17). Nowhere is this particular term used of the office of elder. It always referrs to those who are "of age" and not of the office of elder (i.e. overseer/bishop/elder).

Peter uses a variant of the word in regard to himself in 1 Pet. 5:1. Contrary to your assertion, "presbuteros" is the word commonly used for the "office" of elder. If you wish to deny that John and Peter were using the word (or its variant) in that sense, then I believe you will find that there is *no* place in the NT where the word "elder" is applied to a particular person, just as there is *no* place where either the noun, "overseer" or the noun, "pastor/shepherd" is applied to a particular individual other than Jesus. That fact takes away some of what little strength there ever was in the statement that no woman in the NT is ever called, "elder," "pastor," or "overseer."

However, the tem used for "elder" in both 1 Timothy and Titus is "episkopos" (Grk: ἐπίσκοπο&#962.

That makes no sense, since "episkopos" literally means supervisor, bishop (the "old-fashioned" way of translating it), or overseer (the common way of rendering it in modern translations).


While "presbuteros" above is an adjective, "episkopos" is literally a masculine noun. So now you have to explain how a woman can hold the position that literally describes a man.
​

So once again, you are simply assuming into the text what isn't there.[/quote]

"Pneuma" is a neuter noun. Is the Holy Spirit therefore an "it"? The intrinsic gender of the noun does not always matter.

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

Can you prove to me that the word you have chosen to highlight -- "his" -- is actually present in the Greek?
​

The context of that verse ("husband of one wife") demonstrates that the rest of it ("having children who believe") means that it is speaking of "his" children.

I reiterate my objections to the misleading imprecision of highlighting a word which is not explicitly present in the Greek.

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd

Since Paul was unmarried and childless, he himself did not meet the "qualifications" he laid out here; in spite of this, he commonly functioned in oversight roles.
​

And once again, you are assuming that Paul was an elder. Please demonstrate that Paul held the office of elder from the NT and not from your need to slip out of what it plainly taught about elder qualification.

Please see above for my reasoning from the Scriptures.

Paul was an Apostle and wrote on how to lead a church. He never actually stopped to do the leading of a particular church as elder.

Paul clearly exercised oversight, since his letters are replete with authoritative instructions. In addition, there are several occasions in Acts where he remained with the believers in certain areas for extended periods. It is eisegesis to assume that these functions were NOT characteristic of being an "elder," given that above I have shown that being an elder explicitly involves leading, preaching, and teaching, and that "elder" and "overseer" are used interchangeably.

 

[razzelflabben]

Anyone can "teach" outside the church. We are told to tell the world the Gospel and to do so we must be able to teach. But "elder" is an official position in the church; and as it is described in 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 1, it is explicitly restricted to men.



Interesting that you say this. I have used the word of God alone (and even explained my position based on the Greek) to demonstrate the truth of my position and that doesn't seem to be making a difference with the egalitarians on this thread.

Seems like there is another motive (among the egalitarians) other then upholding the truth of Scripture, no matter where it leads...

my point was that claiming there has been no challenge is a fallicy, and at best borders of being a lie.

 

[CmRoddy]

Scripture nowhere "says" that God is a "Trinity," and yet most of us accept that it *does* say so.

It is a huge leap from comparing the Trinity to whether or not Paul was an overseer. Why? Because we have specific passages naming each individual person of the Trinity as God to prove it. We have zero passages naming or describing Paul as someone who held the position of elder/overseer.

Support for the idea that Paul "functioned" as an elder/overseer:

-- 1 Tim. 5:17 indicates that three of the "functions" of elders are "ruling" (proistemi, also translated "lead" and "manage" elsewhere in Paul), "preaching," and "teaching."

1 Tim. 5:17
The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν,μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ·
​

The term "elder" at the beginning of this passage is "presbuteros" which describes those who are older or "of age." As I mentioned, the term "presbuteros" does describe the person of elder as older in a few passages, but it is never used to describe the qualifications of the office. Someone can be a "presbuteros" without being an "episkopos."

Also, the "especially" at the end of the passage is a big indicator that the one doing the "preaching and teaching" is a subset of "elders" at the beginning of the passage. So once again, your position is unsubstantiated. This isn't even speaking about Paul himself.

-- It is apparent from Php. 1:1, 1 Tim. 3, and Tit. 1 that "elders" and "overseers" are virtually if not actually synonymous. It is apparent from 1 Pet. 2:25 that "pastor/shepherd" and "overseer" are virtually if not actually synonymous. It is apparent from 1 Pet. 5:1-2 and Acts 20:17 with Acts 20:28 that "elder," "pastor/shepherd" and "overseer" are all virtually if not actually synonymous.

Ummm... yea, and? Is Paul ever described as an "elder" or an "overseer" or a "pastor/shepherd" of a church in the New Testament?

I really don't understand how anyone can deny that Paul functioned in roles of teaching, preaching, "shepherding," and oversight.

I'm not denying that Paul did those things; I'm asking you if Paul is ever described as holding an official position in the church (i.e. "elder/overseer/bishop"). Of course, you have yet to produce any evidence for this. You are simply assuming that he was.

The verb form of "shepherd" is applied to Peter in John 21:6. That suggests that "apostles" are functionally closely related to pastors/overseers/elders.

The verb form of "overseer" is applied retroactively to Judas in Acts 1:20. That also suggests that "apostles" are closely related to pastors/overseers/elders.

So, you are using the definition given in one context of the words "shepherd" and "overseer" and applying that same definition everywhere that term occurs? Once again, you are simply not allowing the explicit qualifications of "elder" in 1 Timothy and Titus to stand and define what all the other uses mean. If the deacon, for example, must be the husband of one wife (as 1 Timothy 3 tells us) and the term "deacon" (which means "servent") is used of a woman, what do we conclude? We conclude that they used the term (in the case of it being applied to a woman) to mean a servent and not one that holds the official position. You aren't allowing that to happen.

There is no reasonable Scriptural basis for asserting the cessation of the gift of apostleship without also asserting the end of pastors, teachers, and evangelists.

Really? So the apostels who, according to Acts 1:21-22 had to be a witness of the Resurrection of Christ, are still around today? Is Jesus physically appearing to people like He did with Paul? And if this office is still to be going on today, why is it that Paul, when writing the pastoral epistles, did not mention Apostles and the office thereof?

I'm actually amazed that you would even think of something like this.

I never said Paul was talking about elders in 1 Cor. 7. For you to get that from my words required no shortage of eisegesis on your own part.

The point is that the usual understanding of 1 Cor. 7:7 is that Paul was unmarried. That makes him the husband of "zero" wives. If we are going to apply the "requirements" of 1 Tim. and Titus strictly and universally, Paul was not qualified to fulfill the roles he clearly *did* fill.

Paul may have done those things, but you have yet to show Paul being described as one who held the official position of elder/overseer in a church. Your attempts above are nothing but assumptions that leads to Paul utterly contradicting himself in several places.

I could see that the Greek for "(one's) own" was there, but nothing *explicitly* underlying the "his." I realize that context does support the idea that "own" has a masculine referrent, but I think it's more than a little imprecise and misleading to highlight *only* the "his," when that word exists only implicitly, not explicitly.

So let me get this straight: you see that the context supports a masculine referrent but you still chose to ignore this? Wow, that says a lot about why you hold this position.

No, it is neither eisegesis nor any such attempt to circumvent the alleged teaching of 1 Tim. and Titus. It is the natural way one would interpret Col. 4:15 if one read it before being inculcated with the hierarchical interpretation of 1 Tim. and Titus.

So what? Who cares? Are you honestly suggesting that because Colossians comes first in the canon that what comes after (in terms of qualifications of elder/overseer) doesn't apply to Colossians? That is like saying that because hell is only explicitly taught in the NT and not the OT that it doesn't exist.

This is a weak argument that doesn't allow the harmonization of Scripture.

Peter uses a variant of the word in regard to himself in 1 Pet. 5:1. Contrary to your assertion, "presbuteros" is the word commonly used for the "office" of elder. If you wish to deny that John and Peter were using the word (or its variant) in that sense, then I believe you will find that there is *no* place in the NT where the word "elder" is applied to a particular person, just as there is *no* place where either the noun, "overseer" or the noun, "pastor/shepherd" is applied to a particular individual other than Jesus. That fact takes away some of what little strength there ever was in the statement that no woman in the NT is ever called, "elder," "pastor," or "overseer."

This makes it very apparent to me that you didn't even read my post in its entirety, or anything I wrote in this thread after the post you quoted. If you don't want to do that then please, don't repsond to me anymore.

When I said that it [presbuteros] doesn't describe the office I meant it in the sense that "episkopos" always referrs to the official position. Presbuteros does describ the person in the office of elder, but there are people who are described as presbuteros but are not in the office of elder. The same is not true of episkopos.

In order to substantiate your position, you would have to find an instance when episkopos is used to describe someone who is not in the official position of elder in the church. Of course, no such passage exists, but you can try...

That makes no sense, since "episkopos" literally means supervisor, bishop (the "old-fashioned" way of translating it), or overseer (the common way of rendering it in modern translations).

Wow, Norrin. This is amazing. You are honestly claiming that it "makes no sense" because of the translations when I showed you the Greek? The term for "elder" in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is "episkopos", not "presbuteros." There is no way around it. You are now denying the Greek... amazing.

​

"Pneuma" is a neuter noun. Is the Holy Spirit therefore an "it"? The intrinsic gender of the noun does not always matter.

OK, but the context of the term necessitates that it is a masculine. And since the term "episkopos" is never used to describe a woman, you are once again wrong.

Paul clearly exercised oversight, since his letters are replete with authoritative instructions. In addition, there are several occasions in Acts where he remained with the believers in certain areas for extended periods. It is eisegesis to assume that these functions were NOT characteristic of being an "elder," given that above I have shown that being an elder explicitly involves leading, preaching, and teaching, and that "elder" and "overseer" are used interchangeably.

Paul spoke with authority because he was an Apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he wrote his letters, not because he was an elder. Once again, you have yet to show a passage that describes Paul as an elder/overseer. All you did was take "proof texts," none of which describes Paul as holding the position of elder/overseer.

 

[CmRoddy]

my point was that claiming there has been no challenge is a fallicy, and at best borders of being a lie.

Sure, there have been "challenges" to my position, but none of which start with Scripture and end with Scripture.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sure, there have been "challenges" to my position, but none of which start with Scripture and end with Scripture.

and many that include culture of the day, grammar, and the totality of scripture....but the point is, we need to stop claiming things that are not....

 

[CmRoddy]

and many that include culture of the day, grammar, and the totality of scripture....but the point is, we need to stop claiming things that are not....

Culture? How does 1 Tim. 2:12-13 apply to only the culture?

Grammar? How does the grammar (which I demonstrated from the Greek) support the egalitarian view?

 

[razzelflabben]

Culture? How does 1 Tim. 2:12-13 apply to only the culture?

Grammar? How does the grammar (which I demonstrated from the Greek) support the egalitarian view?

 

[LJSGM]

My argument stands as unchallenged and correct.

Is this just about being correct?

As I said, you are completely ignoring the entire context of v. 11 in order to hold your egalitarian position. You are making Paul contradict himself withing the same chapter. Tell me, how is it simply a "suggestion" (as you claimed a few posts ago) when he says the elder "must be [insert requirement here]"?

Paul says that a man that is to be a deacon should be this, this and that... while a woman that is to be a deacon should be this, this and that... and some how you are trying to tell me that Paul restricted the office of deacon only to men.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Sure, there have been "challenges" to my position, but none of which start with Scripture and end with Scripture.

What evidence have I adduced other than Scripture?

 

[NorrinRadd]

I had a detailed point-by-point reply to post 150 well underway when my browser croaked. Its electrons are now randomized in the ether.

I have not time nor patience to redo at this moment, but I believe a few key points are worthy of note:

-- Cm, you expressed something akin to astonishment at the notion that I believe Scripture teaches apostles are still extant. Is it the case that you have had very little interaction with Pentecostal and Charismatic Xians? For us, it is common to interpret 1 Cor. 12-14 and Eph. 4 as teaching that *all* the "gifts" will remain until the Lord returns.

-- You seem to view the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" as almost being ecclesiology handbooks, and to consider 1 Tim. 2:11-13 and 3:1-10 and Tit. 1:5-9 to be absolute and universal. You then use these passage as definitive, and interpret others in light of them. I however follow the general Pentecostal hermeneutic: I hold Acts 2 and Gal. 3:28 as being universal, while I view the Timothy and Titus passages as applying *directly* to the churches in Ephesus and Crete, and only indirectly elsewhere. For each of us, this is somewhat of a "starting point," and as such it is difficult to prove our own position right, or to prove the other's wrong.

-- You seem willing to change the rules in order to win your point. For instance, you insist that the alleged elder/overseer qualifications are immutable, thus no woman can satisfy them. OTOH, you insist that Paul was an apostle (and I agree -- Paul, Barnabas, and others), even though he did not meet the apostolic qualifications from Acts 1:21-22 that you yourself proposed as being absolute and universal.

-- You insist that Paul was not an "elder" or "overseer" because he was never explicitly called such; you rejected arguments based on function or "job description." You argued that the word, "elder" used at the beginning of two of John's epistles was merely a reference to his age, and was not a title. I'm not sure if you regard Peter's reference to himself likewise. Assuming you do, we have ZERO cases of any particular person other than Jesus bearing the titles, "elder," "overseer," or "pastor." If we can only classify persons by explicit Scriptural labels, not by Scriptural descriptions of function, we are left to conclude that "elder," "pastor," and "overseer" are basically just theoretical titles, with no concrete Scriptural examples.

 

[CmRoddy]

Is this just about being correct?

No, it isn't. It is about showing the truth of Scripture and having everyone in the body of Christ following that truth. I have shown, adequately, that the egalitarian position is false according to Scripture. Of course, neither you nor anyone else is changing their minds. As I said, there is another motive within the egalitarian agenda other then finding the truth of Scripture and conforming ourselves to it. Seems like you guys want to conform Scripture into what you think it should say...

Paul says that a man that is to be a deacon should be this, this and that... while a woman that is to be a deacon should be this, this and that... and some how you are trying to tell me that Paul restricted the office of deacon only to men.

No, Paul never, not once, says that a deacon/elder should be this and that. Paul says that a deacon/elder must be this and that. He must be the husband of one wife. That is vastly different then "should be" and it undermines your entire position. He isn't just restricting polygamy and giving suggestions on what a deacon/elder should be; he is giving requirements. One of them happens to be the husband of one wife. You have yet to explain how a woman can be the husband of one wife.

 

[CmRoddy]

-- Cm, you expressed something akin to astonishment at the notion that I believe Scripture teaches apostles are still extant. Is it the case that you have had very little interaction with Pentecostal and Charismatic Xians? For us, it is common to interpret 1 Cor. 12-14 and Eph. 4 as teaching that *all* the "gifts" will remain until the Lord returns.

I grew up Pentacostal, Norrin. My father is a pastor of an Assembly of God church. I know a little something about the "gifts" of the Holy Spirit. However, according to Acts 1:21-22, an Apostle cannot exist today. Tell me, if the Apostle is suppose to be an ongoing office, why didn't Paul write anything about it? Why didn't he give instructions on that office as he did with deacon and elder? You are doing as the Mormons and Catholics do assuming that the NT teaches that a human priesthood still exists despite Paul not mentioning that once.

-- You seem to view the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" as almost being ecclesiology handbooks, and to consider 1 Tim. 2:11-13 and 3:1-10 and Tit. 1:5-9 to be absolute and universal. You then use these passage as definitive, and interpret others in light of them. I however follow the general Pentecostal hermeneutic: I hold Acts 2 and Gal. 3:28 as being universal, while I view the Timothy and Titus passages as applying *directly* to the churches in Ephesus and Crete, and only indirectly elsewhere. For each of us, this is somewhat of a "starting point," and as such it is difficult to prove our own position right, or to prove the other's wrong.

Your "starting point" leads to contradictions within the word of God. Paul says that the deacon/elder "must be [insert requirement here]." He does not say "should be." Because he says "must be" it is necessary that these are strict requirements that are universal. If he said "should be" or said "I suggest," then your case would be stronger. However, he did not say that.

Plus, the fact that "episkopos" is never used to describe a woman should be a huge hint that Paul was indeed restricting the office of elder to men only. As I said, "presbuteros" does sometimes describe the person in the position of "episkopos," but when "presbuteros" is used to describe the office, it is always a man. You can be a "presbuteros" but not be an "episkopos" or a man; but you cannot be an "episkopos" and be a woman. There is no example of a woman being described as an "episkopos" anywhere in the NT.

-- You seem willing to change the rules in order to win your point. For instance, you insist that the alleged elder/overseer qualifications are immutable, thus no woman can satisfy them. OTOH, you insist that Paul was an apostle (and I agree -- Paul, Barnabas, and others), even though he did not meet the apostolic qualifications from Acts 1:21-22 that you yourself proposed as being absolute and universal.

Jesus didn't appear to Paul, Norrin? Seriously? Perhaps reading his conversion account once more will help you.

No, I am not "changing the rules" at all. Paul witnessed the Resurrection of Christ. We know that Paul saw the physical, resurrected Christ because Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

-- You insist that Paul was not an "elder" or "overseer" because he was never explicitly called such; you rejected arguments based on function or "job description." You argued that the word, "elder" used at the beginning of two of John's epistles was merely a reference to his age, and was not a title. I'm not sure if you regard Peter's reference to himself likewise. Assuming you do, we have ZERO cases of any particular person other than Jesus bearing the titles, "elder," "overseer," or "pastor." If we can only classify persons by explicit Scriptural labels, not by Scriptural descriptions of function, we are left to conclude that "elder," "pastor," and "overseer" are basically just theoretical titles, with no concrete Scriptural examples.

Are you honestly telling me that you are going to ignore the different uses and meanings of the words "presbuteros" and "episkopos"? As I said, Paul can be described as one who teaches and preaches, but we are all called to teach and preach the Gospel. You are missing the point in that the official office of the elder of a church is restricted to men. That is what you don't seem to understand. Paul was never called an elder/overseer of the church, despite him teaching and preaching the Gospel. One can go out and evangelize by preaching and be a woman, but that does not make her an elder. That's the entire point.

I'm amazed that you think the different words (i.e. presbuteros and episkopos) make no difference in what is being said...

 

[heymikey80]

When Paul speaks of the past Genesis deception of the female he refers to her by name “Eve”:

But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 2 Co 11:3

Then when Paul later speaks of the past Genesis creation of the female he again refers to her by name “Eve”:

“For Adam was created first then Eve” 1 Tim 2:14

You think Paul must always name Eve? There's no grammatical, exegetical, or even logical reason to expect it. Paul doesn't forcibly name anyone else throughout his works. There's no obsession here.

You tell me: when would you ever require of your own writing, that you always talk about someone by name? Just one person. Not everyone. In fact, the wife, not the husband. Always. Every time you write about them.

It's not a credible argument. Even neglecting 1 Cor 11:8-9, the reasoning doesn't hold validity.

When Eve was created after Adam (“then Eve”, 1 Tim 2:13) and when Eve was deceived (2 Co 11:3), she had not been named “Eve” yet - Genesis.

And "the woman" was deceived. Probably a paraphrase to Genesis 3, "the woman said, 'the serpent deceived me and I ate.'"

In Genesis Eve admitted she was deceived and confessed her sin to God, and then she was named “Eve”.

Well, going by your logic, the woman shouldn't be Eve. They're even in different sentences there.

But in 1Tim 2:14 we have “the woman IN SIN”, unlike Eve who confessed hers to God and was promised the Savior to come through her seed alone. Eve was not IN SIN when Paul wrote v14.

First, it doesn't say that. If you're going to apply an odd rule, be consistent. It says "in transgression" not "in sin". Her path (and indeed, Adam's) crossed outside the boundary. She's still in that status, a transgressor, having come into that status by sinning.

But second, God didn't restore Eve. Nor Adam. Nobody's living in the Garden east of Eden any more.

So Paul could have named Eve in v14, just like he did in v13, and he also could have named her twice just like he named Adam twice, "For Adam was created first", "and Adam was not deceived" but he did not. The woman’s sin in v14 comes from being in deception, but Eve came out of deception and her sin and she was dead anyway when v14 was written.

So there's no reason to expect Paul to name people when he doesn't need to, and not naming Eve twice means nothing at all, especially if he's paraphrasing the Scripture which doesn't name Eve. In any event this is no argument against the grammatical, semantic view that this passage means something Paul was communicating to Timothy.

"the woman" is Eve. And "the woman" is used in example support of Paul's earlier argument, "I don't permit a woman to teach a man".

And I didn’t miss what Paul said before he said “and Adam was not deceived.” “For Adam was created first then Eve and Adam was not deceived”. Paul therefore (only) connects Adam being created first to Adam not being deceived. This is because from Genesis we know that he had learned things about God and creation that kept him from being deceived unlike Eve who did not learn the same things because she was created after Adam.

Paul connects Adams lack of deception with "but the woman having been deceived ...". They're conjoined with the earlier part of the sentence in :13.

So "the woman" is Eve.

BUT the woman being deceived has become in transgression BUT she will be saved…if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Since v15 which is in the future tense is conjoined to v14 which is the perfect saying, “But she (refering back to “the woman IN SIN&#8220 will be saved if they continue…” therefore only the woman IN SIN can do something to be saved, because a dead person, Eve cannot “continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” So it’s the perfect tense of v14 along with the future tense of v15 that prove that “the woman” cannot be Eve.

The woman in sin will be saved if they (a/the woman and a man) continue in faith...

None of this matters either. Nobody's had a non-controversial interpretation of :15. As long as the prior interpretation leaves valid interpretations of :15 open, then it stands.

And soteriologically, the position you're citing on :15 is really odd. The woman doesn't need faith, herself? She's dependent on "they" and their faith, holiness, and integrity for her salvation?