The charge is often laid that egalitarians twist the scriptures. I would like to apply a saying that I read recently. Here it is:
(Complementarians) are quick to accuse of foul play but there are no rules that they have to follow.
What egalitarians are trying so hard to do is interpret scripture with scripture and take the full context instead of isolating scriptures from their context. Let’s see if complementarians play by the same rules or if they hold themselves as exempt from their own rules.
1. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is used as a general principle that forbids godly Christian women from using their God-given gifts for the benefit of their Christian brothers. If this is true as complementarians assert it is, can you please tell me why Paul uses singular and a plural grammar in verse 15? Who is the “she” who will be saved in the future if “they” continue on in faith, love, holiness and self control? Isn’t it a twist to ignore the specific grammar of verse 15 which is the conclusion to the prohibition? How can we know who Paul is prohibiting in verse 12 if we do not know who the “she” and “they” are in verse 15?
2. If Paul was restricting all godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to their Christian brothers, then why didn’t Paul also list this as a reason why Timothy was left behind in Ephesus? Paul said that he left Timothy behind to stop certain ones from teaching strange doctrines. How come he didn’t add that Timothy was left behind to also stop the women from teaching men? Isn’t it a twist to add the stopping of correct biblical teaching as a prohibition in chapter 2 when the only teaching that is stopped in the letter is false teaching?
3. If 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 is not a quotation from the Corinthian’s letter to Paul (see 1 Cor. 7:1), a saying that Paul refutes in verse 36, then why would Paul say that women are to keep completely silent in the church when he had just written at the beginning of the chapter that all are allowed to prophesy? Wouldn’t verses 34 & 35 as a new “law” that is never found anywhere else in the bible and coming right after Paul has already released women to speak in the congregation be considered a “twist” to attribute this “law” to Paul’s words and not to the Corinthian’s letter to Paul?
4. In 1 Corinthians 11:10, the original Greek says that the woman ought to have authority over her head. The word for authority here is exousia which always means that the person themselves has the permission, authority, right, liberty and power to do something. Isn’t it a twist to change the word for “authority” into a meaning that one is under some else’s authority by adding the phrase “a symbol of” that is not even in the text? If this isn’t a “twist” on the word exousia, then somebody is playing without any rules.
If there is any honest-hearted complementarians out there who would like to try to answer my challenge, feel free to put your two cents worth in the comment section. You will be treated with Christian respect and your answers will be considered and then tested against the scripture to see if they measure up.