guard, watch, i.e., limit access and movement of persons or objects in and out of an area, implying protection to or from the object being guarded (Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Note that God did not tell Adam to “guard” Eve.\u00a0 He told him to guard the garden<\/strong>.\u00a0 It was Adam’s responsibility as the first one created to guard what God made.\u00a0 It was Adam alone who was there during the time that God was still creating. God witnessed Himself as the unique Creator to Adam allowing Adam to see Him in the act of creation. \u00a0 Because Adam was created first, he was given an edge over his wife who had not had seen the Creator create. \u00a0Adam was not deceived by the lie because he knew that God who creates. Adam knew that God alone is God and that he could not become as God. When the serpent told the first lie, Adam should have booted him out while the serpent still had the legs to run.<\/p>\nAdam was not created to be the steward of Eve<\/h2>\n
God did not make Adam a steward over Eve and the statement that Adam’s stewardship was part of his relationship with Eve is unfounded.\u00a0 Neopatriarch also fails to note that Eve was given equal stewardship of God’s creation including the plants and animals.\u00a0 This is a very unfortunate omission. \u00a0Neopatriarch failed to state that Eve is an equal ruler of the earth.\u00a0 He also states that Adam was given stewardship of God’s word, however he gives no Scripture that that shows Adam alone was given the prohibition in the garden. Instead, Genesis 1:28, 29 shows that God spoke to both of them about what they could eat. God’s\u00a0permission also indirectly reveals the prohibition.\u00a0 There is not a single verse in the Scriptures that records Adam alone was given the stewardship of God’s word. Neopatriarch writers:<\/p>\n
Eve was not around when God gave Adam the garden mandate, but apparently he taught it to her because she repeated it, albeit not exactly, to the serpent (3:2-3).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Notice that Neopatriarch says “apparently”, Adam taught her the garden “mandate” but he has no proof of such a thing.\u00a0 It is not a fact in scripture.\u00a0 It is only “apparent” to him.\u00a0 Eve herself testifies that “God said…”\u00a0 Neopatriarch makes a huge error when he writes:<\/p>\n
Eve, being created after Adam, was supposed to help him in his stewardship responsibilities. Consider an illustration of this idea: A father tells his first son to remove a boulder from the yard, but, seeing that his first son is unable to do it by himself, he sends his second son out to help. It is understood that the first son is still in charge of the boulder removing project and that the second son receives instruction from and is subordinate to the first. The second son does not take over the project. What this means for Paul\u2019s proscription is that women are not to take over the teaching and leadership duties that belong specifically to the office of the steward of God\u2019s word. Only other men are to be in the position of teaching and exercising authority over men.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In contrast, God’s word shows that God did not give the stewardship to Adam alone.\u00a0 God gave the mandate to “them” – the man and<\/strong> the woman.<\/p>\nGenesis 1:28\u00a0 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Sole “steward of God’s word?”<\/h2>\n
Neopatriarch has also jumped to an unwarranted conclusion by Paul’s reference to the deception in the garden.\u00a0 He now adds things that the Scripture does not include, by saying that women are not to take over the teaching and leadership duties.\u00a0 Paul does not say that women cannot teach or that women cannot lead.\u00a0 If this was the case then women could not teach or lead other women or children either.\u00a0 They would have no leadership permission at all.\u00a0 Period.\u00a0 Once again Neopatriarch goes off track by adding to the word of God and substituting “women” for the singular “woman”.\u00a0 He also creates nonexistent sole “steward of God’s word” by reading into Genesis, and from there he takes a flying leap by transferring that conclusion into the teaching of God’s word today.\u00a0 Neither Paul nor any of the other apostles ever said that women were not to handle the word of God or that the handling of God’s word was for men alone.\u00a0 In fact, this is the exact position of the Jewish oral law which forbade women from even physically touching the word of God.\u00a0 This is the tradition of man, not the command of God. Jesus berated the Pharisees for their tenacious holding to their own tradition.<\/p>\n
Mark 7:9\u00a0 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Paul himself showed that all of us are free to handle the word of God and teach it for the common good. Paul allowed everyone to prophesy for the common good. However, there are many today who are “experts” at setting this command of God aside in order to keep their tradition. Man’s tradition makes men alone the “stewards of God’s word”.\u00a0 It also makes no sense at all if women are not to be “stewards of God’s word” that it would only include\u00a0just one group of people (men). If women are not called to be “stewards of God’s word” then why should they be allowed to be “stewards of God’s word” to women? \u00a0No one has been able to explain to me why Paul would forbid women from teaching God’s word to only men when according to this interpretation, men would be the ones who would be capable of correcting women’s errors.\u00a0 Yet we allow these same women to teach other women and children.\u00a0 Wouldn’t it be far safer to let women teach in the presence of men instead of just in the presence of the “easily deceived” women and children?<\/p>\n
What was Adam steward over?<\/h2>\n
Neopatriarch goes on:<\/p>\n
In his second reason, we see the consequences of reversing the steward-helper relationship. The first part of verse 14 says, \u201cAdam was not deceived.\u201d He was not deceived by the serpent. Instead, he listened to wife, and God faulted him for it (Genesis 3:17). The implication is that Adam should not have listened to his wife. Why? I think the best explanation is because she was not the proper steward of the garden mandate. She did not have the authority to instruct him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
While Neopatriarch has not established that the Scripture teaches that Adam was given stewardship over his wife<\/strong> instead of over the garden<\/strong>, he then tries to reverse this by stating that she took the stewardship of the garden mandate and instructed him.\u00a0 Huh?\u00a0 Where does it say that Eve “instructed” Adam?\u00a0 All that the Scripture says is that she gave the fruit to Adam who was with her.\u00a0 There is no verse or even a portion of a verse that says Eve “instructed” Adam.\u00a0 Neopatriarch is reading into the Scriptures something that is not there.\u00a0 He also adds into the mix an “authority” implying that Adam had an “authority” to instruct Eve.\u00a0 Where is this “authority” listed?\u00a0 It isn’t there.\u00a0 Adam and Eve were given authority over the earth and over the animals but neither one was given authority over the other one.\u00a0 I challenge Neopatriarch to prove his bold statement.\u00a0 Give the Scripture reference where Adam is given authority over Eve. Neopatriarch writes:<\/p>\nThe second part of verse 14 says, \u201c[T]he woman was deceived and has become a transgressor.\u201d Andreas K\u00f6stenberger explains the meaning of this:<\/p>\n
Eve, Paul implies, was not kept safe at the Fall; she was deceived. Why? Because she left her proper domain under her husband\u2019s care. What happened as a result? She became an easy prey for Satan. How can women under Timothy\u2019s charge (and in churches everywhere) avoid repeating the same mistake? By \u201cchildbearing,\u201d that is, by adhering to their God-ordained calling, including a focus on marriage, family, and the home. 1 Timothy 2:15 thus turns out to be Paul\u2019s prescription for women as a lesson learned from the scenario of the Fall described in the preceding verse.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Where is her domain?<\/h2>\n
Neopatriarch has a problem when he\u00a0quotes Andreas K\u00f6stenberger who is out on a limb with his interpretation.\u00a0 I have personally written to Andreas about his errors.\u00a0 He was not able to answer my questions although I did find him to be a very cordial man.\u00a0 The first thing that is wrong is the statement that “she left her proper domain under her husband’s care”.\u00a0 The fact is that God never placed Eve “under the domain” of her husband.\u00a0 She had equal domain of the earth with<\/span><\/strong> her husband.\u00a0 He was given no domain over her.\u00a0 However we do see that Adam was given the responsibility to guard the garden.\u00a0 Eve was left vulnerable to the deception of the serpent not because she left any domain that she was given, but because Adam failed to exercise his command by God to guard the garden.\u00a0 Adam left the domain given to him by God as guardian.\u00a0 It was Adam who moved away from God’s command by allowing the serpent to lie to his wife.\u00a0 God held Adam to blame for his act of\u00a0 abandoning\u00a0 his post as a guardian. \u00a0Because he failed to protect the garden, Adam is called a traitor in Hosea 6:7 in his act of treason.\u00a0 Eve did not become easy prey for Satan by abandoning any post under her husband that God gave her.\u00a0 Instead, she became prey because Adam abandoned his <\/strong>post.<\/p>\nA noun and not a verb<\/h2>\n
Andreas has also ignored the proper grammar of “childbearing” by treating it as\u00a0a verb instead of its inspired grammar as a noun and making it a “calling” for all women when God hasn’t called all women to motherhood.\u00a0 Many godly women are not able to have children, and many of them serve God faithfully without a home or family.\u00a0 The “lesson” learned from the Fall is not that the woman left her post, but that the one who had full knowledge of the truth and who was responsible to speak forth that knowledge so that another person would not be deceived.\u00a0 Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve is a warning that the same thing that happened in the garden was also happening in Ephesus.\u00a0 The one who knew the truth was remaining silent and the one who was deceived was allowed to remain in her deception.\u00a0 Paul was putting a stop to this situation and encouraging Timothy to make a difference in the life of this woman when even her husband was doing nothing about her deception.<\/p>\n
Eve was tricked by the serpent. The consequence was that she became a transgressor. The identity of womankind with Eve is expressed by Paul\u2019s switch to \u201cthe woman\u201d and the perfect tense \u201chas come into transgression.\u201d So what is predicated of Eve is predicated of womankind, through the typology. That is, any woman who is typologically represented by Eve has become a transgressor through deception and continues in the state of transgression.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Paul’s switch to the perfect tense proves that Paul is talking about someone who was alive at the time of his writing.\u00a0 Eve could not still be in the transgression since she was no longer alive at the time of Paul’s writing.\u00a0 All women are not in the transgression brought about by deception.\u00a0 It is impossible for this specific grammar to refer either to Eve or to all women.\u00a0 The only way that this specific grammar makes sense is for it to refer to a specific woman who Paul stopped from teaching because of her deception.\u00a0 Neopatriarch continues:<\/p>\n
In verse 15, Paul shifts to speaking of any Christian woman who is typologically represented by \u2018the woman\u2019. John F. MacArthur says (regarding the future tense):<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nIn verse 14 we read of woman being in sin. In contrast verse 15 speaks of woman being saved through childbearing. The salvation spoken of here is not salvation from sin. It cannot refer to Eve since the future tense is used (\u201dshe shall be saved\u201d). Furthermore the use of the plural pronoun \u201cthey\u201d indicates that more than one woman is in view. Some think this verse refers to Mary\u2019s being saved by bearing Christ, but that is foreign to the context. The use of the plural pronoun clearly indicates that all women are in view here.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Eve is not “the woman”<\/h2>\n
While John MacArthur is correct when he states that verse 15 cannot be referencing Eve, “the woman” from verse 14 cannot be referencing Eve either.\u00a0 It also cannot be referencing every woman as I already showed above.\u00a0 The problem for patriarchists regarding the “she” and “they” from verse 15 is not answered from John MacArthur’s quote since he doesn’t even state who the “she” is.\u00a0 It is improper grammar for “she” to be called “they” so “she” must not be the same as\u00a0“they”.\u00a0 Once again we have Paul’s specific grammar setting the stage and the arguments of the patriarchists falls flat. The problem is that those who hold this view\u00a0do not have a noun to refer “she” back to especially\u00a0 since John MacArthur makes it clear that “she” is not Eve.\u00a0 Since “she” is not Eve and “she” cannot be the same as “they”, who is the “she”?\u00a0 There is no other single woman that can be referenced back to other than the particular “the woman” from verse 14\u00a0 and “a woman” from verses 11 & 12.\u00a0 This shows that Paul is not stopping all women from teaching or that all women are deceived, but one woman is in mind who has fallen into error and her husband’s silence is akin to the silence of Adam. Just as Adam sinned with his silence, so too will sin and\u00a0devastation occur in the Ephesian woman’s case if a stand for truth is not taken on her behalf.<\/p>\n
Now we come to the crux of Schatz\u2019s argument. Essentially, I believe her argument is this: In verse 15, either \u201cshe\u201d refers to the particular woman and \u201cthey\u201d refers to the woman and her husband, or \u201cshe\u201d and \u201cthey\u201d have the same antecedent. But \u201cshe\u201d and \u201cthey\u201d cannot have the same antecedent because the antecedent cannot be both singular and plural. Pronouns must agree with their antecedents in number. Therefore, \u201cshe\u201d must refer to the particular woman Paul is correcting, and \u201cthey\u201d refers to the woman and her husband.<\/p>\n
There are a couple of problems here.<\/p>\n
First, Schatz\u2019s dilemma is false. The chiastic structure of verses 8-15 reveals the correct pronoun-antecedent relationships:<\/p>\n
A (9-10) Christian \u201cwomen\u201d (plural)
\nB (11-12) \u201ca woman\u201d (singular indefinite noun) \u2013it means any Christian woman.
\nC (13) \u201cEve\u201d (generic \/ representative woman)
\nC\u2019 (14) \u201cthe woman\u201d (generic \/ representative woman)
\nB\u2019 (15a) \u201cshe\u201d has the antecedent \u201ca woman\u201d
\nA\u2019 (15b) \u201cthey\u201d has the antecedent \u201cwomen,\u201d Christian women in context<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Neopatriarch has failed to prove that:<\/h2>\n
1.\u00a0 Eve is used as the generic\/representative of woman (i.e. are all women deceived?)<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0 That “the woman” is a generic\/representative of woman (i.e. are all women in transgression after being deceived?)<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0 That “she” can refer to a generic women or that “they” can be equal to “she”.\u00a0 This is improper grammar.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0 That the closest “they” should be “women” spoken of in verse 10.\u00a0 He has bypassed and ignored the closest logical “they” as being the couple from verses 11 & 12. He wrote:<\/p>\n
Women are the topic of both \u201cshe\u201d and \u201cthey,\u201d but, grammatically, they have different antecedents. The pronoun \u201cshe\u201d refers to \u201ca woman\u201d, and the pronoun \u201cthey\u201d refers back to \u201cwomen.\u201d In other words, \u201cshe\u201d refers to any woman, and \u201cthey\u201d refers to every woman. Hence, \u201cshe\u201d is not a particular woman, but any woman who is represented by the woman Eve.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No “she” is ever called “they”<\/h2>\n
This is not only unprecedented in scripture (no “she” is ever called the plural “they”) but it is illogical.\u00a0 How can “she” (any woman) be saved…if “they” (all women) remain in faith….???\u00a0 Not only has Neopatriarch completely failed to prove his case that Eve is to be taken as a generic representative for women but he has failed to show how a woman’s salvation depends on what all women do?\u00a0 Please explain Mr. Neopatriarch how this is possible?\u00a0 Also please explain how the salvation of a man (represented by Adam) would be dependent on what all men do?\u00a0 It just doesn’t work.\u00a0 This explanation is nonsense in this passage.\u00a0 It makes perfect sense for Paul to show that the salvation of the particular woman who has been deceived will be dependent on what both of them (husband who has been silent and wife who has been in deception) do.\u00a0 If the husband will lead her into truth and walk with her instead of being silent, she will find salvation that came through the offspring of the very first deceived woman (Jesus the Messiah promised back in the book of Genesis.) Jesus is the one who rights all the wrongs and brings judgment to the one who deceived the very first woman.\u00a0 It was to be her seed alone that would defeat the original deceiver.\u00a0 This is what makes sense.\u00a0 A generic Eve and all women having to do things that will save those who Eve represents is nothing but gobblygook theology.\u00a0 It not only doesn’t make sense, but it makes Paul out to be confused and nonsensical.) Neopatriarch continues:<\/p>\n
Second, Schatz\u2019s view leads her to the untenable conclusion that a husband and wife are in view. But this conclusion has been answered by Michael R. Riley in his paper \u201cThe Proper Translation of Aner and Gune in the New Testament<\/span>.\u201d<\/p>\nIn conclusion, Schatz\u2019s view has several problems. Among them:<\/p>\n
1. Schatz violates a basic principle of hermeneutics by making an interpretive key out of what many interpreters have recognized is an unclear verse (15). The clear verses should interpret the unclear.<\/ol>\n2. Her conclusion that \u201cshe\u201d refers to a particular woman and \u201cthey\u201d refers to the woman and her husband follows from a false dilemma.<\/ol>\n3. Her argument fails to take proper account of the context. Specifically, the verses that precede verses 11-12 where Paul is giving instructions for men and women (plural).<\/ol>\n4. Her explanation of the summary citation lacks the explanatory power of the patriarchalist interpretation, especially with respect to verse 13.<\/ol>\n5. Her position leads her into an untenable conclusion that a wife and her husband are meant. Riley demonstrates that the grammatical and contextual clues necessary to establish this conclusion are absent.<\/ol>\n<\/blockquote>\nEvery husband and every wife?<\/h2>\n
I do not say that Paul is talking about every husband and wife.\u00a0 My conclusion is that Paul is speaking about one particular woman and one particular man.\u00a0 The fact that the grammar is so specific that there is no other logical conclusion, supports my conclusion and not Neopatriarch’s.<\/p>\n
Neopatriarch’s list of the “problems” of my view are no problems at all:<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0 The “interpretative key” is the entire passage without contradiction and using the inspired words and the inspired grammar.\u00a0 The fact that “many interpreters” have recognized that verse 15 is an unclear verse should be a red flag that they cannot then turn around and say that verse 12 is clear.\u00a0 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is one package.\u00a0 It is one sentence and it is a logical and complete thought.\u00a0 The “key” is to be consistent with the entire passage and the correct understanding will make it work without error.\u00a0 I have done that and Neopatriarch has failed in his bid to refute my exegesis.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0 Neopatriarch has failed to disprove that “she” refers to a particular woman (from “the woman” in verse 14 and referring back to “woman” in verses 11 & 12) and “they” includes the “man” from verses 11 & 12. Calling it a “false dilemma is a classic overstating of his case which he has not proven at all.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0 It is amazing that I am being charged with failing to take proper account of the context, when Neopatriarch wants to dismiss verse 15 as unclear.\u00a0 He has also failed to account for the determined and deliberate change of grammar that Paul pens in verse 11.\u00a0 The grammar shift is not a mistake and the grammar shift back to the plural in verse 15 is not a grammatical error either.\u00a0 Neopatriarch has failed to prove that “she” and “they” can be referring to generic woman. When we take his explanation and use it to read the verse with that explanation,\u00a0the reading becomes illogical and makes the passage unclear and confusing.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0 My reference to Paul’s citation back to Genesis is certainly without the patriarchalist interpretation because the patriarchalist interpretation is unproven in Genesis.\u00a0 I challenge Neopatriarch to prove his points in Genesis without reading into the text what is not there. \u00a0He has a faulty exegesis and his view is properly called eisegesis\u00a0 (a reading into the text that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.)<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0 Riley has not demonstrated that my exegesis is wrong regarding 1 Timothy 2:11-15.\u00a0 This is once again Neopatriarch’s overstating his case.<\/p>\n
In conclusion<\/h2>\n
In conclusion, Neopatriarch has not only failed to refute my interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, he has created a contradiction by reading into the text and presenting of his patriarchal tradition that contradicts the word of God.\u00a0 He is welcome to keep trying.\u00a0 I look forward to a “real” refutation if there is such a thing.\u00a0 I have been waiting since 2006 since the time my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” came out.\u00a0 Neopatriarch’s “refuation” is so full of holes,\u00a0 one could drive a Mac truck through it.<\/p>\n
The moral of the story is that we must not disregard the inspired context, grammar or the word usage when we interpret scripture.\u00a0 When one reads into the text without regard for what God has written, that person will fall back on human tradition every time.\u00a0 We need to be faithful watchmen who stand faithful to God’s inspired word and who will not let the enemy steal and distort God’s word.\u00a0 Let’s also reach out to those who have been deceived by the man-made tradition that God does not give his Word into the hands of a woman.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12 Some have wondered why “Chris” the complementarian stopped posting here.\u00a0 Apparently, he could not get his refutation of my work to stand in an interactive forum so he moved it over to a place where he could have the floor to himself.\u00a0 He has posted a claim that he has refuted me in his post called A Refutation of Cheryl Schatz on 1 Timothy\u00a02:12. Chris is now posting under the name Neopatriarch, and he…<\/p>\n
Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[5,11,22,24,31,52],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nNeopatriarch fails to refute Cheryl Schatz on 1 Timothy 2:12 - Women in Ministry<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Is 1 Timothy 2:12 a prohibition that forbids all women from teaching men? The context includes the verses to 1 Timothy 2:15. What is the inspired grammar?\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Neopatriarch fails to refute Cheryl Schatz on 1 Timothy 2:12 - Women in Ministry\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Is 1 Timothy 2:12 a prohibition that forbids all women from teaching men? The context includes the verses to 1 Timothy 2:15. What is the inspired grammar?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Women in Ministry\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-31T00:17:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-24T05:35:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/05\/target.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Cheryl Schatz\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Cheryl Schatz\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/\",\"name\":\"Neopatriarch fails to refute Cheryl Schatz on 1 Timothy 2:12 - Women in Ministry\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-31T00:17:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-24T05:35:14+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/d7a33503fddaf9e8c392972b2801441a\"},\"description\":\"Is 1 Timothy 2:12 a prohibition that forbids all women from teaching men? The context includes the verses to 1 Timothy 2:15. What is the inspired grammar?\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Neopatriarch fails to refute Cheryl Schatz on 1 Timothy 2:12\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/\",\"name\":\"Women in Ministry\",\"description\":\"This blog is for dialogue on the issue of women in ministry and the freedom for women to teach the bible in a public setting. It is also for questions and answers on our DVD entitled \u201cWomen in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?\u201d This 4 DVD set answers the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women\u2019s ministry.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/d7a33503fddaf9e8c392972b2801441a\",\"name\":\"Cheryl Schatz\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e19c4eee7accb8e3a07173a2c17c808?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e19c4eee7accb8e3a07173a2c17c808?s=96&d=identicon&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Cheryl Schatz\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/author\/cheryl-schatz\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Neopatriarch fails to refute Cheryl Schatz on 1 Timothy 2:12 - Women in Ministry","description":"Is 1 Timothy 2:12 a prohibition that forbids all women from teaching men? The context includes the verses to 1 Timothy 2:15. What is the inspired grammar?","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Neopatriarch fails to refute Cheryl Schatz on 1 Timothy 2:12 - Women in Ministry","og_description":"Is 1 Timothy 2:12 a prohibition that forbids all women from teaching men? The context includes the verses to 1 Timothy 2:15. What is the inspired grammar?","og_url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/","og_site_name":"Women in Ministry","article_published_time":"2009-05-31T00:17:26+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-24T05:35:14+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/05\/target.jpg"}],"author":"Cheryl Schatz","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Cheryl Schatz","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/","url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/","name":"Neopatriarch fails to refute Cheryl Schatz on 1 Timothy 2:12 - Women in Ministry","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-31T00:17:26+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-24T05:35:14+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/d7a33503fddaf9e8c392972b2801441a"},"description":"Is 1 Timothy 2:12 a prohibition that forbids all women from teaching men? The context includes the verses to 1 Timothy 2:15. What is the inspired grammar?","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/05\/30\/neopatriarch-fails-to-refute-cheryl\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Neopatriarch fails to refute Cheryl Schatz on 1 Timothy 2:12"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#website","url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/","name":"Women in Ministry","description":"This blog is for dialogue on the issue of women in ministry and the freedom for women to teach the bible in a public setting. It is also for questions and answers on our DVD entitled \u201cWomen in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?\u201d This 4 DVD set answers the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women\u2019s ministry.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/d7a33503fddaf9e8c392972b2801441a","name":"Cheryl Schatz","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e19c4eee7accb8e3a07173a2c17c808?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e19c4eee7accb8e3a07173a2c17c808?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","caption":"Cheryl Schatz"},"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/author\/cheryl-schatz\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p30ZFw-gN","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1546,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/10\/16\/do-the-genders-have-different-functions\/","url_meta":{"origin":1041,"position":0},"title":"Do the genders have different functions?","date":"October 16, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"I am creating a new post to continue the great discussion that we have been having on a previous post while I am out of the country. \u00a0The original discussion is on this post\u00a0https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/07\/05\/wayne-grudem-part-2\/ and since we have grown to over 240 comments, I would ask that we continue our\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1 Corinthians 11"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1867,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2010\/02\/17\/neopatriarchs-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/","url_meta":{"origin":1041,"position":1},"title":"Neopatriarch’s once again claims to refute the Greek grammar and Cheryl Schatz’s view of 1 Timothy 2:11-15","date":"February 17, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Complementarian Arguments - Has the Greek Grammar been refuted? According to those who have been followed a trail left by our old friend Neopatriarch (who many of you may recall was the young complementarian who used to post challenges on this blog until he left in exasperation when his arguments\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1 Timothy 2"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/02\/neo.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":197,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2008\/02\/01\/the-bayly-brothers-and-the-trinity\/","url_meta":{"origin":1041,"position":2},"title":"The Bayly brothers and the Trinity","date":"February 1, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Awhile back I was asked to consider posting a comment on a very strong complementarian blog that is known to be rather unloving towards egalitarians. This particular blog, I found, was run by two pastors of a Presbyterian church who appear to think that egalitarians do not have the right\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Egalitarian vs complementarian"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1489,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/11\/aussie-debate-on-women-in-ministry\/","url_meta":{"origin":1041,"position":3},"title":"Aussie debate on women in ministry","date":"September 11, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 There is a good natured debate going on over at the Women in Ministry blog conference at the Presbyterian church in Ryde blog between myself and Peter Barnes. \u00a0Those who would like to watch an Aussie and a Canadian duke it out over the issue of whether there is\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1 Corinthians 14"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/09\/fight3.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1181,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/07\/22\/wayne-grudem-6\/","url_meta":{"origin":1041,"position":4},"title":"Answering Wayne Grudem’s \u201cOpen letter to Egalitarians\u201d 6","date":"July 22, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"Answering Wayne Grudem This is the part 6 of answering Wayne Grudem\u2019s \u201cOpen Letter to Egalitarians\u201d and his \u201cSix\u00a0Questions That Have Never Been Satisfactorily Answered\u201d. \u00a0Today I am posting his sixth question,\u00a0Suzanne McCarthy\u2019s answer and my own questions below that. Question #6 from Wayne Grudem: 6. Women teaching false doctrine\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1 Timothy 2"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/07\/grudem6a.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":736,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2008\/12\/01\/do-egalitarians-twist-the-scriptures\/","url_meta":{"origin":1041,"position":5},"title":"Do egalitarians twist the scriptures?","date":"December 1, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"The charge is often laid that egalitarians twist the scriptures.\u00a0 I would like to apply a saying that I read recently.\u00a0 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\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Challenges"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1041"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1041"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1041\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3448,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1041\/revisions\/3448"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"target\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/05\/target.jpg?resize=215%2C350&ssl=1\" "\\"target\\"")
<\/p>\n