{"id":1524,"date":"2009-09-30T14:58:12","date_gmt":"2009-09-30T21:58:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/?p=1524"},"modified":"2016-10-03T20:59:24","modified_gmt":"2016-10-04T03:59:24","slug":"neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/","title":{"rendered":"Neopatriarch once again fails to refute me on 1 Timothy 2:15"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Cheryl<\/p>\n

Challenging my position that 1 Timothy 2:15 is a single woman<\/h2>\n

Neopatriarch has taken a second stab at trying to refute my teaching on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as he has rewritten his article<\/a><\/strong>. \u00a0Once again he has failed to poke a hole in my argument, but this time, he has dropped the charge that I am exasperating. \u00a0Good for Neopatriarch for taking a much kinder tone in his introduction! \u00a0He now calls it his “canned response.” \u00a0 From reading the comments, it appears that Neopatriarch has come to the understanding that brothers and sisters in Christ can argue their position passionately without attacking the other person’s character and their motives. \u00a0This is certainly a change in his approach, and I commend him for that.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

I must also give Neopatriarch credit for trying to answer my interpretation when others who make their living off of promoting the complementarian message just run and hide. \u00a0However, Neopatriarch has major flaws in his argument, and his argument fails to present contradictions or holes in my own argument, so I am very pleased to be able to present this second refutation of Neopatriarch’s attempt to tear down my argument.<\/span><\/p>\n

I will start my response by saying that I have no doubt that Neopatriarch is a brother in Christ. \u00a0However, on the issue of patriarchy, he is dead wrong. \u00a0It is a loving thing to confront a brother in Christ with his errors so that he can learn from his mistakes. \u00a0I am certain that Neopatriarch continues to read my blog, even though he doesn’t want to post here any longer, and since my blog seems to have a higher following, I am posting my response here.<\/span><\/p>\n

At this time I would also like to commend Mike Seaver for his willingness to debate me in this public setting. \u00a0I do not take this kind of bravery for granted. \u00a0Although Mike’s answers were not very weighty, the fact that he was willing to work with me to bridge the gap between complementarians and egalitarians was truly a remarkable act on his part. \u00a0Hats off to Mike for being brave, loving and kind!<\/span><\/p>\n

Now back to Neopatriarch’s second attempt at refuting me. \u00a0Neopatriarch writes:<\/span><\/p>\n

Schatz\u2019s view has cropped up in various discussion groups like CARM and Worthy Boards, and, you might see it in various blogs as well.\u00a0 If you\u2019re thinking about engaging her in a debate or discussion, you might first want to listen to this debate between her and Matt Slick:<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Neopatriarch linked to the audio with Matt Slick where Slick refused to allow me to finish my argument on 1 Timothy 2:15. \u00a0 I would recommend that Neopatriarch takes a more fair approach and link to my article<\/strong><\/a> where I give my full view which includes verse 15. \u00a0I make this recommendation so that Neopatriarch doesn’t come across as being biased and merely seen as trying to stack the deck by only a partial view of my position. \u00a0If Neo believes that he is right and I am wrong, it would only be fair to link to a proper and fair presentation of my view.<\/span><\/p>\n

After giving a quote from John Calvin, Neo writes:<\/span><\/p>\n

As Calvin explains, Paul continues on the topic of modest conduct by forbidding women to teach or exercise authority over men.\u00a0 From verses 9-10 we know that Paul is addressing the conduct of women (plural).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While John Calvin may have believed that teaching the truth of God’s word to men was immodest conduct, the context of this passage does not list it this way. \u00a0Instead, we find a clear break in verse 10 where Paul is referencing women who have a claim to godliness. \u00a0These godly women were to be encouraged to dress modestly so that their godliness would be shown from their good works rather than from their outward apparel. \u00a0Would teaching\u00a0<\/span>the truth of God’s Word be a good work? \u00a0Of course! \u00a0There is not a single reference in the Scriptures instructing the church to stop the teaching and preaching of the truth of the gospel. \u00a0So we have godly women referenced in verses 9 and 10. \u00a0Does the reference to godly women continue? \u00a0It does not. \u00a0Here is where the break comes. \u00a0Paul goes back to the theme of chapter one where he references the stopping of teaching and here in chapter two deception as the reason given for the stopping of teaching. \u00a0In 1 Timothy 2:9-10, 11-12 \u00a0not only does Paul go from plural to singular, but Paul goes from godly women (women who profess godliness) to the certain ungodliness in the issue of sin through deception. \u00a0The two portions of this chapter do not go together in one flow. \u00a0Godliness does not connect with transgression and deception no matter how much Neopatriarch would like to think it does.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch continues:<\/span><\/p>\n

Since context determines the meaning of a word, the reasonable presumption here is that \u201ca woman\u201d refers to\u00a0any<\/strong> of the women (plural) whom Paul is addressing.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Context certainly does determine the meaning of a word. \u00a0A “woman” is connected to deception. \u00a0Now tell me, are all women to be considered as deceived? \u00a0Are all women continuing in the transgression (verse 14)? \u00a0The context simply cannot fit all women.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch then quotes Rev. Lane Keister \u00a0as writing:<\/span><\/p>\n

I believe that Paul has in mind already the reasons in verses 13-14, which require a singular to connect with Eve as a representative. Therefore, Paul is using a generic singular to make his point. Mounce argues that a general principle is being stated here, and that the singular is most apropos. I think this is borne out further by Paul\u2019s argument in verses 13-14, which speak of Adam and Eve as representative of male and female.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let’s test this by the Scripture. \u00a0Paul has already been using a generic form for women in verse 10 although he states that these are women who have a claim to godliness. \u00a0Are they now to be included in <\/span>verses 12-15? \u00a0The claim that this is a “general principle” can only stand if it fits the context. \u00a0Let’s continue to test the context.<\/span><\/p>\n

Where does Paul speak of Adam and Eve as representative of male and female<\/em><\/strong>? \u00a0Paul speaks of Adam as a man who was created first. \u00a0Are all men<\/em><\/strong> now to be considered created first? \u00a0Adam is said not to be deceived. \u00a0Are all men now to be as Adam and not deceived<\/em><\/strong>? \u00a0These facts of Paul’s do not fit generic men. \u00a0How about Eve? \u00a0Eve was created second and like Eve “the woman” in verse 14 was deceived. \u00a0Is Eve representative of all women? \u00a0In what way is Paul making Eve connected to all women<\/em><\/strong>? \u00a0Unless Neo can show a representative nature<\/em><\/strong> in this passage, he cannot add to what God has inspired to make the passage say more than it is saying.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch then writes:<\/span><\/p>\n

But Schatz interprets in a way that disrupts the flow and coherence that verses 11-15 have with the preceding verses.\u00a0 Indeed, she claims there is a \u201csharp\u201d shift to the singular4<\/sup>, and thereby isolates verses 11-15 from the immediately preceding verses.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is not true. \u00a0Here is the coherence – in chapter one, Paul has reminded Timothy that he left him behind in Ephesus to stop the deceived teachers who are teaching error. \u00a0The <\/span>only teaching that is stopped according to Paul’s command in chapter one is that of the false teachers who are teaching strange doctrines. \u00a0Paul continues in chapter one to describe his compassion for those who have been deceived by comparing them to his own actions done in ignorance. \u00a0Paul says that he received mercy because he had done his wicked deeds ignorantly and in unbelief. \u00a0Paul then moves on in chapter two to say that God <\/span>desires all to be saved and this would have to include <\/span>even the ignorance deceived teachers. \u00a0Paul’s word to men about not praying with wrath and dissension fits in perfectly with the exasperation of the elders who were responsible for fixing the problems. \u00a0They were “fixing the problem” by arguing, and this appeared even in their prayers. \u00a0Paul says that this wrath and\u00a0dissension\u00a0should not be shown in their prayers. <\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The next group to be dealt with are the women who would be the mature believers and who have <\/span>works of godliness. \u00a0They are to reveal their godliness by their acts, not by their dress. \u00a0They too would have been called on to deal with the error that had crept into the congregation especially if it was a problem with a woman. \u00a0Paul connects the issue of the salvation of all men to the importance of godly leadership by saying “therefore” and “likewise.” \u00a0But there is no connecting word in verse 11. \u00a0Check it for yourself. \u00a0The first word is “woman” and it is disconnected to the grammar of verses 9 & 10. \u00a0The disconnection here cannot be ignored. \u00a0Paul is not talking about the same group of women. \u00a0The women in the previous verses are women with good works claiming godliness.<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

So how do verses 11-15 “flow” from the\u00a0preceding\u00a0verses? \u00a0The beginning of Chapter 2 shows some of the problems in that the leadership is not handling the problem of the false teachers very well. \u00a0The arguments are carrying into their prayers. \u00a0Even the mature women are not relying on their godly character to handle the issue but setting forth their “class” or their right to be heard by their elaborate dress. Paul breaks from the instructions for Timothy regarding the leadership and goes back to the sore spot regarding deceived teachers. \u00a0Paul lays out the solution for the one deceived teacher who has been a thorn in their side. \u00a0She is to be stopped, but Paul is sure that with immersing her in sound doctrine she will be saved and come to know the truth of the gospel. \u00a0Paul’s whole thought flows from deception to leadership dealing with deception back to the deception again, and the final solution is how to bring the deceived one to a solid foundation in salvation that was promised after the very first deception happened on this earth. \u00a0The very first one who experienced being deceived would be used by God to bring forth the Messiah who would then make it His mission to destroy the deceiver and set the captives free.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch’s view, on the other hand, does not flow. \u00a0Neopatriarch cannot successfully connect Adam and Eve to all men and women<\/em><\/strong> since he has no basis to make “a woman” to be generic because of Eve. \u00a0Eve is not a representative of all women Neither can Neo make “a man” generic because of Adam as the reference to Adam’s first creation and his not being deceived is not applicable to all men. \u00a0Neo also cannot connect all women to the deception of Eve nor can he connect the ongoing transgression of one woman as it does not fit in context with all women. \u00a0Lastly, his position cannot connect all women to the key verse which is the result of the prohibition. \u00a0Not all women are deceived, so it fails the text of context to question the salvation of all women.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch continues:<\/span><\/p>\n

First, we normally read a pericope from start to finish so that contextual resources are provided to us as we move from one verse to the next.\u00a0 With Schatz\u2019s approach, the reader must wait until he reaches verse 15 to decrypt what Paul meant by \u201ca woman\u201d in verses 11 and 12 because Schatz has made verse 15 the interpretive key for 11 and 12.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Neopatriarch has again failed to consider the context. \u00a0Paul is writing directly to Timothy, not directly to us. \u00a0Timothy didn’t need to wait until verse 15 to understand what verses 11 & 12 meant<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0Timothy knew all about the situation in Ephesus. \u00a0We, on the other hand, have to do our homework before we can understand the passage. \u00a0Some of Paul’s writing is difficult to understand and verse 15 is the verse that dismantles the complementarian argument because they cannot make it fit in their view that Paul is talking about all women.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch writes:<\/span><\/p>\n

The conjunction, \u201cfor,\u201d at the beginning of verse 13 could be understood in the causal or illustrative sense. The causal sense would mean that Paul is giving us\u00a0reasons<\/strong> for his proscription. The illustrative sense would mean that Paul is simply giving us an example.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Paul is not simply giving us an example. \u00a0The “for” must mean Paul’s reason for the prohibition <\/span>otherwise the prohibition would not make sense in the Christian worldview that never had a law that prohibited a woman from teaching men. \u00a0The only thing that makes sense is that “for” gives the “reason” for the prohibition. \u00a0If there is no reason, then there cannot be a claim to a law since the Old Testament never carries such a law against a woman’s teaching abilities.<\/span><\/p>\n

But if (the Greek) is used in the illustrative sense, then Paul did not ground his proscription in the order of creation. Instead, he appealed to Genesis 2-3 as an example of what happens when a woman teaches a man false doctrine.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This could not possibly be Paul’s meaning since Eve did not teach Adam “false doctrine.” \u00a0In fact, not even a single one of Eve’s words to Adam is recorded. \u00a0One cannot get the interpretation that Eve taught Adam “false doctrine” without doing violence to the Scriptures. \u00a0We know for a fact that Adam was not deceived and we also know from Genesis that Adam was there with Eve when the serpent was speaking to her. \u00a0Where is the doctrine that came from Eve’s mouth to Adam? It isn’t in the Scripture. \u00a0Secondly if this an example<\/em><\/strong>, then Neopatriarch just spoiled his own case. \u00a0He attempts to prove that Paul is stopping all women<\/em><\/strong> from teaching correct Biblical doctrine<\/em><\/strong> to men but with Neo’s \u00a0admission is that the example<\/em><\/strong> Paul gives is about false doctrine<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0Which way is it? \u00a0Is it a “reason” for the prohibition (false doctrine) or is it an “example” (false doctrine)? \u00a0No matter which way Neopatriarch turns, he cannot make the passage say that Paul is stopping the teaching of true doctrine.<\/span><\/p>\n

This could still be taken as justification for proscribing\u00a0any<\/strong> woman from teaching\u00a0any<\/strong> man false doctrine. After all, why would this example apply to only one woman?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But why should we stop with the men? \u00a0With Neopatriarch’s view that it could also be taken as stopping any woman from teaching any man false doctrine, he refutes himself since he will now have to justify why Paul only stops all women from teaching all men false doctrine but doesn’t stop them from teaching false doctrine to other women and children<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0At every turn, Neo’s claim that this is generic women and generic men just doesn’t fit. \u00a0 Also, Neopatriarch has another dilemma. \u00a0Why would Paul have to say anything about all women’s false teaching if he already stopped the false teachers in chapter one? \u00a0If there wasn’t one sticky situation with one woman concerning false doctrine, <\/span>verses 11-15 would not have needed to be written. \u00a0Certainly, if there were multiple women teaching multiple men, women or children, Paul would have used the plural just as he did in the previous verses. \u00a0There would be no need to change the plural women to singular woman.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch continues:<\/span><\/p>\n

Also, how does the fact Adam was created first illustrate the claim that only one specific woman is not to teach false doctrine? The illustrative sense fails to explain verses 13-14 as well as the causal sense. Therefore, we should understand verses 13-14 as\u00a0reasons<\/strong> for Paul\u2019s proscription in verse 12.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So now Neopatriarch takes us right back to the “reasons” \u00a0for the prohibition, the exact position that I have. \u00a0Now the “example” fails the test, and we are back to square one. \u00a0We must ask how does the fact that Adam was created first give us the reason<\/em><\/strong> for why she is stopped from teaching? \u00a0Because the first one created, one had <\/span>sound doctrine to immunize him against the deception of the serpent. \u00a0Remember Paul started with verse 11 saying that she must learn? \u00a0Learning sound doctrine is the key here. \u00a0Adam knew the truth, and he was not deceived. \u00a0But Adam failed to speak out and stop Eve’s deception, just like the woman’s husband in Ephesus. \u00a0He was another Adam and Timothy had to go past her husband to command her to stop. \u00a0The reason for the prohibition was because of deception and the non-involvement of the one who <\/span>was not deceived fits perfectly with why Timothy was being pushed to step in and stop her himself.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch continues:<\/span><\/p>\n

Since presumption favors our initial conclusion that\u00a0any<\/strong> man and\u00a0any<\/strong> woman are meant in verse 12 and verses 13-14 function as reasons in Paul\u2019s argument, the most natural reading takes Adam and Eve as representatives of any man and any woman.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I ask if Neo’s admitted “presumption” favors his conclusion that any man and any woman are meant, then I ask him to please explain how any man is not deceived<\/em><\/strong> and any woman is deceived<\/em><\/strong>? \u00a0Neopatriarch has failed to give any viable explanation for the connection to all of us as women. \u00a0There is a very strong connection to a couple<\/em><\/strong> in the same condition as Adam and Eve<\/em><\/strong> were, but there is no connection<\/em><\/strong> to godly men and godly women who are not in error.<\/span><\/p>\n

In his first reason, I submit that Paul is alluding to the steward-helper relationship between Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2:7, God created Adam and gave him the garden mandate not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (2:16-17). Adam was hereby entrusted with stewardship of God\u2019s word and consequently of moral life in the garden.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Neopatriarch is alluding to the teaching that only Adam was entrusted with God’s word, but this cannot be proven since Genesis 1:26-29 describes the creation of the man and the woman and the prohibition is included within the list of what they could eat since they are given permission to eat from every tree except for the one tree that had no seed bearing fruit. \u00a0Eve also describes God’s Word given to her, so there is no proof at all that only Adam was entrusted with God’s Word. \u00a0There is also nothing that says that Adam was given the stewardship of the moral life in the garden. \u00a0The Bible does say that he was entrusted with guarding the garden, but this is a far cry from being responsible for Eve’s sin. \u00a0He was responsible for warning her but not responsible for her moral life.<\/span><\/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).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As I wrote previously, Eve was given God’s Word about what she could eat, and it was her testimony that she was also told by God what she was not allowed to eat. \u00a0Although Neopatriarch used the word “apparently” it is clear that he knows that there is no Scripture that says that Adam was responsible for teaching Eve the prohibition. \u00a0Eve walked with God too, and her testimony counts as it came from a sinless woman before sin entered the world.<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What Neopatriarch has failed to do is to pay attention to what God said. \u00a0While he can make up all the illustrations that he wants, these illustrations do not correspond to the Scriptures, because God said that they both were to rule. \u00a0There was not one ruler and a subordinate helper. \u00a0There were two rulers<\/em><\/strong> over God’s creation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Gen 1:26 \u00a0Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Gen 1:27 \u00a0God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.<\/span><\/p>\n

Gen 1:28 \u00a0God 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.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Neopatriarch started with a false premise and continued on the wrong path when he writes:<\/span><\/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).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There is no steward-helper relationship. \u00a0There is a God-given ruler-ruler<\/em><\/strong> relationship. \u00a0The helper then is defined by God as an equal ruler. \u00a0How do we reverse the ruler-ruler relationship? \u00a0Here it <\/span>is: \u00a0ruler-ruler. \u00a0Does it look different? \u00a0It can’t look different because God’s Word is what counts and He made them both rulers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Secondly, God faulted Adam not for being nagged into eating the fruit (because there are no words recorded of Eve speaking to Adam) but God faulted Adam for remaining a silent watchman as his wife spoke to the serpent and was deceived. \u00a0This is the serious issue. \u00a0It isn’t an issue about a nagged husband but about treason. \u00a0God says that a watchman who fails to sound the warning is a traitor and deserves death. \u00a0Adam listened to the voice of his wife while she was speaking to the serpent. \u00a0He heard the deception. \u00a0He heard her as she was being deceived… and Adam did nothing. \u00a0This is what God called treacherous (Hosea 6:7)<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch continues:<\/span><\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Where is Neopatriarch’s proof that Eve spoke to Adam and instructed him on anything? \u00a0It isn’t in the text. \u00a0It is the tradition of complementarians, but it isn’t Scriptural. \u00a0Where does God say that Eve took her own authority to instruct Adam? \u00a0It doesn’t. \u00a0Adam doesn’t blame Eve for “instructing” him. \u00a0He blames her only for giving the fruit to him. \u00a0Surely if she had sinned\u00a0<\/span>by “instructing” the man without proper authority, then someone would have said something about this sin. \u00a0Where is Neopatriarch’s proof? \u00a0He has none.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch now quotes Andreas K\u00f6stenberger:<\/span><\/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.7<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I have already discussed with Andreas his position and I have given him the reasons why his view cannot be correct. \u00a0His view has major holes in it. \u00a0He was not to answer my questions because his view doesn’t fit.<\/span><\/p>\n

The first problem is that there is no indication that Eve was given instruction to be under her husband’s care. \u00a0Eve did not have to ask Adam to have a conversation with an animal. \u00a0When Eve was fully convinced by the serpent that God was holding back on her and that she would not die but receive the ability to be like God, the fruit became to her not a prohibition, but a blessing. \u00a0She did not have to ask Adam for his permission to eat any fruit. \u00a0She was a free moral agent who fell into sin through deception. \u00a0She did not leave her proper domain under her husband’s care. \u00a0It was Adam who left his position as guardian of the garden<\/em><\/strong>, and he is the failure who did not speak out about the deception when he knew the truth. \u00a0Noepatriarch’s position is an invalid charge of sin against Eve and a failure to charge Adam with his treason. \u00a0The fact is that Eve became a prey for Satan because the man failed to speak out and expose the lie. \u00a0Where did God ever blame Eve for stepping outside her “domain”<\/em><\/strong>? \u00a0God<\/em><\/strong> did not blame her for this. \u00a0He blamed Adam for listening to his wife while she was being deceived. \u00a0This was a serious sin. \u00a0It is an amazing thing to me that Neopatriarch continues to blame the deceived one and let the one who was the silent watchman go scot-free. \u00a0In Neopatriarch’s quote below the Greek words do not show up as my blog is not able to show the Greek.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch writes:<\/span><\/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 \u00a0\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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Neopatriarch wants all of us to think that the identity\u00a0<\/span>of all women (womankind) is first of all sure because Paul said “a woman” and now it is identified with Eve because all women (plural) are “the woman” (definite singular)? \u00a0That is impossible. \u00a0First of all the perfect tense is not<\/em><\/strong> the future tense here. \u00a0The perfect tense shows that at the time of Paul’s writing “the woman” was in the transgression<\/em><\/strong>, however she will be saved<\/em><\/strong> (future tense) if… (verse 15) \u00a0All of womankind is not alive at the time that Paul wrote this so the perfect tense cannot apply to them<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0Also, Paul could not have predicted<\/em><\/strong> that all of womankind would come into transgression through deception<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0He would have to say that all womankind will come into transgression (future tense) if<\/em><\/strong> they fall through deception. \u00a0This is not even close to what Paul actually said.<\/span><\/p>\n

Either Paul was inspired, and his grammar was inspired, or it wasn’t. \u00a0Which is it? \u00a0I choose to believe that Paul said exactly what the Holy Spirit inspired. \u00a0“The woman” was a woman in the Ephesian congregation who had been deceived by the lie. \u00a0She was like Eve in that the one who could protect her was sitting on his duff doing nothing. \u00a0He was another silent Adam allowing his wife to continue in her deception. \u00a0Timothy was to take Paul’s authority and stop her. \u00a0Timothy can now go to the woman and bypass her husband and say that “Paul is the one who is not allowing this…” \u00a0Timothy will have the courage to do this necessary work of stopping this woman, and he does so with Paul’s full authority and Paul’s encouragement.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch tries, to sum <\/span>up my view by saying:<\/span><\/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 specific 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 specific woman Paul is correcting, and \u201cthey\u201d refers to the woman and her husband. She may further claim \u201cshe\u201d refers to \u201cthe woman\u201d in verse 14 because it is the nearest candidate for an antecedent.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is correct. \u00a0We cannot have hanging pronouns without the original nouns that they refer to. \u00a0Let’s see how Neopatriarch tries to wiggle out of this one.<\/span><\/p>\n

First, it should be recognized that the nature of Schatz\u2019s argument as a disjunctive syllogism requires her to eliminate disjuncts to establish her own view. While she may have eliminated the disjunct she tries to pin on the patriarchalist, she presents us with a false dilemma. \u201c[S]he\u201d and \u201cthey\u201d in verse 15 do not need to have the same antecedent in the patriarchalists\u2019 view. Instead, the chiastic structure of verses 8-15 reveals the correct pronoun-antecedent relationships:<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A (9-10) Christian \u201cwomen\u201d (plural)<\/span>
\n B (11-12) \u201ca woman\u201d (singular indefinite noun) \u2013it means any Christian woman.<\/span>
\n C (13) \u201cEve\u201d (generic \/ representative woman)<\/span>
\n C\u2019 (14) \u201cthe woman\u201d (generic \/ representative woman)<\/span>
\n B\u2019 (15a) \u201cshe\u201d has the antecedent \u201ca woman\u201d<\/span>
\n A\u2019 (15b) \u201cthey\u201d has the antecedent \u201cwomen,\u201d Christian women in context<\/span><\/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\u00a0any<\/strong> woman, and \u201cthey\u201d refers to\u00a0every<\/strong> woman. Hence, \u201cshe\u201d is not a specific woman, but any woman who is represented by the woman Eve. Schatz\u2019s argument fails at least so long as this is a live alternative.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let’s see if we can unravel this womanly<\/em><\/strong> mess. \u00a0\ud83d\ude42 \u00a0What Neopatriarch is saying, is that all godly Christian women are to be clothed with good works (verses 9 & 10) however it is forbidden for any Christian woman to teach any Christian man (verse 12) because Eve was a representative of any Christian woman<\/em><\/strong> (verse 13.) This would mean that “the woman” meaning any Christian woman is in sin right now and is still in her transgression<\/em><\/strong> (verse 14) and has been deceived. Consequently, any Christian woman will be saved from her deception if all Christian women continue in faith<\/em><\/strong> and love and holiness with self-control. \u00a0This is illogical. Paul cannot be talking about all Christian women in sin and all Christian women represented by Eve, but the thought that no Christian woman can be saved unless all Christian women continue in faith is untenable.<\/span><\/p>\n

In essence, there is no difference between “any Christian woman” and “all Christian women.” It is by necessity that “any Christian woman” must be included within “all Christian women” and “all Christian women” can be broken down to “any Christian woman” so there is no difference between the two groups. \u00a0For example, I would ask Neopatriarch which group his own your wife belongs to? \u00a0Is she one of the “any Christian woman”? \u00a0Or is she one of the “all Christian women”? \u00a0She is by necessity a member of both, so the antecedent is of necessity the same. \u00a0Not only does Neopatriarch’s explanation make a mockery of Paul’s words by attaching all women to the deception of Eve<\/em><\/strong>, but the Bible never uses Eve as a representative of all women. \u00a0 Also since the “any” and the “all” cannot be shown to exclude any particular Christian woman, by necessity the sides are equal and Neopatriarch’s \u00a0own convoluted explanation “she” = “they.” \u00a0This is illegal grammar.<\/span><\/p>\n

If the reader has trouble figuring out Neopatriarch’s explanation, it is no wonder. \u00a0His explanation is nothing more than double talk. \u00a0He has no way to show that “any Christian woman” cannot fit both into the “she” group and the “they” group so although he tried to explain that these were different things, they are not. \u00a0 Neopatriarch has only succeeded in trying to make Paul look foolish with confusing words that mean the same thing and the questioning of all women’s salvation which surely would spark the thought that women are somehow spiritually inferior to men whose salvation is never questioned in the Scriptures as a group.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also, I also ask Neopatriarch to show me how any Christian woman<\/em><\/strong> can be said to be in transgression right now<\/em><\/strong> because of her deception? \u00a0His explanation doesn’t hold water. \u00a0I would also like to ask how Timothy would have understood all of that “she” = “they” stuff? \u00a0And how does all of this fit in with the specific deceived teachers at Ephesus? \u00a0The thought that Paul would have connected all Christian women to the deceived Eve and said they were all in transgression in deception is so far-fetched that I can’t believe that Neopatriarch could think that his explanation would refute my straightforward interpretation of the passage that allows the grammar to be followed exactly as it was inspired?<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, although the nearest candidate for a pronoun antecedent is often correct, we must remember that context is king. As I\u2019ve argued above, we ought to understand (a woman) as an indefinite noun referring to\u00a0any<\/strong> woman. Hence, we choose the antecedent for the pronoun \u201cshe\u201d that makes the best sense in the context.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So “a woman” must mean any woman and “the woman” must mean any woman. \u00a0That makes no sense at all. \u00a0So why did Paul write these verses with what appears to be illegal grammar instead of staying with either “she” or “they”? \u00a0He could have said “she will be saved if she…” or “they will be saved if they…” \u00a0And what does a single Christian woman have to do with all Christian women? \u00a0So I can’t be saved unless all Christian women stay in the faith? \u00a0Or your wife cannot be saved unless all Christian women, (including me!) stays in the faith? \u00a0And of course, that means all Christian women past, present and future!<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch, your interpretation is nonsense. \u00a0I think you had better try one more time to see if you can get it right. \u00a0You have not found a way to poke a hole in my interpretation, but your own interpretation is so full of nonsense that we (all Christian women) could drive a Mac truck through it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Let’s sum it up with Neopatriarch’s final words:<\/span><\/p>\n

Third, 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 une in the New Testament<\/a>.\u201d9<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Riley’s paper is not about a particular woman and a particular man but about <\/span>generic woman and generic man so my position about one particular couple has not been answered by Riley as Neopatriarch claims.<\/span><\/p>\n

In conclusion, Schatz\u2019s view has several problems. Among them:<\/span><\/p>\n

1. Schatz 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).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a false conclusion. I have shown from the context that Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers. Paul is also dealing with leadership and their improper way of handling opposition. Men are arguing with false teachers even in their public prayers, and the women are dealing with false teachers by asserting their godliness with the way that they are dressing. Neopatriarch has failed to show that Paul was stopping the deceived teachers AND the women. He has also failed to show that Eve’s deception had anything to do with the deception of all women.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. 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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It isn’t an “unclear verse” if one does not shoe-horn “all women” into verses 11, 12 and 14. \u00a0When one just takes the grammar as it was written, verse 15 \u00a0no longer remains “unclear.” \u00a0However Neopatriarch’s view of what he calls “clear” verses makes verse 15 so “unclear” that we may as well round up all women and keep these deceived transgressing women away from the children. \u00a0Oh, but that won’t <\/span>do, because these deceived transgressing women are allowed to teach the children, right?<\/span><\/p>\n

3. Her conclusion that \u201cshe\u201d refers to a specific woman and \u201cthey\u201d refers to the woman and her husband follows from a false dilemma.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And what “false dilemma” would that be? \u00a0That Timothy actually knows who the false teachers are and that Timothy knows that Paul is talking about? \u00a0While we may have trouble with Paul’s writing to Timothy, surely it is a given that Timothy who lived in the situation knew exactly what Paul meant and Timothy was not confused by Paul’s words.<\/span><\/p>\n

4. Her explanation of the summary citation lacks the explanatory power of the patriarchalist interpretation, especially with respect to verse 13.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oh my, since Neopatriarch has added to God’s Word throughout his explanation of verse 13 and made commands for Eve where no such commands exist and removed God’s ability to speak to Eve as well as Adam, I think that Neopatriarch is the one who lacks the explanatory power. \u00a0His view has no foundation in Genesis, and it goes downhill\u00a0<\/span>from there.<\/span><\/p>\n

5. Her position naturally leads to 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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There is no such thing as an “untenable conclusion” from my explanation. \u00a0I assume that Neopatriarch read Riley’s paper. \u00a0If he did he certainly should have known that Riley has not refuted my position. \u00a0Riley does not deal with Paul talking about one couple.<\/span><\/p>\n

Riley writes:<\/span><\/p>\n

Those who spoke Greek did not think \u201cPaul\u00a0here is talking about wives not women, or husbands not men.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This piece was written in 1993 and Riley was not refuting my position back in 1993. \u00a0He was trying to refute a generic representation of all wives and all husbands which <\/span>is not an uncommon position for some egalitarians to hold. \u00a0This\u00a0does not touch my argument. And for the record, I have no problem if there was a specific woman who was teaching a specific man who was not her husband. \u00a0That just doesn’t seem realistic because single men didn’t normally talk to single women. \u00a0But it doesn’t change my position at all about one particular man and one particular woman.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neopatriarch, it is nice that you have tried once again to refute me but too bad that you have failed the second time. \u00a0Next time you try, please email me so that I can get to your argument a little sooner. \u00a0I have full confidence that you will not be able to come up with an argument that has any substance in it and my argument still stands strong and forceful by the fact that I use the inspired words and the inspired grammar as they are written without making “she” = “they.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Back to the drawing board, my friend. \u00a0I wish you well. \u00a0Do keep me informed of your progress because it is always an interesting thing for me to watch what you will come up with next.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Challenging my position that 1 Timothy 2:15 is a single woman Neopatriarch has taken a second stab at trying to refute my teaching on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as he has rewritten his article. \u00a0Once again he has failed to poke a hole in my argument, but this time, he has dropped the charge that I am exasperating. \u00a0Good for Neopatriarch for taking a much kinder tone in his introduction! \u00a0He now calls it his “canned response.” \u00a0 From reading the…<\/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":[5,11,22,24,30,31,42,49,52,67],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nNeopatriarch once again fails to refute me on 1 Timothy 2:15 - Women in Ministry<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"I answer the challenge on why 1 Timothy 2:15 is about a single, specific woman who is in deception and needs grace in her deceived state.\" \/>\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\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Neopatriarch once again fails to refute me on 1 Timothy 2:15 - Women in Ministry\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"I answer the challenge on why 1 Timothy 2:15 is about a single, specific woman who is in deception and needs grace in her deceived state.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Women in Ministry\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-30T21:58:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-04T03:59:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/09\/fight10.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=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/\",\"name\":\"Neopatriarch once again fails to refute me on 1 Timothy 2:15 - Women in Ministry\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-30T21:58:12+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-04T03:59:24+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/d7a33503fddaf9e8c392972b2801441a\"},\"description\":\"I answer the challenge on why 1 Timothy 2:15 is about a single, specific woman who is in deception and needs grace in her deceived state.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Neopatriarch once again fails to refute me on 1 Timothy 2:15\"}]},{\"@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 once again fails to refute me on 1 Timothy 2:15 - Women in Ministry","description":"I answer the challenge on why 1 Timothy 2:15 is about a single, specific woman who is in deception and needs grace in her deceived state.","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\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Neopatriarch once again fails to refute me on 1 Timothy 2:15 - Women in Ministry","og_description":"I answer the challenge on why 1 Timothy 2:15 is about a single, specific woman who is in deception and needs grace in her deceived state.","og_url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/","og_site_name":"Women in Ministry","article_published_time":"2009-09-30T21:58:12+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-04T03:59:24+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/09\/fight10.jpg"}],"author":"Cheryl Schatz","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Cheryl Schatz","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/","url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/","name":"Neopatriarch once again fails to refute me on 1 Timothy 2:15 - Women in Ministry","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-30T21:58:12+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-04T03:59:24+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/d7a33503fddaf9e8c392972b2801441a"},"description":"I answer the challenge on why 1 Timothy 2:15 is about a single, specific woman who is in deception and needs grace in her deceived state.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/09\/30\/neopatriarch-once-again-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Neopatriarch once again fails to refute me on 1 Timothy 2:15"}]},{"@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-oA","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1867,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2010\/02\/17\/neopatriarchs-fails-to-refute-cheryl-schatz\/","url_meta":{"origin":1524,"position":0},"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":1546,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/10\/16\/do-the-genders-have-different-functions\/","url_meta":{"origin":1524,"position":1},"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":223,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2008\/05\/07\/223\/","url_meta":{"origin":1524,"position":2},"title":"Answering Matt Slick’s agenda on 1 Timothy 2:12","date":"May 7, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"This is part 2 of answering the complementarian objections of Matt Slick on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. See part one here. My article laying out the original argument showing that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a specific woman that Paul forbids from teaching is here. In Matt\u2019s article on CARM 1 Timothy\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1 Timothy 2"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":197,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2008\/02\/01\/the-bayly-brothers-and-the-trinity\/","url_meta":{"origin":1524,"position":3},"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":514,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2008\/09\/26\/a-deeper-look-1tim2\/","url_meta":{"origin":1524,"position":4},"title":"A deeper look into 1 Timothy 2:12","date":"September 26, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"This is a response to an article called \"A Deeper Look into: 1 Timothy 2:12\" by an author posting by the email address of carmradio@ymail.com on September 23, 2008.\u00a0 I will leave his name off this post. There are so many fallacies in the article that I hardly know where\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1 Timothy 2"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1181,"url":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/2009\/07\/22\/wayne-grudem-6\/","url_meta":{"origin":1524,"position":5},"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":[]}],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1524"}],"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=1524"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1524\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3309,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1524\/revisions\/3309"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}