Post

More from @ronhenzel

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

@ronhenzel

Feb 1

Our Egalitarian friend, @ryanschatz, continues to tirelessly serve up items from his ample menu of exegetical fallacies. This time, he dishes them out as questions, covering ground so well-trodden that subterranean critters are becoming anxious.

My year is starting to get really busy and I probably would’ve ignored this post if he hadn’t tagged me in the thread. (Perhaps I still should have.)

As Ryan apparently acknowledges, we’ve covered these points before, rather extensively, in fact, so I hardly imagine he’ll find any of my replies persuasive, nor will his fellow Egalitarians. In my view, that’s a testimony to how committed they are to their conclusions despite the biblical and historical-theological evidence.

Any errors here are strictly my own, although I’ll no doubt wish I could blame someone else. I don’t know how much time or how many opportunities I’ll have to reply to follow-up comments here, so please don’t be offended if you don’t hear from me in what you consider a timely fashion.

Thanks!

𝟏/𝟖

“1. Given Paul’s stated purpose was to ‘instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines’ (1Ti 1:3), why did it shift to ‘instruct all women to not teach true doctrine to any male over 17’?”

But that’s the problem: Paul’s stated purpose for writing 1 Timothy was not to “instruct [KJV, ESV: charge] certain people not to teach strange doctrines.” The only way one could arrive at such a conclusion is to misquote 1Tim 1:3.

In 1Tim 1:3-4, Paul is stating his reason for telling Timothy to remain at Ephesus. This becomes clear when we restore the opening words in verse 3: “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons…”

If you leave out everything leading up to “charge certain persons” (or “instruct certain people”) it’s easier to twist this verse into a general statement about the epistle’s purpose. But it’s obvious here that Paul is not telling Timothy why he’s writing this epistle, but simply reiterating an exhortation (παρακαλέω, parakaléō) he’d given him earlier in Ephesus. 1Tim 1:3-4 states the purpose for Timothy remaining at Ephesus, but it does not state the purpose of his letter.

Paul states that clearly when he states explicitly in 3:14-15, “…I am writing these things to you so that…you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God…” If you check the context you’ll see that my ellipses do not leave out anything that might alter or contradict this point, unlike Ryan’s truncated citation of 1T 1:3.

So, there is no shift of purpose between 1Tim 1:3-4 and 2:9-15 that we need to account for. The reason for Timothy remaining at Ephesus is a function of Paul’s broader purpose in this epistle of instructing Timothy about “how one ought to behave in the household of God.”

And Paul obviously covers a lot of ground in this letter unrelated to “instruct[ing] certain people not to teach strange doctrines,” including instruction on corporate prayer (2:1-8), women’s apparel (2:9-10), the qualifications for elders and deacons (3:1-13), exhortations to self-discipline (4:9-16), proper behavior toward age groups and genders in the church (5:1-2), care for widows (5:3-16), care for elders (5:17-22), health advice (5:23), wisdom about sins in the church (5:24-25), admonitions to slaves (6:1-2), and miscellaneous closing exhortations (6:6-21). This leaves only 4:1-8 and 6:3-5 where Paul actually addresses the issue of false teaching.

So, even if we were to accept the (false) premise that Paul’s purpose for writing was to “instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines,” or that Timothy should be occupied with doing that one thing, apparently he didn’t have a problem with shifting to many topics that are not related to that goal.

This being the case, as it obviously is, why should it be considered problematic for Paul to shift to “instruct[ing] all women to not teach true doctrine to any male over 17?” It makes no sense to suggest that it does.

As for whether Scripture teaches that women are not to “to not teach true doctrine to any male over 17,” that’s a crude caricature of what Complementarians believe Scripture teaches. We believe that women are not to occupy any office or official role that makes them authoritative teachers in the church. This includes the office of pastor. It does not include the kind of informal teaching that takes place in non-authoritative settings such as casual conversations or social media interactions.

Egalitarians have argued that Paul’s instruction that all believers should be “teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom” (Col 3:16) disproves the Complementarian position. Thomas R. Schreiner addressed this well when he wrote:

“Furthermore, Colossians 3:16 (cf. 1 Cor. 14: 26) does not refer to authoritative teaching but to the informal mutual instruction that occurs among all the members of the body. Unfortunately, some churches ban women from doing even this, although it is plainly in accord with Scripture. Yet this mutual instruction differs significantly from the authoritative transmission of tradition that Paul has in mind in the Pastoral Epistles. Such authoritative teaching is typically a function of the elders/ overseers (1 Tim. 3: 2; 5: 17)…”

—Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2: 9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, eds., Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2: 9-15, 3rd edition, (Crossway, 2016), Kindle Loc. 4696-4700.

It is inevitable that in various fellowship settings, women will pass on the truths of the Christian faith to men with results that can be characterized as “teaching.” But Paul is not addressing such informal teaching situations in 1Ti 2:9-15. He is clearly prohibiting the formal, authoritative teaching of men in the truths of the Christian faith by women in the church.

𝟐/𝟖

“2. If Paul is giving instructions for the church generally in 1Ti 2:11-12, why does he do it in a personal letter to Timothy rather than a letter to the church or all the churches? Why is this the only place we find this instruction?”

If we ask the first question here, we must also ask why Paul would be giving instructions for the church generally on

1. corporate prayer (2:1-8),
2. women’s apparel (2:9-10),
3. the qualifications for elders and deacons (3:1-13),
4. self-discipline (4:9-16),
5. proper behavior toward age groups and genders in the church (5:1-2),
6. care for widows (5:3-16),
7. care for elders (5:17-22),
8. health advice (5:23),
9. wisdom about sins in the church (5:24-25), and
10. the behavior of slaves (6:1-2)

in a personal letter to Timothy rather than letter to the church or all the churches.

Are we to assume that all these topics only apply to the Ephesian church? Seriously? Then why is 1 Timothy even in the New Testament?

And this is not the only personal letter to an individual that covers much of the same ground. Titus also gives us the qualifications for elders, instructions for dealing with false teachers, etc.

These are canonical letters and their entire content is authoritative for the whole church. Paul covers these issues in personal letters to church leaders whom he himself appointed because that’s the way the Holy Spirit inspired these writings. The question itself is as untenable and presumptuous as the thesis it seeks to support.

As for the second question: This isn’t the only place we find this instruction. Paul gave the same instruction to the church in Corinth:

³³ …As in all the churches of the saints,
³⁴ the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
³⁵ If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

—1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 ESV

Egalitarians have argued that 14:34-35 isn’t Paul’s statement but quotes a saying in the Corinthian church to which Paul responds in 14:36.

Paul does cite issues presented to him by the Corinthians and respond to them at various points in this epistle.

In the places where we are certain that he does this, he introduces these topic with the phrase Περὶ δὲ (Perì dè), “Now concerning…” (KJV, RSV, NASB, ESV, NRSV; NIV, CSB: “Now about…” 1Cor 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12).

It seems that in at least two of these Paul may be providing direct quotes of what is being said in the Corinthian church (e.g., 7:1; 8:1), though interpreters are not unanimous on this. Most of the time he simply refers to the topic (7:25; 12:1; 16:1, 12).

Many believe that Paul is also providing direct quotes in 6:12-13, before he starts introducing topics with his “Now concerning…” formula, and we see this reflected in most modern translations (the NASB and LSB are exceptions).

Some have also suggested 9:1, but that seems highly unlikely.

One thing we immediately observe in the two places where Paul may be providing direct quotes is that they are quite brief:

1Cor 7:1b: “‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman’” (ESV).

1Cor 8:1: “‘all of us possess knowledge’” (ESV).

These are simple, concise statements that Paul uses as springboards to provide very extensive and highly detailed responses (7:2-24 and 8:2-9:27).

In 1Cor 14:33b-36, we find precisely the opposite: a detailed set of statements—Egalitarians assume these are direct quotes—followed by a pair of simple, concise rhetorical questions. If 14:35 is supposed to be a response to some alleged quotations, it’s actually a non-response in the form of a curt dismissal, which is utterly unlike the way Paul handles such issues in the rest of this epistle.

If Paul is encountering an error in 1Cor 14:34-35, it makes zero sense for him to simply dismiss it with two rhetorical questions in 14:36 instead of following his standard course and provide a detailed rebuttal so that the Corinthians could be fully grounded in the truth and know why it is superior to the error.

No, the only way to make legitimate sense of these verses is to read them the way Christians always had until feminism reared its ugly head and invaded the church.

Egalitarians must literally turn Paul’s question-answering procedure in 1 Corinthians upside-down so all its value falls out of its pockets in order to make it conform to their theological precommitments.

𝟑/𝟖

Read 8 tweets

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

@ronhenzel

Mar 23, 2024

🧵When I quoted 1Ti 2:11-12 in the ESV, Wesley (@the_blind_guide) said, “if you look in the lexicons αὐθεντεῖν doesn’t mean ‘to have authority’ it means ‘to dominate’ or ‘domineer’ as in boss around, it does not mean ‘have a position of authority’.”

So, I thought, “Why not?”

Wesley says, “the problem is not the woman having the position but the means by which she obtains it.” But that’s not supported by either the standard New Testament Greek lexicon (BDAG), the standard Classical Greek lexicon (LSJ), or the more recent BrillDAG for Classical Greek.

It may seem that BDAG’s bold italicized words “give orders to, dictate to” support Wesley’s “boss around” theory, but (a) BDAG’s editor explained how to understand the formatting, and (b) since authority necessarily includes giving commands, that’s a stretch. More on that later.

Read 36 tweets

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

@ronhenzel

Mar 11, 2024

🧵False. The word rendered “homosexuals” in 1Co 6:9 and 1Ti 1:10 (NASB), ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenkoítēs), is from the Septuagint which renders יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ (yiš·kaḇ ’eṯ-zā·ḵār), “lies with a male,” in Le 20:13 in part as ἄρσενος κοίτην (arsenos koítēn), “male in bed.”

Since “homosexual” didn’t enter the English language unti 1891, it’s unsurprising we don’t find it in English Bibles until the 20th century. But we find even more graphic terms before that, such as “buggerers” in the 1557 Geneva Bible New Testament.

Additionally, we find “sodomites” in Young’s 1862 and Darby’s 1884 translations. There’s no question that these terms referred to homosexual behavior. Interestingly, the NRSV still uses “sodomites” in 1Co 6:9 and 1Ti 1:10.

Read 6 tweets

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

@ronhenzel

Feb 26, 2024

🧵Wherein I reply to someone questioning my honesty for saying that, in Provisionism, God’s love and grace are insufficient reasons for Him to choose (i.e., elect) to save sinners since He also requires something in the sinners (i.e., faith)—with additional notes on definitions.

Well, @Duke456521, since all my remarks here echo Provisionism’s actual statements, including what’s written in its official statement of faith, “What is Provisionism?” I could just as easily question your honesty, couldn’t I?

But why should both of us muck around in ad hominems when we have clear texts to examine?

Earlier you wrote, “He chose to save us because he loves us,” and now you write, “Salvation is grounded in God’s grace.” Those are both excellent statements.

Read 66 tweets

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

@ronhenzel

Feb 16, 2024

🧵Did Paul Call Andronicus and Junia Apostles in Romans 16:7?

⁷ Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

—Romans 16:7 NIV

What exactly is Paul saying here?

As far as many social media advocates are concerned, it’s quite obvious that Paul is telling his Roman audience that Andronicus and Junia are not only apostles but outstanding or prominent ones (ἐπίσημος, epísēmos), which raises the question of why we only read about them here.

But this isn’t as obvious as some people claim. To illustrate this point, consider two potential English sentences.

Sentence 1: “Taylor Swift is well known among Kansas City Chiefs players.”

Sentence 2: “Travis Kelce is well known among Kansas City Chiefs players.”

Read 116 tweets

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

@ronhenzel

Jan 20, 2024

Was God’s Election Ever Simply About Choosing a Nation?

Meanwhile, the same logic that anti-Calvinists try to apply to Paul’s quote from Ge 25:23 also applies his quote from Mal 1:2-3:

² “I have loved you,” says the Lᴏʀᴅ. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lᴏʀᴅ. “Yet I have loved Jacob
³ but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.”

—Malachi 1:2-3

Read 6 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @ronhenzel

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Ron Henzel, Emotional Support Calvinist ☕

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!