[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He seems to be or have been a colleague of Wallace's, so this will be interesting if they have different views on this.

Wallace has analyzed the Greek words word for word in the context of how those Greek words are typically used. . . .

I suggest that as a professor of biblical languages and author, that it is doubtful that his analysis would be any less stringent, yet he has continued to be part of a church (assembly) that put the whole issue to 18 months of scrutiny and concluded that women would be permitted to preach.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Sounds like a good topic to get into more, but I hardly think women not being leaders in the church is on the same level as slavery.

Pretty dense response. The comment was to show that what is in the Bible and what people have concluded that it is saying is not always completely agreed upon, or even understood in the majority view at all times in history. And if you are simply relying on history, how well do we really know the history of Christian thought concerning what passages mean beyond the last 300 or 400 years? Plus, we have so much more from the recent times anyway, so we often give it a greater weight just because there is a lot of it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I hope you aren't going to use the old "it's unloving to forbid women from being leaders". That's the same sort of argument pro-gay marriage people use.

I would make no such argument. And it is difficult to see your bringing LGBT arguments into this as more than a way to assert that the women's issue is settled without proving it to be so.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't see it as adding commands, but preventing the removal of them. Consider that the church of all persuasions has forbid female leaders for centuries, the Catholic/Orthodox will tell you that. So it is not about adding anything but preventing the removal of something important. As we know, the bible says the general trend from the bible age to modern times would get worse, not better. So this matter is likely part of the last days degradation rather than improvement.

This from someone within a group that declares that Christ abolished the law.

But since I do not believe that either, I will deal with your position. The fact that it has been settled by the EO/RCC and some others that women should not preach or teach is not the same as determining that the Bible really says it as a rule without exception. It is clearly seen as a rule for one or two certain situations. Yet there is the actual raising up of women to lead by God himself, and the positive commendation of women in a role of teaching men in at least one case by Paul with respect to one particular woman. No comment that he was waiving the "women can't teach" rule to allow for it or refrain from opening up the guns of righteous indignation for what happened.

With that, you are hard pressed to create a rule for all times out of one specific forbiddance in a place where the pagan culture had women as the priests. Probably were having trouble in the church there because women still presumed that they should be in the lead. Rather than try to figure out how to allow for those truly qualified to lead and teach, Paul just squashed it altogether.

You can't prove that this was a correct understanding. Neither can you prove that it is not. The record is too limited to be clear either way. And if it is that unclear, then is cannot establish a rule. One that made God into the first violator of the rule.

But it is easy to find that the ones who would lose an absolute position of authority would insist upon spreading any hint of correctness all over the place to maintain their place. It is, unfortunately, human nature.

And, as Ohio keeps pointing out, what happened to no male of female in Christ? Was that just hollow rhetoric to toss aside when the rubber really hit the road?