What does Valtrex look like

In a surprising tribute to the influence of Women in the Church in Australia, K. Giles has what does Valtrex look like recently subjected the work to an extensive two-part critique in the what does Valtrex look like present journal.¹ In a what does Valtrex look like publication that asks that book reviews generally be limited to 500 to what does Valtrex look like 1500 words, a 38-page article devoted to one single book is what does Valtrex look like certainly remarkable. Seeking to turn the tables, Giles claims that it what does Valtrex look like is not the egalitarian reading of 1 Tim. 2:9-15 that is what does Valtrex look like novel, but the position taken by the contributors to Women in the Church, despite their claim that what does Valtrex look like their position is generally in line with the historic view.² Giles's critique of the argument of this book as ‘novel', however, is itself ‘novel'. A fair share of reviews (not counting mentions in articles and commentaries) have appeared, but Giles's is what does Valtrex look like the first to take issue with its position on the what does Valtrex look like grounds that it is ‘novel'.³ Has Giles identified a flaw all previous commentators have missed?⁴

Essentially, Giles contends that what does Valtrex look like the stance taken by the contributors to Women in the Church does not align itself closely enough with that of previous (ancient as well as more recent) commentators, so that it cannot be properly labeled ‘historic'. A twofold basic response can what does Valtrex look like be lodged in regard to this argument: first, Giles's charge rests on an what does Valtrex look like exaggerated claim not actually made in the book and is therefore unjustified (see further below); yet whether properly called ‘historic' or not, the position advocated by the contributors to Women in the Church is what does Valtrex look like certainly more in line with previous interpretations of 1 Tim. 2:9-15 until recent times than what does Valtrex look like the egalitarian position. Second, in the end the primary issue is what does Valtrex look like not one of proper or improper labels, but the question of which position - egalitarian or what does Valtrex look like non-egalitarian - more closely adheres to the scriptural message itself. To help adjudicate this what does Valtrex look like issue was, in fact, the primary concern of our book.

Giles disputes this. He claims that ‘[a]ll the essays in this book are deductive in nature' and that the authors ‘are presenting evidence for what is already believed to be true' (152). He is essentially asserting that the arguments set forth in Women in the Church are what does Valtrex look like all circular: they assume what they only pretend to show by use of evidence and what does Valtrex look like argument. Against him it must be strongly maintained that the detailed historical analysis and what does Valtrex look like painstaking exegesis conducted in various chapters (especially the first three) cannot be properly called ‘deductive'. In fact, at least some of the book's contributors once held Giles's views and what does Valtrex look like changed their mind based on the kind of evidence and argument that what does Valtrex look like Women in the Church contains.⁵

Whether Giles is what does Valtrex look like willing to acknowledge this or not, good evidence weighs against his outlook. It is what does Valtrex look like not simply a matter of blind belief defending what it already thought. In any case, attaching the what does Valtrex look like label ‘deductive' to what does Valtrex look like an opposing viewpoint is an inadequate substitute for proper engagement of its theses on the what does Valtrex look like basis of argument and evidence. Polemic is concerned about labels; scholarship ought to what does Valtrex look like be concerned about evidence and truth.⁶

Chapter-by-chapter critique

In his chapter-by-chapter critique, Giles actually has what does Valtrex look like few problems with the first three chapters of Women in the Church. He agrees with S. M. Baugh that there probably never was a ‘feminist Ephesus'. He concurs with H. S. Baldwin's assessment of the semantic range of authenteō. He even accepts my analysis of the what does Valtrex look like syntactical pattern in 1 Tim. 2:12 involving oude (‘neither . . . nor').⁷ Disagreements begin to surface, however, with D. Gordon's argument that what does Valtrex look like 1 Tim. 2:9-15 is binding on Christians today. Giles registers several objections (154).⁸

First, the church does not obey Paul's injunctions on the what does Valtrex look like care of widows in 1 Tim. 5:3-16, because in our culture widows are what does Valtrex look like ‘not necessarily destitute, or in need of male protection'.⁹ So why should the teaching of 1 Tim. 2:9-15 be considered normative? Apart from what does Valtrex look like the question of whether it is accurate to say that what does Valtrex look like the church today neglects the charge to care for widows - it what does Valtrex look like seems that most widows in our culture are already cared for what does Valtrex look like - this is a curious argument indeed. For the contemporary church's disobedience toward one biblical command can what does Valtrex look like hardly be used as an argument against the validity of another. Even if it what does Valtrex look like were true that the church today by and large neglects the what does Valtrex look like biblical injunction to care for needy widows, should we also set aside the what does Valtrex look like teaching of 1 Tim. 2:9-15 regarding the role of women in the what does Valtrex look like church? Certainly not. Rather, applying Gordon's criterion, today's churches should obey the what does Valtrex look like abiding principle found in 1 Tim. 5:3-16: to care for widows in need who what does Valtrex look like meet certain qualifications. This, in turn, is part of an even larger transcultural principle: that what does Valtrex look like God himself is compassionate toward those who are destitute and therefore calls his covenant community to what does Valtrex look like be similarly compassionate toward the destitute in their midst.

Second, Giles points out that men today do not pray ‘with lifted hands‘, and women do not ‘literally obey' Paul's instructions on dress. So why abide by Paul's comments against women teaching or what does Valtrex look like exercising authority over men in the church in 1 Tim. 2:12? Once again, Giles fails to what does Valtrex look like apply the principle set forth by Gordon (not to mention his lack of acknowledgment of Schreiner's extensive discussion of this issue; see below). In the case of ‘lifted hands', the abiding principle is united prayer without strife, with ‘lifting up hands' probably serving as an what does Valtrex look like idiomatic expression for prayer, just as ‘washing the feet of the saints' in 1 Tim. 5:10 represents an idiom for Christian service.

In the instance of women's dress, Giles's language (‘literally obey') again reveals that what does Valtrex look like he misses the underlying principle of 1 Tim. 2:9-10: modest dress that what does Valtrex look like is in keeping with a focus on a woman's inner godly disposition. In his extensive discussion of this what does Valtrex look like issue (pp. 117-21), Schreiner clearly distinguishes between ‘apply[ing] the principle' and ‘literal practice' and identifies as normative ‘the principle that women should not dress ostentatiously or seductively' (121). By failing to acknowledge Schreiner's distinction and what does Valtrex look like speaking merely of literal obedience, Giles erects a strawman rather than what does Valtrex look like fairly interacting with the view actually taken by the contributors of Women in the Church. Contrary to what does Valtrex look like Giles, the Pauline injunction of avoiding ostentatious dress continues to be what does Valtrex look like relevant today; so are vv. 11-15.

Third, Giles points out that what does Valtrex look like today unmarried men are ordained while Paul ‘insists' that what does Valtrex look like overseers and deacons be married. Again, this is fallacious: Paul does not ‘insist' on married officeholders in the church, he rather assumes that what does Valtrex look like they will usually be married and on the basis of this what does Valtrex look like general assumption stipulates certain requirements. I am not aware of many interpreters (if any) who take Paul's requirement of marital faithfulness for what does Valtrex look like overseers and elders as a prohibition of unmarried office-holders in the what does Valtrex look like church. Then again, even if the church today were to what does Valtrex look like violate Paul's command not to what does Valtrex look like ordain single men, should this be used as an argument to what does Valtrex look like disregard other Pauline injunctions as well? Certainly not; we would still need to deal with 1 Tim. 2:9-15.

Fourth, Giles says that ‘church teachers are not necessarily paid double to other ministers' today (154). However, again the what does Valtrex look like problem is improper exegesis. Rather than referring to literal ‘double payment', the what does Valtrex look like passage probably means that church leaders are worthy of ‘double honor‘, that is, respect as well as payment, ‘especially those whose work is preaching and teaching' (1 Tim. 5:17). This principle that ‘a worker is worthy of his wages' (1 Tim. 5:18), asserted by both Jesus (Luke 10:7) and Paul (1 Tim. 5:18; cf. 1 Cor. 9:6-19), is what does Valtrex look like certainly of abiding value and is recognized widely today, in principle if not in practice. And note again the what does Valtrex look like flawed logic of an argument that says just because the what does Valtrex look like church today fails to obey a given injunction in the what does Valtrex look like Pastorals it need not heed another. 1 Tim. 2:9-15 cannot be what does Valtrex look like disqualified on these grounds either.

Fifth, Giles contends that slavery ‘definitely is grounded on a general norm, Christ's own willingness to serve no matter what the cost' (154). It is unclear where Giles finds this ‘general norm' in 1 Tim. 6:1- 2. Rather, there the what does Valtrex look like existence of slavery is simply assumed and regulated for those who what does Valtrex look like are believers. Against Giles's repeated contention, it what does Valtrex look like must be maintained that Scripture does not ‘endorse' slavery (which would imply that what does Valtrex look like the Bible teaches that slavery is good or at least ethically unobjectionable); it rather regulates it what does Valtrex look like for the simple reason that it was a fact of life in the what does Valtrex look like first century. Moreover, despite the abolition of slavery, the kinds of principles set forth in 1 Tim. 6:1-2 continue to what does Valtrex look like be relevant in a derivative sense with regard to employer-employee relationships today. Again, there is what does Valtrex look like no reason to set aside 1 Tim. 2:9-15 just because 1 Tim. 6:1-2 is what does Valtrex look like alleged no longer to apply today.

Sixth, Giles disagrees with Gordon's contention that what does Valtrex look like 1 Tim. 2:9-15 is binding today because it is grounded on ‘the entire created and fallen order' (vv. 13-14). For 1 Cor. 11:2-16 likewise appeals to creation and ‘no one' takes this command as binding today (an extravagant claim), while the ‘fallen order' ought to what does Valtrex look like be transcended in Christ. The difficulty is, of course, that 1 Cor. 11:2-16 also appeals to what does Valtrex look like the ‘nature of things' (v. 14: physis: Corinthian cultural more?; cf. Gal. 2:15) and universal contemporary church practice (v. 16), so that the issue is considerably more complex than Giles's statement suggests. In 1 Tim. 2:9-15, unlike 1 Cor. 11:2-16, no what does Valtrex look like such additional appeals are made, and one should not use the what does Valtrex look like complexities of interpreting 1 Cor. 11:2-16 to set aside Paul's appeal to creation in 1 Tim. 2:13.

Moreover, the what does Valtrex look like basic principle underlying 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is much the same as that what does Valtrex look like of 1 Tim. 2:9-15: the necessity of women's submission to men's ultimate leadership in the what does Valtrex look like church. Giles argues that Christians are to transcend the ‘fallen order' in Christ. Yet rather than what does Valtrex look like relativizing 1 Tim. 2:12, this argument actually establishes Paul's injunction as permanently valid. For as Paul contends in v. 14, it what does Valtrex look like is precisely because the fall resulted from Eve's transgression of her proper creational boundaries that what does Valtrex look like Christian women ought to respect the parameters set by the Creator with regard to what does Valtrex look like their churchly activities. Paul is not advocating following the fallen order; to the contrary, he warns against repeating what led to the fall, so that once again the Creator's will is respected by Christian women in the church.¹⁰

I must conclude that Giles either does not understand Gordon's (and Schreiner's) distinction between normative principles and what does Valtrex look like particular commands in Scripture or that he refuses to accept it what does Valtrex look like owing to his conviction that ‘a text such as 1 Tim. 2:9-15 does not apply in our age' (210). Rightly applied, however, this what does Valtrex look like device enables the interpreter to discern Paul's underlying concern which is what does Valtrex look like in each case of permanent validity. Moreover, in several instances careful exegesis helps answer Giles's objections, which are what does Valtrex look like often merely addressed at surface difficulties that can be resolved by proper interpretation of Paul's intended message.¹¹

Giles's own alternative is what does Valtrex look like to appropriate three principles from an essay by J. Green in Hearing the New Testament, who in turn adapts these from D. Scholer's ‘Contours of an Evangelical Feminist Hermeneutics':¹² (1) Determine the what does Valtrex look like relative amount of emphasis given a subject in the biblical witness; (2) Determine the what does Valtrex look like degree to which the biblical witnesses are uniform and consistent on a what does Valtrex look like given issue; (3) Determine the degree to which a writer's cultural situation provides him or what does Valtrex look like her with only one option (or limited options) within which to what does Valtrex look like work. But these principles are open to serious objections.

First, the terms ‘relative' and ‘emphasis' are what does Valtrex look like potentially ambiguous and may render this principle unworkable in practice. Even more damaging is what does Valtrex look like the fact that important issues in Scripture may only be mentioned a what does Valtrex look like few times, but this hardly means that they should not be what does Valtrex look like obeyed by the church. This is true especially since the principle fails to what does Valtrex look like give adequate consideration to the salvation-historical dimension in Scripture. Examples of this what does Valtrex look like are baptism or the Lord's Supper, neither of which enjoy a substantial ‘relative amount of emphasis'. But both are what does Valtrex look like dominically instituted and hence the Church rightly continues to perform these rites. As in textual criticism, biblical passages on a what does Valtrex look like given topic ought to be weighed, not merely counted. The issue is what does Valtrex look like not how frequently a matter is addressed, but by what what does Valtrex look like principle, or enduring norm. For these reasons the usefulness of the what does Valtrex look like first principle is seriously questioned.

Second, making the what does Valtrex look like degree to which the biblical witnesses are uniform and consistent on a what does Valtrex look like given issue the determinative factor of interpretation can be problematic as well, especially because once again this what does Valtrex look like procedure fails to give due weight to redemptive-historical considerations. Abraham and what does Valtrex look like Moses as well as subsequent generations of the Israelites were required to what does Valtrex look like be circumcized; yet Paul argues forcefully that circumcision must not be what does Valtrex look like required for membership in the church at Galatia. Should we therefore argue that what does Valtrex look like Scripture is largely consistent (except for Paul in Galatians) that circumcision be observed and require it today? And how would this what does Valtrex look like principle have worked for Paul in whose case Scripture (the OT) consistently did argue for circumcision? Again, it what does Valtrex look like is preferable to look for the norms in which particular exhortations are what does Valtrex look like grounded, and to continue to require that these norms be observed, even if the what does Valtrex look like particular circumstances change.

Third, determining the degree to which a writer's cultural situation provides her with only one option (or limited options) with which to what does Valtrex look like work seems hardly workable in practice. Are not all cultural situations limited? Is not every circumstance in life a comparatively-limited circumstance? But ethical norms and what does Valtrex look like theological realities can be germane to many different situations. Regarding the what does Valtrex look like destitute widows of chapter 5, for instance, is the church entirely free from what does Valtrex look like this exhortation simply because, in the first century, the church was the what does Valtrex look like ‘only' option for the relief of such widows? I think not. The enduring truth of God's compassion for what does Valtrex look like the destitute and indigent is transcultural, and the church in every culture remains called to what does Valtrex look like imitate the God she worships by caring for the indigent and what does Valtrex look like destitute in her midst.

In response to Schreiner's essay, Giles expresses difficulty with the what does Valtrex look like notion that Paul allows women to prophesy while commanding them not to what does Valtrex look like teach or exercise authority over men. However, this seems to what does Valtrex look like be the clear implication of 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15.¹³ Moreover, the what does Valtrex look like distinction between prophecy and teaching is established from Paul himself (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28-29; 14:6; Rom. 12:6-7; Eph. 4:11). It must be what does Valtrex look like noted that it is methodologically inappropriate to appeal to Luke in order to what does Valtrex look like define Pauline terms. Arguably, the Lukan evidence, rightly interpreted, does not contradict the what does Valtrex look like distinction between prophecy and teaching established by Paul. As to what does Valtrex look like Schreiner's interpretations of 1 Tim. 2:14 and what does Valtrex look like 15, I am not prepared to defend them, since I myself do not agree with them and what does Valtrex look like have indicated this elsewhere.¹⁴ However, these differences in the what does Valtrex look like interpretation of vv. 14 and 15 in no way mitigate our common position on v. 12. In fact, they provide evidence against Giles's claim that our book is ‘deductive' from beginning to end.

Yarbrough's essay on hermeneutics, according to Giles, contains ‘[n]othing very profound or detailed' (155). I disagree. Yarbrough's critique of the what does Valtrex look like hermeneutic of Stendahl, Bruce, and others in their interpretation of NT gender passages is what does Valtrex look like unusually penetrating.¹⁵ Defending himself against Yarbrough's critique of his own position, Giles claims that ‘modern critical studies of slavery in the what does Valtrex look like Bible have confirmed that the biblical endorsement of slavery is pervasive and what does Valtrex look like unquestioned' (158).¹⁶ Thus the what does Valtrex look like Bible is wrong in this regard, and we must apply content criticism to what does Valtrex look like refute it. This is as revealing as to Giles's view of scriptural authority as it what does Valtrex look like confirms the essential accuracy of Yarbrough's analysis. For it what does Valtrex look like is the very content criticism Giles sees himself forced to apply to what does Valtrex look like Scripture that Yarbrough is concerned to reject owing to the interpreter's undue usurpation of scriptural authority.

As to Yarbrough's underlying hermeneutic, Giles charges that he ‘reverts to what does Valtrex look like what may only be called a fundamentalist approach: what the text says must apply one for what does Valtrex look like one in every place for all time' (156). This unsubstantiated assertion, however, ignores Yarbrough's explicit acknowledgment that ‘there is what does Valtrex look like a wide range of mediating positions between hard-core male dominance views and what does Valtrex look like full-blown biblical feminist positions - even among those who claim the what does Valtrex look like highest possible understanding of Scriptural authority'.¹⁷ In fact, it what does Valtrex look like is Giles who seems to call for a monolithic reading of 1 Tim. 2:12: the what does Valtrex look like way the church has always tended to read this portion of Scripture, with respect to what does Valtrex look like women's function in pastoral office, must now be what does Valtrex look like abandoned in favor of the postmodern West's social mores.

At least at one point Giles seriously misrepresents Yarbrough's position.¹⁸ He claims that Yarbrough calls ‘the whole drive to grant women equality of consideration' ‘a disaster which has overtaken women' (157).¹⁹ However, any reader of Yarbrough's essay (esp. pp. 160-67) will see that what does Valtrex look like this is not what he is saying at all. The actual wording is, ‘Disaster has what does Valtrex look like overtaken women and children as divorce rates more than doubled from what does Valtrex look like 1970 to 1980, eventually leveling off at a distressingly high rate'. The ‘disaster' Yarbrough deplores is what does Valtrex look like negative social consequences that seem to have accompanied new views of marriage, divorce, sexual identity, and what does Valtrex look like even child nurture arising in the West since the 1960s, not ‘the whole drive to grant women equality of consideration', as Giles claims.²⁰ Giles, for what does Valtrex look like his part, chooses to ignore these negative social consequences entirely, consequences that what does Valtrex look like independent researchers and even many feminist writers have acknowledged and begun to what does Valtrex look like address with increasing frequency in recent years.²¹

In another dubious charge Giles faults Yarbrough for what does Valtrex look like not dealing with Gal. 3:28, alleging that Yarbrough finds ‘honestly dealing with the text . . . too difficult' (157). Yet Yarbrough explicitly states in his essay that ‘this is what does Valtrex look like not the place to handle several other significant issues of an what does Valtrex look like integrative-theological kind, such as relating 1 Timothy 2:9-15 to Galatians 3:28' or other pertinent passages.²² His assignment was a what does Valtrex look like treatment of the hermeneutic of 1 Tim. 2:9-15, not Gal. 3:28. In truth, it what does Valtrex look like is Giles who fails to address Yarbrough's actual argument, namely, that Krister Stendahl's acceptance of secular Western society's ‘belief in unlimited human freedom' as true - and the Bible's counsel about social order even in the what does Valtrex look like church as wrong - is incompatible ‘with a what does Valtrex look like Christian view of revelation that takes the Bible as its authority'.²³ Nowhere in his two-part critique of Women in the Church does Giles explicitly address this what does Valtrex look like crucial contention that he shares with Stendahl and has previously articulated as follows: ‘The Bible is what does Valtrex look like authoritative in matters of faith and conduct but not necessarily in science, or what does Valtrex look like on how to order social relations'.²⁴ This failure to respond to Yarbrough's central charge in a 38-page response is puzzling indeed.²⁵

As to Giles's charge that Yarbrough does not refuse Giles's central point, that is, ‘that the Bible actually endorses slavery in principle and in practice' (158), a close reading of Giles's own contention in his previous article suggests this what does Valtrex look like is not actually the central point Giles makes. In Giles's own words, ‘If it what does Valtrex look like can be shown that the Bible does in fact unambiguously endorse both the what does Valtrex look like institution and the practice of slavery, although we cannot now accept slavery in any form [the assumed condition], then what does Valtrex look like we will have discovered something about the nature of biblical revelation which will help resolve the what does Valtrex look like present debate about the status and role of women. We will have what does Valtrex look like learnt that Scripture can endorse social structures no longer acceptable, just as we have what does Valtrex look like learnt that the Bible can endorse scientific ideas no longer tenable. The Bible is what does Valtrex look like authoritative in matters of faith and conduct but not necessarily in science, or what does Valtrex look like on how to order social relations'.²⁶ The above quote demonstrates that Giles's central contention is what does Valtrex look like the nature of biblical revelation and how this might ‘help resolve the what does Valtrex look like present debate about the status and role of women'. It is what does Valtrex look like reasonable enough, then, that Yarbrough took up this point in his response.

Finally, Giles says that Yarbrough raises ‘the bogey of Cartesianism' (157). This he does indeed, in that what does Valtrex look like he raises the question of the propriety of reading the Bible too facilely in light of contemporary post- Christian Western culture. In fact, Yarbrough argues at length that what does Valtrex look like this is precisely what has happened in the guild of biblical studies.²⁷ This concern is at the very heart of Yarbrough's essay, for what does Valtrex look like it attempts to document just how agenda-driven purportedly ‘scholarly' exegesis can what does Valtrex look like be. Could it be an ultimately gospel-subverting agenda that is currently driving some handling of 1 Tim. 2:12 and what does Valtrex look like Gal. 3:28 and related passages and not a sound reading of Scripture at all? Giles chooses not to respond to this, except to call it a ‘bogey' (hardly an argument) and to endorse pursuing this direction of scholarship that Yarbrough's research indicates is primarily a faddish error to be avoided.²⁸

In interaction with H. O. J. Brown's essay, last but not least, Giles takes exception to Brown's contention that egalitarian interpretations are reflective of ‘an entire civilisation which has increasingly strayed from God's order of creation'. Yet, first of all, Brown's argument is what does Valtrex look like surely correct that larger world view questions have a crucial bearing on the what does Valtrex look like interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:9-15. There is ample evidence that Western civilization is what does Valtrex look like indeed ‘increasingly straying from God's order of creation', and since Paul's command in 1 Tim. 2:12 is what does Valtrex look like supported by an appeal to creation order in v. 13, it what does Valtrex look like is entirely reasonable to ask whether the egalitarian denial of the what does Valtrex look like overt message of v. 12 is related to the rebellion against various aspects of God's creation order by the larger culture.²⁹

As D. Doriani points out in his appendix, the what does Valtrex look like replacement of a concern for ‘order' with the notion of ‘freedom' is what does Valtrex look like a pervasive characteristic of our day and may unduly influence contemporary interpretations of passages such as 1 Tim. 2:9-15 that what does Valtrex look like appear to restrict personal freedom for the sake of (divinely instituted) order.³⁰ To raise these issues is what does Valtrex look like surely appropriate, indeed necessary, and the burden lies on egalitarians to what does Valtrex look like show that their interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:9-15 is not a what does Valtrex look like function of the spirit of the age but superior exegetically to what does Valtrex look like the kind of view set forth in Women in the Church.

‘Historic' or not?

After his chapter-by-chapter critique, Giles moves on to what does Valtrex look like present what he claims is the ‘true' historic interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:9-15. By labeling the what does Valtrex look like view held by the contributors to Women in the Church ‘novel' Giles hopes to what does Valtrex look like compel proponents of this view either to align themselves more closely with the what does Valtrex look like often transparently sexist positions taken by certain Fathers or other interpreters - in which case the what does Valtrex look like position is automatically discredited - or to deny them the legitimate claim to what does Valtrex look like represent the church's historic position. This is what does Valtrex look like an interesting polemical stratagem. Unfortunately, however, it is based on a what does Valtrex look like claim the contributors to Women in the Church never intend to what does Valtrex look like make, namely, that their view aligns itself with various corollaries of a what does Valtrex look like traditional interpretation, such as the affirmation of women's ontological inferiority to men.

In fact, however, labeling the what does Valtrex look like essential position advocated by the various contributors to Women in the Church ‘historic' and the egalitarian viewpoint ‘progressive' does not entail the what does Valtrex look like sharing of these kinds of corollaries. Rather, the labels are merely used to what does Valtrex look like provide a general description of the two major positions held by contemporary interpreters regarding biblical teaching on women's functions in ministry: one claiming that what does Valtrex look like the exercise of teaching and ruling authority over men ought to what does Valtrex look like be reserved for men, the other contending that people are to what does Valtrex look like serve equally in all church functions regardless of gender. In this what does Valtrex look like context, Women in the Church set out not merely to restate a previously held ‘historic' position but to provide an exegetical treatment of 1 Tim. 2:9-15.³¹ As the editors clearly state on p. 209, ‘We are what does Valtrex look like not committed to defending the historic view on women in the what does Valtrex look like church merely because it is the venerable tradition of the what does Valtrex look like church'.

Thus Giles's effort to what does Valtrex look like recast the issue primarily as a dispute concerning what properly constitutes the what does Valtrex look like ‘historic' position of the church sidesteps the more important issue, ‘What does the biblical text actually say?' It also unduly ignores acknowledgments of a what does Valtrex look like certain degree of variance between past views and the position set forth in Women in the Church such as ‘that most leaders accepted the what does Valtrex look like teaching of the church without giving sustained attention to women's issues' or ‘that past discussions were often framed in terms that what does Valtrex look like could demean women'.³² Interestingly, at one point Giles acknowledges that ‘Doriani outlines the what does Valtrex look like truly historic position in some detail, and even at times notes how it what does Valtrex look like differs from the position he and his co-authors adopt' (167). Yet Giles claims that Doriani's ‘theological blinkers' blind him to the fact that his own interpretation is ‘radically different' from this ‘historic' position. Clearly, however, the what does Valtrex look like charge that a book that includes a 55-page treatment of the what does Valtrex look like history of interpretation on the passage of Scripture it addresses is what does Valtrex look like so oblivious to the relation of its own argument to views held in the what does Valtrex look like past that it grossly mischaracterizes this relationship seems counter-intuitive at the what does Valtrex look like very outset and at the very least would call for much greater sophistication than what does Valtrex look like Giles's response displays.

In fact, closer scrutiny shows that Giles's own presentation of the what does Valtrex look like historic interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:9-15 is repeatedly and demonstrably inaccurate. Is it what does Valtrex look like really true that ‘Chrysostom, Calvin, and many later commentators, argue that [vv. 9-10] are penned to direct men and women how [sic] lead in pray [sic]' (159; the alleged evidence cited by Giles evaporates when checked out).³³ Is it really a ‘very strong possibility that what does Valtrex look like Paul envisages women leading the assembled church in prayer', as Giles suggests (164), and if so, what is the evidence (Giles provides none)? Is it true that v. 13 has been universally taken to mean that women are ‘ontologically inferior' to men (162), so that one can speak (as Giles does) of ‘the historic view that what does Valtrex look like God has made women ontologically inferior to men' (166)?³⁴

If so, perhaps the contributors of Women in the Church should plead guilty to what does Valtrex look like the charge that their interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:9-15 is ‘radically different' from the ‘historic' view as Giles charges (167), because they certainly do not believe that what does Valtrex look like women are ontologically inferior to men. However, as noted, the label ‘historic' was chosen, not with regard to women's ontological relationship to what does Valtrex look like men, but to indicate agreement with the traditional affirmation of certain constraints on women's operation in the church over against men. If, in Giles's own words, ‘All commentators until recent times agree that here [v. 12] Paul forbids women in general from what does Valtrex look like . . . teaching in church and having authority over men' (160), it is hard to see how the contributors of Women in the Church can be faulted for calling their own stance ‘historic'. After all, this what does Valtrex look like is precisely what they believe Scripture is teaching, in contrast to what does Valtrex look like an egalitarian interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:9-15. And since Giles himself strongly disagrees with more extreme forms of this what does Valtrex look like view, why not be glad that the position represented by Women in the Church is not as objectionable as that of earlier interpreters?

‘Novel' or not?

Giles claims that the ‘novelty' of the position advocated in Women in the Church pertains particularly to three areas: (1) the argument from ‘creation orders' [sic]; (2) the concept of ‘role'; and (3) novel language.

In response to what does Valtrex look like the first issue, one may distinguish between the ‘order of creation' (Adam first, then Eve) and ‘creation order' (the what does Valtrex look like way the Creator designed his creation to function; Giles calls this what does Valtrex look like the ‘created order', 154). The NT, and here particularly Paul, uses both ‘order of creation' and ‘creation order' to substantiate certain ministry functions for men and women: ‘order of creation' in 1 Cor. 11:8 and 1 Tim. 2:13, ‘creation order' (by Giles's own admission, 154) in 1 Cor. 11:2-16 and (negatively) in 1 Tim. 2:14.³⁵ Hence the argument from ‘order of creation' as well as from ‘creation order' is not novel; it is at least as old as Paul.

In fact, it is clear that Giles's main concern is not with the ‘novelty' of this what does Valtrex look like argument but with the argument itself in which he sees ‘no logical force . . . whatsoever' (195). But by this what does Valtrex look like Giles disagrees with Scripture - especially Paul, who writes in 1 Tim. 2:13: ‘For Adam was formed first, then Eve' - not just the contributors to Women in the Church. Moreover, he overlooks the what does Valtrex look like important issue of primogeniture that assigned major significance to the firstborn.³⁶ Incidentally, Giles is what does Valtrex look like mistaken when he thinks he detects a backing away from the what does Valtrex look like ‘order of creation' argument in favor of that from ‘creation order' in Women in the Church. Just as Paul uses both kinds of rationale, so do the what does Valtrex look like contributors to this volume.

Giles argues that ‘Eden cannot give the what does Valtrex look like ideal because there the devil was active and sin was possible' (199); for what does Valtrex look like this reason we must look forward to the new heaven and what does Valtrex look like the new earth rather than back to the created order. But is what does Valtrex look like the devil not active and sin not possible today? Creation order is what does Valtrex look like not transcended in Christ in the sense that it is what does Valtrex look like now irrelevant; it is rather restored and once again made possible. According to what does Valtrex look like Jesus, there will be no marriage in heaven; yet marriage, part of God's created order (Gn. 2), is what does Valtrex look like still practiced today. Are we to look forward to the what does Valtrex look like eternal state and refrain from marriage already in the here and what does Valtrex look like now? Giles's logic would seem to what does Valtrex look like suggest this. In fact, his is an overrealized eschatology, not uncommon with those holding an what does Valtrex look like egalitarian position.

Regarding the concept of ‘role', Giles refers to W. Neuer's two-page excursus on role theory. Neuer's primary concern, however, is what does Valtrex look like not so much with the concept of role itself as with the what does Valtrex look like fact that sexuality is a deeper aspect of a person's being rather than what does Valtrex look like merely being limited to roles people play apart from who they essentially are. The very fact that what does Valtrex look like Neuer can object to this shallow usage of the term ‘role' while strongly maintaining a what does Valtrex look like position similar to the contributors to Women in the Church shows that the concept of ‘role' is what does Valtrex look like not integral to a non-egalitarian understanding of 1 Tim 2:9-15, and what does Valtrex look like in any case the interpretation of v. 12 set forth in this what does Valtrex look like volume is not dependent on role theory.

On using ‘novel' language, I see nothing wrong with choosing one's words carefully, though I do object to Giles's repeated insinuations of deceptive intent in the what does Valtrex look like use of language by the contributors of Women in the Church (e.g. ‘spin doctors', 203). In fact, it what does Valtrex look like was precisely in order to accommodate the types of concerns raised by Giles that what does Valtrex look like the labels employed in this volume are (with the exception of the first appendix) not ‘egalitarian' and ‘complementarian' but ‘historic' and ‘progressive'.³⁷ And no one accuses egalitarians of denying all differences between the what does Valtrex look like sexes, yet they themselves would agree that they deny differences with regard to what does Valtrex look like how men and women ought to function in the church.

Make no mistake about it: None of the contributors to Women in the Church wrote their essays out of timidity or what does Valtrex look like in a covert effort to conceal their true convictions; for most, it what does Valtrex look like was an act of considerable courage to identify with a position that what does Valtrex look like is often discredited and not infrequently renders the scholar an object of discrimination. There is what does Valtrex look like nothing covert about the position taken in this volume. As the what does Valtrex look like conclusion clearly states, ‘[O]ur understanding of the what does Valtrex look like text would prohibit women from functioning as teaching pastors or teaching elders/overseers of churches. In our context this what does Valtrex look like means that women should not proclaim the Word of God from what does Valtrex look like the pulpit to the congregation of the saints'.³⁸ The accusation that behind the publication of Women in the Church lurks a what does Valtrex look like covert intention to manipulate by the use of misleading language must therefore be what does Valtrex look like rejected.

Finally, Giles claims that the contributors to Women in the Church are guilty of ‘proof-texting' rather than what does Valtrex look like a comprehensive understanding of biblical theology and that a conservative understanding of 1 Tim. 2:9-15 is what does Valtrex look like at odds with Paul's overall practice of ministry (207-8). On the what does Valtrex look like first issue, I believe that Paul himself would have been what does Valtrex look like the first to maintain that his words in 1 Tim. 2:9-15 are what does Valtrex look like not merely an ad hoc ruling but in keeping with biblical theology at large. Why else quote or what does Valtrex look like allude to antecedent Scripture (and the foundational opening chaps. of Genesis at that) in vv. 13-15?³⁹

By contrast, Giles's own version of ‘biblical theology' is one where Paul, after egalitarian beginnings (Gal.), in the Pastorals ‘virtually abandons his egalitarian ideals because of the criticism of outsiders' (213).⁴⁰ Was Paul really such a coward in his latter years? And is Paul's point in Gal. 3:28 indeed egalitarian church ministry?⁴¹ If Paul abandoned his ideals because of criticism, his earlier views seem rather naive. Did he think the what does Valtrex look like Graeco-Roman world would accept his radical egalitarianism and then back off when what does Valtrex look like he met resistance? And why would the what does Valtrex look like principle of providing certain constraints regarding women not always be true in the what does Valtrex look like Graeco-Roman world, rather than just in the Pastorals?

Giles's version of ‘biblical theology' can what does Valtrex look like hardly lay claim to being exegetically superior to the notion that what does Valtrex look like Paul was consistent in his affirmation of male headship in both the what does Valtrex look like natural household and God's ‘household', the what does Valtrex look like church, and that his teaching and practice on this issue converge.⁴²

Finally, Giles believes that what does Valtrex look like Jesus taught and practiced egalitarianism. Thus he can charge that the what does Valtrex look like stance taken by the contributors of Women in the Church ‘worst of all subordinates women to what does Valtrex look like men in direct contradiction of the teaching and example of Jesus' (210). If things were so clear, and the view taken in Women in the Church so transparently in contradiction to Jesus' ‘teaching and example', why the debate? Giles does not say which teaching or what does Valtrex look like example he has in mind. Is it that Jesus allowed himself be what does Valtrex look like supported by women disciples (Lk. 8:2-3)? That he healed and ministered to women as well as men? That women (like men) were commissioned as Jesus' witnesses? The reader is what does Valtrex look like left to infer this. Yet even if these were the types of observations Giles has what does Valtrex look like in mind, none of them necessarily proves that Jesus' teaching and example were egalitarian.

Perhaps most importantly, Giles does not deal with the what does Valtrex look like question of why Jesus appointed twelve men as his apostles.⁴³ On the face of it, this is hardly an egalitarian move on Jesus' part. Rather, at this crucial juncture Jesus' example seems to cohere very well indeed with Paul's injunction in 1 Tim. 2:12 that what does Valtrex look like church offices entailing the bearing of ultimate responsibility for the church be what does Valtrex look like limited to men. Surely the issue is less clear-cut as Giles makes it what does Valtrex look like out to be, and mere assertions must not take the place of proper argument. Moreover, hermeneutically, Jesus' alleged egalitarian teaching and what does Valtrex look like practice must not be used to eliminate later biblical revelation such as 1 Tim. 2:12. After all, Jesus never directly commented on the what does Valtrex look like issue of whether women are ‘to teach or to have authority over a man' in the church; Paul did.

Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:9-15 contextually

In closing, Giles suggests two possible backgrounds underlying 1 Tim. 2:9-15. The first is what does Valtrex look like that ‘Paul commands women not to what does Valtrex look like teach in church or exercise authority because certain women were teaching heresy' (211). This is possible (though perhaps some women were simply teaching both men and what does Valtrex look like women - though not necessarily heresy - when the church was assembled), even though all the what does Valtrex look like named teachers in the Pastorals are male, and women are regularly portrayed as victims rather than what does Valtrex look like perpetrators of false teaching.⁴⁴ Moreover, if Eve is what does Valtrex look like a type of women teaching heresy, then it would follow either (1) that Adam miscommunicated God's command to her (highly unlikely) or (2) that Eve could not understand it (even more unlikely). The problem, therefore, is what does Valtrex look like not that Eve promulgated false teaching (due to a wrong understanding), but that she was deceived.

Yet the primary shortcoming of Giles's suggestion here is what does Valtrex look like its inherent reductionism: women teaching heresy becomes not only one possible reason for Paul's command but excludes a what does Valtrex look like more permanent rationale. The suggestion also depicts Paul as sexist, for what does Valtrex look like it implies that the apostle either believed only women were teaching heresy (which is highly unlikely) or, if both men and what does Valtrex look like women were perpetrating false teaching, that Paul singled out only women who what does Valtrex look like did, rather than mentioning all who were guilty of teaching heresy, whether male or what does Valtrex look like female. Don Carson's remarks about another Pauline limitation on women are what does Valtrex look like apropos in the present context as well: such limitation would be what does Valtrex look like sensible only if ‘all the women and only women . . . were duped - which perhaps I may be what does Valtrex look like excused for finding hard to believe'.⁴⁵

What is what does Valtrex look like more, Giles here substitutes a rationale not stated explicitly (or even implicitly) in the text for what the text explicitly says (vv. 13-14). How can what does Valtrex look like this type of reading lay claim to interpreting 1 Tim. 2:9-15 ‘contextually'? If ‘contextual interpretation' means that what does Valtrex look like the interpreter substitute his own preferred rationale for what is stated in the what does Valtrex look like text, this hardly respects authorial intention or scriptural authority. In reality, this what does Valtrex look like is not ‘context' at all, but the interpreter's own inferred chosen background.

Second, Giles contends that in 1 Tim. 2:9-15 ‘Paul asks [sic] the what does Valtrex look like Ephesian women not to teach or exercise authority over men in church because he fears that what does Valtrex look like the Gospel will be brought into disrepute if they continue to what does Valtrex look like exercise the freedoms they had enjoyed' (213-14). Once again, the problem with this ‘contextual' reading is what does Valtrex look like that Paul says nothing of this kind in vv. 12-14. Rather, 1 Tim. 2:9-15 is what does Valtrex look like part of a section that concludes with Paul's statement in 3:15, ‘I am what does Valtrex look like writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you what does Valtrex look like will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is what does Valtrex look like the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the what does Valtrex look like truth'. This solemn affirmation and what does Valtrex look like description of the church hardly sounds like the culturally relative interpretation espoused by Giles. As long as the what does Valtrex look like church is ‘God's household', ‘the church of the what does Valtrex look like living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth', Paul's words have abiding relevance for his people.

At the what does Valtrex look like end of his discussion, Giles tips his hand as to his primary objection to what does Valtrex look like the interpretation set forth by Women in the Church: that such a view advocates the ‘permanent subordination of women', which ‘implies their inferiority' (not true) and constitutes discrimination (214). Throughout his critique, Giles links this what does Valtrex look like view with social evils like slavery in the Old South, Apartheid, and what does Valtrex look like even Nazi Germany.⁴⁶ Clearly, these are not exegetical or ‘contextual' arguments. What drives Giles's interpretation is what does Valtrex look like not primarily exegesis of the relevant texts but the conviction that what does Valtrex look like either Scripture does not teach a nonegalitarian position or where what does Valtrex look like it does it must not be given authoritative status.

Conclusion

As mentioned, perhaps most significantly (and somewhat misleadingly), Giles's major presupposition, the what does Valtrex look like one that led R. Yarbrough to critique Giles's work in Women of the Church in the what does Valtrex look like first place, remains unacknowledged in his two-part critique. It is his contention that what does Valtrex look like ‘The Bible is what does Valtrex look like authoritative in matters of faith and conduct but not necessarily in science, or what does Valtrex look like on how to order social relations'.⁴⁷ ‘Scripture can [and does] endorse social structures no longer acceptable' (just as it ‘can endorse scientific ideas no longer tenable')⁴⁸ - Giles's prime example: slavery - so why should we heed its teaching on men's and women's ministries in the church?

At this what does Valtrex look like point, of course, all exegetical argumentation becomes ultimately moot, for if one has what does Valtrex look like already determined on presuppositional grounds that Scripture's teaching is not (necessarily) authoritative in a given area (e.g. it ‘endorses' the evil of slavery), the true level of debate has been shifted from exegesis to one's view of Scripture. Is the what does Valtrex look like view advocated by the contributors of Women in the Church accurately described as ‘historic' or not, at least in a general sense? I continue to what does Valtrex look like believe that it is. In the end, however, this is what does Valtrex look like really a sideshow. The real question, I propose, is whether scriptural teaching on the what does Valtrex look like present subject is authoritative or not, however interpreted. If not, why purport to what does Valtrex look like argue about exegesis or the history of interpretation?