Expedition 44

Doc Ryan and Matt Mouzakis Dive into atonement in the book of Hebrews.   By offering his own life and blood Jesus made purification (1:3) and atonement for sin (2:17- 18). These are big picture summary statements. But where, how, and by what logic? For this, we need other passages to provide details.   • Jesus’ death obviously happened on the cross, but Hebrews is explicit that the atonement happened somewhere else—in 9:11-14, 24—the heavenly tabernacle. Atonement didn’t happen on the cross.   • Jesus’ atoning work accomplishing many things:  - Removes (purges) sin (9:24-28)  - Forgives sin (10:18)  - Sanctifies and perfects us (10:10, 12-14)  - Gives us confidence to approach God with a clean conscience (Heb 10:19)  - Frees us from the fear of death and destroys the one who has the power of death (Heb 2:14)  - Mediated a new covenant with his sprinkled blood – this alludes to the blood Moses sprinkled on the people when making the old covenant (Exod 24:6-8) and the blood Jesus sprinkled in the heavenly tabernacle to make a new covenant. This points to the function of the blood being what it does for us in the heavenly tabernacle, not how it satisfied God’s wrath on the cross. (Heb 12:22-24)  - Makes us complete in everything so we may do God’s will (Heb 13:20-21)  • Jesus became flesh, learned obedience, suffered, and tasted death to become a perfect high priest by virtue of being able to relate to us in our suffering and death (Heb 2:9-10, 17-18; 5:8)  • Jesus became priest through the power of an indestructible life, which means that “death” died on the cross more so than Jesus! (Heb 7:16)  • Christ endured the cross for the joy set before him – nothing about facing God’s wrath on our behalf (Heb 12:2)     So, what’s missing here in Hebrew’s view of Jesus’ death?... It does accomplish a lot of things… but there’s nothing about His death as what finally satisfies the wrath of God. There’s nothing related to a payment for sins.  There’s nothing about Jesus taking our place or dying the death we deserved. It’s all missing from the text… to get there you have to import it or read it into the scriptures.

What is Romans about?  Romans is a pastoral letter that does contain theology but the purpose is not to lay out systematic theology. The theology in the letter is to service Paul's purpose in the Roman church dealing with issues between the weak and the strong. The Gospel Romans 1:2-4 is Paul’s Gospel. Some think the gospel of which Paul is “not ashamed of” comes after Romans 1:16-17 (beginning with wrath on humanity) but it is actually what he begins his letter with, and he explicitly states it. This is shown in Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 which states that “the righteous will live by faith (or faithfulness)”. In the Hebrew Bible’s context of Habakkuk, God’s own faithfulness to His covenant is in question by the events happening in that time. What is called for in the situation is faith and that will be the true marking of God’s covenant people in times of trials and persecution. Yet in the LXX the verse refers to God’s own faithfulness as the means of life for his covenant people. Paul’s thesis is that the righteousness of God is His own faithfulness to the covenant and that is revealed in Christ’s faithful life, death, resurrection, and exaltation. Covenant membership is available to those who are faithful, and this is made available through/by Christ’s faithfulness. The Wrath Romans 1:18-32 talks about the wrath of God that is revealed against all unrighteousness. Coming back to our conversation of sin in the intro episode, Paul agrees here. He connects sin to idolatry, and we see that the sins (immoral behavior) are symptoms of the disease. Justified by what? Justified by faith Alone. was one of the mantras of the Protestant Reformation and it has led to some issues… First, “alone” is not in the text. The only place where it mentions “faith alone” is in James 2 where it says we are not justified by faith alone but also by our works.  If by “faith alone” you mean we are justified by grace (Rom. 3:24), by Jesus’ blood (Rom. 5:8), by Jesus’ resurrection (Rom. 4:25), by faith apart from works of the law (Rom. 3:28), and by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24), then great, you agree with the Bible. Romans 3:23-26, Romans 4:24-25 Peace with God- Romans 5:1 Ecomen here is translated “we have” in the indicative mood. But our earliest manuscripts have this word as echōmen, meaning “let us have” as a subjunctive. The subjunctive reading is preferred based on manuscript evidence for the earliest dating and based on context.  The following verses go into perseverance in suffering and exhortations to be like Christ (moral influence). This is based on Jesus’ vindication from his sufferings and not based on debt repayment. Romans 5:6-19 Romans 6:3-14 Romans 8:1-4 Jesus bore our sin in that he bore our wrath and violence against Him. As Brian Zahnd says, “At the cross we violently sinned our sins into Jesus, and Jesus absorbed them, died because of them, carried them into death, and rose on the third day to speak the first words of the new world: “Peace be with you.”

Ransom for many Matt 10:28/Mark 10:41-45  • Ransom: Lutron in Greek. Means the price of release or manumission (release from slavery). In its primary usage, the lutron/kōpher referred to neither a sacrifice for sin nor a punishment for transgression, but a price of release or a price of return.  o Kopher (Hebrew of Greek Lutron) is used this way: God’s redemption of Israel from exile: “I give Egypt as your ransom (kōpher), Ethiopia and Seba in exchange for you” (Isa 43:3)  • Is Jesus a substitute here?... ransom “FOR” many o Ransom for PSA has the notion of substitution, pointing to the Greek preposition anti (“for”), which carries the meaning of “exchange”—“this for that” (Latin, quid pro quo). That is precisely the meaning of anti in those texts where Paul instructs the church to renounce the world’s practice of retributive justice: “Do not repay anyone evil [in exchange] for (anti) evil” (Rom 12:17; cf. 1 Thess 5:15). Is Jesus the “ransom,” therefore, a substitute? • If we wonder what “price” God has “paid” to ransom Israel from captivity in Babylon, the prophet tells us—none: “For thus says the LORD: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money” (Isa 52:3). God need not “pay” any “price” to anyone to redeem his people; for the “ransomed of the Lord” are liberated by God, not by an exchange between God and some other power. Gospels and Acts Summary:  • Jesus uses the “Son of man” title to talk about his kingship but also about the defeat of the powers as in Daniel 7 and the defeat of the beasts.   • Jesus’ ministry about healing. God loved the world and sent Jesus to heal it.  Jesus is depicted more as a doctor than a lawyer. In our first episode we talked about the fact that you can’t punish a disease out of someone, and Jesus came to heal our sin and not punish it out of us.   • Ransom is connected to a new exodus. It means to free slaves. It was costly to God as it meant that Jesus’ life was given up for us. But this wasn’t a payment. As in the Exodus God’s ransom was by his mighty hand and he didn’t pay off himself or the powers… it was a rescue mission.   • The New Covenant spoken of at the last supper was inaugurated on the cross. The New Covenant in Jeremiah relates to the end of Exile. This is the way out of our exile from Eden, the reversal of Babel, and Israel’s exile. “The cup” is connected to God handing Israel over to the nations. God allowed Jesus to be handed over to Rome and the temple leaders to fulfill his mission. This is not active wrath but letting the people have their way as we saw in our wrath of God episode. The Barabbas story is connected here.   • “My God why have you forsaken me?” Was a cry, in Jesus’ humanity, of what he was experiencing but he is quoting Psalm 22 where God didn’t forsake the psalmist and God didn’t forsake Jesus. There is not split in the Godhead.  • We see in the gospels that the Cross was man’s doing, God knew it would happen, but it was the wrath of the people. But we see the character of God in this that Jesus state “Father forgive them, they don’t know what they are doing.” • There is nowhere in the Gospels and Acts that in anyway talk about God punishing Jesus in our place • Acts ties forgiveness of sins to the resurrection and baptism (allegiance) and not Jesus' death.  • There are no atonement theories or mention of hell in the Gospel proclamations in Acts. 

3 views:  •   PSA view of bearing sin and wrath. Sees this as a direct prophecy about the Messiah  •  Historical view sees the servant as Israel as it is defined elsewhere in Isaiah.  • The context is about Israel, Christ is the fulfillment of Israel. We only use this text in the way the NT writers apply it and nothing further.    LXX (Septuagint)   •When it comes to Isaiah 53 when it is quoted in the NT it shows that God is not killing the servant, but people are. God heals the servant.  •Usually, the best practice is to go with the oldest manuscript (LXX here) for interpretation Context  •Exile: The historical situation and canonical context of Isaiah—exile—suggests a background, that of a people burdened under the weight of their own iniquity and bearing the wounds of their own transgressions. Isaiah understood Israel’s exile in Babylon as the consequence of the nation’s sins (Deut 4:25–31; 28:15–68; 2 Kgs 23:26–27; 24:3–4, 19–20; Is 1; 40:1–2; 42:24).  •Now, were the Servant’s death a penal substitution, he would suffer in place of the people and dies to pay the penalty for their sins. We would expect that the people for whom he suffers, and dies would not be suffering the consequences of their own sins (by the logic of substitution, those consequences would be transferred to the Servant instead, sparing the people the suffering they deserve). Therefore, we would expect the Servant to suffer exile in place of the people. To the contrary, the people do suffer exile for their owns sins, which reveals God’s judgment upon his people. And having suffered exile as the consequence of their own sin, the people need redemption by God from the captivity into which their own sin has delivered them (Is 42:18–25; 43:25–28; 49:13, 24–26; 50:1; 51:21–23). Takeaways from Isaiah 53:  •“For our transgressions” is “on account of” or “because of”, not “in place of” based on the language (min and dia). Representation and not substitution. •The context is about exile. The servant enters into their exile in order to heal them (this is bearing their sin).  •The LXX writers also seem to notice this as it has God removed from the actions against the Servant where the MT makes that a little muddier. •There is no mention of propitiating the wrath of God in the context. This must be read into the passage  •We need to be aware of the before and after perspective in the chapter. The before perspective is deemed incorrect based on the grammar and context. When the people look back on the servant, they see that their POV was incorrect about God punishing the servant. That was their POV and not reality.  •The guilt offering Is about repairing relationships and has no penal aspect to it in the sacrificial system. This is applied more to the life of the servant than the death in the context.  •God and the servant are not pitted against each other. There is no wrath against the servant, there is no rupture in the Trinity.  •The NT writers never apply Isaiah 53 in a context of PSA when quoting it. It’s usually more a Recapitulation, Scapegoat, or Moral Influence Theory with a hint of Exodus motif (Christus Victor- healing of demons [Matt 8]), but never PSA.

Leviticus 16 The “Sin” offering goat Both goats are called a sin/purification/decontamination offering and the reason is that is that the lots have not been cast yet over these two. So, since we don't know yet which ones going to be the actual sin offering, they’re both referred to that way. We don't know which one’s going to be for the Lord, which one was to be for azazel. A better way to translate “Atonement” here is to make expiation with it, or to make a purging with it. The whole notion of the sin offering is decontamination and purification Propitiation or Expiation (KPR language) Both words presuppose that there is a barrier that must be removed to overcome sin. We need to look to see what is acted upon in order to translate KPR correctly. As we noted atonement language means to cover or purge but is the issue with humans, God, or sin? Propitiation: means that the barrier lies within God himself; thus, it is usually interpreted as an action to satisfy divine wrath against sinners. This was the pagan concept of sacrifice, but Christians who hold to this say that God’s justice must be exercised, and sin must be paid for in order to receive forgiveness and the aversion of God’s wrath. Expiation: means that the barrier lies outside of God, within humankind and/or a stain they leave on the world (sacred space), it is often interpreted as an action aimed at removing sin. To cover, wipe, or to purge sin. Mercy Seat Translation-This is a common translation, but this is not a good translation. More literally, if atonement (kapper) means to purge then kapporeth (noun) should be the place of purging. In other words, we would really focus on the location not the result, because calling it the mercy seat is sort of reading the theological result into the word. The place is the cover of the Ark in the Holy of Holies which is the footstool of God’s throne. This is a throne room scene. The Scapegoat or the goat for azazel. 3 views on what happens in this action: 1. The propitiation view (punishment). The goat bears the sin and wrath. 2. The azazel refers to the location (the desert) which theologically if the place where sin and evil lives or belongs (not in God’s camp) 3. Azazel is a proper name. This was the leader of the fallen angels/demons in 2nd temple Judaism. The goat transports the sin to Azazel. Conclusions on the Day of Atonement The priest is stripped of all his garb and must do this ritual in a plain fashion Goat 1- the purification offering, is to cleanse the temple objects. Blood is not applied to anyone. The scapegoat is sent to Azazel. So, sin, the forces of death, are removed from the camp. This connects a little to last week’s episode in that God is rescuing his people from the forces of death. Neither of these goats are punished. It’s about expelling or purging God’s space (Expiation). The first goat (the one that dies) is more about cleaning the throne room of the stain of sin. The scapegoat doesn’t get killed. This is all about resetting sacred space (getting back to Eden)

Doc Ryan and Matt continue a series on Atonement. We’re probably all familiar with the story of the Exodus where God calls Moses to stand up to Pharoah in order to set the Hebrews free. There were 10 plagues and each of these plagues was a judgement on an Egyptian god. Essentially, it’s a cosmic battle here. Here is what God says about the 10th plague… Exodus 12:1-13 12 “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord. 13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt. Sea Crossing (Exodus 15) It wasn’t called the "Red" Sea It was the Greeks who started calling it the Red Sea. When the LXX gets translated, The Egyptians not only didn’t refer to it as the Red Sea, but they referred to all big bodies of water as “the great green.” Yam Suph means sea of reeds. The earlier meaning of the word suph, if you go back further into the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, suph meant the end, or the extremity, or the border, or the edge, sort of the extreme part. So in that context, it would have meant something like the sea at the end, the end sea or the border sea. The Reed Sea is the sort of Egyptian equivalent, in the Middle Kingdom—you see this in the Pyramid Texts—is the River Styx. It’s the body of water you have to cross after death to get to the place of your abode. In the Egyptian mind, when you see some sort of border with water on it, you should be thinking about entering into a realm of chaos and death (outside of the camp) so, if you can get past this watery body, this Sea of Reeds, then you’ll get to the other side, and you’ll have this shadowy existence in the presence of the Egyptian gods.the Pyramid Texts are burial texts, with spells and invocations to help get the spirits and the gods to guide the ka, the soul of the departed person, through the Sea of Reeds to the other side, safely. if you don’t, you become one of the mkhay-u. The mkhay-u are the drowned ones, is what that literally means. These are people who get tangled in the reeds and get pulled down into the Sea of Reeds and sort of lose their identity and become the drowned ones. They’re the damned for Egyptians. the Hebrews were ones who were guided through to the other side were guided through safely to the other side to go and dwell with their God in the promised land. When we talk about Passover (Communion), and passing from death to life, that’s not an allegorical thing. What they’re telling us in the Song of the Sea is the people who were there who experienced this the first time had the experience of passing through death, passing through the realm of death and being brought through safely to the other side, to new life, by Yahweh the God of Israel. And that’s the experience we’re sharing in when we celebrate Passover Passover: Deut 16:1-7, 2 Chron 30:13-20 2 Key things: Exodus is rescue from death and deliverance from slavery It’s a judgement on the Powers We don’t see any debt or sin language involved here God is purchasing a people (releasing them from slavery) and calling them His sons and daughters, but not a purchase as a legal metaphor. Passover sacrifices were a community meal (think communion) to celebrate being rescued and the defeat of the oppressive powers over God’s people Since the Exodus was Jesus’ primary motif for communicating His crucifixion, we need to put this as a primary metaphor when we think about the cross and its effects.

Doc Ryan and Matt continue their series on Biblical Atonement. Sacrifice: Burnt offering is about a gift and just wanting to spend time with God. Grain offering is about remembering the covenant The well-being (Peace) offering is simply a thank you to God The Purification (sin) offering is about cleansing sacred space The guilt or reparation offering is about restitution for an unintentional “sins” (many of there were ritual sins and not moral sins). Primarily about repentance and not repayment. KFR-Kaphar (atonement): They're six different KPR words in Hebrew, four of them are nouns, two of them are verbs. The basic sense of the verb kaphar means to purge. It comes from Acadian word kuppuru, which means to wipe clean. The blood the offering will be used to purge the tabernacle, purge the sacred space, to purge the altar, to purge this or that vessel. It's never applying to the human, to the human offerer. It's to make sure that sacred space is not rendered impure by a common human being who is not sanctified as a priest to occupy. A lot of sacrificial system is about preparing sacred space for your visit or preparing sacred space that God deems it fit to spend time there. It's really not about what goes on with the offerer’s sin. The sacrificial system for an Israelite wasn’t about us, wasn't about the offerer so much as protecting the offerer from God, from the divine presence or purging sacred space of any impurities so that God could meet the priests there, or God can meet the offerer there.So the blood was a decontaminant or ritual detergent to purify sacred space. Atonement is purging of the stain of sin from sacred space. Blood: the blood manipulation was about cleansing sacred space. In combination with atonement language, it meant to purge or cover to decontaminate the sanctuary. The blood was never applied to people except in the ordination of the priests or when the covenant was enacted at Sinai. Sin was seen as a stain and part of the forces of death. Blood was seen was part of one’s life force so the blood would overpower, dissolve, cover over the forces of death in sacred space and purge it from God’s presence. Did God require blood to forgive? blood was about purifying sacred space and not about purchasing personal forgiveness. God can just forgive when we come in faith to him. Our view in the west is often of the virgin needing to be thrown into the volcano to appease God but as we’ve seen here in Leviticus this is not the way Yahweh works. That was the way the pagan deities worked. Israel’s sacrificial system looked like the pagans’ systems on the outside but when we look closely Yahweh is moving his people away from that way of thinking while using a framework that was in their ancient culture. In the Torah sacrifice and forgiveness were not necessarily connected. Here are some examples: Forgiveness by application of oil (Lev 14:19) Burning flour (Lev 5:11-13) Burning incense (Num 16:41-50) Payment of money (Ex 30:11-16) Gifts of jewelry (Num 31:48-54) The release of an animal into the wilderness (Lev 16:10) Appeals to God in prayer (Ex 32:30) God allowed the sacrificial system as a way of meeting His people in their culture and allowing them to worship him through it. It was allowed not demanded. The sacrificial system was a signpost that pointed to Jesus as the greater sacrifice, but God allowed it as a way for Israel to show their allegiance and worship to Yahweh.

Doc Ryan and Matt begin a series on Biblical Atonement. Today’s Episode covers What is Atonement? Atonement is a made-up word in English because we didn’t have a word to completely express what the action of sacrifice accomplished from a Hebrew perspective. Sin: In the OT we have a few terms for sins such as rebellion (pesha), infidelity (meshubah), disloyalty (beged), getting dirty or stained (tum’ah), wandering (‘avon), trespass (ma’al), transgression (‘abar), and missing the mark (chatta’t). Most of these can be summed up under the last word here of missing the mark. But what mark are we missing??? The Image of God- we are cracked icons (images) and Jesus puts us back together modeled after him, the true image. This missing the mark not only stains us, but it stains the world and the systems we create. Does the popular view of Atonement (Penal Substitution) actually take Sin seriously? Forgiveness: If forgiveness requires payment or blood is it actually forgiveness? Exile thinking Some questions to think about on this journey through Atonement: Retribution or Restoration? Substitution or Representation? Transaction or Transformation? Judicial or Relational? Did God need his mind changed about us or our mind about God? Is there a debt owed? How does the cross bring about justice? Holiness and/or Love… are they opposed to each other? Who killed Jesus? God or us? Is our view of the cross to individualistic? What does the cross solve? Sin? Death? Evil? (Powers) All of the above? Atonement Theories Moral Influence Ransom Theory Christus Victor Satisfaction Theory Penal Substitution Scapegoat Theory Recapitulation New Covenant Some interesting History Though PSA is seen in evangelicalism as the gospel (This has been depicted in the recent documentary “the American Gospel”) but it is interesting to note that in all the orthodox creeds and early church ecumenical councils there is no definition of the atonement in terms of accepted or rejected theories. Where the early church agreed that Christ had saved the human race from sin and its consequences, there was no unambiguous tradition as to how this was brought about. The only line in the creeds that talks about the cross is in the Nicaean Creed and it’s “For us and for our salvation”. There was no discussion on the mechanics of the cross except in Christ’s victory over sin and death, and our salvation because of that. So, to make PSA “the gospel” and the rejection of that view as heresy actually flies in the face of church history.

Dr. Will Ryan and Pastor Matt continue the series on women in ministry. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 Titus 1:6-9 Can women be elders? Nearly all English versions use the masculine pronoun (he) and the possessive (his) in 1 Tim 3:1-7. For example, the NIV above uses “he” seven times and “his” four times. But in the Greek text all the verbs are generically expressed, capable of being either gender, and there are no masculine pronouns or possessives. One Woman Man the purpose of this phrase is not the gender but the sexual ethic and faithfulness. Against polygamy and homosexuality. Paul also writes about the gift of singleness in 1 Cor 7 and that it does have spiritual advantages for men and women. Does being unmarried exclude one from eldership? If it does then Paul and Jesus couldn’t be elders at our church. This furthermore points to the meaning of “one-woman man” being about sexual ethic rather than gender or marriage requirements. • The list of behaviors in Timothy and Titus that are criteria for eldership that Paul says are capable of women: o  Eldership is good work (3:1), Paul expects women to do good work (5:10​) o  Elder must be above reproach (3:2), Paul expects women to be irreproachable (5:7) o  Elders must be temperate (3:2), Paul expects women to be temperate (3:11​) o  Elders must be self-controlled (3:2), Paul expects women to be self-controlled (2:9,15) o  Elders must be respectable (3:2), Paul expects women to be respectable (2:9) o  Elders must be hospitable (3:2), Paul expects women to be hospitable (5:10​) o  Elders must be able to teach (3:2), Paul expects women to be teachers of what is good (Titus 2:3) o  Elders must not be drunkards (3:3), Paul expects women not to be drunkards (Titus 2:3) o  Elders must not be lovers of money (3:3), Paul expects women to avoid being adorned with gold, pearls, and expensive clothing (2:9) o  Elders must be good managers of their household (3:4), Paul expects women to rule their households (5:14​) o  Elder must show dignity in the they keep children under control (3:4), Paul expects women to show dignity (3:11​) o  Elders must not be new converts, falling into condemnation on account of pride (3:6), Paul expects women to be humble and not under condemnation (5:10​,12) o  Elders must have a good testimony from outsiders (3:7), Paul expects women to have a good testimony from others (5:7,10) Every item on Paul’s list of qualifications for eldership are things he expects of both women and men in 1 Timothy and Titus. Every item listed here we see Paul encouraging the women to become elsewhere in these same letters. Paul specifically uses gender neutral terms to show that women and men should both aspire to this office and these behaviors. The masculine pronouns and possessives are not in the Greek text. “One-Woman Man” is an idiomatic phrase that is about sexual faithfulness between one man and one woman in marriage. Scripture does not ban women from being elder but rather encourages men and women to mutually work together leading and guarding the flock.

 Dr. Will Ryan and Pastor Matt continue the series on women in ministry.   Can Women Preach/Teach/Lead?   1 Cor 14:31​-39   1 Tim 2:11​-15  Textual Criticism  Are 1 Cor 14:34​-35 original to the text?   Manuscript evidence indicates that verses 34-35 may be a later addition and not original and should possibly be omitted or put in brackets or as a footnote in our translations. If this is original, it must fit the context where women and men are permitted to prophesy and pray.    Context of 1 Timothy  The purpose or occasion for Paul’s writing is to stop the spread of false teaching. It is in his intro, throughout his letter and in his conclusion.     The cult of Artemis (Diana) was based in Ephesus where Paul is writing, and her temple was one of the wonders of the ancient world. This cult had a female only priesthood and many other female dominated groups existed in Ephesus during the time of Paul. But Especially the Artemis cult was hostile towards men. This may play in the background of Paul’s conversation here.  Authority  The first issue here is the word for assume/exercise authority is not the usual word for authority (Arce or Exousia). It is authentein and is a word only used one time in the Bible (hapax legomenon). Outside the Bible this indicates the meaning of violently usurping authority or domination.  I do not permit The Greek word here is epitrepo. It is in the present active indicative grammatical form. That means it is not a command (imperative) and it is not an ongoing action but an “at this time” action.   A woman should learn in quietness and full submission  Does this teach that a woman must be silent in church? Complementarians will say yes, Egalitarians will say no.  The only command (imperative) in this whole section is that a woman/wife must learn. Notice that this part comes before Paul’s comment on not teaching. The logic is that one must learn before they can teach. Quietness and submission are the posture of a student.    Creation Principal: Are women more easily deceived?  The references here to Genesis 2-3 are framed by the women’s need to learn and their deception by the false teachers. Just as Eve listened to the snake the women are listening to and spreading false teaching and becoming like Eve. The antidote to being like Eve is to learn. Paul is not saying that all women are more easily deceived (and should never teach), he’s saying the women in Ephesus are acting like Eve in the creation narrative.  •      1 Cor 14:34​-35 is questionable in the text at face value as it contradicts 2 other explicit statements in 1 Corinthians of women not being silent in Corinth and participating in worship through their speech. If it is legitimate, it is about order in the service that is not distracting, but also a call to learn as in 1 Tim 2.   •      Women should not dominate men in a harmful way as to usurp authority. Men should not do this as well.   •      One should learn before they teach