click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
CBMW and dialogue
by Dan WallaceNovember 7th, 2008
Be First to Comment
Over at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website (www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Never-Apologize-for-Gods-Truth) a blog post was put up on October 28. The title of the post: “Never Apologize for God’s Truth.” The blog post is a discussion about my essay, “Some Reflections on the Role of Women in the Church: Pragmatic Issues,” posted at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=6133. I thought it misrepresented my views in some serious ways, so I wrote a response. I had thought that that response would either get posted on the site (it wasn’t), would have caused the author to alter what he said (he didn’t), or at least have stimulated the writing of a letter to me from the CBMW folks (they weren’t). Regrettably, I have to post my response here, because of the one-sided story that was given at CBMW. Here’s what I wrote:
A friend sent me the blog that was posted at CBMW about my recent essay on the role of women, posted at bible.org. I’m honored that my views would be considered worthy of discussing at CBMW. But I have to say, I think I was misrepresented.
Here’s what the blog post said, “Wallace responded by admitting that he could never embrace egalitarianism because it is clearly unbiblical; the text just does not support egalitarian claims…”
That’s far more than what I actually wrote on two fronts. First, nowhere in the essay did I say that I could never embrace egalitarianism. Not even close. Instead, what I said was that I could not go against my conscience and that, in my view, egalitarians were doing exegetical gymnastics. But even here I couched my statement with a note of personal perspective. Throughout the essay you will see qualifiers such as “For me at least,” “I think,” “probably,” etc. These points were mentioned specifically in relation to my exegetical certainty about the role of women in the church. Probably the strongest statement I made in terms of certainty was “I may not be comfortable with my complementarian position, but I am unwilling to twist scripture into something that it does not say. (I’m not saying that those who take an egalitarian position on this passage are willing to twist the scriptures! But I am saying that I think they are, in effect, probably doing this just the same.)”
Second, I did not say that egalitarianism was clearly unbiblical. Again, I couched all from my own perspective. As I concluded my essay, “after all the exegetical dust has settled, to deny some sort of normative principle to 1 Tim 2:12 is probably a misunderstanding of this text.”
I believe that the blogger got wrong his whole premise for the post because he assumed that I was certain in my exegesis and cowardly (or at least wishy-washy) in my behavior.
The irony here is that I was quoted out of context and misexegeted. I’m sure that some egalitarians will jump on this and say that complementarians do the same thing with scripture!
Allow me to clarify my view: Both since my exegesis is not certain and since this is not a central issue to the Christian faith, I cannot be as firm in my position or attitude as I can be on other issues. What is at stake here is one’s doctrinal and pragmatic taxonomy. The way the blogger wrote about my views it sounded as if he had a flatline in doctrinal nuancing. That, in my view, is not the healthiest way to think about scripture.
Daniel B. Wallace, PhD
Executive Director,
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
www.csntm.org
Similar Posts:
- Trevin Wax’s Response to N.T. Wright: Do People Really Believe that God is a Monster?
- Is Wright Right about the Righteousness of God?
- Hold on to your seat . . . Tuesdays belong to Dan
- Matthew Flannagan’s Interactions with Thom Stark
- New York Post’s Racist(?) Cartoon
Loading ...
172 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Don, here’s the problem with 1 Tim 2.12: complementarians almost universally see one basic meaning here, viz., that women are not allowed to teach adult males biblical truths and commands. (Note the accent on the content of the teaching and the objects of the teaching.) Egalitarians, however, have had a multitude of interpretations, such as the following (which are not exhaustive):
1. authentein means ‘usurp authority’ and women are not allowed to usurp a man’s authority;
2. ‘woman’ and ‘man’ should be translated ‘wife’ and ‘husband’; thus a single woman may be a pastor but a married woman may not;
3. oude forms a hendiadys so that ‘teach’ and ‘exercise authority’ mean ‘authoritatively teach’ while other kinds of teaching are OK;
4. didaskein…ouk epitrepo means ‘I do not currently permit’; thus, it would be acceptable to teach men at other times and thus the command is not universal;
5. authentein means to ‘murder’ (!); and ritual symbolic murder is not permitted to women, but instead they must respect their husbands;
6. ‘teach’ is absolute (with no object) and ‘exercise authority’ is specifically related to men; thus, the absolute prohibition of women teaching is contradicted by Titus 2.4 where older women teach younger women. This thus proves that the prohibition was never meant to be of universal applicability.
7. Paul is following rabbinic practices here and is wrong; on a theological trajectory, we need to make corrections to this practice, especially in light of Gal 3.28.
Now, when each one of these interpretations has holes in it, and when there is no consensus among egalitarians as to which is to be preferred, it strikes me as though egalitarians are grasping at straws. The complementarian position has always maintained that there is some universal principle here that is still applicable. My take on it is that the egalitarian position is driven more by an agenda than by the plain meaning of the text. In this respect, Scott has made some good observations: he is asking complementarians to abandon complementarianism—not because it’s not biblical, but because (in his view) it’s not just. At least that view recognizes the plain meaning of this text.
As I’ve said all along, I wish I could be an egalitarian. But I cannot, in good conscience, simply pick an interpretation that suits my fancy. I take the hard sayings in the Bible with the easy to digest ones. But where I disagree with the author of the CBMW piece is that I don’t have to like what the Bible teaches here. There are many passages in scripture that disturb me, but at all points I am caught up short by the fact that I am finite and fallible, and that God is sovereign and good. In short, I trust his judgment on what is right.
dbw
Like or Dislike:
0
The difficulty is that there is no evidence at all that autenteo was related to having authority of any kind. Its only attested meanings were compel, control, dominate, instigate, have independent jurisdiction and lord it over. I cite complementarian literature in my own post on this.
This is a complementarian assessment of the word.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ve been wondering curiously about something. Does anyone know if 1 Tim
2:14 was interpreted historicaly to be saying that all women are deceived?
Was not ‘a woman’ in v.14, the deceived one thought to have meant all
women in general but Today it is thought to mean, particularly, Eve only?
Somebody, please do tell.
Did Paul write the singular ‘a woman’ in v.11 to mean genericaly all women
but then in v.14 did he use the same singular ‘a woman’ but switch his usage
to mean a singular, particular woman, ‘Eve’?
Was the historical position at least consistent, in that it was believed that
‘a woman’ meant all women in general in vv.11, 12 & 14? Does anyone
know? Maybe someone here will know?
So if Paul could use the singular ‘a woman’ in v.14 to mean ‘Eve’ a
particular woman, then he also could have used the same, singular
‘a woman’ in v.11 & 12 to refer to a particular woman (in Ephesus who was
teaching false things to her husband).
In the passage, why would Paul not be consistent with his usage of the
grammatical singular? Why would he use the grammatical singular genericaly
for all women (vv. 11 & 12) only to use it again for singular,
particualr meaning (v.14, Eve)?
That was my two cents worth of questions for the night.
Like or Dislike:
0
Kathy, you raise some excellent questions about the text. I think in the least that vv 13 and 14 need to be read as referring to the Genesis narrative. Whether Paul meant for the statement about deception to apply to all women is another matter. This, in fact, is what really troubles me about the text. If Paul is anchoring his reason for why women should not teach men to Genesis 2 (the ‘for’ at the beginning of v 13 most naturally means that he’s explaining why a woman should not be permitted to teach a man), then he’s building his argument on something that goes beyond the church and beyond the fall. Most egalitarians focus on Gen 3 as the basis for Paul’s argument, but here and elsewhere when Paul speaks about men and women, he uses Gen 2 (the pre-fall state) as part of his basis (cf. 1 Cor 11; 1 Cor 14; Eph 5). If this interpretation is correct, then it will not do to say that all things have become new in Christ and that women are now functional equals with men in church leadership, the home, etc.
Verse 14 continues the argument with ‘and,’ suggesting that Paul sees a twofold reason for his stance: not only in creation, but also in the fall, women take a functionally subordinate (NOT an ontologically subordinate) role to men. And that’s where a major problem comes for me. Is Paul really saying that women are more easily deceived than men? Is he using Eve as a type of all women? It’s hard for me to accept that. My wife isn’t as gullible as I am, and she is awfully aware of scams, etc. She doesn’t get deceived. I know of no studies (but then again, I haven’t looked) that suggest that women are wired so differently from men that they are more easily deceived. Besides, what’s curious in v 14 is that the implication is that Adam knowingly sinned with eyes wide open, while Eve—if the ability to be deceived is indeed a natural aspect of what it means to be a woman—didn’t. What puzzles me is why this would exonerate Adam and condemn Eve.
As for the switch between singular and plural, this is simply a natural way to write as a stream of conscientiousness. In the next chapter, Paul speaks of the bishop in the singular, but the deacons in the plural. And yet, the early church had a multiplicity of elders/bishops, not just one. We shouldn’t make too much out of the number there.
As for the historical understanding of the passage, I bet that Cheryl or Sue have those data at their fingertips.
Like or Dislike:
0
dan, et al–
dan, you understand me well: i’m not arguing about what the text says, my exegetical skills and experience in this regard are those of a beginner, and not up to these nuances.
i am saying that the scripture invites layers of response. to choose to respond to governance issues at the expense of the gospel defeats the mission of the church, as you talked about in your own experience. and in my opinion it is the infallible/inerrant/sola scriptura/jott-and-tittle primacy-of-the-text stance which ties you all in the details at the expense of the mission.
in the gospel of john, jesus asked peter, ‘do you love me?’ peter replied, ‘you know me inside and out, lord! you know i love you!’ jesus said, ‘then set up an orderly church for me, one where women know their place.’
peace–
scott
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Wallace,
Your last two post were very good. I don’t think that from an ontological perspective a woman and a man differ markedly apart from their own physiological makeup as constituted by God Himself.
The Scriptures only speak of the woman as “the weaker vessel.” 1 Peter 3:7
Your wife’s savy in detecting scams or whatever is more telling of her knowledge attained from knowledgeable sources and her own focus of attention.
Like the serpent, neither Adam or Eve escaped the punitive judgement of God. But Adam’s punishment was based on his own responsiblity in following the lead of Eve against his better judgement (in Gen 3).
I agree that this “agenda driven” motivation is at the core of this egalitarian posture, and quite frankly, I make no apologies for being a *complimentarian.* God’s social order(ing) evidences His wisdom and in the diversity of responsibilities He has instituted and ordained for the welfare and well-being of mankind in general and His Church in particular.
But, all this aside for a moment, the exegetical result will be and still is the hinge (cardo) upon which this issue will ultimately be decided.
The Jesuit doctrine “that the ends justify the means” is not acceptable; never has been, never will. The Church’s conceptualization of her agenda, however, is not uniform and variously understood. This is the problem – or at least a substantial contributing factor among egalitarians.
May we all seriously consider 2 Timothy 2:4-6, 19-21.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
The church fathers are varied on women. Origin believed that this text meant that women could not minister in the church.
Chrysostom does not say but clearly states that no man may ever authentein his wife. Such tyranny is forbidden. Augustine and Chrysostom are clear that women were created as functional equals and because of sin and contention woman must take the lower place. If it had not been for the fall ….
Personally I rebelled when I was driving the car and my husband told me authoritatively to pass another car. I chose to save our lives instead. This is an example of my rebellion against the vow to obey.
There actually are studies which have determined that women are not more gullible than men.
I await the time when someone can cite to me an occurrence of authentein that has been translated as ” to have authority” elsewhere than in 1 Tim. 2:12. Such an occurrence would provide evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue,
Is the role of women in God’s social order really “a lower place” or “a functionally different capacity?”
Re: Chrysostom. He also believed that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit could be forgiven contra Jesus’ own pronouncement (St Mt 12:32, passim).
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue,
This example that you site:
“Personally I rebelled when I was driving the car and my husband told me authoritatively to pass another car. I chose to save our lives instead. This is an example of my rebellion against the vow to obey.”
I think since you were the one behind the wheel and in control of the vehicle, your husband had already entrusted you with the responsibility to drive safely.
His comment may have been inappropriate or not. Are you a typical woman driver? :^)
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
This is an example of how a woman can be entrusted with the reponsibility of doing something and given none of the authority. It becomes impossible. I never drove with my husband in the car again.
This is the way it is when a person believes that they have authority because of their gender. It is not useful to anyone.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue,
In response to your note on the other post, I think you had already provided information. My question really was just prompted by how you presented your research sources and I was curious. But thanks for that comprehensive list of qualifications.
Now, I am just a lowly first year greek student so I am certainly in no position to debate the finer historical positions concerning the word that you are so adamantly defending. But one thing my greek prof keeps telling us as we are learning, that even in consideration of the lexical definition, words will be nuanced depending on the context. (Btw, my greek prof has a reputation for being almost as tough as our dear Dr. Wallace, which is great because its really forcing me to learn). And from my little perch here, it seems that in your pedantic defense of I Tim 2:12, I concur with Vladimir that context is something you are not considering.
I must say that I have not reached any definite conclusions concerning this passage as it relates to prohibitions against women teaching men as that being inclusive of exercising authority. In other words, I am not convinced that a woman, let’s say teaching a mixed Sunday school class is the same as exercising authority, which really is where the prohibition is. I am still learning and have much to learn.
Nonetheless, one thing I have recognized is that submission is at the heart of true Christianity and worshipping God. It compels me to subjugate whatever rights I think I might have, in favor of the greater good of orderly worship so ALL can learn and grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Besides, I have discovered that there are more than enough hurting and broken girls and women in need of ministry and sound bible education that I can focus on, to get a bee in my bonnet about whether I should be teaching a man or not.
Finally, just a note of personal observation, I can only hope that you approach the more essential components of our Christian hope with the same level of intensity as you have with this topic. In the end, God’s program for people and reconciling them to Himself most certainly should trump whatever secondary issues have us in a stew. And focus on that, I think is what deserves an intensity of our time and energy.
Like or Dislike:
0
For right now, as this computer is giving me some problems (I’ll be using a
different one later tonight…) I have another question related to whether or
not the statment Paul made on deception in v.14 pertained to all women.
Did he use Eve as a type of all women?
If Paul did use the singular ‘woman’ in v.14 genericaly to mean women
in general as is thought to be how he used the same singular ‘woman’ in
vv.11 & 12, then would we not all be able to conclude also that
even though ALL women are easily deceived ALL of them come out of
being deceived, as in fact Eve had done, which is seen in her answer to God?
So if Eve is representative of all women, then all women will become deceived
but also all women will come out of being deceived. Would Paul prohibit all
women from teaching because they will become deceived yet come out of
being deceived? Yet men can teach and Adam is representative of all men?
Therefore all men will rebel but STAY rebels for Adam stayed a rebel.
Like or Dislike:
0
testing
Like or Dislike:
0
I have been unable to comment from my home computer for the last few days. However, it appears that now I can.
Lisa,
I assure that I approach all facets of life with intensity. I am much better known in other domains than this one, I can assure you. As Abecedaria, I was well read by script experts and was only recalled to this domain by the intense pain and distress which I share with other broken women.
So, on how to encode Greek accents three or four different ways in Unicode, no problem, but I prefer to defend women against the charge of rebellion. Think of all the women who are abused in the home, due to the accusation of rebellion. In fact, submission to this kind of abuse breeds further abuse.
For many women, it is a spiral down into depression. I fought depression by learning to input in 12 different non-roman scripts, by recreating the Junia study, kephale study and authentein study. By writing my own aner study. I write and write. I found dozens of cases of aner as citizen and human being in Plato and other texts. (Grudem still claims that it means exclusively the male.)
I am actually best known for writing about special needs children and the use of technology in differentiated learning. My years of language study although intense have been replaced by intense service with the hearing impaired and Downs syndrome.
I plead that men treat other women fairly and that other women would be permitted to engage in doctoral studies, something that was denied me.
I ask the managers of this website to never again state that the egalitarian woman is rebellious. This justifies the abuse of many women. Even one small step taken to ameliorate the condition of women under violent authority would be a kind action in the eyes of God.
I also ask that someone sometime somewhere demonstrate that there is even one piece of evidence prior or contemporary to the NT that authentein meant proper leadership in the church. I honestly do not believe that this can be done.
Like or Dislike:
0
This represents the first 16 posts in my Junia study. There are several more but they are not collated.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue, I suspect that your comments about egalitarian women being rebellious was directed at me. But allow me to clarify the context, and point to what I really said: I never said that all egalitarian women are rebellious; and I certainly hope that you are not implying that all complementarian men are abusers of women simply because they are complementarian. Neither view is correct. You did seem to imply that a man who sees himself as in some sense an authority because of his gender is wrong and therefore useless. I think that that’s a bit uncharitable.
What I did say was that there are rebellious egalitarian women and there are triumphant complementarian men. Neither attitude is godly. And it’s precisely that kind of person who is so fixed on their agenda that they are not doing the kingdom much good because they are majoring on the minors (as someone has already expressed in this thread).
Let me put it this way: I would far rather work in ministry with an egalitarian women who walked humbly before her Lord than a haughty complementarian man who didn’t. It’s not the position that is the problem; it’s the attitude.
Finally, I can fully agree with your statement: “Even one small step taken to ameliorate the condition of women under violent authority would be a kind action in the eyes of God.” There is nothing that gets my ire up as much as hearing about men abusing their wives. Nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks Dan,
I accept that your comments on rebellion were not directed at anyone in particular. I would ask that these comments be tempered in future with consideration for the use that they may be put to. Thanks.
I am concerned that at this moment no one has ever provided even one piece of evidence that authenteo means “to have authority.” You have however, asked that I include in the currently recognized evidence “to commit violence.”
Now the two pieces of evidence for authenteo that have been established so far are
BGU 1208 – to compel established by Baldwin and agreed to by Grudem
scholia in Aeshchylus to commit violence – provided by Belleville and possibly agreed to by you
Do you have any other occurrences that you think could join this list?
Kostenberger suggests it occurs only once or twice prior to the NT so I do not think that there are many more.
Like or Dislike:
0
I am referring to
Scholia Graeca in Aeschylus, Eumenides 42a (first century B.C.): “The murderer, who had just committed an act of violence [authenteō ],” where authenteō (perfect participle) means “to commit violence” or “to murder.” which is in a tenth century manuscript as are other ancient writings.
Like or Dislike:
0
The following might be helpful. They are excerpts from Fr. Bill:
Otherwise, Sue’s fantasies of interpretation arise out of the “etymological root fallacy,” an interpretive error common among the amateurs and those with special agendas.
For an explanation of the root fallacy, click here . Also on this page is an explanation of an error dubbed “the overload fallacy.” It looks very much like what D. A. Carson has styled “the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy,” and Sue’s comments might well be an example of this interpretive fallacy as well.
Sue,
If you think that studying dictionaries is the way to do theology, I think we’ll always be talking past one another. It helps to read all the words, in the Biblical text, rather than run to a lexicon and cherry pick your way to the conclusion you want.
Sue,
There’s no problem with running to a lexicon. The problem arises when one gets there and finds a range of meanings, dependent on context, which the lexicon-user then ignores, resorting first to an interpretive criterion alien to the text in which the word appears. This generates any number of word-meaning fallacies, some of which I referred to in that link I provided. The “root fallacy” is one of the more common of these.
But, that’s the point of contention between egalitarians and complementarians (or patriarchalists or traditionalists). The latter believe (as the Church has always believed) that in the Bible God ordered relationships between the sexes (that ordering is named patriarchy), and that He reveals expectations He has of either sex, expectations that are different in many cases, particularly in the ways that the sexes relate to one another. Or, to God. Yes, God expects some things from men He does not expect from women, and vice-versa.
….
And, that’s why you and I use the lexicon differently. I am guided by a set of criteria obvious in the Bible that relates to God’s ordering of the relationships between the sexes, while you are guided criteria which discount (or, flatly reject) these same Biblical criteria.”
Like or Dislike:
0
TUAD,
You vastly misunderstand the situation. It is others who are running to lexicons. I cite the primary evidence that is available.
I note in the text of the Bible, this verse,
nicht als übers Volk herrschen, sondern werdet Vorbilder der Herde.
neque ut dominantes in cleris sed formae facti gregi et ex animo
Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock.
In the standard accepted lexicons in German authenteo is herrschen and in latin it is dominari.
What seems to be taught is that in 1 Peter 5:3 dominari is not an appropriate way to lead in church, but in 1 TImothy 2:12 it is. Do you agree with this treatment of the scriptures?
I note that my comments to Fr. Bill were on his ballerina boy post, where I remarked that the excellent woman was called the “ανδρεια” (manly) woman in Greek and the “forte” (strong) woman in Latin. It was just a bit of honest fun, and quite accurate. I don’t think there was any orgument about it. He said that he respected women for being strong. Perhaps the use of andreia was a little unusual, but only in fun. After all, it is quite legitimate to use the word as either manly or courageous. This was the main epithet for Ruth and the Proverbs 31 woman. But I did mean it as a play on words because of the ballerina and his claim that masculinity which he related to men and God was about chest hair and a beard. Or something of that sort I forget which. It was funny. I mean, he had intended to be funny. I am sure.
Like or Dislike:
0
This might be helpful as well:
Green Baggins, #25: “Sue, a couple of thoughts here. Firstly, the range of authenteo is by no means limited to negative “domineering.” That is one possibility, but by no means the only possibility. Even Baldwin, in his monumental, exhaustive study of the word did not conlude that domineer is an impossibility. See pages 49-51 of the second edition of _Women in the Church_. Simple, positively viewed “having authority” is a genuinely attested usage. Add to that Kostenberger’s unshaken (and basically unchallenged) study of the syntax of “neither this nor that” such that both activities are viewed either positively or both negatively (and it is quite apparent that teaching is viewed positively, since negative teaching has another word for it), then authenteo is viewed positively as simply having authority. That is then negatived such that women are not to have authority over men in the church.”
Sue, #96: “This is the first time I have posted on a site where people don’t read Greek. I am not used to working from commentaries. I really don’t know what else to say. I can’t show you how it works if you don’t read Greek.”
Green Baggins, #97: “I have had 7 years of Greek, Sue, including 3 years of classical Greek at St. Olaf College, and 4 years of NT Greek at Westminster Theological Seminary. What on earth made you think that I don’t read Greek?”
Green Baggins, #100: “Fancy that, Sue. Two people who both understand Greek coming to completely opposite conclusions about what the word means. I don’t think it is the first time. …
You still have not answered the grammatical argument of Kostenberger. His argument does not depend on the meaning of authenteo. In fact, his argument heavily influences how we should read the verb.”
Green Baggins, #101: “Sue, my confusion over two very similar names should not lead anyone to conclude that I don’t read Greek. This does not give me much confidence in your powers of logic.
Sue, are you truly teachable? Are you truly humble? I have tried exceedingly hard not only to listen to your arguments, but to all the egalitarian arguments. I have tried to answer your arguments. As sad as your experience with men in the past has been, it in no way constitutes any reason why I should be convinced by your arguments. This is not to downplay what you have experienced. The interpretation of passages of Scripture cannot be based on our experience. Rather, Scripture judges our experience.”
Green Baggins, #104: “No, Sue, I have not in the least sidestepped Philodemus. I argued that just because we do not have the original any longer does not mean that we don’t have it. So your argument about it not existing is not valid.
…
Contrary to your assertion, Sue, I am not side-stepping your arguments. Rather, you are side-stepping mine.”
From Galatians 3:28 and Feminism
Like or Dislike:
0
Green Baggins writes,
Simple, positively viewed “having authority” is a genuinely attested usage.
By what evidence? It is not published.
and it is quite apparent that teaching is viewed positively,
Not in Titus 1:11
What on earth made you think that I don’t read Greek?”
His repeated use of Andronicus instead of Aristonicus. It was very confusing.
You still have not answered the grammatical argument of Kostenberger.
Kostenberger could be right. If authentein means to compel or commit violence and therefore has a negative connotation, then didaskein could have a negative sense also, as it does in Titus 1:11. I don’t see a problem with this reasoning.
“Sue, my confusion over two very similar names should not lead anyone to conclude that I don’t read Greek. This does not give me much confidence in your powers of logic.
I am sorry but it was an honest mistake. I could not tell from his comments that he had studied Greek.
Sue, are you truly teachable? Are you truly humble?
I count among my teachers Waltke and Fee.
“No, Sue, I have not in the least sidestepped Philodemus. I argued that just because we do not have the original any longer does not mean that we don’t have it. So your argument about it not existing is not valid.
I don’t think there is even one theologian who accepts Philodemus. I posted it on my site and asked GB to translate it if he wanted to use it as evidence, but he declined.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sue and I have enjoyed discussing this issue in the past.
Here’s a sample:
Sue: “When are people going to understand that the greatest danger to women in America and all over the world is their own husband. Ask any emergency ward.
This is what women need protection from.”
Me: “To see such rancid bitterness manifest itself ….
Ai-yi-yi-yi-yi. Not good.”
Sue: “Sadly, this is a fact. It should not get in the way of confronting the meaning of authenteo.”
Sue: “The highest cause of mortality to a pregnant woman in America is homicide by the father of the baby. I was myself shocked. I am just citing facts, unpalatable facts.”
Me: “The highest cause of mortality to unborn babies in America is the decision by the mother of the baby to abort the baby. 1.3 million abortions per year in America. (2005 data). I was myself shocked. I am just citing facts, unpalatable facts.”
——
Tim Bayly offers the following:
“”Sue” claims to be an expert in Greek after many years of study and she has many citations she uses to bolster her idiosyncratic views. But here is how one New Testament scholar with the Ph.D. from Cambridge University sums up “Sue’s” own scholarship: “From what she has written here, I would not be able to say that “Sue” should be considered a reliable source of information for understanding Greek or for quoting other authors (like myself) fairly and with attention to context.” The evidence support[ing] this statement is insurmountable.
…
But then “Sue” added to my tension (and exasperation, really) by telling us that she was an abused wife who bore on her body the inevitable marks of patriarchy.
Of course, I was not exasperated because “Sue” talked about her abuse publicly; healing requires fellowship and love from brothers and sisters in Christ. Rather, I was exasperated because “Sue” used her abuse as a weapon in her war against the plain meaning of the Word of God and I knew from long experience that her bringing up her victimhood, legitimate though it may be, would be a straitjacket it would be exceedingly difficult to escape in dealing with her deceptions and errors here, publicly.”
Like or Dislike:
0
TUAD,
You are very good at intenet research. Have you found any citations for authentein that have been translated as “to have authority” for occurrences prior to the NT?
Like or Dislike:
0
If Christendom teaches doctrine which disempowers women then it has to be responsible for the fallout.
I will always come back and ask for evidence for the teachings of the church.
Like or Dislike:
0
Nobody cares what my education is. Either these are the only two citations which attest to the meaning of authentein or they are not.
BGU 1208 – to compel established by Baldwin and agreed to by Grudem
Scholia Graeca in Aeschylus, Eumenides 42a (first century B.C.): “The murderer, who had just committed an act of violence [authenteō ],” where authenteō (perfect participle) means “to commit violence” or “to murder.” which is in a tenth century manuscript as are other ancient writings.
Do you have any other occurrences that you think could join this list?
Kostenberger suggests it occurs only once or twice prior to the NT so I do not think that there are many more.
I am flexible on this, but “to have authority” is unattested.
Like or Dislike:
0
(In edit mode) Eh, this comment went through. Okay, now that I’ve lost my last comment…
Like or Dislike:
0
Truth unites et al,
Lets put the shoe on the other foot. I have as much experience as Dr Wallace in reading Classical and Koine Greek texts. I have more understanding and expertise than your Cambridge associate. So there.
The fact of the matter is no one has settled this issue – exegetically. If the exegetes were arrayed along denominational lines the Methodists, the PCUSA ists, Anglicanismists [sic] the Pentecostalists, the libertine Baptists as well as the ignorant, backwoods plebs and sophistic secular humanistic feminists would all plead justification in the espousal of their misnomerd erudition.
Every and any English gloss that is offered to translate authenein is limited to the point of being misleading without a broader understanding of its context wherein which it is found and in particular the ecclesiology as defined and determined by St Paul’s definition and establishment of Christ’s Church’s structure upon and beyond the Apostolic foundation.
Look again at Dr Wallace’s list of alledged understandings of the words.
1. authentein means ‘usurp authority’ and women are not allowed to usurp a man’s authority;
2. ‘woman’ and ‘man’ should be translated ‘wife’ and ‘husband’; thus a single woman may be a pastor but a married woman may not;
3. oude forms a hendiadys so that ‘teach’ and ‘exercise authority’ mean ‘authoritatively teach’ while other kinds of teaching are OK;
4. didaskein…ouk epitrepo means ‘I do not currently permit’; thus, it would be acceptable to teach men at other times and thus the command is not universal;
5. authentein means to ‘murder’ (!); and ritual symbolic murder is not permitted to women, but instead they must respect their husbands;
6. ‘teach’ is absolute (with no object) and ‘exercise authority’ is specifically related to men; thus, the absolute prohibition of women teaching is contradicted by Titus 2.4 where older women teach younger women. This thus proves that the prohibition was never meant to be of universal applicability.
7. Paul is following rabbinic practices here and is wrong; on a theological trajectory, we need to make corrections to this practice, especially in light of Gal 3.28.
Look again at Eumenides. How do you know autheneo means commit murder apart from the context and not rape? Both are acts of extreme violence.
How do you know that “pax” means peace with various, shades of meaning in the NT, but in romana lex “pax romana” can mean “crushed bones” – yours.
Sue, please, consider further the closer and broader contexts in St Paul. Its doubtful that this will or has been done by the “superecclesiastics.”
Sue, I’m glad you are flexable on “to have authority over”. Me too. It is vague enough to require the reader to think and investigate further beyond the closer context into the broader one in order to understand St Paul.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Dan Wallace on 13 Nov 2008 at 11:46 pm wrote post 101. In it he points out that there are quite a few possible egal interpretations of 1 Tim 2:12 and that they are not all consistent, while there is one primary non-egal interpretation and it is consistent.
My take is that this frames the discussion so the non-egal interpretation appears best. But I do not frame it this way, and I invite everyone to consider my framing.
The first aspect is that we are not Timothy. Timothy was Paul’s spiritual son and as such would have a large shared context with Paul. When this happens, communication can be compressed, as the other party knows how to fill in the gaps. This shared context that we do not share is not the only challenge, it is also by Paul, who Peter said can be misunderstood in the 1st century, plus the challenges of reading a letter, which is like half of a phone transcript, plus the challenges of Paul writing in a different culture and language than ours.
My take is that all these challenges in combination should make us humble about our ability to KNOW FOR SURE what Paul was saying when in addition to the above challenges, there are various choices to make for the verse in question, the ones that are illustrated by the egal possible interpretations Dr. Wallace listed.
For example, how do we KNOW epitrepo is used in the permanent or temporary sense, i.e., as “permitting” or “now permitting”?
How do we KNOW authentein has a positive or negative connotation?
Why did Paul use the hapax authentein?
How do we KNOW disdaskein has a positive or negative connotation (to teach or to teach falsely)? There is evidence for either use in the NT, as Sue points out.
How do we KNOW there is a hendiadys or not? That is, is it one thing Paul is discussing or 2?
My take is Timothy DID know the answers to all these questions (and similar for other verses) but we are not Timothy! So we need to be humble. Yes there is a way to navigate through all the choices and end up with a non-egal interpretation; but there are also ways to navigate through all the choices and end up with an egal interpretation!
So which is the correct original meaning for the whole statement? I do not see how anyone can say for sure, there is simply not enough info. They might be able to say something like “I have 80% confidence that it means X.” but I do not see how anyone can say “I have 100% confidence that it means X.” When one is not sure, then the right answer is that one is not sure.
When non-egals make their choices that end up with a non-egal interpretation, egals can claim that is because of their agenda. And vice versa. Both sides have an agenda. Everyone wants to be objective but each person will have their own worldview coming into the process of interpretation, it cannot be helped.
This is one reason I think it is SO IMPORTANT to be gracious to those with the other viewpoint, as Dr. Wallace points out. And I appreciate that greatly. Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vladimir,
I remain flexible about meeting further occurrences of authentein. So far, none suggest “to have authority”
There is BGI 1208 to compel or prevail, to make someone do something.
Scholia in A. is to commit an act of violence, murder or rape.
Tetrabiblos is the control in astrological terms.
Hippolytus is to treat someone in some way that accords with end times anarchy and violence.
Even if we were to come up with a neutral notion of dominate, then 1 Peter 5:3 clearly says not to do that. Just don’t do it.
This is the evidence of egalitarians. Where is the opposing evidence?
Surely if women are to be placed under authority, they have the right to see the evidence that this is what God’s wants in their life. Otherwise, it means women spend their life deciding on each decision of the man in authority over them, is this just a positive or neutral action, or is this a sinful act that I am being asked to do, and do I now resist for the sake of reisting sin.
Surely, this is not a secondary issue in the lives of women. Why are women not worthy of being given a straight answer? Why something so momentous in their life and nobody bothers to give them any justification.
Basically, I get the answer – “because I say so.”
Surely if there is any doubt, a scintilla of a doubt, why would anyone impose such suffering on women in the name of God.
World Vision has a policy to promote equal participation of women in all decision-making as a preventive of poverty and suffering of women and children. Shouldn’t the church want to export this same notion.
But the church exports the ESV Study Bible which says in one article that the Father plans, directs and sends, and the son is subject to the fathers authority, and obedient to his will. At the end of the paragraph is suggests that this is the primary model for equality in human relationships.
I ask women – do they want to be planned for, directed and sent by the man in their life? Do they have to be at all times subject to his authority, and obedient to his will? Is this what we want all women in the world to do, to be obedient to men and sent by them? Is this Christianity?
What about the prisoners, the poor, the lame, and the blind? Those raped and damaged? Not a word about them.
Like or Dislike:
0
Don,
I agree with you that no one can know for sure. However, I simply feel that since those who want to deprive women of authority cannot know for sure, then they ought to seek the good of women. This is the God given task of men.
If it could be proven that women were less intelligent, more gullible, unable to make their own decisions, unfit to drive cars, unfit to lead, unfit to care for their own families, unfit to make decisions for their children, = less capable than men – then put women under care. Widows and single parents like myself would need to be placed under the guardianship of a male, and so on.
But, the vast number of people involved in the welfare of women and children around the world, say that women need to have equal participation in decision-making. I stand with those people.
But, Don, I appreciate your comments.
Like or Dislike:
0
My unstated conclusion is that since I am unsure exactly what 1 Tim 2 means, then I move up to the higher level Kingdom principles and choose to interpret it along the lines of justice and freedom.
If one is going to interpret it as permanent restrictions and hierarchy, then one would want to be very sure, I would think.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vladimir,
I know you are saying that I don’t address the broader context. Let me mention few thoughts.
Paul’s life was full of women who may or may not have been single or widowed, but who clearly were the heads of their own households, in terms of being independent agents who opened their house to others without referring to a husband.
Lydia, the elect lady, Nympha were hostesses of their own home. Phoebe was a prostatis and diakonos. These can be translated as minister and leader. Prostates is our guardian and defender. There are some English translations, older ones, which translate prostatis as defender or protector. Prostates is also the temple officer and worship leader. Food for thought.
Women clearly had some authority, and authority which they could use on the behalf of men. This is absolutely certain from the text. It is also clear from Paul’s writing that authority was not “over” others, but for their sake. Women exercised authority for the sake of men all the time in the Bible. And likewise, men ought to exercise authority for the sake of women.
All the rhetoric of men having authority “over” women reads like Aristotle, because women were a little limited in decision-making dept. the boule, βουλη right. So suggests Aristotle.
But this is not taught in the NT.
I have a Greek Bible, the Vamva Bible, perhaps you are familiar with it. It says that andronicus and Junia were επισημοι μεταξυ τοις αποστολοις. Does this not give you the distinct impression that Junia was actually one of the apostles.
My question for you is why have men in America today felt that it was necessary to translate Romans 16:7 as Junia was well-known to the apostles? Clearly someone wants to avoid the suggestion that women had some kind of leadership role.
Since the ESV, HSCB, and NET Bibles say that Junia is only well-known to the apostles, we are not even reading the same Bible, so we don’t have the same context. It is regrettable.
Like or Dislike:
0
I was rereading my comment and see a rather glaring error.
In the Vamva Bible Romans 16:7 contains the expression
οιτινες ειναι επισημοι μεταξυ των αποστολων.
I misremembered.
Like or Dislike:
0
‘I think in the least that vv 13 and 14 need to be read as referring to the
Genesis narrative.’
Since Paul switched from ‘Eve’ in v.13 *back* to ‘ woman’ in v.14, in the very
least it is possible that he had in mind the same specific woman of vv.11 & 12,
saying that ‘this woman’ is deceived or deluded and in sin.
‘Whether Paul meant for the statement about deception to apply to all women
is another matter.’
Did Paul use the grammatical singular genericaly for all women consistently
throughout the passage? The non-egal claim is that he did use it genericaly in
vv 11 & 12, but what about v.14? Did he use Eve as representative for all
women? How can we know for sure? If he did then Adam is represenative of
all men. Women will come out of their weakness, as Eve did but men will not
as Adam did not.
‘This, in fact, is what really troubles me about the text.
If Paul is anchoring his reason for why women should not teach men to
Genesis 2 (the ‘for’ at the beginning of v 13 most naturally means that he’s
explaining why a woman should not be permitted to teach a man), then he’s
building his argument on something that goes beyond the church and beyond
the fall.’
I’d say that first of all because Paul switches from plural ‘women’ (vv.9 & 10)
to singular ‘a woman’ (beginning with v.11) that it’s possible he is stopping
a specific woman from teaching a specific man (her husband). And then
we should consider one of the reasons he gives is ‘for Adam was created
first then Eve and Adam was not deceived.’ Cheryl Schatz has given her view,
in her DVD set, Women in Ministry, Silenced or Set Free, for why Paul gives
this as one reason.
The question is, why was Adam not deceived? We know he was created first
and we do NOT need Paul to tell us this to read it for ourselves in the
Genesis narrative. Can we gather from the narrative the reason why Adam
was not deceived? You bet! If Paul was able to tie it into Adam’s creation then
we too can read the narrative and should be able to do the same! Paul says
that he was created first and ties that to his not being deceived. So what
about Adam’s priority of creation protected him from being deceived? Paul
does NOT connect him not being deceived to his nature of being a man, and
neither does Paul connect the woman’s deception to her nature of being a
woman. And we know that the woman of v.11 & 12 is commanded to learn
and could be the same woman of v.14 (which appears to be the plain reading).
So in v.14, someone IS said to be deceived. There is no escaping that. The
options are that ‘woman’ is 1) a reference to Eve (Paul unnecessarily switches
from refering to the first woman of the garden by using her proper name to
calling her ‘woman’), 2) generic for all women (as thought to be the meaning
in vv. 11 & 12 by non-egals and would at least be consistent), 3) the same
woman of vv. 11 & 12 (also a consistent interpretation).
In v.14, about this woman it is said that she ‘has become deceived and has
fallen into sin’. So to me this sounds like a present situation whereas Eve is
dead, and she came out her deception anyway.
‘As for the switch between singular and plural, this is simply a natural way to
write as a stream of conscientiousness. In the next chapter, Paul speaks of
the bishop in the singular, but the deacons in the plural. And yet, the early
church had a multiplicity of elders/bishops, not just one. We shouldn’t make
too much out of the number there.’
What switch between singular and plural are you referring to? Paul made a
switch from plural ‘women’ (vv.9 & 10) to singular ‘a woman’ (v.11) and
continued throughtout the passage with the grammatical singular, ending
with a singular reference, ‘she’ (v.15).
Those are my thoughts in reply to your response, Dan, but I think I have one
other comment about the differences of interpretation that I’d like to post.
Like or Dislike:
0
There is a point I would like to get across.
Since there are options that we have to choose from when interpreting Paul’s
use of the grammatical singular throughout the passage, the 2 preferred
being singular specific (whether woman of wife) or generic for all women
(or wives), and since someone IS deceived (v.14), and since we can all agree
on principle that deceived persons should not teach, and that they should
learn (v.11) therefore what we have in the very least is that Paul stopped 1
woman (who was deceived) from teaching 1 man.
What needs to be done then is that contextual support be given for the idea
that Paul stopped more than 1 woman. At what point in the context alone,
after he makes the plural (v10) to singular (v11) switch does one find the
idea that Paul also intended to stop all women from teaching, even having
ended with a singular reference, ‘she’? Even in the very least Paul could have
been using Eve to show that 1 woman was deceived and was reason for why
she should not teach. It’s a given that Paul stopped AT THE VERY LEAST one
woman. Anyone can claim the generic option to interpret Paul with but where
is the contextual support and what contextual support proves it?
Like or Dislike:
0
Whew – there have been some complex verbiage and ideology flying around this post the last day or so.
Scott, I appreciate your words: “I am saying that the scripture invites layers of response – to choose to respond to governance issues at the expense of the gospel defeats the mission of the church.” This was the point I also hoped to make. The gospel should always be our primary focus and when non-essentials divide us in such extreme ways, the gospel is masked behind the veil of mediocrity and humanity.
This subject really is simple. It doesn’t take pages and pages of exegesis to understand one little passage in the light of the whole totality of scripture. I don’t believe you have to be a theologian to understand it.
Mar 10:15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”
God knew that even children could understand his gospel message. God knew that a child would not argue and exegete just to be shown correct. A child trusts his father to lead.
Gal. 3:28 cannot be overlooked. The view soaring above the entirety of scripture cannot be ignored as you dig into one small verse. There is a big expansive picture that scripture paints for us — and there are the nuances of individual text which intrigue us. One does not exist without the other.
I do see that as the conversation becomes more technical, God view is often seen less and man’s words/opinions desire to be heard more. Kind of reminds me of the Pharisees and how they argued with Jesus about all of the technicalities of the Jewish law. Jesus simply says — come to me as a child. I will reside in you and teach you all of my ways — whether you are Jew, Greek, man, woman. I created each of you in my image. You are my child – a reflection of me.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I believe in contending for the faith. I believe in studying God’s Word to be approved – accurately handling the word of truth. I believe in the value of honest theologians. But there is a big picture here….and it’s getting buried.
Vladimir, regarding your comment: “If the exegetes were arrayed along denominational lines the Methodists, the PCUSA ists, Anglicanismists [sic] the Pentecostalists, the libertine Baptists as well as the ignorant, backwoods plebs and sophistic secular humanistic feminists would all plead justification in the espousal of their misnomerd erudition…”
This comment puts you in the category of a triumphant complementarian, as Dan described it. Not all churches within denominations are alike. I now go to a USA Pres church — but we are extremely conservative and not at all like the bulk of the denomination. There is a solid movement within the denomination to retain its conservative roots — it is a struggle for us, the minority, but better to contend for the faith rather than to flee to another denomination which is also struggling with other issues. No one was more surprised than I was to find the struggling remnant of conservatives within the USA Pres. You cannot lump all churches into one pretty mold.
By virtue of association, you called us “ignorant” and “backwoods”. Even ignorant and backwoods people love God. With child-like faith, they walk faithfully in the ways of God…..perhaps even more than many educated individuals who use text to justify their means and opinions.
Christians who love the Lord desire to humbly walk before our God —- examining each footstep to see whether we remain in the faith. I, as an egalitarian do this. I see complementarians who do this. I know many egalitarians AND complentarians who are intelligent, humble and full of the Spirit of God. To label egalitarians as ignorant and backwoods (because you included us in that category) is inaccurate and well…..
Let us focus on: 1 Peter 3:8-16
James 1:27
1 Peter 4:10-11
Finally — As I ponder this topic today, I recall this verse: 1Ti 3:10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.
The question is: who then, is blameness enough to be a deacon?
If we nitpick this passage, we would understand that no one is blameless — thus we would have no deacons. The argument of gender is just as simple as 1 Tim. 3:10. Fly above the passage and see God’s bigger picture for His people. We have a God who loves a sinful, repentant people — all of them.
Like or Dislike:
0
One thing that is a puzzle about these verses is that Paul refers to Eve in a curious way. The woman once she was named Eve was not deceived, she was only deceived BEFORE being named Eve and then recognized she was deceived when questioned by God, which shows she was no longer deceived.
So I see it as entirely possible that “woman” in the next verse is NOT Eve.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hey Don, thanks for pointing that out. VERY interesting. Something to think
about.
Like or Dislike:
0
If I may, I would like to present my objections to the teaching that the Holy Spirit through Paul was restricting women from teaching the bible to men. I think that these questions are worthy of being asked because if we are going to restrict the gifts of our sisters in Christ from using their God-given gifts for the common good, then we need to think long and hard that perhaps we have misunderstood Paul and one unique verse. I am very interested in anyone willing to dialog on these questions and willing to provide well thought-out answers:
1. If Paul meant to restrict all women for all time from being able to teach the bible to their Christian brothers, then why did he place this “law” (1 Timothy 2:12) in a book that was written to one person instead of putting it into a book clearly written to the entire church?
2. Why didn’t Paul repeat this universal prohibition in another one of his books so that we could be sure it wasn’t just a problem situation in Ephesus?
3. Why is this “universal” law not repeated by any of the other apostles if it is for all Christian women for all of history?
4. Every single law of God is given more than one time in scripture because all universal law has a second witness. Paul said in Philippians 3:1 that repetition is for our safety and he was glad to repeat things so that it was “safe”. Why did Paul never repeat the universal “law” against women teaching the bible to men?
5. Every universal “law” has its origin in the Old Testament. Where is the origin of the universal “law” that prohibits women from teaching the bible to men? How come no OT woman had a law that forbid her from teaching the bible to men?
6. How come if 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal law that prohibits every Christian woman from teaching the bible to men, that Paul didn’t place it in a passage that was completely understandable? Why did he place this “law” in a passage that has a word that is unique and hard to understand? (authentein) How come Paul ends the prohibition with the conclusion in verse 15 which is admittedly one of the hardest passages to understand with changing grammar (she AND they) and which attaches the issue of salvation to the prohibition? How is the “law” against women teaching men the bible connected to salvation (verse 15) and how is it connected to deception (verse 14)?
7. Was Paul trying to make it difficult to understand that the prohibition was for all women for all of time? If not then how come he put the prohibition in a passage that has so many people confused about whether it is cultural or for all time? Don’t you think that if it was for all women for all of time that Paul would have made it clear by repeating the prohibition in a letter to the church?
8. Why didn’t Paul make it clear why women before Christ had more freedom than women after Christ? How come women before Christ could teach the bible to men and were not forbidden but after Paul’s epistle (and hence after Christ) women couldn’t teach the bible to men? Does it make sense that women after Christ’s coming had less freedom than before his coming?
9. If one is going to restrict women from using their gifts for the entire body of Christ and require them to be prejudiced against their dear brothers in Christ, shouldn’t we have a reason why only women after Christ should be forced to be prejudiced and withhold their gifts from men? Where were the Old Testament women not forced to be prejudiced and withhold their teaching gifts from men? If we cannot answer these questions, then maybe we should reason this one through. Why would God make teaching the bible a sin depending on who is listening to the godly teaching?
These are questions that I have asked many people and I have not had answers yet. I trust that we can agree that my sincere questions deserve to be answered.
Like or Dislike:
0
Several thoughts on reading thru these comments.
Having less disagreements in an egalitarian church is not evidence of its truthfulness.
Having a command a single time is not questionable, especially if it was already understood and so the matter was raised in response to incorrect practice.
Commands for women to submit are not commands for men to enforce this. One can only act on the commands they are given and men are not told to force there wives into submission anywhere in Scripture that I am aware of.
Righting injustice in the name of “justice” can be very dangerous and can lead to horrific evils. We are to do justice, but to force the end of injustices on a global scale is highly likely to lead to worse injustice. Review the life of Absalom.
I don’t think women should not teach because of increased risk of deception (even if that is likely to be true). This is probably not was Paul means about Eve’s deception as that would suggest they should never teach and they are allowed to teach (at the least) women and children, and probably individuals. I think Moo’s comments are helpful here.
There are some accepted differences between men and women so equal in value different in function has legitimate meaning, even if it is not agreed to.
There are other passages than just Timothy.
Like or Dislike:
0
My concern about the egalitarian position on Timothy is that it doesn’t take into consideration other Scripture that points away from their position. In the passage on Ephesians marriage is said to be a type of Christ and the church, therefore the relationship of a husband to a wife has some difference to a wife to her husband.
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5)
Further, Peter tells wives to obey their husbands.
For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. (1 Peter 3)
So if Paul is forbidding teaching by women in the church to men because he wants the structure of leadership to be reflective of the godhead and/ or the relationship of the Church Bride to Christ, then this is consistent with these other passages. Ie. even if the egalitarians are right about Timothy, these other positions suggest that the axioms of egalitarianism in the church are still incorrect.
Like or Dislike:
0
There are some accepted differences between men and women so equal in value different in function has legitimate meaning, even if it is not agreed to.
Are you with Aristotle in believing that men are made for command and women for subordination?
Like or Dislike:
0
Why does Paul have female friends that are not under any male head.
Phoebe is his prostatis, protector, or defender.
Lydia was the head of her household.
The elect lady represented a group of Christians.
Nympha had a church in her home.
Chloe represented a group of Christians.
How was this pattern which Paul recognized reflective of male headship? Clearly Paul did not abide by that, but preached to leading women and had women as coworkers without assigning them to be under men.
Like or Dislike:
0
If I may, I would like to present my objection to the teaching that the Holy Spirit through Divinely-Inspired Scripture was unclear in providing transcendent and normative instructions on the ordering of relationships between men and women such that the direct implication is that the Holy Spirit is inadequate and insufficient as a Divine Communicator. Such teaching is a grave insult to the Godhead.
Dr. Gordon Clark wrote the following:
“The Protestant Reformation, for all its opposition to Romanism, never questioned the practice of ordaining men only. Now, if this practice has continued from the time of Abraham down to 1960 or thereabouts, those who are innovators surely must bear the burden of proof. The Westminster Confession indeed says, ‘All Synods…may err, and many have erred.’ Therefore it is theoretically possible that the Reformed Presbyterian Church is in error. But when the agreement is worldwide over 4,000 years, it is, I repeat, extremely improbable. Therefore a mountainous burden of proof rests on those who advocate the ordination of women.”
Like or Dislike:
0
hey tu…ad–
how was your summer? do anything fun? read any good books?
scott
Like or Dislike:
0
Apostate atheist Scott Gray,
Thanks for asking. I read the True Woman Manifesto and it’s a God-glorifying document.
May everyone in Christendom affirm this manifesto.
Like or Dislike:
0
i doubt that, very much.
Like or Dislike:
0
t–
you get any fishing done this summer?
a. a. scott
Like or Dislike:
0
bethyada,
Eph 5 and 1 Pet 3 need to be understood in their cultural context.
1 Pet 3 does not actually say a wife is to obey her husband. We can also look at the example of Sarah WHEN she obeyed and also that Abraham obeyed her. The 1st century context is that wives were expected and even required to obey, but a believing wife COULD NOT obey her husband on the matter of household “gods”, she had to refuse.
Eph 5 tells a husband to serve his wife and uses the example of Christ serving the church. All the examples are serving examples, going beyond serving your wife is not warranted by Scripture.
More Comments:
« Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »