In my last post, I mentioned the need to check for yourself the references supplied as ‘proof texts’ by preachers or writers. I gave the example of cross-references given by the Roman Catholic Catechism in support of its doctrine of purgatory. Today, I have two more examples of claims made by evangelical academics that were only disproved by checking the references myself. Both concern the gender debates.

Rejecting the idea based on 1 Corinthians 11:3 that order in relationships between men and women reflect order within the Trinity, Graham Cole correctly notes that “Paul does not write that the head of the Son is the Father, but that the head of Christ is God”. He claims that this is a messianic reference, and refers to the economic rather than the essential Trinity. He then asserts that this verse should be grouped alongside 1 Corinthians 3:21-23 and 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 as ‘subordinationist’ texts which refer only to the economy of salvation.

What Cole does not mention (as I only discovered by looking up the cross-reference) is that the parallel text in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 does, in fact, refer to the “Father” (v. 24) and the “Son” (v. 28), and not just to God and Christ. This weakens his case that these are simply economic references. Indeed, from these latter verses, it certainly appears at the very least that the economic subordination continues into eternity. (See my full reply to Graham's paper .)

Not so long ago, I also read a review of Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 entitled, ‘The Scholarship of Patriarchy’ by Alan G. Padgett. In this review, Padgett is more complimentary about Andreas Köstenberger's chapter than the others. In particular, Padgett concedes,

He provides a convincing syntactical analysis of v. 12, concluding that the verbs “to teach” and “to have authority” (authentein) are either viewed both negatively or both positively by the author, on the basis of the language used (89).

But Padgett then says,

Köstenberger is wrong to assert that “to teach” is always positive in Paul, as Titus 1:11, 1 Timothy 1:7 and 6:3 make clear. In the Pastorals, at least, “to teach” can indeed be negative. This fact undermines a major point the book seeks to make, viz. that Paul forbids good teaching and good authority to women.

I read this and thought, “Oh, oh, it seems like Padgett must have found some counter examples”. But then I thought I'd better look them up for myself. Here's an example where it can help to know the original languages (or at least to know how to use an interlinear).

What we discover is that only one of his three examples actually uses the verb in question itself—“to teach” (didaskein)—at all! And this does not occur in the relevant letter (1 Timothy), but in Titus 1:11. (It is fair to say it has a negative sense there.) Checking the Greek in Padgett's supposed ‘counter-examples’ from 1 Timothy shows that, unlike 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul was not using the verb “to teach” in these other cross-references, but compound words instead:

• In 1 Timothy 1:7, it's a compound noun: “law-teachers” (nomodidaskoloi), translated by English versions as “teachers of the law”, and
• In 1 Timothy 6:3, it's a compound verb: “to teach differently” (heterodidaskelei), translated as “teaches false doctrines” (NIV) or ”teaches a different doctrine” (ESV).

So checking Padgett's ‘proof texts’ shows that he was not actually comparing apples with apples. These compound words only form a subcategory of false teaching which is viewed negatively. They do not provide counter examples to Köstenberger's thesis that, overwhelmingly, the activity of teaching in general in Paul's letters is a positive thing. This means that it is a normally positive thing—‘teaching’ alongside ‘having authority’—that is being prohibited for women with respect to men in 1 Timothy 2:12.

The moral of the story is: check the proof texts! Please do as Nathan Walter suggests: look up the passages referred to in sermons or articles for yourself, and check whether they really do say what the author asserts they are saying!

1 Comment »