Hi Walter!

Keep your eye on this website - Equal and Complementary - as they are going to try and load the MP3s of the talks.

Jean.

Hey Jean,

Thanks! Will keep an eye out.

Hey Mike,

Isn’t that covered by Jean already? Refer to her coverage of Martin Pakula’s exposition. And how would you define female prophecy - forthtelling or foretelling?

Hi walter, I suppose it does address it a little. But for those with an ecclessiology that says whenever the word is heard in a group of christians, there you have a gathering, this definition becomes extremely restrictive again. Also I would like to know what constitutes ‘authoratative’ bible teaching. Can a woman preach non-authoratively? can a man preach non-authoratuvely? What exactly is it that gives the authority, so we know what to avoid for women? (and perhaps more importantly, how to view the teaching of our ‘authorative’ male teachers. Does it mean they cannot be questioned? Is it all the staff, just some, or not dependent on appointment at all?)

If we cant give answers to these questions, then what does the statement of Mr Pakula actually mean? And if we can give definite answers to these questions (and many do), what is to stop us from describing those who have different answers as sinful.(ie obstinantly disobeying the word of God).
As for prophecy, well, it seems to be some kind of public speech which encourages, comforts and builds up the congregation, and which, when true and not false, is recognised as the speech of God through a human. Could be fore or forth or both. But if we see it as a completely different category to ‘authorative teaching’, then it should be ok for the ladies. Should they just avoid Bible references?or speaking the truths of the gospel?Does this happen in your church?

And does this mean we should not weigh up the words of preachers, since now they are in this ‘authorative teacher’ category?

Hi Martin,
re prophecy, do you think that was how it worked in the early churches? Does a missionary report contain a ‘revelation’? Should ‘prophecy’ exclude imparting knowledge about the scriptures and the gospel/ and exhortation or appeal to congregational action? If not it sounds surprisingly similar to the ‘she is preaching under my authority’ line I’ve heard from a number of Anglican rectors. I thought complementarians (ala Grudem) saw this as a terrible cop out.
or is the problem that we do do alot of ‘prophecying’ in the form of preaching, and not that much authoritative teaching? If that is the case, why stop women preaching?

I like the process you outlined though!

ok, so prophecying is not teaching.
Don’t you find it strange that we know exactly what the technical term ‘teach’ means, and that it maps neatly onto our modern half hour (min) monologue, yet we have a very fuzzy idea what the practice of prophecying involves and how we might live it out?
Surely the authority of preaching isn’t its form, which changes from place to place and from time to time.

If the authority of preaching is truly intrinsic due to its content (rather than the extrinsic authority placed on it from the congregation or by appointment) when should we be worried about upfront female prophets slipping into preaching? Should I confess my sin if I learn something about God or his word from a woman up the front? Or is it only if they refer to the bible?

i know this is a lot of questions, but could you clarify what you mean by ‘congregational setting’? Is this just the sunday meeting? Or is it any gathering of mixed gender christians? does it include Bible studies, university lectures curch house parties, youth groups?

Does teach simply mean ‘make someone learn something’ or is it more technical than that? If it is this simple, how do you reconcile the cognitive elements of prophecy in 1 Cor 14?

Hi Mike

It’s an interesting conversation we’re having!  I hope others are finding it helpful.

We know what the word “teach” means quite well, because you can do an extensive word study on it in the New Testament that yields definite results.  In 1 Tim 2:12 it therefore has quite a technical meaning.  It doesn’t mean any kind of instruction about any matter (as we might mean in English).  It refers to the content of the gospel or the Bible.  1 Tim 3 refers to male elders who are indeed appointed and are the authoritative teachers.  This gives the context for 1 Tim 2.  1 Tim 3:14-15 gives the purpose of the whole letter: to order the church, the household of God, rightly in the face of false teaching.  A congregational setting means such a church setting and does not refer to Bible study groups or Colleges or conferences, etc.  I admit the latter examples come close, but strictly speaking, they are not on view in 1 Tim 2.

The authority resides in the Word of God/ gospel.  However there is also authority in the position of eldership (Heb 13:17).  The office of teaching is a relational one.  Teaching is not just imparting information - it is more than this and involves an authoritative relationship.

As for learning from women - I certainly hope you do!  Women in the Bible teach men privately (Priscilla to Apollos, with her husband)and teach men in the congregation (not up front) as they sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col 3:16).  There is a spectrum along which women teach men.  At one end is 1 Tim 2, which forbids it in a congregational setting.  At the other end is Col 3:16.  All this was in my talk, which hopefully will be on the Equal & Complementarity web site soon.

Hope that helps.  Thanks for your questions - I’m sure lots of others have the same questions too.

Martin

For the last few months, since a sermon on 1 Tim 2:11-15 sparked my interest in this subject, I have discovered that many things that I thought were clear are not so clear. For example Martin mentioned how clear 1 Tim 2 is. Yet as I have studied it, I have found that there is a lot of disagreement among bible believing evangelical Christians. The conclusion to the passage, v15 seems to cause much confusion.
The view that I have found most satisfactory in understanding the whole passage takes into consideration the Greek grammar (of which I am no expert).
There is a change from plural “women” to singular “woman” beginning at v 11 and continuing through to v15.
The passage is then to be understood as concerning a particular Ephesian deceived false teacher. But there is the hope in v15 for her salvation.
I have asked several people, including two Moore College graduates about this view. They don’t agree but as yet have not been able to give any satisfactory reasons why it is wrong. They are “still thinking”.
If anyone would like to discuss this further, I would appreciate it.

Hi again Craig

Looks like you posted another comment while I was commenting on your first comment!

I have been asked about this before: the switch between plural to singular in v11, then back from singular to plural in v15.  Mounce’s commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary series picks up well on this.

I am sure what you are saying is not a right interpretation in this case (no reason not to fly that kite though!).  The switch back to plural in v15b would speak against it.  Furthermore the Greek for “woman” in verses 11-12 doesn’t have the article: “a woman” not “the woman”.  That is, it refers generically to women, not to a specific woman.

I haven’t seen this interpretation before.  Is it your own, or did you read it somewhere (and if so where)?

Martin

Thanks Martin and Jean

@Jean. I had a conversation with one of the equal but different ladies where she said the difference for her was whether she was being directive in her teaching or simply leading people to find things in the text (this was in the context of a bible study which she was somewhat uncomfortable leading).That is, in the end it came down to teaching style. Is that what you meant by manner?

@Martin
By ‘church setting’ do you mean a sunday meeting or ‘in the church’? Is the ‘household of God’ in Timothy the sunday meeting or the network of relationships within a given geographical region? It seems you want to prefer the meeting. Yet as Craig noted, first century church meetings may well have been more like our bible studies than our public meetings.
How would you approach gender and ministry in a setting where every gathering of christians was seen as church? Would you push for women to be able to teach, or push for them to have some meeting that was more like our sunday meetings.

I’m still not sure how ‘content of the gospel and the bible’ differntiates teaching from preaching, since we would want both of these to be present in good prophecy. (and I’m glad neither you nor Jean reject the intrinsic authority in the gospel proclaimed by women). I see you have gone back to ‘authoratative teaching’ and the extrinsic authority of the office. What do you mean by ‘authoratative relationship’? This seems to again allow for women to preach if they are not given this ‘authoratative relationship’ over people, but are imparting the content of the faith/gospel/bible. (as perhaps they would in an educational setting). Either the problem is they pick up the intrinsic authority of the content (which would happen in an educational context anyway), or the problem is the extrinsic authority given by the church,which, if it isn’t given, isn’t a problem. (which is what I see happening with some instances of your prophecy, where women are invited to reflect on a passage of scripture).

Yet I find this talk of ‘relational authority’ a bit scary. Is it something separate to the intrinsic authority of the content? Is it over and above the authority of the gospel? Simmering under this is the possibility that I havent given enough authority to my preachers. I was brought up to respect the preacher, listen carefully, then go home, read my Bible and weigh what they were saying. Perhaps this is wrong, and I should only weigh it if they were prophecying. Well I guess I should go and talk to them if I disagree, and submit to them, since they have been appointed as leaders of my church.
But this raises an interesting question for those who are in churches whose appointed and authoratative leaders preach passages like 1 Timothy 2 differently to complementarians. Does this man have the authority to preach this passage in a way I think is wrong or not? And should I speak up or not? The question of silence and submission and authority is not then just an issue for the women. I wonder if your high view of the authority of appointed preachers would hold up for such complementarians?

Hi Martin,

Thanks Martin for your reply.

The switch back to plural in v15b would speak against it. 

v12 speaks of a “woman” and a “man”. v15 speaks of “she” and “they”. It would be most natural to understand “she” as referring to the woman and “they” as referring to both the woman and the man.
How do you see v15 as speaking against it?

Furthermore the Greek for “woman” in verses 11-12 doesn’t have the article: “a woman” not “the woman”.  That is, it refers generically to women, not to a specific woman.

My understanding is that “woman” singular, without the article, in Greek can legitimately refer to either a particular woman (eg John 4:7) or to women generically. The context helps us to determine this. The context in v15 (“she”) tells us that Paul is here referring to a particular woman.
I first found this view here
http://www.achurchinryde.com/blog/?p=262
and went from there to find a lot more on it here
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/

Thanks Martin.

Regarding the nature of prophecy in the NT, I’m fairly happy with Grudem’s understanding (and that of Don Carson and Chris Forbes): it is tied to spontaneous revelation from God but is not accorded the same authority as Scripture (note the conjunction of the prophecy/revelation terminology in 1Cor 14:26–33).

An associated observation: the points noted above clearly undermine the claims of many evangelicals that prophecy and preaching are essentially the same activity (since the same argue that women are prohibited from preaching).

But to return to my hobby-horse:

Scripture is sufficient for its own interpretation: historical information can illuminate but not determine its meaning. God’s word is clear; the mystery isn’t how much of the Bible is misunderstood, but how much has been understood by so many for so long…

It takes very little to realise that this is hopelessly naive. As I’ve pointed out numerous times before (e.g. here), our understanding of the language of the Bible is inextricably tied to a vast array of extra-biblical data. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Even those fluent in the ancient forms of these languages today rely on information gathered from a vast array of literature written in these languages so that we know what words mean, what phrases and idioms mean, what cultural references mean, and so on. And even with this array of information there remain parts of the text which are unclear.

As such, I agree that it is providential that so much of the text has remained clear up to the present. Yet to then extrapolate to all Scripture on this basis is unjustifiable given the facts. This is where claims that the “plain meaning” of Scripture invariably lead us astray when applied to difficult passages.

He asked us, will we use a liberal hermeneutic to avoid the plain teaching of Scripture, or will we believe and obey God’s word?

If this was the point made, it seems to me to be very unfair. It is easy to dismiss your opponents in this way, but there are scholars whose commitment to the authority and integrity of Scripture is undeniable who reach different conclusions about this issue. They seek to believe and obey God’s word, but they recognise that appeals to “plain teaching” are all too often coloured by our own presuppositions and ignorance.

well that does put us in a difficult situation re prophecy Mr Shields. Our women will have to have spontaneous revelations that they can predict before the service so that they can be weighed by the elders!
How do Carson etc relate this prophecy to OT prophecy?

“well that does put us in a difficult situation re prophecy Mr Shields. Our women will have to have spontaneous revelations that they can predict before the service so that they can be weighed by the elders!”

LOL :^)  Try telling, no demanding, that God give women words at specified times. Somehow, I don’t think God is going to pay much attention to such shenanigans. He is going to send the Holy Spirit among and upon whomsoever He wills when He’s good and ready, when He got us good and ready, and it’s going to be the right timing.  :^)

Hi Mike

You raise good questions about the definition of church.  I’ll try and be brief.  Let me say that my intention is to encourage us to obey what the Bible says.  I am not looking for a way out of obeying the word of God.  If you think a Bible study group is a church/ congregational setting, then you should apply 1 Tim 2 to it.

How I would approach such a situation where every gathering is seen as church has been very easy in the past.  In churches I have attended the women at church have obeyed this passage more strictly in the past than I have.  Therefore I have not had an issue with obedience to this passage in those settings becuase in such conservative churches women refuse to teach men in all those settings.  I don’t have to do anything.  I don’t push for them to teach men.  I do push for those who are suitable to teach women.  I don’t ask them to run a Sunday type meeting if it’s Bible study because it’s not a Sunday type meeting.

I don’t differentiate between teaching and preaching in 1 Tim 2.  Again, prophecy is not teaching (or preaching).

By “authoritative relationship” I am talking about appointed elders, which in 1 Tim 3 are male only.  I’m not sure what the problem is with such authority.  Elders are not infallible, as the word of God is, but they do have authority and we are to sit under it.  Where they teach something that is not according to the word of GOd, we do not follow or obey their teaching.  Where they do teach what the WOrd of God says, we do follow and obey their teaching.  If I am in a church where the teaching elder(s) teach that 1 Tim 2 doesn’t say what the church has always taught it plainly says, then I will disagree with my teacher and follow what the Bible says.  Of course as a male I will submit to such teachers, just as women do.  The point in 1 Tim 2 (& 3) is that those few teaching elders will be men only.

Martin

Martin said, “Craig, on the matter of the interpretation of 1Tim 2:11–15, there was some discussion of this view in a blog post here. In that thread I raised some questions about its viability based on an analysis of the syntax of the passage (unfortunately some of the responses in the comments seem to be missing, but there is still some useful discussion there).”

We changed the format of the blog and lost some of the comments. We do have them and will try and restore them. I believe it was a very worthwhile discussion on 1 Tim 2 that uses the inspired grammar Paul wrote to bring into question what some here see as the ‘plain reading’!

Speaking of plain reading, Martin you said, “The authority resides in the Word of God/ gospel.  However there is also authority in the position of eldership (Heb 13:17).”

Heb 13:17 does not say that elders have authority. To believe that it does would, I assume, be to confuse the word ‘submit’with ‘subordinate’. Submission can, but does not always involve authority. This is why in Eph 5 we are told to submit to one another. We cannot, however be subordinate to one another as subordination requires authority of one party over another.

I would have htought that anyone who spoke the truth of God spoke with God’s authority. I would have thought that whatever label you wanted to put on that speaking (prophecy, teaching, preaching, instructing) would have been through the Holy Spirit and with, therefore, God’s authority.

If I can ask, if it was not for Acts 18:26 would comps assume that women were not allowed to instruct men privately either? It seems strange that Timothy would have had to also read Acts to do his job properly!

Hi Martin (Shields)

Great name!  I want to respond to some of your comments.  I realise that a problem we have here is talking back and forth on Jean’s (excellent) review of 3 conference talks.  I have a feeling the conversation would be different if many of you had actually heard the talks (different questions and discussion).  Nevertheless, we can’t get around that.  But I think you would find the talks were not coloured by presuppositions or ignorance as such.  Although the presupposition of all three speakers was a desire to obey what the Bible says.

Neil Chambers would be better to comment than me given that he addressed hermeneutics in his talk.  Sadly his did not record (the other two should be up on the website now - Equal & Complementary).  But he did address these issues in detail and at length.  His discourse was anything but simplistic or naive or ignorant.

For myself I would differ from you on hermeneutics here.  I certainly do not deny using extra-Biblical material in interpretation, but I would want to be very careful how I use it.  No doubt complementarians will differ here too.  I would not want to read the Bible through the lens of extra-Biblical material.  I think the Bible can be understood as it is, by reading Scripture in light of Scripture.  I am happy to read interesting extra-Biblical material, but I would not want to read the Word of God according to it.  (WIsh I could flesh that out, but I want to brief).  A corollary of such a reading would be that only experts on extra-Biblical material could comment accurately on the text, etc.  We would have a separate priestly caste to whom regular punter Christians would need to go for the right interpretation of the Bible.  I’m not saying original languages and extra-Biblical information isn’t helpful - it is, but as you say, the Bible is pretty clear anyway.  Perhaps we could say that such extra material might add a depth to understanding.

Usually though extra-Biblical material will involve a side-argument in my opinion.  For example an egalitarian approach to 1 Tim 2 can revolve around the education of women in the first century.  Thus chapter one of “Women in the Church” (ed Kostenberger & Schreiner) investigates this historically and finds that some women were indeed educated.  This is helpful for knocking down a false argument, but hardly adds to understanding of the passage.

Better leave it at that, this is a big topic and opens a whole new can of worms!

Martin

Hi Dave

Good point about verse 15.  That is a slip up on my part.  Yes, “she” is referring to the woman/ women generically, I agree.  The point I was trying to make was rather that it is singular because it comes straight off verses 13-14, which refers to Eve.

As for your comment about the church’s reading of this passage for 2,000 years - yes, I will qualify that.  We should be open to new interpretations and it is possible for the church to have had it wrong for 2,000 years.  I am not advocating tradition over Scripture.  What I am saying however is that our culture today very much dislikes the plain reading of Scripture here.  It may seem to some an astounding coincidence that in an age of feminist and liberal interpretation we have suddenly found the right reading of 1 Tim 2.  Wayne Grudem is rightly suggesting that such readings come from a modern liberal hermeneutic.

Martin

Martin, the “she” in verse 15 is singular, not generic. To suggest it refers to the “woman” in 13-14 tells us that the “woman” is singular. Paul has not changed to singular because of his reference to Eve. This makes no sense, nor might I add is it a plain reading to the text!

I might add that I do not have a problem with the plain reading of this text. The fact that only about three of 50 translations translate the grammar correctly has not helped the issue over the last 2000 years. I might add that I do not see it as a coincidence that cultural changes have caused us to look more closely at passages like this. Once again, the same happened with the slavery discussion. The church was behind some secular movements on this front too.

It actually has nothing to do with a liberal hermaneutic. Respectfully I must point out that so far in this (short) discussion I have felt you have employed a more liberal hermeneutic than I have!

(the smiley face was designed to help soften the blow of the truth I just spoke in love. I hope it works!)

Hi Martin,

For myself I would differ from you on hermeneutics here.  I certainly do not deny using extra-Biblical material in interpretation, but I would want to be very careful how I use it.  No doubt complementarians will differ here too.  I would not want to read the Bible through the lens of extra-Biblical material.  I think the Bible can be understood as it is, by reading Scripture in light of Scripture.

Although I understand the desire you express, it is simply untrue that the Bible can be understood as it is without reference to extra-biblical material. If you’re reading a translation (English or any other), the process of translation inherently appeals to all manner of extra-biblical material simply to understand what the original language meant. If you read the original language, your understanding of those languages is built on knowledge gained from an array of both biblical and extra-biblical material.

Now a paraphrase should implicitly employ a more extensive appeal to such information, but even a “word for word” translation implicitly does so. The question this then raises is why do you arbitrarily cease examining such information once you have a Bible published in English?

It is also important to recognise that the terrain is not uniform. We need more help from extra-biblical information to understand what “baptism for the dead” than we do most other things Paul refers to (so much so, in fact, that I’m not aware that a clear understanding of the phrase has been identified)! I agree that many proposed readings of 1Tim 2, for example, prove to be improbable on close examination. That, however, does not mean all are automatically false or that they do not bear close examination.

Hi everyone.  Will respond to comments soon.

A general comment or two first.

My push in my conference talk was for obedience to the Word of God.  We should fear God, tremble at his Word and obey it.  We should trust God’s lovingkindness and goodness - that he says what he says for our good and benefit and blessing.

I don’t think that women should wear head coverings to church (1 Cor 11).  However if I meet a Christian who thinks that women should, I will be grateful to see that they are wanting to obey the word of God.  I don’t agree with them, but praise God that they are keen to obey the Bible.

Second, an excellent treatment of the clarity of Scripture: Mark Thomson’s “A Clear and Present Word”.

Martin

Hi Dave!

I never got your message, or I would have responded to it. I am sorry about that.

Jean.

No worries Jean! Perhaps someone in the ‘Sola Panel’s’ inner workings can find it and pass it on.

Sorry Martin…the smiley face on which rested so much has not shown up on my computer. I hope it has on yours!

Dave, you need a gap in your smiley face as the emoticons don’t seem to work on SP at the moment i.e. : ). Now there’s a vital piece of information! : )

Hi Teri.

Yeah, let’s have no fawning here, just love and respect - something both men and women could do a lot better, since we’re all sinners.

Jean.

Martin.  You know how much I love you and how much I owe you.  (Well maybe you don’t). 

That was a sensational address - not just in its clarity and care - but in its unflinching submission to God’s and courage that what he is says is for our good.

Can I urge everyone to listen to this address, even if you think you have heard it all before:

http://equalandcomplementary.yolasite.com/resources/01 Martin Pakula.mp3

Highlights for me: concentric circles rather than gospel issue/non issue; dealing with the alternative views really well; a call to obey the Bible rather than our culture; and the plain reading of the text.

Could someone fix my link?  It didn’t paste properly.

Yes, the appeal to exclude extra-biblical knowledge is quite bizarre, and I suspect, not what the doctrine of perspicuity was ever saying.
I applaud your attitude Martin, to people wanting to obey the word of God, even when they differ with you in a more conservative direction. but would you equally rejoice when someone reads 1 Timothy differently to you and trys to be obedient by giving a place to women teaching in the congregation?

and can we take away the language of bravely standing up against the world?
It gets used on both sides of the debate and is simply a cheap way to define the opposite position as naughty and impure. Complementarian christians are quite different to the culture around them, so are egalatarian christians. Both are attempting to obey God’s word. (even if we can see people in both camps who may have mixed motives)

I did not mean to cause any offence.  I just thought it was a really good talk.  It does take bravery to teach the Bible, doesn’t it?  I always pray for bravery before I speak at church.

Hi Andrew

I’m very grateful for your comment!  I know you love me and the feeling is mutual! (Don’t tell anyone - I don’t want to lose the image of the tough Aussie male).

Love to Ruth.

Martin

Hi Mike

Just to clarify: I am not suggesting we exclude extra-Biblical information.  I am suggesting we don’t interpret the Bible by an outside source, but by itself.  That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t use such information to inform our understanding.  I want though to guard against over-turning a plain meaning of Scripture by appeal to information from outside the Bible.  This leads to speculation, which can be answered in turn by more speculation.  But without a doubt it is good to read the Bible in the original and to read extra-Biblical information (all of which I teach at Bible College).  There’s a hermeneutics debate here again, and I refer again to Mark Thompson’s book “A Clear and Present Word” (also extra-biblical!).

As for applauding an egalitarian reading of 1 Tim 2.  No I wouldn’t applaud it.  I have read many egalitarian interpretations and apart from John Stott’s would not applaud any (but I wouldn’t call him egalitarian anyway).  My reason for this is not blind prejudice but turns on the matter of obedience.  The egalitarian interpretations I read seem to me to be attempts to avoid obeying the Bible.  If they were seeking to obey it, I would applaud it.

Martin

A quick note:

The book which Martin plugs in his talk, Women in the Church edited by Kostenberger and Schreiner, should be read by anyone who wants to seriously assess the complementarian position on 1 Tim 2:11-14. I have just finished reading it, and it is brilliant. It is also not very technical (I don’t know Greek, and I understood it well). You just cannot argue with what is written there. The egalitarian exegesis of this text simply does not hold water.

The book is hard to get hold of in ordinary stores (eg. Koorong), but is available online with FREE DELIVERY for under AU $25.

See
http://www.booko.com.au/books/isbn/9780801029042

We sold out all the copies we had at the conference bookstall!

Martin, yes Hebrews tells us to obey and submit to our elders. Why? You say it is because they are in authority but this is imported into the terxt. The text, read plainly tells us why. Because they watchover us and we should make it a joy for them.

No, we do not have to go to the ESS discussion, but rather go to a dictionary. Look up submit and subordinate and note the difference. For someone/thing to be subordinate it/they is/are inferior. This is the definition. Submit, no such meaning, though it CAN be used in that context.

Martin, you said, “As for verse 15 again.  I simply refer you at this point really to any commentary, egalitarian, complementarian or otherwise.”

How about you direct me to a commentary and I will respond to it? This does sound a bit like, “Read this and go away little one…perhaps you will learn something!” I have read commentaries, but I prefer to also come to my own conclusion as to what scripture means. Craig began, and I have continued to give you reason why we do not accept the comp interpretation. You do not have to deal with it, but please say this rather than sending me to the library!

Finally Martin you said, “The egalitarian interpretations I read seem to me to be attempts to avoid obeying the Bible.  If they were seeking to obey it, I would applaud it.”

If this is true then you should applaud what Craig and I have suggested. It tries to understand scripture as scripture was written so that we can obey it. Please, at least give me some evidence as to why the ‘she’ in 15 is not a singular woman and how that does not tell us that 13-14 refers to a singular woman. This appears fair, rather than discounting it. There has been a lot of talk about ‘plain reading’ and ‘obeying the word’...it does not seem that much to ask!

Rachel…I would love to be able to smile!

Teri, I am already some what insecure about my nose shape and size. I cannot try that.

Hi Teri

Peitho means obey in the passive, as in Heb 13:17.

As for your question - good question!  I certainly need to do more thinking here myself.  I guess we Protestants have tended to emphasise the authority inherent in the Word of God (righlty) so much that we sometimes miss these verses (Heb 13:17, etc) which speak of an authority inherent in church elders.  Clearly they are under the authority of the word themselves.  But that doean’t mean they don’t have authority as well.  I take it that a church leader has the authority to run the church for the serving and building up of those believers.  That would mean we are to follow their lead in this.  This I presume would work out much like marriage.  It might be on an area where we agree, or where we disagree.  It might be on a ‘big’ issue or ‘small’ one.  For instance the leader might want to change something in the service (the way we sing or some structured part of the service, etc).  We might not like that.  But we should make their work a joy and submit to their leadership. 

I know that’s brief and much more could be said.

Martin

Hi Dave

I didn’t mean to fob you off with verse 15 (re go see a commentary, etc).  In my conference talk I didn’t comment on verse 15 at all (I had prepared on it, but there wasn’t enough time).  I don’t think it is pertinent to the main argument of 1 Tim 2:8-15.  It’s important, of course.  And we are not even talking about what it means, but a particular aspect of it.  The main point of the passage in my opinion is very clear (verses 11-12).  But as for verse 15, Mounce’s commentary was good, but so too Knight, Towner, Marshall, Stott, Fee, etc.  They are mainly dealing with other issues in verse 15 (same ones keep coming up across the commentaries).  But Mounce does deal with what you raise (I think).  I feel like I have answered it already.  I’m trying not to be too blunt (and not succeeding as usual!).  It seems to me that the reading you are suggesting is either implausible or impossible.  The reason most books/ commentaries haven’t commented on it is that the passage simply doesn’t read this way.  I don’t know of any egalitarian commentary (to my knowledge - happy to be corrected) that would take the passage this way.  It seems clear that women in general are being spoken about.  I stand by my comments about the connection of v15 to vv13-14, not vv11-12.

As for hermeneutics, what this boils down to is what I have called a “clutching at straws” hermeneutic. That is, attempts to latch on to any possible meaning of a word that would allow the passage to be interpreted in a way differently to the plain meaning of the text.  I can’t see how this is an attempt to obey the Bible.

It seems to me we can’t progress much further on this?  Feel free to have the last word.

Martin

Hi Martin,

Please don’t worry about the fobbing! Also, I have not found you ‘blunt’ (even without smiley faces) but gracious (thanks). Thanks also for letting me have the last say, though of course I would welcome any further interaction!

If this passage is important, and the commentaries CANNOT agree on the meaning of verse 15 (and have not for 2000 years), then how can you say you understand the passage? It is easy to say verse 15 is not pertinent, if you do not understand it. Perhaps you do understand it and tell me why there is a singular ‘she’ and a plural ‘they’ while maintaining 1 Tim 2:12-15 as a prohibition against all women teaching. If so I would love to hear it. I am seeking the truth.

If the reading I am suggesting is implausible or impossible as you suggest, then please show me how and why. As I said, I am seeking the truth.

You can stand firm on your comments connecting verse 15 to 13-14 and not 11-12, but you might like to ask yourself why Paul says, “but she will be delivered through the bearing of children, IF THEY REMAIN in…”. The grammar makes it clear that she will be delivered if they continue in certain actions. Once again, Eve cannot continue in any actions to help her be delivered, she is dead.

I realise I am repeating myself to some degree, but you simply have not responded to these issues. It is easy to say egals are using a liberal hermeneutic in response to social norms, but it is tempting to ask if you are using a liberal hermeneutic in response to certain social norms within the theological world! If the people who write commentaries have not understood the verse, should we not make an effort to do so?

Thanks for the interaction Martin!

Hi Jean! It is my day off and I should be tidying the shed…but this is so interesting! (SMILEY FACE)

I am glad you agree with Martin. Please just show where the authority is and where it is coming from. I assume by ‘inherent’ you mean ‘implicit’ and therefore not actually in the passage. If so, then surely, as I asked for before, someone can show me another verse that speaks of the authority of elders.

You said, “As for Ephesians 5 - “submit to one another” - this shouldn’t be read in the sense that every Christian is called to submit equivilently to every other Christian. Servants obey masters; children obey parents; congregation members obey teaching elders.”

I believe that it is saying that every Christian should submit to every other Christian. I cannot understand how you can say it means anything different. Even Calvin in his commentary on this passage says this, though he rightly connectss submission here to love. He says where there is Christian love then service to one another abounds (or words to the effect!).

With regards to Ephesians…in the original Greek texts there were no breaks at all.

The verses do not show one way submission in relationships. Look at them closely. They do pick up some significant differences in the different types of relationships, but note how fathers are not to provoke their children? Note how the slaves are to obey their lords as though they were obeying Christ…and masters are told to do the same thing!

To be subordinate is to be inferior in some way (not always ontologically…). This is what the dictionary tells us. If you do not like the word, then perhaps you can use a different one? Submission does not require authority. Once again, choose another word if you do not like the meaning of it!

I believe that the created order is good. I simply do not believe the created order says that a man has authority over a woman because he is a man and she is a woman. I do not believe scripture says a woman cannot teach men because she is a woman.

Finally, in regards to Deborah I believe that you have read into the text. If you look at what she says she will do and what she does, she never changes. She follows the plan God gave her. To say she is hesitant or reluctant is not true, unless you want to suggest that she was reluctant to do other than what God told her to do!

Cheers!

“Peitho means obey in the passive, as in Heb 13:17.

I disagree.  The word is about persuasion.  Thus persuasion in the passive is to allow oneself to be persuaded to obey or heed what is being presented.  You cannot divorce the element of persuasion from the word.

”which speak of an authority inherent in church elders.  Clearly they are under the authority of the word themselves.  But that doean’t mean they don’t have authority as well.  I take it that a church leader has the authority to run the church for the serving and building up of those believers.  That would mean we are to follow their lead in this.  This I presume would work out much like marriage.  It might be on an area where we agree, or where we disagree.  It might be on a ‘big’ issue or ‘small’ one.  For instance the leader might want to change something in the service (the way we sing or some structured part of the service, etc).  We might not like that.  But we should make their work a joy and submit to their leadership. “

I agree that our spiritual leaders have an authority.  According to Scripture, the reason we are to remember and consider them, is not to obey their directions but to imitate their faith.  We are to obey God and God’s Word and Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.  His Words of Truth do not change. In verse 17 the word is peithesthe (from peitho; to persuade), which is essentially saying something like be being persuaded.  In other words listen attentively with a willingness to be persuaded to obey or heed the words of our leaders.  We are to have this attentiveness so that their ministry of serving us is not done with grief but with joy.

Christian leaders have authority, but it is NOT like a king who rules, or presidents who decree or Judges who will punish disobedience, nor like a father to his children (or an imagined authority of a husband over a wife). We are fellow believers, brothers and sisters, and a priesthood of believers.  Christian leaders in the five fold ministries upon which the building up of the body of Christ is indeed dependent to a certain degree must exercise a spiritual influence that is to be deeply centered in the presence of God in their lives.  If what someone preaches harms individuals instead of sin, or builds up the speaker instead of Christ, or sets one part of the body of Christ against the other part, then they must not be followed.  We must always do what Paul said, and listen but search the Scriptures for ourselves.  All the while we must maintain a certain appreciative respect and honor, willing to yield,  for those who give of their lives to serve the rest of the Body of believers.

Hi Dave,

Yeah, I realised that about Greek soon after I posted it. Whoops! I think the point the Greek scholar I talked to about this was making is that there’s a natural grammatical link between the “-ings”. It’s only important if you take “submit to one another” as, by definition, negating the authority relationships described in the following verses in Ephesians.

I’d be happy to call submission “reciprocal” if we define it as “serving” or “putting others needs before my own”. My guess, without having read Calvin on this for a very long time, is that this is the kind of submission he means, and I’m more than happy with that. I’ve often wondered if this could be the sense this verse should be read, to be honest, when I’ve heard “submit to one another” interpreted as “submit to others when the relationship demands it”.

But I don’t agree submission is reciprocal if it’s defined in terms of authority (which is the way it’s clearly used as the passage in Ephesians goes on). I do think that there are relationships of authority, including elders and congregational members, that aren’t reciprocal. “Inherant” was probably one of those words that just slipped into my sentence and didn’t mean anything - sorry! There is an explicit relationship of authority between elders and congregation members, parents and children, husbands and wives. Yes, the leaders in these relationships are to love/not to provoke/etc., but they are still to lead.

How the dictionary defines a word isn’t definitive for how it’s used in the Bible. But even if we agree that “inferior” is a necessary part of its meaning, I’d argue you can be inferior heirarchically or structually even when you’re not ontologically inferior, or less worthy of love and respect, or less gifted or godly. I’m very happy to use the word submission, even with “inferior” attached (although this is not a word I would use because it’s so open to misinterpretation) if it’s clear that inferior only applies to having a lesser authority rather than having less value as a person. There is a mutual responsibility in a relationship of authority for each to love, serve and care for the other.

Deborah did change her plan in regard to Barak. She wasn’t going to go with him, then she did because of his reluctance to lead without her. It’s not that her willingness to obey God and be committed to his plans changed, but her individual decision to help actively lead the armies did change because of Barak’s unwillingness to lead.

As for the rest of what you say, I’m not sure we’re going to come to agreement about this. We might have to agree to disagree at this point!

In Christ,

Jean.

Teri,

“Deborah is telling Barak that she knows that God has already told him to lead the army.  She called him to her to encourage Barak to obey God.  It’s not at all about encouraging him to do something she was supposed to do.  Deborah is quite well seen as a strong leader in her own, if you read through chapters 4 and 5.”

I agree with what you say here.

“If what someone preaches harms individuals instead of sin, or builds up the speaker instead of Christ, or sets one part of the body of Christ against the other part, then they must not be followed.  We must always do what Paul said, and listen but search the Scriptures for ourselves.  All the while we must maintain a certain appreciative respect and honor, willing to yield,  for those who give of their lives to serve the rest of the Body of believers.”

On this, at least, we agree wholeheartedly!

Jean.

I’m surprised that not everyone agrees with Christian leaders (and preachers) having authority over those who they lead. (cf. Heb 13)

Yes, it should be servant-leadership, not harsh rule, but it is still leadership. And with leadership comes authority..

Command and teach these things… Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1 Tim 4:11-16

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. James 3:1

Leaders/teachers have such a responsibility over their flock that they will be judged with greater strictness, and even the salvation of their listeners hangs on what they teach. They have a duty to “command” their listeners, not just “offer an opinion”.

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 1 Tim 5:17

He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 1 Tim 3:4-5

Clearly, there is authority here, as of a father over his household.

It is a false dichotomy to say that the Word has the authority, not the preacher. Ink on a page does not wield authority—a leader in relationship with his listeners does. A preacher is not a mere pipeline through which divine communication flows; when he preaches the Word he embodies and represents the authority that comes from the Word.

These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority Titus 2:15

Jean, you said, “I’d be happy to call submission “reciprocal” if we define it as “serving” or “putting others needs before my own”. “

Cool!

You then said, “But I don’t agree submission is reciprocal if it’s defined in terms of authority (which is the way it’s clearly used as the passage in Ephesians goes on).”

But it is not clearly used in terms of authority in the rest of the chapter. If we take all of Ephesians 5 in context then we realise that Paul has asked everyone to submit to everyone, and he has asked every one to love each other as Christ has loved us. There is nothing new that he asks husbands and wives to do that he has not already asked us all to do. Where does it say that there is a different type of submission for wives or love for husbands?

You then said, “There is an explicit relationship of authority between elders and congregation members, parents and children, husbands and wives. Yes, the leaders in these relationships are to love/not to provoke/etc., but they are still to lead.”

But you left out one, slaves and masters! I assume you believe there is explicit authority between slaves and masters, but is it a part of the created order?

You then said, “How the dictionary defines a word isn’t definitive for how it’s used in the Bible.”

But if we are going to translate words from the original language to English we need to use the right word. I cannot translate John 3:16 to “For God so ‘liked’ the world…”. If you want Heb 13 to say that elders have authority, then you need other words than ‘obey’ and ‘submit’. The problem is I think the word submit fits the passage, as it does Eph 5-6. If you are going to use those words, then you need to ‘submit’ to their meaning!!

You said, “Deborah did change her plan in regard to Barak. She wasn’t going to go with him, then she did because of his reluctance to lead without her.”

Please give me the verse where she says what she is not going to do (and tell me what it is she was not going to do), and then give me the verse that says she did it, and what it was she did. I am just not seeing it!

Dave

There has been some talk about plain reading of the text.  I have a question.  When King Saul lost his kingship, was it his “reading” of the command that he was punished for?

The LORD anointed you king over Israel.  And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.’

Why did you not obey the LORD? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD?”

Here comes his “reading” of the text.

“But I did obey the LORD,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal.”

And a timely word.  No Saul.  There is a “reading” that matters.

But Samuel replied:
“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

There is a meaning in every text.  I’m not arguing what it means.  But there is a meaning and it is that meaning by which we will be judged (if we are a teacher of God’s word).

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you Matt 28:18-20

This is Jesus’ charge to the leaders of his church. All authority is given to Jesus. But this authority is passed on to his apostles who are authorised to teach and command on Jesus’ behalf. Jesus does not wield all his authority personally, he delegates it to the leaders of his church.

The authority that believers carry is to speak truth.  In fact, each and every believer is authorized to speak with authority.  The purpose of leadership is to spur every believer toward a closer relationship with God SO THAT God may use them to speak forth God’s Truths, to pray for healing, to deliver the ones in bondage and so forth.  These are not things reserved for a special class of believers called leaders.

”A closed Bible sitting on a table is the Word of God written, but it cannot be effective unless someone opens it and uses it.
This someone is the preacher. “

That someone is everyone, not just preachers and teachers.  Leaders are specially equipped by God as a life gifted to bless and minister to all believers they are around. They are there to give their lives away just like Jesus did, for the upbuilding of the living body of Christ.  The authority we have is not about commanding and ruling, but about serving and giving away our lives to bless others.

”Jesus does not wield all his
authority personally, he delegates it to the leaders of his church.”

Who in turn are to admonish, encourage, teach, preach, pray for and spur on the body of believers with all their strength so that the believers will walk in the same authority that Jesus walked in.  Ultimately, we are all just brothers and sisters who are to help each other be more like Jesus.

Hi Jereth,
have you got an example in the NT of a leader unilaterally excommunicating someone? i had the impression that this was the congregations priority.

have you got an example in the NT of a leader unilaterally excommunicating someone

Mike,

I believe that the eldership of a church has the authority to discpline aberrant members without first going to a vote of the whole church membership. I think that this is scriptural.

My point is not about excommunication specifically, but discipline in general. And the exercise of discipline (one among various leadership functions) requires leaders to have authority over the flock.

[an elder] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. Titus 1:9

Can there be obedience without a command?
Thanks for raising this issue guys, got me thinking.

In Philemon 21, Paul is confident of philemons obedience (upakoe). This is a strong word for obedience. The kind of obedience that brings righteousness in Rom 6, the obedience of faith in Rom 16, or our designation as obedient children in 1 Peter 1. Surely this would require some kind of command for us to obey it.
Yet in Philemon, Paul puts aside the option of commanding (in the Lord) (epitasso) Philemon, rather he appeals on the basis of love. Appealing on the basis (or because of) love can be obeyed.
This word for command and it’s cognate noun are interesting.
They are used of Jesus, usually commanding evil spirit, having autharative teaching, commanding the wind and the waves, seating the multitude. (Mk1:27, 6:39 luke 4:36, 8:25)
It describes the command of God that reveals the gospel (Rom 16:26) and appoints Paul an apostle (1 Tim 1:1, Titus 1:3) Clearly God and Jesus have this kind of commanding authority

But when it comes to other people ‘commanding’ in this sense, the word is far more negative. It describes the order to execute John the baptist (Mk 6:26) and the order from the high priest to strike Paul (Acts 23:2). Paul’s use of this word is itself fascinating. It consistently shows that he will not use his personal ability to ‘command’, unless he has something from the Lord
“about virgins I have no command from the Lord” 1 Cor 7:25
“I say this as a concession, not a command” 1 Cor 7:6
“I am not commanding you but I want to test the sincerity of your love” 2 Cor 8:8
and our above Phil 8.

The only use of the word that refers to someone not Jesus or God that could have any kind of positive sense is Titus 2:15. Here it is the noun. While our NIV splits the sentence, this is unhelpful. It should read as one “these then, are the things you are to teach, urge and rebuke with all authority. Now it may be that ‘these things’ refers only to 11-14, but it probably does include the instructions all the way from verse 1. The thrust is, say no to ungodly desires, live self controlled and godly lives and do good as you wait for Jesus to return. This places quite a limit on what Titus may use his commanding authority for, in fact, Paul doesn’t even say ‘command’ these things, simply teach encourage and rebuke.

Of course this doesn’t settle the argument, Paul regularly uses (parangelo) which can mean everything from directions to full blown command.

But it does show that obedience can be based on persuasion rather than coercion or pure command.

The emoticons have been re-installed. Smile away!

Hi Mike,

I am a medical doctor. In times gone past, doctors had “authority” to give “commands” to patients which had to be followed no matter what. (“Doctor’s orders”)

These days, all I can do is “inform” my patients what is in their best interests, provide a “recommendation” or “advice”, and the decision whether or not to act is ultimately theirs to make. There have been times that I’ve told patients “you must do this, or there is a good chance you will die very soon”, and my “advice” has been ignored!

There is a similar spectrum in the activity of a church leader. The Bible uses gentler words like “exhort”, “encourage” and stronger words like “command”, “urge”, “rebuke”.  Sometimes, it is appropriate for leadership to be gentle; at other times, it is appropriate for leadership to be strong. The point is, that leaders have the authority to exercise strong leadership when that is necessary. Sometimes it is necessary. There are errors and sins that are severe enough to ruin a church very quickly if not dealt with by a strong hand. If leaders do not have authority, then strong leadership is impossible.

A man was once told to leave my church by the ministers. They did not “recommend” or “advise” that he leave. He was told to leave. He was not given a choice, because he was committing a very serious sin.

I agree with you that generally speaking it is desirable for authority to be wielded gently—with persuasion rather than brute commands. But here’s the thing—even gentle authority is still authority. If I did not have some degree of authority over my patients (by virtue of my knowledge, experience, qualification, and recognition by professional bodies), there would be no point in them even taking notice of “advice” that I give them. They may as well take health advice from an electrician. Same goes for church leaders—if they did not have authority, why should we even listen to them? Why not just read the Bible for ourselves and not bother attending church?

Hi Martin,

Thank you for your example of the “plain reading of a text”, from 1 Tim 2:11,12.
I would say this is one possible plain reading of the text.
Another possible plain reading of the text is that a particular deceived woman known to Timothy and Paul is to learn in quietness and full submission. She is not to teach or authentein a particular man.
Another possible plain reading of the text is that it refers to a particular woman and her husband.
In deciding between these plain readings, we must consider the plain reading of the whole passage, including v15 as well.
Sorry if I missed this, but would you mind please telling me who you think the “she” and the “they” are in v15? Thanks.

Hi Mike

I understand the desire to give our leaders power, especially disciplinary power. But the more I look at the New Testament, the more I dont see it, except for their persuasion and exhortation. (yet the community as a whole does have that power)

Just to clarify: In the things I said above, I tended to emphasise discipline because that is something where we can all see authority clearly being exercised. But authority is present in everything a leader / preacher says and does, not just in discipline.

(By the way, it would be appreciated if we kept our terminology consistent. By shifting terms from “authority” to “power” I feel that you are subtly painting complementarianism in a less favourable light. Thanks)

I’ll repeat what I said in an earlier post: Preaching is not just an exercise in “sharing”. It examines the soul, convicts of sin, presses the conscience, and commands obedience. You cannot do this without authority. I’m sure we all remember sermons which cut us to the heart and caused us to go home and fall on our knees in repentance. These are the most memorable sermons—the ones where the preacher lovingly but firmly wielded his God-derived authority over the congregation, for our benefit.

Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Tit 2:15

Imagine now if you heard that same sermon which cut you to the heart, only instead of hearing it from a preacher in the gathered congregation, you heard it on your MP3 player driving home from work. In this situation the speaker has no pastoral authority over you—he’s just some guy preaching to his megachurch in Seattle (or whereever). Would it evoke quite the same sense of fear and trembling? I suspect not.

But the more I look at the New Testament, the more I dont see it, except for their persuasion and exhortation. (yet the community as a whole does have that power)

I find this statement very interesting. With all due respect, I really do feel that this is our modern Western culture talking. We believe in democracy, power vested in the whole people—governments come into power by popular vote, not by force, but then the voters don’t submit to them anyway!

I do not think that this is how the Bible tells us to run our churches. Even congregational churches have elders and pastors, and those elders and pastors have (or should have) authority over the congregation.

Fiona addressed these matters very well (you can get her talk at http://www.equalandcomplementary.org). She spoke about how our society is marked by the rejection of authority, the triumph of rights over obligations, individualism, autonomy, free choice, self fulfilment. We simply cannot tolerate the idea of any single person, or a select group of people, wielding authority over the rest of us.

as for the aversion to people weilding authority over us, and the issue of individualism, far more interesting is the inherint authority of every image of God that stands before us. We owe no one any debt but the debt of love. The very existence of that which is loved by God is authoratative to us, it demands to be recieved as a gift from God, to be given thanks for (including our leaders).  this is the context I would want to put submission into; receiving the good authority as a gift from God. Stick that in your ‘modern west’ pipe and smoke it.

”I’ll repeat what I said in an earlier post: Preaching is not just an exercise in “sharing”. It examines the soul, convicts of sin, presses
the conscience, and commands obedience. You cannot do this without authority. I’m sure we all remember sermons which cut us to the heart and caused us to go home and fall on our knees in repentance. These are the most
memorable sermons—the ones where the preacher lovingly but firmly wielded his God-derived authority over the congregation, for our benefit.

Jereth,
Now here it seems that you are confusing the power and authority of speaking truth with some other special authority the preacher supposedly has.  It is the Holy Spirit that convicts, not humans.

Hi Craig

You commented:
“Another possible plain reading of the text is that a particular deceived woman known to Timothy and Paul is to learn in quietness and full submission. She is not to teach or authentein a particular man.”

and

“Another possible plain reading of the text is that it refers to a particular woman and her husband.”

These are not plain readings of the text.  In fact far from it.  The second is a possible reading of the text.  The first may not even fall into that category.

I have many commentaries on my book shelf on 1 Timothy and books too.  Nowhere is your first example even mentioned in any of them - egalitarian or complementarian.  That is hardly a “plain reading” of the text. 

The commentaries give a very brief account of the second example above and mostly dismiss it (for good reasons), again on both sides.

Here is a good quote from Martyn Lloyd Jones, 50 years ago, on the plain reading of the text:

“That brings us to the vital principle which underlies all the causes of self-deception. In many ways the root trouble, even among good Evangelicals, is our failure to heed the plain teaching of Scripture…

Instead of taking the plain teaching of the Bible, we argue with it. ‘Ah, yes,’ we say, ‘since the Scriptures were written, times have changed.’ Dare I give an obvious illustration? Take the question of women preaching, and being ordained to the full ministry. The apostle Paul, in writing to Timothy (1 Tim. 2:11-15), prohibits it directly. He says quite specifically that he does not allow a woman to teach or preach. ‘Ah, yes,’ we say, as we read that letter, ‘he was only thinking of his own age and time; but you know times have changed since then, and we must not be bound…

Paul does not say that it was only for the time being; he takes it right back to the Fall and shows that it is an abiding principle. It is something that is true, therefore, of the age in which we live. But thus, you see, we argue with Scripture. Instead of taking its plain teaching, we say that times have changed – when it suits our thesis we say it is no longer relevant…

If you want to avoid terrible disillusionment at the age of judgement, face Scripture as it is. Do not argue with it, do not try to manipulate it, do not twist it; face it, receive it and submit to it whatever the cost.”

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids, Michigan:Eerdmans, 1959-60), 532-533.

Martin

Hi Mike

Thanks for answering my question.  It’s easy to get lost in the threads of different arguments here, and I’ve tended to stay out of this one.

You said:
“I think it is interesting that Paul can give advice on ethics and church practice that he does not see as normative”

This is discussed by Gordon Fee in Fee, G. D., “Issues in Evangelical Hermeneutics, Part III”, Crux 26.4 (1990), 31-37 and well rebutted by John Stott in his commentary and by Bruce Waltke in Waltke, B. K., “1 Timothy 2:8-15: Unique or Normative?”, Crux 28.1 (1992), 22-27.

Fee makes the helpful distinction between principles and particulars.  Particulars (women wearing head coverings - 1 Cor 11) may not be applicable (also men raising hands during prayer as opposed to sitting, standing, etc - 1 Tim 2:8; or women wearing certain hairstyles or jewellery - 1 Tim 2:9-10).  The principles are normative, and verses 11-12 are clearly principle and not particulars.  Verses 13-14 ground these principles in creation: that a woman is not to teach a man or have authority over him in the congregation.  Thus they are normative.

As for authority being intrinsic or extrinsic, I still don’t ‘get it’!  That seems like a false dichotomy to me.  Surely the answer is - both.

Finally, the sermon is hardly “arbitrary”.  Timothy is told in 4:13 to devote himself to this, along with the public reading of Scripture. Again, I implore Christians to seek to believe and obey the Scriptures, not to try and find new novel ways of possible interpretations, however implausible, that help to avoid the plain meaning of the text.

Now I do agree with you that women leading Bible studies is not what 1 Tim 2 is talking about.  In fact the speakers disagreed on this one.  Neil Chambers was happy for this to happen in certain situations.  I am not. I wouldn’t want to say it is ‘wrong’ and I think it is getting into a grey area.  And I don’t like male leaders being dogmatic about it.  However I think they are seeking to obey this passage, so good on them!  And it seems to me it comes very close to what the passage is calling for.

Martin

Still, I eagerly anticipate Mark Baddelys thoughts on the nature of authority (from comments in post no 3), especially derived from the distinct but non competing wills of father and son. I highly recommend reading those comments to the end, as Mark has ideas about authority that I think are more challenging to most ‘comps’ than to most ‘egals’.

Thank you for the kind words.  I think I’d say that it is like what I think the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is for the modern debate.  The doctrine of the Trinity challenges those complementarians who say that the Son eternally submits to the Father like a wife submits to her husband, and those egalitarians who say that there is no sense in which the Son eternally submits to the Father.

Similarly, I think that a lot of argument in the gender debate seems to presuppose a fairly authoritarian notion of authority – both egals and comps often seem to start with the issue of who has the power to issue commands to someone else, and only then discuss whether anyone is allowed to do it (some egals), whether the most capable person of either gender can do it (other egals), or whether only men are allowed to do it (comps).  Once that’s then in place then as a separate step comes the requirement that the authority should be used in love. It seems to me to assume a ‘master-slave’ paradigm of authority that is either then rejected (some egals) or exhorted to be used in a loving way (other egals and comps).

Yes, where I’m going in thread three challenges that a bit.  I think we start more with love and responsibility and move from there to the power to command.  So, on your matrix Mike, I think I will say that the notion of authority has to include ‘extrinsic’ authority, but that that’s not its essence and not the place to start, you need to start with something similar to what you’re calling ‘intrinsic’.  I think where you and I might differ is that I think extrinsic is in the mix, however when it comes to us humans. I think it will be interesting to see how such a concept is received by different people on both sides.

Don’t want to take over your thread there Jean (and Martin) or impose the categories I’m working with on this discussion – but since I was invoked I’d rather position what I’m doing on the monster thread in terms of one of the debates occurring on this thread so it doesn’t distract too much.

You are very welcome to join in, Mark, and I’m sure Martin would say the same.

Not being a theological heavyweight (at least not during this stage of my life, with a head filled with housework and being the family taxi!) you’ll have to tell me whether this is relevant.

When it comes to submission in marriage, I’ve always disliked this particular conversation -

“But what does submission mean?”

“It means when there’s a big decision to make, and you disagree, the husband gets the final say.”

Well, yes, he should be taking the responsibility to lead by making the final decision (although he will decide, if he’s godly, on the basis of what is best for his wife and family, not just himself; and this may well mean that he honours his wife’s preferences).

But submission (and headship) are so much more than this!

Submission is a general attitude of honouring my husband’s leadership in my thoughts, words and actions. I tried to unpack what it might look like in practice here and here.

Similarly, headship in marriage does mean taking the lead (ie. not being a passive or lazy husband who abnegates their responsibility for the marriage and family) - but it means doing this in love: putting the interests of my wife before myself, serving her, laying down my life for her. It doesn’t mean I’ll never go against her preferences - but when I do, it will be for her sake and the sake of the gospel, and it will be done in love.

Not sure if this is even slightly relevant, Mark! But I thought I’d offer it to you as the reflection of a woman and a wife.

In Christ,

Jean.

Hi Martin,

I have asked you what is wrong with a different view that I am considering. You seem to be arguing that tradition tells us that it is not worth considering. Also any questioning of this tradition is likely to spring from bad motives.
If nobody questioned the “traditional views” where would the church be today? What happened to Sola Scriptura?
Have you never questioned a traditional view of a passage? Was it only because of bad motives, or can it be because you want to find out the truth of what it really teaches?
You seem to be also suggesting that the view I am asking about dismisses the teaching of this passage as only applicable to the time it was written. That is not so. It would be applicable in the same way today as it was in Paul’s day.
Can I request again your own view of who the “she” and “they” are of v15? I believe v15 is integral to the passage and it would be very helpful for me in properly evaluating your view. The Berean Christians were commended for examining the scriptures to see if what is said is true.

Hi Craig

Yes, absolutely fair enough!  And I agree with much of what you have said here.  There’s been posts going back and forth on this and I certainly wouldn’t blame you if you’ve missed some of them!

I am not wanting to argue for tradition.  What I am saying is that historically Christians have understood this passage as I have explained it, according to its plain meaning, without much debate for 2000 years.  Is it a coincidence that the rise of a more radical feminism in the 1960s has seen this understanding challenged?  I think not!  This is not advocating traditionalism. 

I do then want to admit that a new reading could come that would overturn the previous consensus and that it should be taken seriously and not just dismissed for going against tradition.  I agree with you!  My point again though would be that it would need to meet a greater burden of proof and would need great thought and scholarly attention.  I am pointing out that I don’t see this particular interpretation anywhere in the scholarly literature.  I admit it may be - but I haven’t seen it referred to.

Still, it could be right!  I agree with you!  However I have pointed out that the commentaries are indeed aware of the Greek and the shifts between singular and plural throughout chapter 2.  Thus, again, “women” is plural in verses 9-10.  In verse 11 the singular is used, but without the article.  If a particular woman only was being used, then this is an abrupt change of subject from verses 9-10 to verse 11.  Some explanation would be needed, and surely the article would be used.  Thus I personally find this interpretation singularly unconvincing.  Mounce comments that the Greek word for “woman” in verse 11, without the definite article (“a woman”, not “the woman”), is generic, that is, is speaking about women in general.  I’m sure that is right, and I haven’t yet seen a commentary or paper that would disagree.

In verse 14 the woman is Eve.  Verse 15 clearly refers to this woman, still using the singular, saying that she will be saved.  However it also applies this salvation to all women, and so changes abruptly to the plural mid-verse.  That is, verse 15 is speaking about the woman Eve as representing all women.  Verse 15 is qualifying verse 14.

Martin

Hi Jean,

“But what does submission mean?”

“It means when there’s a big decision to make, and you disagree, the husband gets the final say.”

Well, yes, he should be taking the responsibility to lead by making the final decision (although he will decide, if he’s godly, on the basis of what is best for his wife and family, not just himself; and this may well mean that he honours his wife’s preferences).

But submission (and headship) are so much more than this!

Submission is a general attitude of honouring my husband’s leadership in my thoughts, words and actions. I tried to unpack what it might look like in practice here and here.

(though I could quote the whole post)

This is very imnportant and very good. The whole approach we evangelicals often take assumes that marital submission is a necessary evil that must be used to reconcile life’s problems.

This, as you indicate, is not how Paul views it in Eph 5. And our wrong-heartedness becomes stark when we try applying the same casuistry to the male requirement to “love”. Nobody tries to apply this passage by defining the limits and boundaries to when a man should love his wife. Few preachers would think it necessary to add the caveat that love for the wife must not become an idol (true, though that is).

And yet we strain against the other side of the analogy that Paul is using: we stress that it is much less than obedience; we repeat that male authority ends where it contravenes Christ (again true, of course). The whole response is negative and defensive. Somehow it seems obvious that a husband conforming to Christ is good, and should be embraced as much as possible. Yet the beauty of the church’s response is lost on us.

Maybe the question “when should a wife submit, and why?” would become clearer if it were answered with the question “when should a husband love - and why?”

Hi Mark

Those are very helpful comments indeed.  Thanks for that.  I think this is where Neil Chambers helped at the conference.  In the words of Andrew Reid - I’m a Biblical theologian and Neil is a systematic theologian like yourself.  Neil addressed these issues well. 

I hear what you are saying and listen carefully to my egalitarian friends.  However I have no doubt that a key issue, raised over and over here, is hermeneutics.  And I guess at heart, simplistic though it may be, I still love the “naive”, “simple” Christian who just loves God, loves his word and wants to obey it.  I’m not meaning to imply that egalitarians don’t have those sentiments.  But I do think Wayne Grudem is correct that on this point they are following a liberal hermeneutic, which, if applied to the rest of Scripture, would result in the loss of any other doctrine, including the gospel.  My egalitarian friends haven’t done that with other doctrines or the gospel.  However if those sitting under their teaching are more consistent, they will do so.

I recently heard someone say that we must accept the egalitarian position as a valid Biblical position.  I cannot do that.  I accept their sincerity, but cannot accept egalitarianism as a valid Biblical view.  Don’t know what you think about that?

The same person also denied that this was a “gospel issue”.  I agree.  However I can see how it could become a gospel issue.  Circumcision is hardly a gospel issue in itself, but it became one.  Better I think is the model given in a Briefing a while back (which I gave in my talk) of concentric circles where the inner one is a gospel issue, the next one out is a core issue, the next one an important issue, and so on, until we reach peripheral issues on the outer.  In Melbourne I have heard talks where the preacher simply denies that this is a gospel issue and says therefore it is a peripheral issue of little importance.  I am convinced by Grudem, Schreiner and others that this is a very important issue, not at one end of the spectrum or other (at present).  How we read the Bible is very important and this is a great test case.

Anyway, I know you know all that, but thought I’d raise these issues candidly.

Martin

Hi Craig

Thanks for that explanation.  Obviously the Greek grammar can be debated by experts too.  I’m not an expert in Greek either, but I have been trained in Classical Greek and taught at Bible College, so here goes…

First, I’m not sure any of these Greek arguments are pertinent anyway.  They don’t seem to me to be relevant, but I’ll discuss them anyway.

On verse 11, the noun “woman” without the article does indeed mean “a woman”.  There is no indefinite article in Greek (“a”) and this is how it is expressed.  Of course you don’t have to translate the indefinite article, but if a particular woman was in view I think it would definitely have the article.  I find that to be a very conclusive argument.  I certainly do not see how the noun without the article here could ever be definite.

Also what you propose for v14b is simply astounding.  I’m just being honest here.  Yes, I’m a loud, obnoxious (at times) Jewish Christian with strong opinions, and not very Anglo, quiet and polite!  But I am truly astounded by this.  Verse 14a is speaking of Adam.  What a huge shift to move from verse 13 and 14a, speaking about Adam and Eve, to suddenly mid-sentence come back to the present with no other indication!  This sounds very much like reading a theory into the text which would never come to mind otherwise.  In other words, a very unnatural reading of the text, and one which I would say, again, is close to impossible, if not highly implausible.  Here I wouldn’t mind whether anyone was egalitarian or complementarian, I would be surprised if anyone would back that interpretation.

Your point about the perfect tense main verb (“has entered” into sin) is closer to the mark in my opinion.  This indeed does suggest something that Eve did that has ongoing consequences for all other women.  Her sin was one that has ongoing consequences for all subsequent women, hence verse 15, which applies to Eve and all women.

I can’t see the problem with verse 15a applying to Eve.  Paul is speaking about Adam and Eve and what they did in Genesis 2-3, and looks forward from that to Eve’s salvation, along with all other women (future tense verb “will be saved”).  Verse 15, I admit, is NOT clear, and obvious, etc, like verses 11-12, but that seems fair enough to me.

The shift between Adam and Eve and then saying “the woman” in v14b makes sense to me!  You might not say it out of context about Bill and Betty, but Paul is moving to apply what happened to the woman, Eve, to all women, so that makes very good sense.

Hope that helps.  I’m largely following Mounce here.

Martin

Hi everyone. I just read through this entire thread.

I cannot help but get the impression that some people would do anything and everything to ‘get around’ what is said in 1 Tim 2, rather than seek to obey it.

Mike Wells: your claim that Martin’s concept of ‘plain reading’ is fallacious, is just a good old slippery slope. Just because there may be others who claim a ‘plain reading’ of a certain text but come up with a different meaning does not give sufficient grounds to claim that Martin’s ‘plain reading’ is on the verge of liberalism. The Apostle Paul, in 2 Thess 3:6-14 for instance, clearly assumes that his words can have a plain and unambiguous meaning which can either be obeyed or disobeyed. Sure, Martin Sheilds says that Martin Pakula’s claim of ‘plain reading’ is naive, but I’d go with the Apostle on that one.

Dan Wright: you claim that if Martin’s ‘plain reading’ is applied to 1 Tim 2:15, it is shown to be fallacious. But your illustration is ridiculous. Saying that a ‘plain reading’ of v15 results in the claim that women are saved through having children is a straw man. You don’t present a plain reading. Rather, you remove that verse from it’s immediate context and interpret it literalistically. A plain reading (as Martin Pakula has shown) is not a reading that removes a verse from its immediate context.

Imagine someone using a series of highly detailed grammatical and hermeneutical arguments, sought to establish that there’s no such thing as a plain reading of, say, Acts 4:12. Surely we could not help but think (even if we were being charitable) that such a person wasn’t really interested into submitting to God’s Word and obeying it, but rather trying to find a way to ignore a teaching that they find offensive.

Hi Mike

I am having trouble understanding you at this point.  I’m not used to this type of conversation (I’m old fashioned - gee I like face to face conversations!).  I need clarification, because I’m ‘not getting it’.

Why is it arbitrary to say that the word “teach” means congregational preaching?  That may be true in a general book about teaching, but this is 1 Timothy!  There is a context.  I hope I am not misrepresenting Claire Smith here, but I have read the section of her PhD thesis on the word “teach”.  My understanding is that in this setting the word has a quite narrow semantic range and a technical one.  That is, we are not talking about just any kind of teaching about any subject.  Paul is speaking here about teaching the gospel/ Word of God/ Bible.  God’s household is the church.  When we gather together to meet around the word of God, that is God’s household.  Teaching the gospel/ Word of God/ Bible in that setting is “teaching” (1 Tim 2:12). 

I’m a little uneasy about moving from a strict setting of the church to a Bible Study group for this discussion, but I must - it’s a fair qquestion.  I would have thought God’s household, the church, clearly includes what we do on Sunday, yes.  Does it include Bible study groups?  Well, that’s more debateable.  I would want to sit on the fence and say Yes and No!  (Lecturing at College or AFES Uni work are other situations slightly further off from a strict church setting).  Now I know the Knox-Robinson model and agree that Uni ministry, College classes, Bible Study groups, etc, are in some large sense church - a group of people gathered around the word.  However I find it a bit reductionistic as a definition.  Others would point out that Uni ministry has some real differences from a Sunday church.  Bible study groups certainly do.  So, Yes, I think they are close, and, frankly, I would not be comfortable with a woman “teaching” in any of those settings.  But I have to acknowledge that strictly speaking they are not the same as a fully fledged church congregation with all that that implies.  A Bible study group is part of the larger church ministry.  Generally you couldn’t do certain things in a Bible study group without the permission of the senior minister, etc. 

Anyway, I hope that’s enough?  Come back to me on it.  I’m trying to be brief.  Mark Baddeley’s answers are brilliant and I sacrifice some clarity in trying to be more brief (not that I could achieve his clarity anyway!).

Martin

Mike (and Teri, et al)

This discussion is moving along far too quickly for me, with a full time job and other busy things in life, to keep up.

Our discussion about authority is important, though it is really a tangent to the real issue here, which I think Martin P. is dealing with well: namely the plain teaching of 1 Tim 2.

I don’t believe I entirely follow your reasoning about “extrinsic” and “intrinsic” authority. The way I understand authority is that the ultimate authority in the universe is God, but God also delegates genuine authority to other persons under him—kings, governments, policemen, judges, bosses, church elders, husbands, parents, etc.

Authority is a personal thing. When Christians speak about the Bible’s authority, they are really speaking about God’s authority, as he is the author of the Bible and speaks through it. The Bible, taken just as ink on paper, does not wield authority over people. As I said before, the BIble is the sword of the Spirit (Hebrews 4:12), but it needs to be wielded by a person, whether that person is the Holy Spirit or a human being, in order to exercise real authority.

By way of analogy, a book of Australian criminal law cannot exercise much authority over me if I have committed a crime. It requires the personal action of a judge, etc.

Going back to my illustration of the sermon given in person vs. on MP3: take it another step further, and imagine reading a transcript of the same sermon on paper. Even less cutting of the heart. The further removed we become from the personal authority of the preacher, the less we are affected by the message.

So, call it whatever you want—derived authority, delegated authority, intrinsic authority, whatever—but the personal presence of a preacher on Sunday, as he delivers a sermon to his congregation, is an exercise of authority. Therefore I, like Martin, believe that this is an inappropriate activity for a woman (over a mixed congregation) in light of the plain “no nonsense” reading 1 Tim 2:11-14.

regards
Jereth

Folks

I’m ending our discussion at the end of the day (with Jean’s permission).  I’m not able to respond over the weekend and we seem to have covered a lot of ground and are starting to go over the same areas again.

Martin Pakula

Greetings Ben.
Just so we are clear, my claim is not that Martins reading is naive. It clearly is not. My problem was with the claim that you can read the scriptures without any extra biblical help. As Mr Shields pointed out, if you read a translation, you have extra-biblical material, even if you learn the languages, you are using extra biblical material, if you have heard a sermon on it, you are using extra biblical material. This isn’t a bad thing. We just have to weigh that material to try and come to the ‘plain sense’ of what Paul was saying. Now, Martins claim was that egalatarian scholars are avoiding the ‘plain meaning’ whenever they appeal to extrabiblical material. We may say that we think they miss the plain meaning, that they are incorrect in their weighing of the material, but to say that the very act of trying to weigh the material (which includes definitions of words) avoids the ‘plain meaning’ is a silly claim. You can get the history, lexicography and theological connection wrong, but to say you can read without any of these is silly.
My beef with Martins ‘plain reading’ of the text is that even within his reading, it could mean a huge spectrum of things for the practice of the church. Unless he does some lexical work (thankyou Claire Smith), some theological work (nature of the church,thanks Martin for your reflections) and historical work. Doing this is far better than appealing to the ‘plain meaning’

@martin- thanks for your reflections on the knox robinson stuff, I think this is really the sticking point. The difficulty I see comes back to my original post. You may be fine with women leading bible studies, teaching the bible at a college, speaking at a conference. But for those who take a broader view of teaching and authority(ie it is something that goes on outside the congregational meeting and involves not just preaching but any gospel based influence over men) you are doing something incredibly sinful by allowing this, even if you hold to complementarian views. (Roughly similar to how you feel about people claiming complemenarian views and allowing preaching in the congregation). Now, either they are right or they are wrong. Either they have understood the Pauline concept of teaching or they have not. If you think they are wrong, you should call them out on it and tell them (where are the female lecturers at moore, or the people that boycott cms summer school when there is a female preacher). It would strengthen your position who think that secretly you want to supress these things. It puts forward a positive view of what you think scripture is saying, rather than simply, ‘not what the egalatarians say’.
It is just an admission that the truth of scripture points to something definite, and can be wandered from to the left or to the right.

Which brings me to my ps
you have defined teaching as preaching in the congregation, yet don’t want ‘teaching’ to happen in mixed bible studies, which you have said are not the congregation. huh? Perhaps you have a definition of teaching beyond what you have said.
I’m not trying to be trixy here. I just want to know exactly what it is you think women can and cant do.
thanks again

Oh—and I’m not “bitter.” I’m upset.  Saying I sound “bitter” can be a way of not having to hear what I’m actually saying—I’m just speaking out of bitterness, so you can discount my words. 

Since I don’t want to be judgmental, I’m choosing to believe this is not what you meant.

In fact by railing against a poor doctrine of the church, you may keep many more people from egalatarian views. it would give those who know that something isn’t quite right a different language to oppose these restrictions on women.

martin, respectfully, I dont think you have understood what Mr Shields and I mean by ‘extra-biblical material’. You have absolutely no access to the bible ot the ‘plain meaning’ except by extra biblical material. The only way you could is if you had never heard about Jesus or the gospel or Israel, had never been taught anything about greek, had never read a translated bible, had never heard a sermon, and were given a greek manuscript which you magically and unhelped managed to translate perfectly. Sorry, is this your experience?

Hi Martin,
thanks for those thoughts. So it does come down to a principle where we fundamentally dont know what Paul was talking about ‘teaching’ except that it would at least include something like the 30 minute sermon we give in a pulpit (are there pulpits in the NT? I guess you could argue from synagogue practice) and anything that might resemble it in manner, which means not laid back, or I guess, an invitation to look at the word together.
So, deep breath, where do we fit prophecy in? It seems to be quite pointed and directive at points, perhaps even more so that preaching.

I feel like arguing for ‘principles’ is a bit of a fudge here. Any egalatarian would agree with the principle if they get to define what ‘teaching’ and ‘authority’ are. (as in fact we see with the whole domineering teaching shenanigans). You have to figure out what ‘teaching’ is for Paul and then argue how our current practices are the same or analogous. Manner doesn’t seem to cut it. or at least, not entirely

Jordan,

With all respect—an abuse of historical studies also happens when we fail to take into account shared assumptions that the original writer and original audience would have taken for granted that we do not; when we fail to let the historical context inform our understanding of what was being said, why it was being said, and under what circumstances it was being said, in order to try to understand what the author meant his original listeners to understand.

Almost every book in the Bible begins with some statement of who was writing, to whom he was writing, and when and where he was writing.  Those words are part of Scripture too—and they are there for a reason: so that we can understand that the word of God was first of all a word to them, in their time and place.  When we treat it like a memo from the Boss left on our desks yesterday, we are not rightly honoring those “who, what, where and when” verses in the Scriptures.

It is not dishonoring the sufficiency of the Scriptures to try to understand the original author’s intent.  No—it is honoring the Scriptures.

Our church leaders are supposed to study these things and help us understand that historical context.  Instead they often muddy the waters.  And one thing that muddies the waters most is to assume that our 21st-century perspective is somehow an objective standard; that what seems to be “plain sense” to us is always exactly what God intended to say.

Hi Kristen,

I absolutely agree. The historical context as revealed in scripture is very important for interpretation.

Cheers,
Jordan

Hi Mike,

Yep, you got me there - I collapsed textual criticism and lexicography into one.

Apart from my ignorant use of terms, didn’t I address the lexical issue too?

Cheers,
Jordan

Hi Mike,

I’d have to disagree with you there. Please don’t read too much into the fact that I took one word as an example.

A bit more charity eh?

Jordan

Hi Martin P.,

I think Mike Wells has done a good job highlighting the issues I’ve also tried to raise, so I won’t repeat too much. Since this is the end of the discussion (for now), I’ll close with some final comments.

Thanks for providing your “plain reading of the text” earlier. Unfortunately this is not a good example of what many people mean by “plain reading” which all too frequently becomes a means to grant themselves permission to impose their modern worldview on the text without examining the cultural, social, and linguistic background from which the text arose. Your example at least shows that some of this is going on when you’re reading the text, although there’s much that remains implicit.

Having listened to the mp3 of your talk, I’m left with the impression that the “plain reading” you’ve outlined above denies the sufficiency of Scripture (at least according to your definition). Why? Because I cannot understand Scripture without reference to the culture and historical context of the text. The simplest example is, of course, αὐθεντέω (αὐθεντεῖν) which is a hapax legomenon in the NT. The only way to understand this term is to appeal to external sources — other Greek literature and early translations of this text and other Greek material.

This methodology is not restricted to hapax terms, and is not restricted to lexical analysis, since meaning is derived — in part — from context, where context includes social and cultural context. A “pig” may be a pig, but in the NT references to pigs carry a whole range of associated connotations which simply cannot be conveyed in the use of the word. That’s a pretty trivial example (which in this instance can be adequately fleshed out by reference to the OT), but numerous more complex and subtle examples could be cited. (Think, for example, of the Samaritans in the NT and attitudes to them — to understand that it is necessary to go beyond the text. Again, examples could readily be multiplied.)

So I think the problems here is that the notion of sufficiency of Scripture is expanded beyond what is justifiable to suggest that anything beyond Scripture cannot be allowed to contribute to our understanding of its meaning. This is, however, often arbitrary: you’re happy to appeal to the use of words in non-biblical texts in order to establish their meanings, but not to other materials which may establish other conditions which have bearing on the meaning of the texts without identifying them as undermining the sufficiency of Scripture. In the end it is also ignorant of the process of translation or of reading the text in the first place.

To some degree this discussion has taken us away from the original post. I’m certainly not convinced that you’re wrong about 1Tim 2! Yet appeals to “plain sense” are too easily misapplied and themselves offer little evidential justification for a reading. I was also somewhat disappointed to find that approaches which seek to understand the social, cultural, historical, and linguistic context for the text are labelled “liberal hermeneutics” — an inappropriate label considering that the approach you’ve employed above makes partial use of this same methodology!

Hi Kristen.

<cite>Not everything Paul wrote is plain and unambiguous.  The Scriptures themselves say so.  Are you all going to ignore the “plain sense” of that?<cite>

Of course I agree wholeheartedly. A plain reading of that verse says that not everything Paul wrote is unambiguous.

Now, in all honesty, can you tell me that 1 Tim 2 fits into that category?

Martin and Mike,

Hi,

Additional historical info does fill out elements of meaning, but not in an authoritative way such as would impact faith and obedience.

It’s a bit like colouring in an outline. You may add colour, but you have to stay within the lines. The lines are set by the literary and theological context of scripture. The extra-biblical info fills in some details where none are given, but it must not go outside the lines. It must not be permitted to take the meaning of a biblical word or the biblical text in a direction that would be resisted by that passage’s literary and theological context in scripture. And the extra colour can never be said to be necessary for faith and obedience, as though the original lines were merely skeletal and inadequate.

I hope that’s a helpful illustration.

In Christ,
Jordan

Hi Jereth!

I think your Bible study model is helpful. We also aim for a male/female leader, with the man as the senior (I don’t mean in age!) leader. I do see leading a Bible study as “teaching”, even when I’m facilitating (the leader always has a position of authority, and always guides the group in their understanding of the text to some extent - I’m not sure how you can get away from this!). So my guess is Steve would do the leading, and me the helping and facilitating, if we were leading a group like yours.

Jean.

RATS!!!  I said I wouldn’t add any more comments, but I knew I wouldn’t be able to help myself!

First, thank you Martin Shields for your final comment to me.  I appreciate a lot of what you have said.

I just want to throw in one more comment or two.  There’s a lot more to say, and it’s given me pause to go and read more on hermeneutics in particular and do some more thinking.  But I’ll stick to just a couple of comments for now.

First, I am grateful to people like Martin who have gone and listened to my talk.  My main concern is with exegesis of the text, and this discussion has, as he pointed out, mainly avoided that and gone off onto what I would see as more peripheral (but important) issues of hermeneutics (and Neil Chambers really needed to be in on that conversation more than me).  I am pleased to see the conversation going more in the area of application of the principles of the text now - that’s great.

A second thought.  I think Martin is right about my using extra-Biblical information in my talk.  I certainly did so.  What I need to think through now is whether I used it to explain the text or to refute egalitarian arguments that use that extra-Biblical information to undermine the plain reading of the text.  I strongly suspect I was using it to refute the egalitarian arguments on their own terms rather than to exegete the text.  But I’ll think more upon it.  Just one example.  I referred to a work that showed that some women in the first century were indeed educated.  This is all extra-Biblical.  I used this research to undermine an egalitarian argument that says that women were forbidden from teaching men becuause they were undeducated.

Martin P

Hi Martin,

The point is, that having established the text and done our best to determine the meaning (using all the extra-biblical resources needed), there is such a thing as prioritising what we believe to be the inspired words. There is such a thing as the sufficiency of scripture, with implications for interpretation.

It seems to me that your thinking, and Mike’s, is taking us in a direction that would force us to deny this very possibility.

Can you help me out here?

Jordan

Hi Martin,

I have no doubt that a key issue, raised over and over here, is hermeneutics.

Yes, I agree.  My question is why is heremeneutics the key thing raised. 

Is it because people want to disobey God, or is it because they are determined to not make God the author of real, substantial evil, and so disobedience to the word is the side effect? 

Both are culpable, and, with a strong enough doctrine of sin, begin to collapse a bit into each other (see God’s treatment of Job’s friends), but there is a difference between them.

There is a difference between the liberal who goes, “It’s not the word of God”, and the Christian who says, “Women subordinate to men/commanding the death of babies/torturing people in fire for eternity is just evil.  It simply cannot be justified without making a nonsense of our biblically informed moral compass, and as God is good, and not the devil, the Scriptures, which are the word of God, that appear to be saying such things can’t be saying what they appear to be saying to us.”  I’m not saying that is right, or not dangerous, or anything like that.  I’m saying that it’s not quite the same thing going on as with liberalism, even if we see strong similarlities in the hermeneutics.

  And I guess at heart, simplistic though it may be, I still love the “naive”, “simple” Christian who just loves God, loves his word and wants to obey it.

Yes, I do too. I would put myself in that same camp – I accepted what seemed to me to be evil because it was the clear teaching of Scripture. But that mentality isn’t a silver bullet either that somehow ensures our faithfulness. 

That kind of attitude is the kind that goes, “James is clearly rejecting justification by grace through faith alone, so we have to throw the doctrine out.” “God commanded the execution of babies, so we should have similar statutes on our law books,” “No-one can be saved who doesn’t sell all they own and give it to the poor.” 

There is no human attribute we possess that we can trust to ensure our faithfulness.  Our sin can warp anything, and the grace of God can work with anything. 

The Christian who ‘just loves God, loves his word and wants to obey it” is easy prey for a satan who comes quoting Scripture, or a false teaching twisting Scripture.  At that point you want more than ‘just’ love and a desire to obey, you want knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

But I do think Wayne Grudem is correct that on this point they are following a liberal hermeneutic, which, if applied to the rest of Scripture, would result in the loss of any other doctrine, including the gospel. 

I agree.  That’s why I changed camps; I could see that the egalitarian approach on this issue had no controls on it.  No-one ever said, “Now, see what Paul is saying here, I personally believe this is true.  But when we apply a correct hermeneutic we can see that it isn’t really a universal apostolic teaching.”

It was a method that only came into play when there was a dissonance between the text and the scholar’s beliefs.  Such an approach has no controls except the moral intuition of the scholar.  Only views they reject have any chance of ending up as non-normative for today. The more consistently the mehtod is applied the more the Bible is domesticated to reflect the values and aspirations of the scholar.

I accept their sincerity, but cannot accept egalitarianism as a valid Biblical view.  Don’t know what you think about that?

I agree.  In fact, because for me this debate isn’t fundamentally about hermeneutics but about the actual content of the debate – gender, authority, love, equality and the like (I think this is like the Reformation – that was a fight over the gospel that spread out to a fight over Scripture, I think it is the same “doctrine leading to Scripture” dynamic here), I am even more hostile to the view.  I think egalitarianism itself – the kind of struture of beliefs as exemplified in Groothius’ article on equality – is a false gospel.  Not in the sense that it denies justification by grace through faith, but that it is simply incompatible with the basic structures of our knowledge of God. 

It’s not just the hermeneutics that is the problem, it’s the fundamental ethical principles driving the movement.  Even if they had the right hermeneutics I’d still be strongly opposed.

Anyway, I know you know all that, but thought I’d raise these issues candidly.

Yes, if you hadn’t explicitly asked for me to answer your question I would have just nodded my head.  But since there was a direct question – here’s my interactions with your thoughts.  None of it is meant as challenge, just a building upon what you’ve said.

Martin S and Mike

Neil Chambers addressed some of these issues really well, at the conference at which Martin P spoke. Unfortunately, the recording of his talk failed or I would refer you to it.

He explained that while it is true that the Bible is accomodated to human language, accommodation does not impair God’s ability to communicate clearly and without ambiguity. He pointed us to Romans 15:4 “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction”

I think that you are far overstating the necessity of extra-biblical information (whether linguistic, historical or cultural) for our correct understanding of what the Bible says to us today. God wrote the Bible for Christians in every age to know what he requires of them; surely he would have made it intelligible enough that we don’t need specialised knowledge of ancient history to figure it out. It seems to me that modern protestants tend to fall into the same trap as mediaeval Catholicism, except that where Catholicism said “you cannot understand the Bible apart from the tradition of the Church” we say “you cannot understand the Bible apart from the scholars”.

I’m fully with Martin P when he says that there are some Bible texts that are hard to understand, but 1 Tim 2:11-14 is not one of them. Consider these 3 texts:

A. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

B. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

C. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

Honestly, do you think that B. is a difficult text like C., or a simple one like A.? Honestly. If it did not so offend our culture, would there be so much interest in discovering the historical background of 1 Timothy? Do we see as much popular interest in the historical, linguistic and cultural context of John 3:16 as we do for 1 Tim 2:11-14?

In any case, I don’t have a problem with the meaning of a text being illuminated by contextual information. What gets me is when the meaning of a text is negated by contextual information. Which is what happens to 1 Tim 2:11-14 at the hands of modern interpreters.

regards
Jereth

Jean,
“”Women are then forced to take responsibility for all the decisions; to either withdraw from the relationship or constantly pursue their husbands (often resulting in further withdrawal); or to shoulder all the responsibility for teaching the Bible to their children and disciplining them.
The result for many women is anxiety, depression, exhuastion, and loneliness, as they bear a heavy burden of leadership that they weren’t built by God to bear.””

How could this possibly apply to the life of my friend whose husband suffered a head injury in an auto accident that has left him in a near vegetative state?  She has no loving choice, but the one God has given her - to lead, protect and provide for her husband.  Did God purposely ordain a life for her that He did not “built”/equip her to bear?

My grandmother also walked a very similar road for the last 15 years of my grandfather’s life as his mind and then body were overtaken by Alzheimer’s.  My brother-in-law developed bipolar disorder many years ago and so his wife has never had the luxury of depending upon her husband.  On the contrary though, she has developed a wonderful dependence upon her Lord and Savior. 

None of these women are/were plagued by “anxiety, depression, exhuastion, and loneliness, as they bear a heavy burden of leadership.”  On the contrary, they are by far some of the most joyful, mature Christians I ever been blessed to meet! They have been godly examples to me and many others.

I believe this is why the Lord didn’t leave us with a book called “Formulas for the Perfect Christian life” or Bible chapters called “The Only Role of Men” and “The Only Role of Women.”  But He did tell us to love one another as He loves us and to walk in the Spirit.  If a “biblical role” can have even one small exception, then how can it possibly be a command for every marriage?

Benjamin said:

“Of course I agree wholeheartedly. A plain reading of that verse says that not everything Paul wrote is unambiguous.

Now, in all honesty, can you tell me that 1 Tim 2 fits into that category?”

Yes, Benjamin, in all honesty I really, truly can.  I already listed two of the reasons in this thread: the meaning of “I do not permit” (is it unequivocably universal and timeless, or does the context of the rest of the letter, and a comparison with Paul’s other letters, indicate that this is more a time-bound and situation-specific prohibition?) and the meaning of “have (or usurp) authority.”

I could go on.  I could talk about “she is saved through childbirth, if they continue in faith, etc.”  I could talk about whether Paul is using the word “for” in “for Adam was formed first” to mean “for example” (this is a commonly used meaning of that word) or “for the reason that.”  I could talk about other places where Paul seems to “invoke” the creation story but is very clearly NOT using that “invocation” to make what he is saying timeless and universal (1 Cor 11:3 and 2 Cor 11:3 both do this).  I could talk about Romans 16 and all the women Paul mentions who seem to have some sort of authoritative ministry (including, if you read the “plain text,” Junia who was among the apostles)—and wonder why, if Paul’s command in 1 Tim 2 was timeless and universal, he says nothing about it to the church at Rome, where there were more educated women who had less of a need to learn correct doctrine and who were apparently quite active in ministry.

No, I am not being dishonest in thinking that your interpretation of 1 Tim 2 is not the only possible one, and that what you call the “plain sense” is really not so absolutely plain.  I am not just trying to weasel out of obeying the Scriptures (I have no vested interest in doing so anyway, since I am personally not called to preach).  I really do want to know what they mean, what Paul meant by them, and how Timothy would have understood this letter.

Jereth said:

“Honestly. If it did not so offend our culture, would there be so much interest in discovering the historical background of 1 Timothy? Do we see as much popular interest in the historical, linguistic and cultural context of John 3:16 as we do for 1 Tim 2:11-14?

In any case, I don’t have a problem with the meaning of a text being illuminated by contextual information. What gets me is when the meaning of a text is negated by contextual information. Which is what happens to 1 Tim 2:11-14 at the hands of modern interpreters.”

Yes—honestly.  The reason we need to look more into the historical and cultural context of 1 Timothy 2:12 than John 3:16 is that 1 Timothy 2:12 is talking about human culture, is it not?  What women do in church is part of being human in a culture.  John 3, on the other hand, is talking about the divine and the eternal, not the human and the cultural.  God’s love for the world and His sending of His son transcend human cultures—and human cultures do change.  It would be a sad thing if we made the cultures into which the Word was spoken the same as the Word itself.

And no verse of Scripture is ever negated by understanding historical context.  Egalitarians do not say, “We hold 1 Tim 2:12 to have no meaning.”  What they say is, “We hold that the timeless meaning of this verse is something along the lines of “those who have not yet learned, should not teach, or they may get puffed up and begin to dominate, or assume authority that has not been granted them.”

Egals may be right, or we may be wrong—but we are not the dishonest rebels you are painting us as.

Dear Kay,

Thanks for a helpful reminder. Yes, God always gives us the strength to bear the things he gives us to bear, and this includes being married to someone who doesn’t take responsibility in the relationship.

What I meant was that a man who doesn’t take the lead in a servant-hearted, loving way is causing his wife suffering. This is suffering that God will give her the strength to bear. But it will still come at a cost.

Jean.

Jean,

you seemed to have missed Kay’s point. 

However, your point is well taken also.  Either spouse not taking responsibility to use their skills to benefit the other causes the other a loss and sometimes emotional pain of having to do something one isn’t skilled at doing.  Men have strengths God gives that should be used to benefit their wives.  Women have skills that God gives which should be used to benefit their husbands.  But all men do not have the same strengths or same degree of strength and all women do not have the same skills, or the same lack of skills.  But whatever we each have, husbands and wives can fit together in a complementary fashion to build a unity that works.

ps. by “built” I meant that God makes women in a certain way, and men in a certain way, to fulfil the roles he gives them (I understand that you may not agree here, I’m just explaining what I meant). I didn’t mean he doesn’t give us strength or equip us to bear our burdens. Thanks for clarifying this.

Jean,
Help me understand - God gives it all -so what is the difference?

Does the exact timing of bestowing certain strengths/equipment make them less than “built” by God?

“Without such specialised knowledge and extra-biblical information you’d be left looking at texts written in an ancient language with very little information on what the words meant.”

This is such a pivitol point, Martin. 

Most Christians wouldn’t be able to read the Bible at all, period, if it were not for scholars.

There is no such thing as “plain reading” of the text.

Martin said,

“I am pushing that we don’t use liberal hermeneutics to over-turn its plain meaning.  (I am not suggesting everyone in this thread is doing that, but they haven’t particularly convinced me otherwise either.)”

Martin, is there a “liberal hermeneutic” in looking a few verses further on and saying, “Hmm, that verse <e,>can’t</em> actually be saying that women earn their eternal salvation in having babies rather than by free gift of the blood of Christ”?

When the counsel of Scripture as a whole appears to go against the plain sense of a particular verse, is it “liberal hermeneutics” to look again?

And if the meaning of this verse is thus unclear, how can we be so sure we’re correctly catching Paul’s meaning three verses earlier?

The real question to me is, “what is the counsel of Scripture as a whole on this matter?”  Egals and comps differ on that, but it is not an illegitimate or dishonest question.

continuing...

And it doesn’t even really match the data for God’s relationship with creation.  When God speaks in Gen 1 and creates the heavens and the earth, is he issuing commands?  Is he ordering things that do not exist to exist?  That’s absurd.  Gen 1 are not commands in any meaningful sense – commands require there to be someone to be commanded (another Athanasian gem IIRC). 

But they are clearly words of authority.  Just the speaking of the words accomplishes the will of the Father.  Everything comes into existence by a word.  If that’s not ‘authority’ what is it?  And surely that authority is the precondition for all our experiences of God’s authority when he gives us commands. 

It stands behind and makes possible commands.  Command authority rests upon and depends upon the authority that created the world from nothing.  That means authority isn’t simply power to command.  That rests on some other dimensions of authority that are far more basic to do with creation and the Father-Son relationship.

If that has any legs at all, then you might see why I am so very, very twithcy about the idea that there is no authority at all in the Father-Son-Spirit relationships.  God’s relationship with creation is grounded in his relationship with the Son and the Spirit.  Athanasius makes the point (there’s no Scripture text for it, but when you follow the Scripture’s teaching as a whole I think he’s on the money) that without the begetting of the Son there could be no creation. 

A God who is not a Father, whose nature was not of the kind to necessarily be productive and creative and produce someone in all ways the same, except for being Father, would be a god whose nature was not to be creative.  The creation of the world is grounded in the eternal begetting of the Son.  A monadic god could not be a creator.

In other words, God’s relationship with creation is not just an exercise in arbitrary power detached from who God is, or actualising potentiality never realised in eternity (that last clause is worth reflecting on).  It is grounded in, at every point the relationship that exists between Father, Son, and Spirit.

Which means that if there is no authority at all in the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit, then there can be no authority in God’s relationship to creation.  If authority is foreign and alien to God’s personal relationships within the Godhead, as egalitariansim claims, then authority has no ground in God himself.  It is fundamentally ungodlike, an aberration for God, because who God is is fundamentally defined by the interpersonal relationships, not by his relationship with Creation – the later can only be a particular expression of the former, and must be grounded on it.

Which is why I think egalitarianism’s view of a Trinity with no authority probably has some deep conceptual ties to Open Theism’s view of God with no authority in his relationship with the world.  God is towards us as he is in himself.  I suspect that it would be almost impossible to find someone with a complementarian view of the Trinity who was an Open Theist.  I suspect all Open Theists will have an egalitarian view of the Trinity.

2. Authority is power to command doesn’t make sense of important aspects of life.  I’m thinking of things like this little bit of sociological research I linked to in this comment and then quoted there and the following comment:  http://solapanel.org/article/complementarianism_and_egalitarianism_part_31/#5861 

It’s a study from Switzerland that shows that the father’s practice of church going determines the church going practices of the children when they are grown up out of all proportion (more than an order of magnitude in some cases) to the mother’s practice and example. 

If authority is all about commands, then complementarianism can’t explain that any better than egalitarianism.  The study didn’t look at who was giving the commands.  It looked at what the parents did - the pattern of their church going.  And it showed that the father’s practice far more shapes the children than the mother’s practice.  I think that says something about the father’s authority.

But in this case it’s linked to his manner of life, not his commanding.  I don’t think it is isolated.  In the Bible authority is often linked to behaviour and example, not just command.

to be concluded

“I can’t imagine people in past ages would see these instructions as evil.  What we have is a clash with culture.  If our culture makes us think something in Scripture is “wrong” (can’t bring myself to say “evil”) we surely should look at our culture and critique it with Scripture, not vice versa.”

Martin Pakula,
Of course, they wouldn’t it was part of their culture – the same reason most saw no problem with slavery.  It was a “normal” part of their lives/society.  Jesus first followers were no different than we – they saw no problem in vying for a “top position” in His kingdom just as their rulers did.  Jesus had this to say: ““You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,  and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—  just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

I just wrote that before I read all of Mark’s helpful responses. I think this is great and helpful:

“It’s not that women can’t lead their children, nor that they are overwhelmed by the tasks – women do it well all the time when serious illness or death affects their husband, or when their doing it is an expression of the concrete way in which the husband’s authority is being discharged.  It’s a problem that arises from the person with authority refusing to accept their responsibility.  It’s not an ability issue, it’s a relational issue, and is often seen in badly functioning social structures.”

That’s a helpful way of putting it; thanks, Mark.

Hi Kristen
I take it you disagree.  Why not just say so?  You sound rather bitter.

I think it is worth my observing that that is very far from my experience of Kristen as we have talked for some time and at some depth now on a different thread. I have found her to be thoughtful, reflective, and generous.

As for everything else you wrote, Mark - phew! I don’t have time to read it all now! A quick skim, and it looks very enlightening! Clearly, you have a far better grasp of the issues than me. And really, I didn’t mean authority equals power to command - I am not as precise in my language as you - what I meant is that it generally includes this. I’m sure you can think of exceptions, and I didn’t even want to say this was the most important aspect of authority - just one aspect of it (and, as you point out, perhaps not always an aspect of it).

Do you think that love and responsibility are necessary adjuncts of authority, or could you find exceptions to these too? Maybe I should just concede that love and responsibility are a better place to start when defining authority in marriage (have I got that right?) but that leadership in marriage will (generally??) include the power to command - something I hope wouldn’t characterise the relationship or be abused, but used only in love!

And I love the way you start with God, not with the outcome or expression. It’s exactly what I’d want to do if I was teaching on this (no doubt a lot less ably than you!).

What I really want to do is to redeem words like “authority” and “submission” until they mean something good and healthy and true! No doubt you’ll tell me why I can’t do this. :(

But if I don’t go and spend some time with my family on this very rainy Saturday then I will be the one who should be accused of neglect of loving leadership.

Hi Jean,

I didn’t mean authority equals power to command - I am not as precise in my language as you - what I meant is that it generally includes this.

*slaps the back of his own head* Ah well, that was several gadzillion photons addressing an issue that wasn’t there.

Do you think that love and responsibility are necessary adjuncts of authority, or could you find exceptions to these too?

In a Christian understanding of home and Church they are certainly necessary adjuncts.  Responsibility is always there in any context, from a Christian point of view - with great power comes great responsibilty (so it’s not just Christian either, even spidermen recognise that one).  Love, well that’s interesting.  I’ve said no, authority can function fine in some contexts without love.  The doctor or judge doesn’t have to care about you to do their job and wield its authority properly.  But 1 Cor 13 would suggest, if we think it is more than just ‘house rules’, that it still falls short without love.

Maybe I should just concede that love and responsibility are a better place to start when defining authority in marriage (have I got that right?) but that leadership in marriage will (generally??) include the power to command

It will always include that capacity.  But at the moment I think 21st century westerners find authority so hard to get our heads around that we shouldn’t start there.  We need to begin with the nature of love, and responsibility, and of social structures.  How most relationships other than friendships, especially a social unit like a family, requires someone who takes responsibility for the health of the social unit as a whole.  From there we can then move to power to command as something that enables someone to exercise that responsibility.  That kind of approach (and that’s not the only way to do it) makes power to command more intelligible as something genuinely good to most of us I think.

What I really want to do is to redeem words like “authority” and “submission” until they mean something good and healthy and true! No doubt you’ll tell me why I can’t do this. :(

No, quite the opposite. My ‘disagreement’ with Martin, such as it is, is that our culture’s suspicion of authority is so entrenched (as seen by egalitarian’s view that authority is okay if it isn’t permanent but only temporary) that I think we need to do more work to show how and why authority and submission are a positive good for everybody, not just the person with the power to command. And not just point at 1 Tim 2 and say, “Now believe it because God is good.”

That’ll work really well on some, but others need help to see why it’s good.  And I think we can do better on that front than we often do. For others its unnecessary, and they’ll warm far more to Martin’s direct and forthright approach that simply points to the text, reminds them God is good, and shows that it is clear. Different strokes for different folk, so be prepared to adjust the approach for the person with whom you’re in conversation as far as you are able.

thanks for the comments regarding sin and evil. I think they are really helpful.

You’re welcome, thanks for letting me know.

Do you think it is possible that there is in fact evil going on on both sides of the debate. Thats partly why I want Martin to tighten his argument for congreagtional preaching, and for you to employ that mind on bad comps.
For many egals, it is not simply that they see evil in the idea of comps, it is that they have lived under evils going by the comp name. Unless you clearly denounce those evils, why would the people think you are doing anything except justifying evil?

Hmmn.  I think complementarians need to be very clear in differentiating our view from misogyny.  And those of us who are not chauvinists – who don’t think women just aren’t able to teach – should clearly differentiate ourselves from chauvinism. 

That needs to be more than just saying, “This is not misogyny” – some attention has to go into thinking about what misogyny is, and the kind of concrete forms it can take and those need to be attacked.

So, for example, I think any complementarian (and egalitarian, I’m pretty even handed about this) who has been teaching consistently and frequently somewhere for, say, two years and has not made it clear to the congregation that abuse – physical, sexual, emotional – is simply, brutally, out of bounds has failed to teach the counsel of God.  (In my view the sacraments should be denied to anyone who is unrepentedly abusive.) One of the saddest days of my life was when my wife and I went to have a meal with a Christian lady who had been a Christian for quite a number of years and discovered through a workshop run by her place of employment that her Christian-from-childhood husband shouldn’t be abusing her. Epic fail, no excuses.

But there’s a lot of other ‘evils’ that are more just clumsy phrasings to people who are hurting, trying to apply cookie-cutter pastoral advice to tricky and complex pastoral situations, lack of listening, insensitivity and the like.  There I think direct assaults are counter-productive.  There was no malicious intent, even though sometimes people can get really hurt.  More useful is to teach in a way that gives the resources to do better if people find those resources useful, and model the things you want adopted more generally. Most Christians actually want to behave better than they do now.  Few want to be jerks, that almost always happens because they can’t see a better way, and usually isn’t linked to a theological position as such.

Hi Martin S.

No. Without such specialised knowledge and extra-biblical information you’d be left looking at texts written in an ancient language with very little information on what the words meant. People seem to think translation is a trivial process or else completely ignore it when discussing the doctrine of Scripture.

I agree with you that translation requires good knowledge of ancient languages. I’m talking more about the process of interpreting and applying Scripture (given that it has already been translated). I do not believe that we need intricate knowledge of ancient history and culture to interpret the Bible, and obey it, correctly. To think otherwise, in my view, would be saying that God cannot communicate clearly via the Scriptures which He intended to be relevant and intelligible to Christians in all ages and places; which He gave to Christians so that they can know what he requires of them.

I’m not opposed to scholarly effort. What I am saying is that we (in the West) elevate the value of scholarship higher than it ought to be. I believe tha the Church in the 3rd world (eg. China, Africa—assuming again that the Bible is translated into their language) can access God’s truth and obey it just as easily as us, even though they lack the scholarship we have.

As for “negating”—what I see egalitarians doing is taking 1 Tim 2, and ending up with a position that says that women can teach and exercise authority over men. To me, that is negating.

Jereth

One group sees the restriction as universal, the other as applicable only to a specific historical situation.

And on what grounds do the latter see it as applicable only to a specific historical situation?

“Is it that you believe men and women were built for perfect roles in a perfect world?  That’s the only way I can see this role designating ever working “idealy”.”

It’s never going to work ideally - nothing does in a broken world! Before the fall, I think men and women were perfectly made for their differing roles. Not any more. That doesn’t mean that we don’t see these patterns imperfectly reflected in men and women now.

“None of us are perfect. How could we ever be perfect for our role?

I hope you agree that we all need equipping at certain points.”

You are absolutely right. None of us are perfect for our role. We all need equipping. We’re all sinners and we’re all fallible. God never gives us anything to bear that he doesn’t help us to bear in his strength.

It doesn’t seem likely to me that you and I will see eye-to-eye on the roles of men and women however long we exchange comments! But we do both trust in a God who equips us and gives us strength to face every circumstance.

Thanks for sharing the stories of your friends. I was very encouraged by them, and I have prayed and thanked God for them today.

In Christ,

Jean.

Okay, everyone, that’s a wrap - at least for me. Feel happy to keep chatting amongst yourselves; at least until the comments hit 300 - if they ever do - at which time posting will come to an end.

I wanted to finish up by thanking everyone for reading and commenting. It’s been a slightly bizarre and exhausting few days for me, and I’ve found myself praying for us all on a number of occasions.

I pray (and I mean this in a non-partisan way!) that God will give us all clear minds to understand his word, willing hearts to obey it, and loving attitudes towards one another.

Jean.

This is a bit late in the game, but I’d like to add a few comments on my experience as an egalitarian who attended the conference.

The impression it made on me was that the debate on this topic seems to have stagnated in many ways. We are relying now on the minutiae of exegesis and provocative name-calling to keep things going. More positive work needs to be done.

It would be best if we remember what egalitarianism and complementarianism actually are. They are not ‘positions’ on gender and leadership within the church.

Egalitarianism is an activist movement within evangelicalism to establish in concrete social and political situations the principle that all human beings are made in the image of God and are united in Christ, hence there is no justification for some to be denied equal dignity, rights, opportunity, and identity.

Complementarianism is a conservative movement with the aim of building a vision of human relationships that is derived from the purposes of God revealed in creation and in the Scriptures.

These two movements are not necessarily contrary, and it is not fruitful to continue to carry on the discussion as though one were ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’. Theoretically one could be both an egalitarian and a complementarian. What does need to be done is to realise that they are limited movements and that our energy is better spent exploring how they need to grow and develop the fullness of Christian truth. I hoped to hear at this conference something of the holistic vision of ‘biblical manhood and womanhood’ that is often talked about. To be given instead intricate discussions of whether a woman can lead a Bible study was a disappointment. We need to do better.

Jereth,

I agree. Groothuis is in error because she is saying “If I can’t see the logic, then it cannot be true, and if it isn’t true, then it cannot be biblical”. Therefore she submits the Scriptures to the higher authority of her own personal sense of logic….

Scripture determines truth, and what is true is logical (in God’s mind at least, even if our limited human minds struggle to perceive that logic). Groothuis completely reverses this.

Okay, we may be talking at cross purposes here due to fuzzy language.  But as you’ve cast things here I would have to basically agree with Groothius,  over you. 

That is, I have problems with how she’s invoking the law of non-contradiction.  You have problems that she’s invoking it at all - that we should never say, “The Bible can’t say both X and Y are true in the same way because X and Y exclude each other.”

But that is basically the way of a strong mystical approach based on a strong “negative theology” - that really we can only say what God is not like, not what he is like. 

If we can never apply the law of noncontradiction to our reading of the Bible then we have to accept that the Bible can say things that are utterly opposed to each other - that it teaches both justification by faith alone and that justification is not by faith alone.

When I read James on justification, the appearance is that it flatly contradicts Paul.  If all I had was James I would never derive justification by grace through faith alone. If I didn’t say, “If I can’t see the logic, then it can’t be true, and if it isn’t true then it can’t be the teaching of Scripture”, then I would conclude that James teaches the opposite of Paul.  And I’d be fine with that, because “Scripture teaches what is true, and what is true is logical” and so I would happily teach and believe that God justifies the ungodly and that he eternally condemns them in the same way at the same time.

And that would then mean that I lose any real sense that God and his ways can be known in a genuinely human way.  I’d have to opt for mysticism - all language for God is paradoxical, nothing ultimately means anything, because God can’t be explained in human language.

So, instead of that, I back my sense of what is logical to me.  I then have two basic options - I either go with Luther and decide that James is a pretty darn marginal bit of Scripture and more or less exclude it from my working canon.  Or I pour lots and lots of energy into that one passage in James - far more than I do for any other passage in James - until I come up with a reading that is a bit less plausible than saying that he contradicts Paul (because it requires a view that he’s using ‘justify’ differently from Paul and in a way that isn’t very common in the 1st century) but that I think isn’t simply explaining it away.

But without the law of non-contradiction that aspect of obedience to the Bible - of saying, “There’s an apparent problem between these two passages, so it needs more attention” - an aspect that is absolutely critical to a Christian, let alone a Reformational approach to Scripture - wouldn’t ever happen.  We’d just accept the apparent contradiction as a real contradiction and move on.

I really don’t have a problem with Groothius invoking the principle as such.  I do have a problem with how apparently naively and confidently she does it and how her whole case depends upon invoking it so very frequently.  That should be an ‘orange light’ signal for any exegete or theologian, given any kind of view that sin has affected our minds and thinking.

The law of noncontradiction both has to be in play and invoked and done so very carefully and open to the possibility that some of our assumptions are wrong.

Hi Kristen,

Let’s fold this issue into our conversation on thread three, which still has a few more days until its window for comments closes, but since this bit is a good addendum now that I’ve unnecessarily introduced such a colony of rabbits into this thread…

The issue I have with it is that the way you seem to be defining the Fatherhood of God and how that relates to human fatherhood, appears to lead to a denial that women are made in the image of God at all.  The nature of God to engender—does that have nothing of motherhood in it?  The ancient world used to believe that women’s wombs were only a nurturing place for the man’s seed—but this is not true.  Without the woman’s production of the egg, the man’s seed could engender nothing.  It takes both a man and a woman to “beget.”  And both man and woman are made in God’s image.  Both together, then—fatherhood AND motherhood—reflect the engendering nature of God.

It’s a big issue, and you’re right to put your finger on it like this. A few quick thoughts:

1. Human fatherhood is only a patchy reflection of God’s fatherhood. Athanasius, for example, tends to prefer the sun’s relationship to its rays of light, and a fountain’s relationship to the rive of water that flows from it as a clearer expression in creation of what God’s fatherhood looks like. They produce their ‘offspring’ on their own, and without the need for two ‘parents’, and they do automatically as an expression of their nature, they don’t do it at a point in time.  As a consequence, those things will lead you less astray in thinking about the Father’s begetting the Son than starting with human fatherhood.

‘Father’ is not a role or job for the Father; it is who he is. That’s not true for any of us - even those of us who are fathers, that’s only one aspect of what we are, it doesn’t define who we are. When I am called ‘father’ an important part of me is named.  When God is called Father he is named.  Full stop. It’s exhaustive.  ‘Father’ is who God is.

In that light, it’s disenfranchising capacity for human non-fathers is much, much less.  Whether it’s completely neutered, well we can argue the toss there on thread three.

2. This issue right now really has nothing to do with image, despite 1 Cor (although that is important in a slightly different way).  For Athanasius, and for the early Church generally, the Son is the one true Image of the Father. When we are made after the image and likeness of God, the connection is primarily between us and the Son, not us and ‘God’.  We are little copies of the one eternal Image and Likeness of God. 

That’s one reason why only the Son could be incarnate - because to renew the image in us, we needed the Image to come and unite us to himself. We didn’t need fatherhood or spiritness renewed, we need the image renewed - and only the Son is the Image.

So this issue of fatherhood really has zero implications for the fundamental humanity of anyone (male or female) who is not a father.

3. I suspect that yes, the Early Church (or at least some of them) saw mothers as a complementary kind of father, so some of what you’re saying is, I think, kicking around a bit. But, again, the expression of God’s fatherhood is even more limited in motherhood than it is in human fatherhood. 

That doesn’t mean it has less dignity or value, or godlikeness.  Just there’s an order between fathers and mothers to do with to what degree each clearly sets forth the Father’s fatherhood.  But that, obviously, is an argument that takes us right back again to the heart of what ‘equal’ means in this debate. 

4. The Son and the Spirit are fully equal to the Father.  And neither of them have that creative energy as part of what it means for them to be the Son or the Spirit. They receive who they are from the Father - a profoundly asymetrical relationship, where they receive and the Father gives is the basic principle.

Which means that being under authority is as godlike and as divine as being the producer and generator.

And, again, that’s why I’m hostile to egalitarianism.  By so ruthlessly eradicating any sense at all of submission in the eternal relationships of the Godhead it leaves us with a view that only those with authority are godlike.  Those who have to bend the knee are mugs.  It is precisely the ‘eternal subordination of the Son’ (as non-transparent a phrase as that is) that elevates those who are under authority and declares that it is just as dignified to be under authority as it is to wield it.  And that’s an important element in eradicating tyranny from authority.

But more on these things when I finally get to fisking some of Groothius’ article on ‘our’ thread.

“When God is called Father he is named.  Full stop. It’s exhaustive.  ‘Father’ is who God is.”

I don’t agree with this although it sounded nice.   According to God Himself He is the great “I AM”, Jehovah or YHWH.  Primarily in the OT throughout Genesis God was called El Shaddai and Eloheim. El or Eloheim signifies His might and power

A father, like a mother, is about parenting.  God is more than parent.  God created the concept of parenting.

Hi Teri,

I don’t agree with this although it sounded nice.  According to God Himself He is the great “I AM”, Jehovah or YHWH.  Primarily in the OT throughout Genesis God was called El Shaddai and Eloheim. El or Eloheim signifies His might and power.

A father, like a mother, is about parenting.  God is more than parent.  God created the concept of parenting.

This was all discussed at length in the debates over whether Jesus Christ is truly equal to the Father or just an exalted creature.  Part of that debate was whether ‘Father’ was the true name for God, or whether it was just a way of saying, “God is a bit like a parent.”  And whether some other biblical name for God - usually one drawn from the OT - was more basic to who he is.

So when the Nicene Creed begins with:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

That is a quite deliberately chosen form of words intended to reject those in the 4th century who argued what you’ve just argued.

Calling God ‘Almighty’ or ‘El Shaddai’ or ‘Yahweh’ in the end only names God in terms of his relationship with creation - a relationship that is not eternal or inherent to who God is.  It’s true, and so ‘Almighty’ was included, but it’s not basic, which is why it comes after ‘Father’.

Jesus teaches us to call God ‘Father’, the apostles name God as ‘the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’.  When we call God ‘Father’ it shows that we have been included in the Son’s eternal relationship with his Father.  When we call God ‘Almighty’ or the equivalent, it ‘only’ shows that we are his creatures.

If you haven’t read it to this point, I think taking the time to carefully read Books 1-3 of Against the Arians by Athanasius is worth considering.  That God is the Father is both basic and fundamental to the orthodoxy described by the Nicene Creed.

This sounds something like the argument of emanations or such, as in lessor glories. If the woman’s humanity is through the man then she is less human than the man, she is derived through him and then of lessor glory. The man is more like God, emanating closer to Him in likeness.

It’s actually the opposite idea.  It’s the idea that the Son is the emanation of the Father and so is in every way exactly the same as, and fully equal to, the Father - except for being the Father.  The idea of emanation is the same, but this is an emanation that produces something in every way the same as the first, except for being the first.

In light of how 1 Cor discusses image I think the same thing is on view in the male-female relationship.  A kind of ‘emanation’ but one that produces someone fully equal.  Eve is taken from Adam, and as such she is both derived from him, and in every way his equal.  It’s analogous (albeit only in a very weak way) to the Son and the Father.

But, again, I think it’d be better to move this discussion off to thread three.  It’s a complete change of gears to what the post for this thread was about.

Mark,

I will move the rest of my points to another thread.  But when it comes to what Martin said (and not only Martin, but several others), I feel it necessary to say this:

It wasn’t just about saying I “sounded bitter.”  And to be just to Martin, what he did say was that I “sounded.”  He did not take upon himself the determination that I was bitter.

I think Martin understands that he doesn’t know me, has no relationship of trust built up with me, and that I have not given him or any other stranger (brother or sister though they may be) to judge my heart motives and try to “correct” them.  Such things are reserved for those I know love me, that I know I can trust. 

But that is not all that was said.  And I think that what you said here starts to address the problem, but doesn’t take it far enough:

“Anyone who has had the experience of a Creationist mounting an argument that consists of little more than saying, “Gen 1 is clear, has always been read this way, and you’re just a liberal for trying to avoid it” and then upping the rhetoric about your disobedience to the Word, the more arguments you put on the table, might agree that sometimes telling people they’re sinners doesn’t help them stop being one.”

The problem with such an approach is not just that telling people they’re sinners doesn’t help.  It’s that in a fundamental way, it reflects that the one so speaking has in a sense forgotten that he or she is a sinner too.

In other words, egals aren’t the only ones who might be seeing what they want to see in the text.  In this cse, it wasn’t the egals who were suggesting that what the other saw was rooted in dishonesty and rebellion.

In short, that was Phariseeism.  “I thank you, Lord, that I am not a sinner like those egals—like Kristen over there.  I read the Scriptures at their face value and do exactly what they say, all the time.” 

And the comps here who participated in that owe the egals an apology.

I went away for two days, and look at all you, playing so nicely while I was gone!

I object strongly to this notion that as an egal I am not being obedient to scripture. I began life as a comp, born into a comp family. I was a complementarian of complementarians. Why, because I accepted what I was told, but never looked closely at the Bible.

Then one day I looked closely at 1 Tim 2 (probably really for the first time). (I might add that I know this passage is not all scripture has to say about the place of women, but comps believe it is one of the most important…and clearest!). Looking closely I realised my understanding of the passage as a comp left me with the following problems.

1 - Women can’t teach. The plain reading does not say in church. We do not know if Paul has started a new topic from what he was saying previously.
2 - Paul does not command women not to, but rather says he does not permit it. At other points Paul seems to differentiate between his directions and commands from the Lord.
3 - If this is a command from God, there is no second witness to this command. Every other command in scripture we find at least one more example of in scripture. There is no other place in scripture where it says a woman cannot teach a man.
4 - We have to add to the plain reading because the plain reading is contradicted. For example, we know Paul thought a man and a woman instructing a man ‘in private’ in the gospel was ok. So we change the text to mean “in a public setting”.
5 - Paul then goes to the created order. But why? If the comp reading is correct he goes to Genesis to remind us not simply of the created order, but the fact that Eve was decieved as a result of the created order. Why does Paul do this?
6 - Verse 15 is just plain weird!
7 - Nowhere else in scripture do we find a person who is teaching, preaching, proclaiming truth to be quiet. We only find people who are decieved being told to be quiet.

To me there was reason to look further, to find out why my comp view could not provide adequate answers for these points. I did some research and came to the following conclusions:

1 - This was a letter to Timothy. We guess as to why Timothy is being told he should take some wine for his stomach, but we admit we do not know the whole story, and we decide that we do not have to go with the plain reading and all have a glass of red each day. In the same way, we do not know the whole story behind what Paul is saying here. Perhaps it should not be applied to us - with our current comp understanding we do not know!
2 - I discovered a number of possible culture related things happening in Ephesus that MIGHT explain what was happening. This showed me that there might be more to the situation than I knew.
3 - But then I discovered another reading of the text that answered all my questions and dealt with the grammar in the text. It fitted with the context preceding and following.

As a result I changed my understanding, and after looking at other texts I saw that things like authority of Adam over Eve was read into the text. But going back to 1 Tim, I believe that I have submitted to scripture. I should also add that Craig’s questions about verse 15 still remain unsatifactorily answered. I would encourage anyone who is going to suggest that some are not submitting to scripture should first provide an edequate answer to Craig’s question. I have been shocked by how blatantly some can say egals are not submitting to scripture, while dismissing the only reading of the text that leaves no questions as to what Paul is talking about (without getting lost in ‘possible’ cultural issues).

(ps - I did try and read through everything…but if I have missed the answer please direct me to it and ignore the challenge!!)

Your experiences Dave are similar to mine. I have been a comp all my Christian life. It is only in the last few months that I have begun to question it. It began with 1 Tim 2 following a sermon on it from a comp viewpoint.
I agree with what Mark was saying above regarding James and justification.
I could see that we can’t just take the plain reading of v11,12 or we end up saying that women can’t teach at all and this contradicts the rest of scripture.
One way around this is to do what some comps do and relate it to chapter 3 and apply it just to the teaching of an elder in a sermon.
Another possibility is that Paul was actually dealing with a restriction to do with false teaching and this led to several questions.
The prohibition of v11,12 is linked to deception in v13,14. Doesn’t deception sound more like false teaching that true bible teaching?
There is a concern over salvation in v15 Did Timothy really need encouragement that women in general could be saved? Did he really have doubts about this? Doesn’t this sound more like a problem that would relate to a false teacher?
v11,12 in a plain reading is a command to learn and a complete prohibition on any teaching. Doesn’t this sound more suitable to a false teacher than a true bible teacher?
In the context of 1 Timothy, Paul urged Timothy to stay in Ephesus to command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer. The false teachers are deceived. Paul was once deceived himself but was shown mercy. On the other hand, I don’t know of any other statement in the whole letter prohibiting true bible teaching. Therefore, doesn’t the context of 1 Timothy relate more to prohibiting false teaching rather than true bible teaching?
The rest of the bible repeatedly warns of the dangers of false teaching and how it must be stopped. On the other hand it is virtually (or completely?) silent concerning restricting anyone from true bible teaching. So, isn’t the prohibition of a false teacher much more consistent with the rest of the bible, than a prohibition on true bible teaching?
If the subject is true bible teaching by women, then endless practical difficulties arise.
v11,12 can’t be taken in their plain sense. Some bible teaching must be allowed or it becomes inconsistent with the rest of scripture.
If you link it with chapter three all the difficulties that comps can never decide on arise. When is there authority in the teaching? Is it only in the sermon (but were there really sermons as we do them today in the early church?), is it bible study leading etc. These difficulties weren’t dealt with in the bible. On the other hand, if it deals with false teaching, there are none of the practical difficulties because the bible gives us lots of practical instruction on dealing with false teaching. So, don’t these sort of issues also favour the view that Paul is here restricting false teaching?

Martin, I appreciate what you’re saying, and I really don’t mind if you stand by your position.  To you, the passage is perfectly clear.  You have come to a conclusion as to what it must mean and you stand by that.

Fine.

This is an entirely different thing, however, from saying, “it’s impossible for anyone to honestly not see it my way, and the reason that others don’t, must be that they want to rebel against God and change the Scriptures.”

That’s where you’re outside the boundaries.  You may be convinced of your view, but unwillingness to attribute honest motives to those who disagree is—surely you can see what it is?

I’m not asking your to change your stance on the Scriptures.  I’m asking you to change your stance towards egals—towards me. 

People here have expressed honest questions, honest observations about the book of Timothy and this passage—honest reasons why they don’t take your position.  Are you still going to stand by your position that we are all being dishonest and rebellious?  Do you really have the human ability to make that determination?

I’ve got to say that Mark Baddeley’s acceptance of me as a person he can have a conversation with, and not as a sinful, rebellious woman who needs correction, has helped me open up to consider his position more objectively.  Learning his perspective is challengimg me, and his attitude of acceptance helps me be willing to be challenged, to think more deeply.  Who knows?  Maybe I will even adjust my views on some things. 

But words that make judgments we are not qualified to make, only shut down the possibility of such a thing happening.  James 4:11 says, “Do not speak evil of one another, brethren.”  James 3:17 says, “The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits. . . “

I’m asking the comps here who spoke evil of me and my egal brothers and sisters, to consider this.  Thanks for listening.  I’m not going to keep harping on it.  You know how I feel.

Hi Martin (or anyone else who may be able to help),

I gave some of the reasons and questions above for why I am considering the view that Paul is discussing false teaching, not true bible teaching.
As I have mentioned before, one of the views I am considering about false teaching and 1 Tim 2:11-15 is that in verse 11 Paul is referring to a particular Ephesian woman, not women in general.

Martin, you said on 12/11/2010 at 9:19am,

“if a particular woman was in view I think it would definitely have the article.  I find that to be a very conclusive argument.  I certainly do not see how the noun without the article here could ever be definite.”

I know very little Greek. So I may reveal my total ignorance here, but I looked up “woman” in the concordance and checked many of the NT occurrences in an interlinear bible. There seems to be many times that “woman”, without the article, refers to a particular woman rather than “women in general”. I have given Jn 4:7 as one example of many. Why is it that in this case you think it is not possible and a “very conclusive argument” against what I am considering?
If the particular woman was someone well known to both Timothy and Paul, and Timothy had asked Paul what to do about her, is it impossible for Paul to speak in this manner?
This view would then make perfect sense of v15 as the grammar naturally reads, rather than having to add extra things into the “she” as your view does.
It seems that your view is trying to make “she” and “they” mean the same thing in the one sentence, which is of course a real grammatical difficulty.
So your view struggles at v15. What I am considering admittedly struggles at v11 but I want to know if it is possible or not, and what arguments you have so that I can properly evaluate it. Thanks.

One thing that I have found confusing is really how to truly “apply” the “plain meaning” of these verses - since it seems that even complementarians [apparently] arbritrarily decide that the verses should be applied in some contexts and not another - and the reasons behind it unclear [that is - the reasons for applying it in one way and not another seem unclear].  For example - if one wanted to be truly strict about following the verses - one could argue that the fact that this particular [initial] posting on solapanel - being a forum attended by mixed genders - is innappropriate because it was done by a woman.  I’m not suggesting that it is - but a plain reading of the Timothy passages could certainly imply that it is - and it would be hard to argue against it if someone decided to suggest that Jean should not have made her posting [in which she tries to teach about when it is appropriate for a woman to teach (or not)].

I’ve experienced some complementarians who suggest that it is inappropriate to have women teaching sunday school because there are males present.  Honestly, if I tried to have a point-by-point argument about it from the timothy passages I’d probably loose the argument against such a position - yet it seems absurd.  Even [many if not most] complementarian Churches have had female Sunday school teachers - so how are they not themselves in breach of their teaching about women not teaching and being silent.

The other point is that I have had female complementarianists argue with me [a man] that complementarianism is the correct biblical interpretation.  But the absurditity of it is, that if the female complemntarianist is correct in her reading of the text, she shouldn’t be presuming to teach me about it.

My trouble is that it is hard to see how to apply it completely faithfully without making [what seem like] arbritrary exceptions to the rule.  I agree with previous posters that 1st century congregations were probably [in form] much more like [modern-day] home-bible-studies than our [modern day] sunday congregation, so making the distinction seems very arbritrary.  If I’m going to take the passages at face value and start applying them, I don’t know when/how to stop applying them.  Should my wife never try to suggest that I’ve made a mistake because that might be “teaching” me something?

Hi Martin,

On 11/11/2010 at 05:45 AM you said

In v15 “They” can’t be referring to men and women because men don’t give birth to children.”

On a careful reading of the text, Paul only relates the salvation through the childbirth to the salvation of the “she’.  The salvation of the other member of the “they” doesn’t seem to be in doubt.
Even if this were not the case, I have read scholarly opinions of both comps and egals that show that the childbirth, a noun, most likely refers to the birth of Christ, through whom salvation comes. Surely this could apply to both a woman and a man.

Hi Kristen

It’s been a busy weekend and I don’t really have time to address things adequately.

I’m pretty sure I’m not saying any of what you said I am saying above.  I am not saying egalitarians have no integrity, are rebelling against God, etc.  If you infer that from what I say, there might be some truth in that, but I don’t think I meant to say such things.

What I am arguing against is, a la Wayne Grudem (whom I think is right), a liberal hermeneutic.  That is, a hermeneutic used by liberal churches that has now been taken up by evangelical egalitarians.  What I said in my talk on this was that my egalitarian friends are orthodox on the gospel and the rest of the Bible but are applying a liberal hermeneutic to the gender issue.  And that if those who listen to egalitarians are consistent and apply this liberal hermeneutic to the rest of Christian doctrine, the gospel, etc, that these would all be changed/ lost.

That might be hard to hear.  But I have no doubt it is true.

But I’m not for one moment casting aspersions on anyone’s sincerity.  I just think you are sincerely mistaken (as you may well think of me).

I’m not sure as well whether you came in on the middle of a conversation.  Furthermore, I very much doubt if the conversation would be like this if it was face to face.  I’m not sure how helpful this forum is in general.  Here we debate ideas without knowing each other.  Certainly not something I’m used to doing.  I don’t speak face to face like this with my egalitarian friends at all.

I’m sure this doesn’t entirely help.  But I can only write this in between going in and out of the house.

Martin

Hi Craig

Sorry - just realised what I said wasn’t very clear.  I understand what you are saying about John 4:7.  The woman there is a particular woman: the Samaritan woman.  However in verse 7 she is just an indefinite woman - any woman from Samaria.  Only as the story progresses does she become defined as a particular woman.  There is nothing whatsoever in 1 Tim 2 that defines a particular woman.

Martin

Martin—ok.  If you say you did not mean to cast aspersions on my integrity, I believe you.  It certainly is what it sounded like, however, and you were not the only one who said things along these lines.

It doesn’t bother me if you don’t want to minister alongside egalitarians.  But I also don’t think all egalitarians are following a “liberal hermeneutic.”

I think there is some talking past one another that is taking place, because you are from Australia and I am from the US.  As Mark said earlier, the kind of complementarianism that is vocal and dominant over here is different from what you seem to have over there.  It is probably the same for egalitarianism.  Most egalitarians I know make their case the same way you make yours—what does the text actually say, what do the words mean in the original languages, how do other Scriptures inform the reading, and so on.  They do also try to learn and take into account the historical context, but that is hardly a practice that is exclusively “liberal.” 

As for this:

The interpretation would then do along the lines of the woman being saved through keeping to her role of being a woman, which includes giving birth to children.  Perhaps the false teachers were forbidding such (chapter 4 - they were forbidding marriage).  Thus Paul is saying that Eve and women in general will be saved by keeping to their God given roles of being women (cf Timothy in his role as pastor in 4:16).

I must be misunderstanding you.  You can’t really be saying you believe this verse means women are saved by keeping to their proper roles of being wives and mothers!  I am saved by the blood of Christ, not by knowing my place and keeping my proper station.

What about the verses in 1 Cor. 7 where Paul says that women who choose not to marry (and by implication, not to have children) are blessed, because they are able to be wholly devoted to the Lord? 

I must be misunderstanding you.  You cannot mean to deny the efficacy of the blood of Christ alone for women.

Hi Kristen

Thanks for all that.  Very interesting!

I have seen Kenneth Bailey being referred to, but haven’t read him yet.

As for the hermeneutic you describe - can’t argue there.  Sounds very good to me.

As for v15 of 1 Tim 2 - yes, you have misunderstood me!  What I am saying is in many commentaries and books.  Clearly the verse is not contradicting justification by faith.  Women and men are saved by Jesus’ death in our place.  That is how Timothy is saved.  And yet chapter 4, verse 16, to which I referred says: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”  That is, Timothy is saved in his role of being a godly pastor, which is he is to stick with.  Women, likewise, are saved in their role of being women, which they are not to repudiate, but are to stick with.  (This ties in with v14, but I won’t go into that now)  Of course not all women can have children or get married.  But Paul’s general advice is for women to marry and have children (so 4:14).  This is an example (not exclusively) of being a woman, and as I said, probably ties in with the false teaching at Ephesus.

What do you think v15 means?

Martin

Martin, when you get time I would appreciate your thoughts! I have the following issues with what you have been saying in relation to 1 Tim 2 and Craig’s questions.

1 – The samaritan woman, no matter how the NIV translates it, and no matter whether or not she is ‘defined’ at the time is a specific and individual woman in history and is referred to without the definite article. You have failed to interract with the numerous other example in the NT as well. This is a major problem with your plain reading.

2 – Childbirth as a noun does still refer to the process of bearing a child, but it is a noun, not a verb. Now, if it means as you claim, that a woman is saved through the process of giving birth, what does this have to do with anything else Paul is talking about in the immediate context, and also what does this mean for single women (who Paul is ok with staying single…1 Cor 7), or women who cannot give birth. Are they not saved? This is a prolem with your plain reading.

3 – It cannot be referring to Eve in verse 15. Look at the grammar. Eve cannot be saved by continuing in anything. You have dismissed this problem without addressing it. This is a problem with your plain reading.

4 – You say you have not heard this interpretation before, you do not appear to have looked very closely at it (you have not shown any evidence of taking it seriously or actually grappling with it) and yet you think it is impossible or at best highly implausible. Now that sounds like the wrong way to go about trying to understand the word of God!

5 – You said, “On another note, all commentators see that Paul forbidding women to teach in vv11-12 superficially goes against other passages of Scripture.  I would suggest that a good reading of Scripture reads vv11-12 in light of other Scriptures, not against them.  That is, women can teach women; women can teach men privately; women can teach men in singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs in the congregation; prophecy in 1 Cor 11 is not teaching; teaching here is in a congregational setting.”
But this is not a plain reading of the text at all. Also, did Timbo have a copy of 1 Cor 11 on him? If not, was Paul remiss in not giving him more details? This is a problem with your plain reading of the text.

6 – As Craig has said, you have been offered a plain reading of the text which gives answers, not questions. Why not consider it properly. You do not think it is the plain reading, but for the Greek it would have been, as it takes into account the grammar. You cannot sufficiently deal with the grammar of verse 15 in your view. This is a problem for you plain reading of the text.

Would you care to look into this interpretation more, or would you like to continue with your plain reading of the text?

Hi Jereth [and other complementarians]

I would like some guidance as I mentioned before - if we accept the plain sense of the 1 Timothy passage and the ones like it - that women shouldn’t teach men or hold authority over them, then - in applying this - where do we stop

For exmaple - Should Jean not have presumed to post this article since, as a women - she shouldn’t be be trying to teach on a site with a dual-gendered audience - and if it is okay for her to do so, why is it not in breach of Paul’s 1 Timothy exhortation?

Should women be banned from teaching young men in a Sunday school setting?  If it is ok - why is it ok?  Why would we put aside this teaching [that women shouldn’t teach men] in a Sunday school setting, but not in other settings.  Why single out the “congregational setting” - which is probably unlike anything around at the time Paul was writing as being inappropriate for women to have any teaching role - but allow it in home-groups [which are actually much more like what the 1st century church looked like].  Why shouldn’t we forbid women from saying anything [other than perhaps to ask questions] in homegroup - unless it is strictly women only?

If we’re going to apply this passage, then for consistency’s sake, we should apply it everywhere - unless a plain reading of scripture can be shown that it is specifically permitted in certain circumstances.  1 Timothy seems to forbid it in most cases - so why shouldn’t we also do so. 

What plain reading would make it appropriate for any woman to be speaking at any time in a way that might teach a man, what specific circumstances is it appropriate for a woman to do so.  And if someone would answer my query, please give scripture quotes to back up why it IS appropriate in your cited context?

That would actually really help me.

Blessings all.

Dave B,

if we accept the plain sense of the 1 Timothy passage and the ones like it .... where do we stop

You addressed your question to me, so I’ll give you my perspective. But I’m pretty much going to echo what Martin P said up at http://solapanel.org/article/equal_and_complementary_a_review/#5933

Our general approach is not to say “what minimum obedience to 1 Tim 2 can I get away with?” It is to say “how can I obey this command of God fully?” (as with any of God’s comands)

Most card carrying complementarians agree that women should not preach the regular Sunday sermon at church, they should not be elders, and head pastors. From that point on there will be different opinions about application. But you are correct that we should avoid the sin of minimalism.

If I receive a conviction that I am not obeying a command of God fully enough, I will try to repent, and modify my practice to be more obedient.

A few months ago, a large family turned up to my church and the mother and all the girls were wearing head coverings. This challenged me to think about whether I have too easily dismissed the teaching of 1 Coritnhians 11 as cultural.

Not long afterwards, a comp. friend of mine told me that he doesn’t think women should lead small group Bible studies.  Again, this challenged me about whether I was being too minimalist with my own, more permissive, opinion.

I think it is good to consider whether we can be more obedient than we are at present, while taking care that we don’t fall into the sin of legalism.

Jereth

Jereth!

With regards to your 4 points addressed to Craig (hope you don’t mind Craig!). I should say Jereth, I appreciate some of your questions because they finally reflect a willingness to grapple with the interpretation, rather than simply discount it as some have done!

1 – Paul names the other two individuals as he sees no hope for them (they are more than deceived). He does not name the woman in 1 Tim 2 as there is hope for her – in quietly learning the truth she might continue in faith etc). Paul makes it clear that she can still be saved in verse 15. Why should Paul name a woman (who appears known to Tim, and therefore is not ‘cryptic’) if she might still repent and change. Considering Craig’s view deals with the grammar, I would say that the idea of an individual heretic woman is highly likely, and without a better reading of the text is the most likely to be correct.

2 – Jereth, it is some times hard to understand what one person is saying in a letter in reply to a letter if we have not seen the original letter. I am sure you understand this. Is Paul really giving general instructions, or is he responding to questions Timbo has had, or is he even addressing particular issues that Paul knows are in Ephesus? 1 Corinthians is an example where it is made a bit easier as Paul states clearly time after time that he is responding to the things the Corinthians have written about. Other times he talks about the things he has been told by a third party. Now, in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul has greater reason to be clear about why he is saying what he is, as it was a letter to a whole church. In 1 Timbo however we are dealing with a letter to an individual. Paul would have been more confident in knowing what Timbo was up to speed with.

So, are these “general instructions about men and women which aren’t related to false teaching”, or do we not really know that? Why would Paul suddenly go into general instructions with a guy that he has already instructed? Perhaps he is instead going over some basic stuff FOR A REASON? You say it is a sudden shift in topic…but is it? I don’t know, and unless you can uncover the prior letter from Timbo to Paulio, then you do not know either.

3 – Good question! I assume that it is because she was only falsely teaching one man. My guess is that he is her husband, because Paul moves to the example of Adam and Eve where Eve, who was deceived ate the fruit, and sin resulted (for husband and wife). This, I believe, is why Paul in verse 11 says a woman should learn, i.e. it is good for her to know info so she will not be deceived. So there is no need for Paul to tell her not to teach others…as it would appear she is not.

4 – I will let Craig tell you what Craig meant, but in regards to this standard egal argument flaw…I am not familar with it. Perhaps I am a non-standard egal? I do not think it is an analogy. I believe it is a reason for a woman not to be allowed to influence her husband when she is under deception. The issue is that when someone lacks knowledge and is deceived, then sin results. So Paul will not permit it, and Adam and Eve are a perfect example. I don’t think this is cryptic!

I find no ‘commonsense failings in the interpretation Craig suggests.
This is why I believe it is correct.

”I get accused of various things, but lack of clarity is not one of them
usually! Isn’t what I said about John 4:7 very clear? There is no
particular woman - she is just “a woman”. Only LATER is this overturned.”

In English we just don’t do things that way.  I’ve read where it is fairly common to do that in Greek.  Granted in many places the woman referenced is named or defined, whereas here she is not.  But IMO this is done deliberately.  Paul is gracing this woman by not specifically identifying her the same way that he did Hymnenaeus and Alexander, because as someone pointed out, there is hope for her to learn, whereas Hymenaeus and Alexander were turned over to Satan.

Hi Dave

I don’t know if you have read all my responses, but I don’t want to repeat them.  I felt like Craig and I were progressing forwards recently.  But I have answered the objections in quite a lot of detail I would have thought (to Craig - see those answers).  Phillip Griffin answered you on verse 15. 

Martin

Hi Teri

Thanks for those comments.  I just can’t respond to them all, as once again I am heading off.  But let me say that I haven’t said anywhere that others aren’t trusting in God or are liberal, etc.  Again, I have answered this already (to Kristen).

As for the word authentien being used negatively/ pejoratively before the 4th century AD, I refer to Henry Scott Baldwin’s conclusion that this is a “certainty” from his extensive research, p49, WOmen in the Church, 2nd edition, Kostenberger & Schreiner eds.  This is refuting the faulty scholarship to which you refer.

Martin

Martin, I have read all your answers to Craig. I have not found answerrs to our questions. Phillip Griffin madean assertion (a false one with no evidence). I do not see this as an answer. Assertions are not answers.

Thanks for referring us to reading regarding authentein. If you care to go here:
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2007/09/authority-part-1.html
you will find a series of posts on authority that deals with some of the false evidence regarding authentein that is used by CBMW etc. I have liked you to the first of the series, but you would need to read on through the series to see the evidence she puts forward.

I knew you would come back!

Martin Shields
Thank you SO MUCH for that comment.  I could not explain it that well and clearly.  That is pretty much what I was wanting to say. (I need to learn more patience that is required to reply at length!)

Martin P

Martin,

OK I reviewed Baldwin’s research.  In essence he only has one incidence in 1st century, that of to reign sovereignly; one incidence in 2nd century of to control and dominate; and one incidence in 27 BC of to compel and influence.

The research I was looking at was not referred to or answered and Baldwin’s research is far less extensive.  So, I’ll stand with the superior research of those “so called faulty scholars” that I don’t think Baldwin holds a candle to.  So trying NOT to do the ‘your scholars versus my scholars’ thing, I don’t find Baldwin’s research conclusive or compelling.

In my understanding authentein is a strong negative, that in 1611 KJV did well to translate as domineer over.  As well, there was a word that meant to exercise authority over (katexousiazousin), and it was not used. 

And we still have the question, that IF there were a positive use of authentein in 1 Tim. 2:11-12 what we would have is a statement that if a woman taught the truth to a man that would somehow be a bad thing.  How can this be?  I do not believe that teaching the truth can ever be a bad thing unless the heart is wrong.

Hi Dave & Teri

I read that link Dave - thanks.  Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree.  I wouldn’t call that blog site scholarly (wouldn’t say this one is either!).  I don’t think it disproved anything that H. S. Baldwin has said. 

Martin

Martin, you said, “I read that link Dave - thanks.  Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree.  I wouldn’t call that blog site scholarly (wouldn’t say this one is either!).”

That is ironic, as the blog I linked you to says, “It is irritating to see the flawed study by Baldwin being quoted as evidence for anything. I would like to see something a little more scholarly.”

Did you read the bit that said, “I was made aware recently that the Philodemus Fragment does not actually exist, although there is a hand-made copy of it. It is hard to see how this fragment could be called evidence for anything.”

Do you have any response to the other evidence for a negative understanding that Teri gave, other than to refer us to Baldwin? Perhaps just this comment by Terri should not be that difficult to respond to, “authentes is used in Wisdom of Solomon 12:6 to mean murderer and is used in reference to the practice of child sacrifice”

Dave

While I’m doing that - I did respond to Teri.  That is an adjective is it not(?), not a verb.  As I said, Baldwin (for definite reasons) restricted the study to verbs only.

Martin

Hi all,

I just have a moment during my lunch break at work today. I hope to have some time tonight to make some more comments and ask questions.
I would just like to say a big thank you to everyone who has been taking part in this discussion. (Also to Mark on the other thread that I was involved in a little.). I am thankful to God for the privilege of being able to discuss these issues and ask questions with my brothers and sisters in Christ who are much more knowledgable and experienced than I am. I have learnt a lot through the various comments and challenges to my thinking. It has been good to fly a kite and see if it can fly or fall to the ground as I continue to search for the truth on these issues.
I know there are others who just read these comments but don’t take part in the discussion who appreciate all your thoughts as well.

With thanks,
Craig.

Hi Dave

I think we’ll just keep agreeing to disagree!  I found on the same site the thread you are talking about.  It’s interesting.  What Suzanne is saying may be true for this one reference - very hard for me to say.  But it seems to me that you are grossly overstating things to say that this lampoons Baldwin’s case.  The fellow debating her certainly didn’t seem to think so.

Martin

Hi David B,

But if we were to simply start applying the plain reading of the text without, we should forbid all women from teaching sunday-school, from doing anything beyond asking questions in homegroups, and probably even from posting articles on sola-panel.  Anything less seems to be an arbritrary [and unjustified] failure to fully implement what Paul is [apparently] saying.

...

I’m not trying to get around the passages - I am trying to get to the meaning of it without descending into absurdity.

David, the reason we don’t descend ito absurdity is because there are always controls on the way we read Scripture, such as the context, the teaching of other parts of Scripture, and common sense.

If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

How do we know Jesus is not commanding us to literally hate our parents and wife and children?

It is, frankly, a poor effort on the part of egalitarians to argue: “to obey 1 Tim 2:11-14 fully and literally means women can’t ever say anything to men; therefore, we just shouldn’t obey the command at all”.

Jereth

ave Woolcott, you say to Martin:

“1 - You have not answered the questions, let alone over and over. If you have, then I would have accepted the answers. You have made some claims, such as the example of the Samaritan woman, but you are not bringing any evidence to the table as to why it is different. As Craig says, she is “a woman” throughout the passage. This goes against your claim.”

I’m not into gambling, but if I had to bet, I’d say that most onlookers would say that Martin most certainly answered the questions - just not to your liking or satisfaction.

You also say:

“2 - We are basing our exegesis on the written text. You, Martin, are not. If you cannot account for the ‘she’ in verse 15, then your exegesis fails to understand or deal with the text.”

OK. But don’t then go on accusing Marin of not engaging with your arguments but making assertions. Martin has spent time dealing with the ‘she’ over the course of the thread, and he has clearly spent time arguing exegetically. If anything, what you say here is a dismissive assertion.

You also say:

“I believe that the created order is good. I simply do not believe the created order says that a man has authority over a woman because he is a man and she is a woman. I do not believe scripture says a woman cannot teach men because she is a woman.”

This allows me to see why you would accuse Martin of not engaging with the text. What you consider ‘engaging with the text’, if it yields this kind of understanding, is indeed, very different from what Martin (and I think most evangelicals) would consider ‘engaging with the text’.

The created order does not say that man has authority over a woman. Paul does not permit a woman to have authority over a man because she was first deceived and became a sinner.

Scripture does not say that a woman cannot teach a man because she is a woman. It says she cannot teach him because Adam was created first.

Your arguments are highly emotive and not very exegetical at all. They betray your desire to put a negative spin on how comps read the scriptures. Your confidence in your approach would lead you to assume that Martin, who does actually deal with the text, is simply being dismissive.

Hi Jereth, (and anyone else who would like to comment.)

In commenting on one of my points you said,

The immediate context of 1 Tim 2:11-14 does not discuss false teaching (or a false teacher). The previous mention of false teaching is 1:20, and the next mention is 4:1. 1 Tim 2:8-10 gives general instructions about men and women which aren’t related to false teaching. Why then a sudden shift of topic?

This deals with a very important issue in my mind of how the context helps to decide what 1 Tim 2:11-15 is about.
I am comparing the view that 1 Tim 2 is addressing the problem of false teaching, verses the problem of women preaching biblical truth in sermons in church.

1.I think you would agree that the problems of being deceived and false teaching are a significant theme in 1 Tim. You acknowledge that it is in Ch1 and Ch4.
On the other hand, where do you see the problem of women preaching the bible in sermons at church dealt with in Ch 1 and 4 of 1 Tim?

2.You claim it is not in Ch2 and 3. It may not be explicitly, but I think it would be fair to argue that it is also in view in Ch 2, 3 eg You specifically say it is not in 2:8-10. Can you be so sure? What do you think the disputing could have been about? We know from 1:3,4 that false teachings led to controversies.
In Ch3 Overseers are mentioned. What is an important function of an overseer and why does he need to be able to teach? Isn’t it to be able to deal with false teaching and teach those who are deceived and need to learn?
On the other hand, where do you see the problem of women preaching the bible in sermons at church dealt with in Ch 2 and 3 of 1 Tim? (Apart from 2:11-15)
3.When we look at the rest of Paul, the rest of the NT, and then the whole bible, the same pattern emerges. Dealing with false teaching is a constant theme.
On the other hand where is the evidence that women preaching the bible in sermons at church was ever a problem, and where do we see the women being told they must not do this?
The argument of relating a passage to its immediate context and to the context of the whole bible seems in my mind to overwhelmingly be opposed to the comp view.
Any thoughts?

Hi Jereth,

In commenting on what I said, you said,

4.You said “The prohibition of v11,12 is linked to deception in v13,14. Doesn’t deception sound more like false teaching that true bible teaching?” But there is a flaw in this argument (which is a standard egalitarian flaw). Egalitarians say that the story of Adam and Eve is an analogy for what was happening in Timothy’s church: namely women (or an individual woman) communicating false teaching to men. But this is not an analogy that Paul actually draws. In verse 14, Paul does not say “...just as Eve taught Adam falsely…”. He says “for Eve was deceived and became a transgressor”. Paul points to the deception and sin of Eve, not to the fact that she taught Adam falsely. In sum, the analogy that egalitarians think is clearly in the text, actually does not exist; or if it does exist, it is rather cryptic.

I agree with you that Paul points to the deception and sin of Eve, not to the fact that she taught Adam falsely. The reason for discussing Adam and Eve is about deception.
But its link to v11,12 in the view that I am proposing, is that the woman is deceived. Her deception is what is causing the false teaching. This is why she needs to learn. Deceived people need to learn.
Just as deception was involved in the false teachers in 1:7, and in Paul before his conversion 1:13, and with Eve, so it is with the Ephesian woman. Is that helping or am I just confused?
So I was trying to say that Paul bringing up the subject of deception can easily be related to the woman teaching falsely. But how do you relate it to her (or women in general) preaching biblical truth in a sermon in church?

Hi Martin S,

You were wondering about the “I do not permit” of v12.
If you are interested, Cheryl Schatz has some comments on it here
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/01/11/using-pauls-authority/

Hi Craig,

There is a fair bit in 1 Tim that is not directly related to false teaching. There is prayer for kings (2:1); qualifications for leaders (chap 3); support of widows (chap 5); payment of elders (5:17-18); right behaviour of slaves (6:1-2); attitudes to money (6:17-19).

To claim that 1 Timothy is dominated by the problem of false teaching, or that we can only understand Paul’s teachings with direct reference to false teaching, is an overstatement.

1 Tim 4:3-5 reveals that asceticism was being promoted, including the rejection of marriage. This goes very well with the rejection of proper gender roles, which Paul sets right in 2:8-15. A lot has been said about this from the comp. side, so I won’t say more.

You ask- “When we look at the rest of Paul, the rest of the NT, and then the whole bible ... where is the evidence that women preaching the bible in sermons at church was ever a problem, and where do we see the women being told they must not do this?” The comp. answer to this is: Genesis 1-3 (Adam’s headship), the whole Old Testament (male patriarchs, male leaders, male priests, male kings), the New Testament (male apostles, male elders), Ephesians 5, Colossians 3 and Titus 2 (male spiritual leadership in marriage), 1 Corinthians 11 (male headship in church ministry) and 1 Corinthians 14 (women not permitted to weigh prophecies). The whole Bible says that it is against God’s will for women to exercise spiritual headship over men.

So, as a comp, I cannot agree with your statement “The argument of relating a passage to its immediate context and to the context of the whole bible seems in my mind to overwhelmingly be opposed to the comp view.” To me, the context of the whole Bible resoundingly supports the comp. view.

Regarding verse 14, and deception, and false teaching

The point I’m making is simply that the analogy that egals. typically see here is actually quite dubious. Yes,  it makes sense that deceived people should be prohibited from teaching. But the text does not actually support the egal. interpretation. Paul says:

“I do not permit a woman to teach a man… for Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived and became a transgressor”

Why on earth has he brought up Adam and Eve? If he was using Adam and Eve as an analogy, he would have written:

“I do not permit a woman to teach a man… as Eve falsely led Adam”

But that’s not what he says. No, he talks about Eve’s deception and Adam being created first.
If he’s trying to make a point about deceived women in Ephesus not being allowed to teach, he could have written:

“I do not permit a woman to teach because the Ephesian women have been deceived”

But no, that’s not what he says either. He talkes about Eve being deceived. Why on earth does he talk about Eve being deceived? Why on earth does he talk about Adam being created first? Why bring up Adam and Eve at all, if the problem is local?

The comp. interpretation is far better: a woman must not teach a man, because of the way men and women were hardwired in the creation and fall.

Mike Wells,

Thank you for the delightful comment about the impossibility of a first born as leader principal.  In one of my Bible Groups we have been going through Genesis paragraph by paragraph.  After having intimately seen the details of the families of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob it is impossible to entertain any idea of primogeniture. 

”“I do not permit a woman to teach a man… as Eve falsely led Adam””

Eve did not lead Adam.  Adam did not lead Eve.  Each made their own mistake in disobeying God.  Eve was deceived and Adam deliberately knowingly chose to disobey. Neither get any points there.

PS.  In Ephesus, much more so than in Rome, the Greek custom of keeping women secluded and uneducated would prevail.  And then there was that temple to Artemis, and many female converts would have come from there, where women domineering over men was practiced (when they were not at home in seclusion, they would be at this temple.)

Hi Martin S! I think I follow most of your concerns. Two of them seem related and that is to do with the “I do not permit”. I noticed Craig gave you a link. I have not followed it yet but the only reason I can think for Paul saying it the way he did was because someone has claimed that he had, possibly the deceived woman! Paul was well known to the church there. But, of course that is not anything concrete. I will check out Cheryl’s blog!

I do not think I can help you with your other issues. I am interested if you are aware of a translation that fits better in your opinion?

Oh, and thanks for providing some discussion based around real live exegesis. Very refreshing!

Hey Jereth, you said, “The whole Bible says that it is against God’s will for women to exercise spiritual headship over men.”

I have to agree with you. The Bible is certainly against female headship. Paul does entertain the idea briefly in 1 Cor 11:12 but then remembers that all of us come from God.

I might add though, that the Bible does not speak of ‘headship’ at all, but rather how the husband is the head of the wife, Christ the head of the church etc. Just a small point I like to make!

Sadly your references do not back up the idea of male headship, though i imagnine they do not support female headship in marriage either!

Finally, you have raised a great point, several times (some would say you laboured it…!) about Paul saying Eve was deceived, and asking why. I love these types of questions, they deal with the text…with exegesis. I already answered it. Did you not see my comment? I had a go about a few things you said. You usually answer those!

Anyway, Craig might choose to answer you again. There are so many comments it is rediculous trying to go back and see what others have said!

Thanks for those thoughts Jereth. I will contemplate them! I did want to comment on your conclusion though. For me, my understanding of the text only required mental gymnastics to the point of seeing something different to what I was used to seeing. Now that I can see it I believe that Timbo, who was more in the know than us and had the advantage of knowing more Greek than I do, would have had not trouble seeing what we propose Paul as saying.

Just something to ocnsider!

Jereth said, “(It’s nice to see you guys thinking it through and coming up with your own solutions, but at the end of the day, an interpretation must command broad assent to be taken fully seriously)”.

This is sad. There were times in Israel’s history and the history of the church where the meaning of God’s words have not been interpreted well by the majority of God’s people. Broad assent does not make anything more or less correct.

Hi again Dave,

Jereth said, “(It’s nice to see you guys thinking it through and coming up with your own solutions, but at the end of the day, an interpretation must command broad assent to be taken fully seriously)”.

This is sad. There were times in Israel’s history and the history of the church where the meaning of God’s words have not been interpreted well by the majority of God’s people. Broad assent does not make anything more or less correct.

I agree. The majority is not always correct. Sometimes, an individual person will make a breakthrough in understanding (eg. Martin Luther). However it is also true that a novel idea must be treated with skepticism until it becomes clear that others have weighed it and added their consent.

It’s possible that the interpretation being advocated here by you and Craig is correct. But a sensible person will ask: if it is the right interpretation, why has no one ever seen it before? Why is it not promoted or taught by leading evangelical writers and scholars; why do we not find it in standard egalitarian published works and commentaries? I don’t mean to demean you guys, but I suspect that there are egalitarian scholars out there who have a far better grasp of Greek vocab and grammar than you guys. (I’m happy to admit that I know absolutely no Greek.) Would it not be appropriate for you to defer to their judgment, rather than go out on a limb?

I often find myself feeling that egalitarian exegesis is a lot like what is described in Acts 17:21 (wink)

Jereth

Hi Jereth,
You asked,

He talks about Eve being deceived. Why on earth does he talk about Eve being deceived?

Why on earth!....... because that’s where Paul was ( ie on earth) at the time of writing I don’t think space travel had been invented yet. But then again….he did have a trip to the third heaven! (grin)
Proper comment:
You still seem to be having a problem with Eve’s deception and the way we are understanding it. I am still not sure that I understand your problem. It seems fairly straightforward to me. As I understand it, the Ephesian woman should learn, and not teach, because she is deceived, just like Eve. That makes sense to me. Eve is mentioned because she was deceived, just like the Ephesian woman is. They don’t have to correspond in every detail, just the one Paul is concerned about - which is deception. Deception lies behind the Ephesian woman’s false teaching, and deception is bad - Satan used it to bring about the fall, so she must learn,  trust in Jesus, overcome her deception and be saved.

Why bring up Adam and Eve at all, if the problem is local?

I don’t really understand this question.
If there was a problem at your local church, and you could learn something from Adam and Eve wouldn’t you discuss them and learn what could be learnt from Adam and Eve? Should Adam and Eve not be mentioned in sermons or bible studies if there is a problem in a church?

Hi MartinS,

You said,

Although there are reasonable grounds for arguing for a cataphoric reference for γυνὴ in verses 11–12, I don’t think there’s as good a case for so reading ἀνδρός (‘a man’) for which there’s little beyond the plural verb in verse 15 to clarify the referent (if the woman’s husband is here identified the text as it stands may be sufficient, although identification of her husband could be made clearer with the use of a possessive pronoun [cf. Matt 1:19; 10:12; Acts 5:10]).

If you are still out there Martin, a question if you wouldn’t mind.
If Paul and Timothy were both very much aware of the problem here, so that Timothy knew exactly who Paul was referring to through the anaphoric reference to the woman, wouldn’t Timothy also then know exactly who the man is without any further clarification? Remember, this is first of all a personal letter from Paul to Timothy.
Thanks.

Craig,

I would be very interested in how you relate Eve’s deception to v11,12. Why do you think Paul mentioned about deception?

Wayne Grudem explains the 2 main complementarian interpretations of verse 14 (Eve’s deception), in Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth p. 69-72. I can’t do better than him. You can read it online at:
http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books/Evangelical-Feminism-and-Biblical-Truth/Evangelical-Feminism-and-Biblical-Truth

I lean towards the interpretation favoured by Douglas Moo. I’m quite certain that this is also the one that Martin P supported in his talk. Namely, Eve was meant to follow Adam’s lead (verse 13), but she was the first to trangress God’s command through her deception (verse 14); the Fall therefore involved the usurping of male headship, which Paul prohibits in verse 12.

Grudem’s second interpretation is also quite persuasive.

I’m a contributed to the Better Bibles Blog: http://betterbibles.com/

Would anyone here be interested in writing a guest post about 1 Tim (or related passages)? It would have to be about the best way to translate the passages, not how to interpret it, but then some level of interpretation is essential to translate it in the first place. If both a comp and an egal were interested that would be great!

Yes, verse 11 makes a point about women “learning”. But this is uncontroversial. What is controversial is verse 12: that women should not “teach” or “exercise authority” over men. Verse 12 is what stands out (to us) as an unnatural (and sexist) command needing justification. And note, that v. 13-14 are justification for v. 12, not just v. 11.

“Let a woman learn” is not controversial now.  What we seem to forget is that it would have been in a 1st-century Greek city, and that education for women was a real issue.  Paul says he is not permitting a woman to teach (and I maintain that Paul and Timothy would both have understood “as a policy in my church” as a shared assumption) because she (or they) needed to learn.  I think she (or they) probably were teaching deception, but the main point is that they weren’t ready to teach and were taking upon themselves authority that had not been given them.  It’s as if my husband were to stand up in church this Sunday and start giving the sermon!  The point is not that he could never under any circumstances do this,  the point is that he is untrained and unauthorized.

FWIW, I think there is another way to interpret this passage that takes into account all the grammar but does not require bringing in an unknown woman (which is very difficult to get readers to accept).  Don’t get me wrong, I think that’s a very likely reading, but it IS hard to swallow if you’ve never looked at it that way.

I’ll present the alternate egal reading I have in mind later.  Right now, I have to work.

“The subordinate then gets to do the fun stuff, the person with authority gets the blame if it goes wrong.  That’s how it’s supposed to work in God’s economy.”

Hunh? Would you reference a verse(s) to back this claim?

I see that Ananias and Sapphira were each held accountable for their actions. Or maybe you are specifically referring to doing the “fun stuff” in life. In either case, I’m unable to find scriptural backing for your statement.

When you see that Genesis does not state that either Adam or Eve will lead each other and you understand that they were both instructed by God, the only difference between them to account for Eve being deceived and Adam wilfully sinning is that Adam being created first witnessed things Eve had not. For example, as someone has already mentioned, Adam had named the serpant and knew how the serpant should behave.

Probably worth adding that the only task Adam was given in Genesis that Eve was not was that of being a watchman to the Garden. Once again, the reason he had this task and not Eve was prbably because of his previous experience, experience that Eve had not had.

When we understand the Genesis account correctly then we can see clearly why Paul says what he does about Adam and Eve in 1 Tim 2.

Finally, an observation of comp argument is that one claimed reason for saying that there is male authority in Genesis is because 1 Tim 2 exegetes Genesis for us (a claim made by Jereth on a previous thread). But if we look more closely at 1 Tim 2 we see this is not the case. But then some comps will say to understand 1 Tim 2 we need to remember that in Genesis it tells us there is male authority…and so it goes around and around. Usually in a discussion there is of course more verses thrown in on the way around…such as 1 Cor 11 etc. Jereth in an earlier comment (not that long ago) gace us the list of verses all used in the circular reasoning that is meant to persuade us of male authority!

Not saying all comps do this…just pointing out the circular nature of the argument!

Hey Kristen!

Thanks for that ‘plain reading’ of the text! I want to have a bit more of a thin about it, but you have brought in some new thoughts that I had not considered before (some in support of the view Craig and I have been proposing, which is cool!).

From a comp perspective (and I guess we will find out soon) I am not sure if either is going to be palatable! There has already been strong resistance to the idea that this could be a single woman, but there has also been resistance to the idea that we have to read the passage in some sort of cultural context. I read Paul’s letter in it’s cultural context every night, when I have my glass of wine for my stomachs sake!

I love how you have tried to understand scripture as it is written. Thanks!

Dave,

It is not the “pain” of the childbearing that"saves” Eve. It is the fruit of her childbearing—i.e, her children (and specifically, when her children come to Christ and continue in the faith).

Hi Jereth,
You said,

“I do not permit the deceived Ephesian women to teach ...
for Eve was deceived and became a transgressor”
This does not make sense. Why is Eve’s sin used as the reason / justification for the Ephesian women being prohibited from teaching?

My own view is that it does make sense. Just like saying
“I do not permit you to lie to God, because Ananias and Sapphira did this and were struck dead. OR a parent saying to his child
“I do not permit you to .........because Johnny next door did this and broke his arm.

Schreiner says,

It cannot be stressed enough that verse 14 scarcely justifies the thesis that women were teaching the heresy…

It doesn’t justify it in and of itself but is perfectly consistent with it. The cause of her teaching false things was because she was deceived. It would be perfectly natural to discuss the cause of her false teaching in v13,14. It would be like saying
“I do not permit sexual immorality, or greed, because those who rebel against God will not inherit the kingdom of God.” Rebellion against God is bad, and greed indicates that this is happening. Deception is bad, and this woman’s false teaching is a sign of it. Paul gets to the cause of the problem, not just the false teaching itself. The solution to deception is to learn.

Neither Genesis nor Paul suggests that Eve taught Adam. Instead, both texts affirm that she was deceived. The emphasis is on what transpired in Eve’s heart—deception—not on the fact that she wrongly taught Adam.

I agree.
The rest of the Schreiner quote, about Adam muddling God’s instructions seems to have nothing to do with what I believe.
Hopefully these thoughts are answering your question, and that I haven’t misunderstood what you are getting at.

Kristen (and others)

Thanks for your comments. I don’t have time to interact with everything that all of you have said. I just want to expand on the point that Schreiner made. Kristen, you wrote

The issue is not that Adam muddled God’s command.  The issue is that Adam had been around longer, and had named the animals (including the serpent).  Eve was deceived because of lack of experience, not because of muddled instructions.

Earlier, you wrote

Eve had less learning than Adam because she was created later.  She had never seen a serpent.  Adam had named the serpent and knew, or should have known, that this was not how one should behave.  Eve’s deception was based on ignorance.

This point of view is also argued by Gilbert Bilezkian in Beyond Sex Roles.

The question is: why did Eve stuff up? There are 5 possibilities:

a. Adam heard God’s command about the forbidden fruit, and was supposed to communicate the command to Eve, but stuffed up (he did not teach Eve properly)

b. Adam heard the command, but did not say enough to Eve about it, so Eve suffered from ignorance

c. Adam heard the command, and passed it on to Eve properly, but Eve failed to understand

d. Eve heard the command directly from God, but failed to understand

e. Eve heard the command (either from Adam or God), and understood it perfectly, but chose to disobey under deception

It seems to me (correct me if I’m wrong) that both you and Bilezikian are arguing for option b., that Eve suffered ignorance (or inexperience) of what was required of her. Now, let’s go through these 5 possibilities one by one.

a. Genesis 3:2 indicates that Eve did understand God’s command. So either Adam did communicate it properly, or God communicated it directly to her (as Dave W argues). If you want to argue that Adam did not communicate properly, then Schreiner’s critique applies

b. Again Gen 3:2 indicates that Eve did hear and understand God’s command. So this isn’t correct. She was NOT at all ignorant.

c & d. These imply that Eve suffered an intellectual problem before the Fall, as Schreiner notes

e. This is the correct interpretation. Eve did hear the command correctly. And she understood it. She was not ignorant. The reason she disobeyed is because of a moral failure, not because of ignorance, or stupidity, or lack of experience.

Therefore, your interpretation of 1 Tim 2:14 is flawed. If I understand you correctly, you think that the women at Ephesus were ignorant of correct doctrine, and Paul used Eve as an example because Eve was also ignorant. This is not correct, and the analogy is not valid, because Eve was not ignorant, and she did not need to learn. Her problem was moral deception, not a deficiency of knowledge.

That’s all I have time for right now

Jereth

Jereth,

I agree that Eve heard the command correctly and understood it.  But how much else did Eve know?  She had never seen a serpent before.  She had not walked with God through all the naming of the animals.  She didn’t know God as well as Adam did, and she didn’t know that the serpent was not acting as a serpent should act, so she had no reason to be suspicious or wary.  She was deceived by the serpent’s words as to the character of God and the nature of God’s command.  The serpent told her God had selfish motives.  She believed him. 

Yes, it was lack of experience and knowledge—not total ignorance, but still lack of knowledge—that caused her to believe the serpent’s words over God’s.

God’s command wasn’t the issue.  Saying that the only thing Eve could have been deceived about was God’s command, is too narrow.

Jereth, you said, “Therefore, your interpretation of 1 Tim 2:14 is flawed. If I understand you correctly, you think that the women at Ephesus were ignorant of correct doctrine, and Paul used Eve as an example because Eve was also ignorant. This is not correct, and the analogy is not valid, because Eve was not ignorant, and she did not need to learn. Her problem was moral deception, not a deficiency of knowledge.”

I think your understanding might be flawed Jereth, as Paul states clearly that Eve was deceived. I am not sure what you mean by “moral deception”, but as I stated earlier, Adam was given the job of ‘watchman’ over the garden because he was better equipped. He was better equipped because he had experienced things Eve had not. He had named the animals, he had witnessed life without a partner etc. Her deception was a result of lack of experience, or if you like, knowledge. BUT we are not suggesting that Eve was given muddled instructions, or that she was not told. She was given perfect instructions, but she lacked the experience that Adam the watchman had.

Kristen, could you just flesh out for me how Eve is saved through bearing children? I am wanting to know how that might be supported by scripture?

Teri, glad we have some thoughts in common!

Would it change anything in the interpretation of this verse if there were no known occurences of authenteo that had a positive connotation, that actually meant “to have authority?”

That is, can context be used to make a word mean something that it doesn’t normally mean in the language? Can we postulate a new meaning for the word authenteo based on interpretation.

I ask this because from the time of the NT until 1500 the word was translated as “to dominate” as in 1 Peter 5:3, something that no church leader should ever do, and after 1500 as “usurp authority” which is something that no human being should ever do.

There is no record in ancient literature of a use of authenteo for legitimate human authority until may centuies after the NT period.

”While the ESV has “to domineer” for 1 Peter 5:3, the Latin Vulgate had dominari in 1 Peter 5:3 and in 1 Tim. 2:12, indicating that authenteo was considered a synonym of katakurieuw, and meant to domineer or dominate.”

Susanne,
If it was a synonym of katakurieuw, isn’t katakurieuw the same word used in Matt. 20:25, that Jesus emphatically said believers are not to do.  I believe it is also regularly translated as domineering there as well.

Kristen (and Dave),

I agree that Eve heard the command correctly and understood it.  But how much else did Eve know?  She had never seen a serpent before.  She had not walked with God through all the naming of the animals.  She didn’t know God as well as Adam did, and she didn’t know that the serpent was not acting as a serpent should act, so she had no reason to be suspicious or wary.  She was deceived by the serpent’s words as to the character of God and the nature of God’s command.  The serpent told her God had selfish motives.  She believed him. 

I find that all rather speculative. I have not encountered this reasoning before in egal. literature. Did you come up with it yourself?

The Bible does not suggest that Eve’s fundamental problem was her lack of familiarity with serpents.

I think your understanding might be flawed Jereth, as Paul states clearly that Eve was deceived. I am not sure what you mean by “moral deception”, but as I stated earlier, Adam was given the job of ‘watchman’ over the garden because he was better equipped. He was better equipped because he had experienced things Eve had not. He had named the animals, he had witnessed life without a partner etc. Her deception was a result of lack of experience, or if you like, knowledge.

I find this equally speculative, Dave. Is there anything in the Genesis narrative, or elsewhere in the Bible, to suggest that Eve was rendered vulnerable to sin by her lack of zoological experience?

Let’s say that lack of zoological experience was her problem. This still does not cohere with the mainstream egal. understanding of the 1 Timothy background, namely women promulgating false teaching.

What did I mean by “moral deception”. Apologies for lack of clarity. I meant that Eve’s deception was not because of a deficiency of knowledge or instruction. She had all the knowledge she needed to resist the serpent’s temptation. Her deception was of a moral nature—she was led to distrust God’s word.

If indeed Eve’s problem was a lack of knowledge, or experience (as you guys are suggesting), that is saying that God effectively “set Eve up”. God knowingly withheld information/experience from her, even though this would make her more vulnerable to the temptation that he surely knew was coming her way. Are you really sure you want to suggest that??

cheers
Jereth

Hi Teri,

It is interesting that in Matt. 20:25 and in Luke 22:25, we see the verbs kurieuw and katakuieuw used as synonyms. Clearly this is something that Christ was saying not to do.

κυριεύω,v \{ko-ree-yoo’-o}
1) to be lord of, to rule, have dominion over 2) of things and forces 2a) to exercise influence upon, to have power over

κατακυριεύω,v \{kat-ak-oo-ree-yoo’-o}
1) to bring under one’s power, to subject one’s self, to subdue, master 2) to hold in subjection, to be master of, exercise lordship over

In Gen. 3:16 in the LXX we see it again. This is what Adam would do to Eve, kurieuw, be the lord of. It was not the way that God created man and woman to be together. A man ought not to be the lord of the wife, nor the wife lord of the man. That is quite clear.

And then Chrysostom wrote that a man must never authenteo his wife.

All evidence indicates that no Christian should ever authenteo or kurieuw another Christian.

Sorry Jereth but this does not sound like deception. Deception, as per Craig’s example, suggests that she was misled. If you like, she was tricked by the serpant. He was crafty! Her deception had nothing to do with her morals, though it did lead her to transgress. I think you will find it hard to support anything more from the text.

Yes, she was misled, she was tricked. But not through lack of knowledge. Eve did not lack information. She knew exactly what God had commanded, and the consequences of disobeying. She knew it as well as Adam did.

Distrusting God’s word has everything to do with morals.

I’m not reading anything into the text. In fact, you guys are the ones reading things in—when you say that Eve sinned because she didn’t know enough about the animals, and so on. That is total speculation!

Where does Scripture ever say that Eve’s problem was one of ignorance. Or that she sinned because she wasn’t well acquainted enough with serpents. Or that her knowledge was deficient because she receieved God’s command second-hand (Bilezikian). Please show me where any of this is taught.

I get the feeling we are talking past each other. Again. Maybe this conversation has gone on long enough?

Jereth

An additional note.

When God confronts Eve, she does not plead ignorance. She does not say “I was created second, and did not have enough experience of the world. I did not know that serpents are dangerous. I was ignorant of certain things. I was not well instructed enough. I needed more education than I had. That’s why I sinned.”

No. She says “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

Jereth

Jereth—quite right.  That’s what I just said.  Eve acknowledged that the serpent deceived her, and she ate.  Why was she deceived?  Paul ties to it her being formed last.  He ties Adam not being deceived to being formed first.

But it still wasn’t God’s fault.  He gave Adam the job of keeping the garden.  Adam blew it.  Most complementarians would agree with me on that, anyway. (another grin)

Ok Kristen. I think we’ve been through this enough. You’ve got your interpretation of text. That’s fine. You believe that Adam had greater “knowledge of the way the world worked/was supposed to work, and knowledge of God”, compared to Eve, because he was created a few hours earlier than Eve and had met a few animals. Fine. Eve sinned because she knew a lot less than him. Sin entered the world because of a lack of education. Fine.

Sorry, but I find it all wholly unpersuasive. Let’s leave it at that. This really has gone on for long enough.

Bye
Jereth

Hi Jereth,
You said,

Where does Scripture ever say that Eve’s problem was one of ignorance?

Would you agree that normally, for someone to be deceived, they lack knowledge or are ignorant? Can you think of times when you can be deceived without being ignorant?
You seem reluctant to relate sin to ignorance. Prior to his conversion, Paul was a blasphemer, persecutor and a violent man. Would you agree that ignorance played a significant part in this or would you hesitate to say this?

Hi Jereth,
You remember I asked about the “Moo view”? I’d appreciate discussing that more with you if you can hang in there.
I’ll repeat my question in case you missed it.
You said you lean toward Douglas Moo’s explanation of Eve’s deception. In my 1991 edition of RBMW on p190 Moo says “Eve was deceived by the serpent….precisely in taking the initiative over the man.”
I may be wrong, but he seems to be trying to argue that Eve’s deception involved the serpent deceiving Eve into thinking she could take a leadership role. Is this what you believe?
A simple yes or no would be great to begin with. Thanks.

Hey Jereth, you seem to be playing with a very loose definition of deception there!

Not sure if it is helpful, but as you pointed out (as did I, first) there is some speculation in this idea of what experience/knowledge Eve lacked that caused her to be easily deceived. We know from the text it has something to do with Adam being created first. Perhaps it is not Eve’s zoological experience at all that was the issue.

I wonder if it was because Adam was alone and God helped him. Adam expereinced God’s grace firsthand when God fashioned Eve from his rib. Eve had still experienced God’s grace in the sense of the garden and a partner etc, but she had not experienced something that was not good. Therefore her understanding of God’s grace and love was very limited. When the serpant then questioned whether or not God was well intentioned, Eve thought the serpant might have known best.

Does this help? Come on, you know you want to come out and play…!

Hey Jereth, you seem to be playing with a very loose definition of deception there!

No I’m not, Dave. What does deception mean? It means believing a lie. Satan told Eve a lie: “you will not surely die”. This lie contradicted what she already knew: that she would die. She had the choice to trust the knowledge she already had, or to believe the lie. The problem was not that she lacked the original information.

This is usually what happens when people sin. An adulterer usually knows that it is wrong to cheat on his wife. But sin tells him “no, it won’t hurt you, and it won’t hurt her, and God will be ok with it”. He does not suffer from ignorance of information. He is simply led to believe something that is not true, that is contrary to what he previously knew to be the truth.

Nor have you addressed the objection I raised, that your interpretation (which is supported by prominent egals such as Craig Keener and Gilbert Bilezikian) presumes that God dealt unfairly with Eve by depriving her (but not Adam) of the resources she would need to resist the serpent’s deception. Why did God put Eve at a disadvantage compared to Adam? You’d almost think he was sexist. <grin>

Come on, you know you want to come out and play…!

Do you really think we are getting somewhere, Dave? If we are, then ok, I’ll hang around. But if we’re just dancing around, throwing words back and forth, and ultimately getting nowhere, I don’t really see the point.

I appreciate the fact that this conversation has been conducted quite politely, and I assume the good faith of you all. Nevertheless, I can’t help but feel the futility of it. Like Martin, who has managed to escape (lucky him), I could probably spend my time on better things.

Can I ask: what are you seeking to achieve here? Do you seek to throw an endless stream of arguments at me until I (and other comps) give up and admit we’re wrong? Do you see that as a likely outcome of this conversation? If that does not happen, then what?

Jereth

”Sin is very rarely, if ever, a consequence of an intellectual deficiency. It is fundamentally a moral deficiency.”

Adam and Eve were perfect in every way.  They were morally and intellectually perfect. Their perfection is beyond our comprehension. What they both lacked was knowledge including knowledge of good and evil. Neither knew the difference. That meant they lacked the experience of it also.  The serpent was evil and extremely clever, also likely beyond our comprehension.  The conversation and I would include the spiritual influence of the evil serpent, deceived the woman into doing what she did not intend to do. The fact that this meeting with the serpent was possibly her first meeting could have ‘helped’ the serpent weave his web of influence.  We don’t know for certain. Watching that meeting, and even knowing the cleverness of the serpent, Adam made a fully aware morally wrong choice to deliberately eat of the fruit. 

Adam’s deliberate rebellious sin was the final act of disobedience that brought down the house. There was indeed a difference between the two sins.  The woman was tricked into sinning.  How do we get tricked into something?  Less knowledge of something!  Adam wasn’t tricked.  That’s the amazing thing.  When we sin fully aware, that’s when we are in deep trouble.  This difference I think is why Paul handed Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan to be “disciplined” not to blaspheme, yet instructs Timothy to let the woman learn as a student.

Hosea 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant;
There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

Jereth,

If it helps—I do think Eve was certainly still morally culpable.  When Craig’s mom sent him and his brother to the store, it wasn’t just his brother’s fault they came home with the wrong bread.  Craig was old enough to understand that he needed to obey his mother.  He knew she has said “brown bread.”  He was deceived into thinking white bread was better, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t know it was wrong to take matters into his own hands and decide for himself what was best. For Adam and Eve, that choice not to trust and obey God, to step outside their relationship with God and determine for themselves what was best, was the essence of their sin.

Eve lacked experiences that Adam had had.  I don’t think there’s any way to deny that.  But Eve wasn’t vulnerable to the point where she couldn’t help but sin.  She knew enough to know what she was supposed to do and to do it, just like Craig did with the brown bread.

But you don’t have to continue this conversation if you don’t want to.  Fellow egals, I suggest we respect Jereth’s clearly stated wishes.

“Can I ask: what are you seeking to achieve here? Do you seek to throw an endless stream of arguments at me until I (and other comps) give up and admit we’re wrong? Do you see that as a likely outcome of this conversation? If that does not happen, then what?”

To respond to this…..

Personally, discussing Scripture is the highlight of my life.  So for me the dialogue is the point.  I’m not concerned that anyone has to agree completely. Although it would be nice if from time to time, someone ‘gets’ what I’m perceiving.

In ancient times Jewish teachers used to sit around and discuss Scripture.  They did not always agree, nor did they find it necessary to agree in every detail.  They understood that as humans there was a limit to how much we could understand at any given time.  Thus, you have the writings of the Rabbi’s that say Hillel says this, Soandso says this, and Ebenezer says that.  They could leave a discussion without agreeing and still have joyful brotherly love between them. As time went on some might change their minds on some points.  Perfect understanding while desirable was not necessary.

It is my hope that one of the things the universal Body of Believers might find some maturity in is the ability to disagree on non salvic points (and not make every point of truth a salvic issue) finding an ability to accept and love fellow believers in their differences.

Jereth, I do still believe that you are using a loose understanding of ‘deception’. As Craig said, “I don’t eat chocolate so I asked my family about this one. They all said that would not be called deception. Knowing it is bad and still eating it is not being deceived, it is just a poor choice.”

You appear to say that deception is being tricked, but then give us examples that have nothing to do with being tricked but just show rebellious choices. If Eve was tricked, then it was not simply a rebellious choice. As you have been reminded already, scripture draws a line between the sin of Adam and the sin of Eve and says they were different. There is some burden on you then to show how you can blend the two into being precisely the same thing.

I have heard you state your issue,, but I have also heard many responses. You have not interracted with mine, that Adam experienced God’s grace in a way Eve had not (textual fact). This gave her less reason to believe to believe that God had her best interests at heart. But you have been given other great responses, plus Craig’s brown bread example. I know it is 4 to one…but we have been responding to what you say Jereth. You do not seem to be interracting with it. To be honest you seem to latch on to one or two things that we say, perhaps the things that you can easily respond to, but the meat of it you do not engage with. Perhaps this reflects the time you have available?

Any way, what do I hope to achieve from this discussion? I love talking to people about scripture and making friends while I do it! You are free to believe what you want Jereth…my involvement here is unconditional!

Craig,

(I’m a fair bit behind here. That’s what happens when you go to sleep for 8 hours)

Ok, I confess that chocolate cake was not the best example! (Though, it does have definite parallels with the forbidden fruit, which was “good for food and pleasing to the eye”.)

Regarding Paul (Saul)—yes, I agree that he was ignorant, in the sense that he lacked a saving knowledge of God.

And I agree with all of you that ignorance (in the sense of “lack of information”) DOES make people vulnerable to deception. (= believing lies)

Nevertheless, I maintain that Paul’s fundamental problem was not a lack of information. He knew the content of the gospel, even as a persecutor of the church. Unlike the Ethiopian eunuch, he would have been familiar with the basic Christian message. His fundamental problem was sinful unbelief. Jesus did not need impart information to him on the Damascus road—he regenerated him.

And this is the case with all sin. Sin is not, fundamentally, an intellectual problem. We do not sin because we lack information. We sin because we disbelieve and rebel against the truth. Sin is a moral problem.

You cannot say that Eve lacked knowledge of the truth, or a saving knowledge of God. She and Adam were completely perfect in Eden. Therefore, she was not vulnerable through ignorance, lack of education, lack of experience of God, etc. She had all these. She and Adam knew God face to face. When Eve was deceived, and became a sinner, she did so in rejection of the truth that she knew (again, see Gen 3:2-3).

You can be deceived by lacking information, but you do not need to lack information in order to be deceived. I hope that clarifies things.

Jereth

But you don’t have to continue this conversation if you don’t want to.  Fellow egals, I suggest we respect Jereth’s clearly stated wishes.

Kristen, I am not opposed to a conversation, provided it is headed somewhere. See what I wrote to Dave W. I just find it frustrating when we keep butting heads without seemingly making any kind of constructive or edifying progress. It makes me wonder if our time can be better spent doing something else.

Jeret

About Adam and Eve.

I don’t think that they sinned identically. Eve was deceived, Adam was not. I agree with that.

But I find that egalitarians (such as Gilbert Bilezikian, and some of you guys) have a tendency to far overstate Eve’s disadvantage. You seem to be suggesting that Eve’s deception happened because she lacked some vital information or experience that Adam possessed. So, while she was morally culpable (thanks, Kristen), she was far less culpable than Adam.

The Bible does not support this. Eve clearly knew what God’s command was. She disobeyed it. The Bible also does not suggest anywhere that Eve fell because of a lack of knowledge or experience or education. No text has been provided to back up this assertion. As I have pointed out already, when Eve was confronted, she did not plead ignorance.

As I have said, one does not need to be uneducated, or stupid, or lacking in information, to be tricked or deceived. Very smart people can be deceived. There are smart people out there who think that man did not land on the moon, or that vaccinations are harmful. Deception is not fundamentally an intellectual attack. This is especially the case when it comes to deception about moral truth. It has nothing to do with cleverness or knowledge. Very clever people are tricked by the devil into sinning.

The only difference between Adam and Eve’s sin is that Eve was deceived (she was told a lie, and believed it), while Adam was not. They both started out with the same knowledge that it was forbidden to eat the fruit.

As far as I can see, people want to say that Eve was uneducated, not because of the actual Genesis story (which suggests nothing of the sort), but because of 1 Timothy 2 and the supposed problem of doctrinally uneducated women in Ephesus (which is likewise a speculation).

cheers
Jereth

Hi Dannii

Yes, very well pointed out. It is interesting to note that while Eve erred in her recollection of the commandment (which I think she did under the pressure of the serpent’s interrogation), she erred on the side of strictness.

So this argues against ignorance / lack of education being her problem. She knew very well that the fruit was forbidden.

Just to clarify what I said earlier, before someone jumps on it:
As far as I can see, people want to say that Eve was uneducated, not because of the actual Genesis story (which suggests nothing of the sort), but because of 1 Timothy 2 and the supposed problem of doctrinally uneducated women in Ephesus (which is likewise a speculation).

I (and other comps) are happy to admit that there were some doctrinally uneducated women in Tim’s church, just as there are in every church. Also, there were some doctrinally uneducated men there too. What we find ridiculous is the idea that all the women were uneducated, or deceived, and all the men were properly educated / undeceived. Yet this is the only scenario that makes sense of 1 Tim 2 having a local (not universal) application.

jereth

Jereth, what’s your alternative?  You don’t want this to be about women needing to learn, you want it to be about women not being allowed to teach.  How does Eve being deceived relate to this?  Are all women today more easily deceived because Eve was deceived?  Is that why they aren’t supposed to teach?  Or is it that women still have to pay for Eve’s sin in a way men don’t have to pay for Adam’s?  Or what? 

You’ve said plenty about our view.  Let’s see yours.

Kristen,

You don’t want this to be about women needing to learn, you want it to be about women not being allowed to teach.

That’s a misrepresentation, Kristen. I have not said that. My view of 1 Tim 2:11-12 (the standard comp view) does not prohibit women learning. It says that women should learn “quietly and in full submission” – in submission to the (male) teachers/elders. You cannot cut verse 11 loose from verse 12.

How does Eve being deceived relate to this?  … You’ve said plenty about our view.  Let’s see yours.

I’m somewhat surprised that you are asking this question. My view is nothing special—it is the standard complementarian view. You can find it at CBMW. Martin Pakula expressed it in his talk (which I expect you have listened to now). As I have already said (several dozen posts ago, in response to Craig Swift), it has been explained by Douglas Moo and Wayne Grudem.

see http://solapanel.org/article/equal_and_complementary_a_review/#6288

I’m not the sort of person who goes out on a limb with a novel view of my own!!

jereth

Craig,

Thank you for providing the clarification. I admit that it was unfair of me to automatically lump you all in with Keener and Bilezekian. However, in my own defence, though there are difference in your views, there are also significant similarities.

All of you agree that Eve was at some sort of disadvantage in her knowledge and/or experience. Let’s call it an “information deficit”.

Keener and Bilezikian think that Eve’s disadvantage was that she heard God’s command second-hand (via Adam). Therefore she somehow lacked a fullness of understanding of the command (though they don’t satisfactorily explain how this was the case)

You guys (I apologise, but I’m going to roll you together here because it will be too much effort for me to wade through the posts and work out who said what) have argued that Eve’s disadvantage was that she missed out on some pivotal experience—of the garden, or trees, or animals, or serpents, or God. Therefore, while she understood God’s command fully, she did not have the experience, knowledge and maturity necessary to fully trust God and/or see through the serpent’s deception.

So there is a difference between the “official” egal view (represented by Bilezikian and Keener) and what you guys have argued. However, there is also a fundamental similarity: that Eve suffered from “information deficit”.

My critique summarised:
1. The Bible does not actually teach anywhere that Eve suffered from an information deficit, or that she sinned because she was uneducated / lacking in knowledge / inexperienced / unlearned / immature—this is your own speculation

2. People (in general) do not sin because they lack information. Sin is fundamentally about rebellion, not about not knowing enough.

3. It is not necessary to be ignorant (of knowledge, or experience) in order to be deceived. Even very knowledgable and experienced people can fall for a deception—especially a moral deception

4. If Eve suffered from information deficit, this can only be because God dealt unfairly with her. God fully armed Adam against attack, but left Eve un-armed and reliant (as if she were a child) upon her husband. This is a very strange thing for egalitarians to believe.

Martin Shields kindly backed me up on some of these points
http://solapanel.org/article/equal_and_complementary_a_review/#6352

jereth

Hi Jereth,

Thanks for that helpful summary. I wilI give it all of some thought before replying.
I can understand that you may have missed it, but twice I have asked for clarification concerning your view about Adam not being deceived and Eve being deceived. I have read Moo in RBMW and read p69-72 as you suggested from the link you gave. It would be a help if you could briefly outline your own thoughts. Thanks.

“But the ability many women have to teach or exercise leadership is irrelevant! Nobody can earn a position of God-appointed authority any more than they can earn salvation. Nobody has any intrinsic value, worth or qualities that lead to authority any more than anyone has intrinsic righteousness. So it’s not useful or helpful to talk about abilities such as teaching or leadership because that’s not what authority is about.

Absolutely right and thanks for saying it, Danni.

“5. All of this happened in the garden of Eden, in a state of sinless perfection and face-to-face communion with God. It seems very bizzare to argue that Eve suffered a deficiency of knowledge (or experience, or maturity) in a state of paradise!!”

On the other hand, they were both deficient in the knowledge of good and evil. They hadn’t eaten the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil yet. And they were both lacking in their experience of living since they were just created.  And since Adam was created first, everything that he experienced, she did not experience.

Craig

I can understand that you may have missed it, but twice I have asked for clarification concerning your view about Adam not being deceived and Eve being deceived. I have read Moo in RBMW and read p69-72 as you suggested from the link you gave. It would be a help if you could briefly outline your own thoughts. Thanks.

I do not have anything substantial to add to what Moo, Grudem, and Martin Pakula say. I can outline my own thoughts, but it will be essentially repetition of Moo/Grudem.

Up at post #6288 I said this:
Namely, Eve was meant to follow Adam’s lead (verse 13), but she was the first to trangress God’s command through her deception (verse 14); the Fall therefore involved the usurping of male headship, which Paul prohibits in verse 12.

Is there something more you want me to explain?

Teri,

And they were both lacking in their experience of living since they were just created.  And since Adam was created first, everything that he experienced, she did not experience.

Can I just point out a couple of observations from the text of Genesis? 1. The text does not tell us how much time transpired between Adam’s creation and Eve’s. It may have been a matter of hours. (Note- Genesis 1 says that Adam and Eve, and the animals, were all created on the sixth day.) 2. The text does not tell us how much time transpired between Eve’s creation and her meeting with the serpent. It may have been weeks, or months.

So, I think you’re drawing a very long bow. Besides, as I have kept saying over and over, we are never told in SCripture that Eve sinned because she lacked knowledge, or life experience.

Thanks
Jereth

Sue,

Thanks. I have read the chapter by Kostenberger, thanks to Martin Pakula’s recommendation. He has shown that the grammatical construction of verse 12 always pairs positive or negative ideas in all the Greek literature we have available. Since “teaching” is definitely positive in verse 12 (it is not “false teaching”, a seperate Greek word), “authority” (authenteo) is also positive—namely, a positive exercise of authority, not “domineering” or “abusive authority”. If I remember correctly, Baldwin (who wrote the chapter before Kostenberger) also showed that the word authenteo is not used with a negative sense until the 4th century.

When I say Eve “usurped” Adam’s authority, I just mean that she assumed or took over the lead in their relationship. I do not mean that she exercised an abusive or domineering authority over him, or forcibly wrested it from him (which, on the evidence of Genesis 3, she did not).

Please note- on these matters I can only cite other people, because I do not know any Greek. Therefore, I will not say any more on this. If someone who knows Greek is reading this, they are welcome to step in

Jereth

Teri,

The problem is Jereth, that there is no evidence that she did that.  Quote a verse in Genesis that shows Eve assumed some sort of authority over Adam.

There is more evidence in Genesis that Eve took the lead over Adam, than there is evidence that she had a deficiency in learning or experience (as you guys have been quite adamant about).

“When she saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food, and pleasing to the eye, and desirable for gaining wisdom, she took and ate. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate”

...

“And to Adam he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife’”
(compare this to Genesis 16:2, where Abraham sinfully follows the advice of his wife—it is the same wording)

Eve made a decision all by herself (independently of Adam) to sin, under the deception of the serpent, and then led Adam to sin.

This is what comps believe Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. See Moo and Grudem.

Jereth

”Can I just point out a couple of observations from the text of Genesis? 1. The text does not tell us how much time transpired between Adam’s creation and Eve’s. It may have been a matter of hours. (Note- Genesis 1 says that Adam and Eve, and the animals, were all created on the sixth day.) 2. The text does not tell us how much time transpired between Eve’s creation and her meeting with the serpent. It may have been weeks, or months.
So, I think you’re drawing a very long bow. Besides, as I have kept saying over and over, we are never told in SCripture that Eve sinned because she lacked knowledge, or life experience.

Jereth,

Good point about the time.  We have no idea what amount of time transpired while Adam “interviewed and” named all the creatures.  We don’t know how long a day was then, and I’ve not researched it enough to have an opinion.

I’m not saying that Eve sinned because she lacked knowledge or life experience.  I’m saying that the serpent was able to deceive her partly because she did not have any experience of knowing this creature like Adam did and unfortunately Adam said nothing, he just listened.  Since both the man and the woman were pure, uninformed on the nature of good and evil, and naïve in ways we cannot comprehend, and they did not sin until they sinned eating the forbidden fruit, there has to be something that contributed to the woman’s being deceived while the man was not. And the only differences were the timing of her being formed after the man had the experience of getting to know all the animals looking for a mate.

Ok, Jereth, getting back to you:

I said:

You don’t want this to be about women needing to learn, you want it to be about women not being allowed to teach.

You replied:

That’s a misrepresentation, Kristen. I have not said that. My view of 1 Tim 2:11-12 (the standard comp view) does not prohibit women learning. It says that women should learn “quietly and in full submission” – in submission to the (male) teachers/elders. You cannot cut verse 11 loose from verse 12.

I’m glad that neither of us believes verse 11 can be cut loose from verse 12. But you are misunderstanding me.  I didn’t mean I thought you were against women learning.  What I meant was that comps believe the story of Adam and Eve as used by Paul in this section, is meant to explain the phrase, “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man.”  On the other hand, egals believe the story of Adam and Eve as used by Paul in this section, is meant to explain the phrase, “Let a woman learn.”  In terms of what the Adam and Eve story is about, it is true that you “want” it to be about women not being allowed to teach, whereas I “want” it to be about women needing to learn.  This is a statement of the difference in how we approach the text—it is intended not a judgment on anyone’s motivations.

But this is why I said the issue boils down to which phrase is the controlling thought in this verse.  I have been maintaining, and still maintain, that unless we can agree on which is the controlling thought, we will be completely unable to agree on anything else about this passage—because we will automatically read the passage completely differently from one another.  The change in which passage is the controlling thought, changes how we view the Adam and Eve story as applying, and thus changes what we see in the Adam and Eve story as used in 1 Tim 2.

So here’s the rub.  You said:

The Bible does not actually teach anywhere that Eve suffered from an information deficit, or that she sinned because she was uneducated / lacking in knowledge / inexperienced / unlearned / immature—this is your own speculation.

You also said:

If Eve suffered from information deficit, this can only be because God dealt unfairly with her. God fully armed Adam against attack, but left Eve un-armed and reliant (as if she were a child) upon her husband. This is a very strange thing for egalitarians to believe.

This is why I asked you what you really believed the Adam and Eve story was saying, in terms of how Eve’s deception related to women not being allowed to teach.  You directed me to some pages of Grudem.  I have read the pages in Grudem that you pointed me to.  And the truth of the matter is that the same things happen in Grudem’s reading that you object to in mine.

Grudem says on p 72 that the 1 Tim. 2 passage is saying that women should not teach or have authority over men because 1) God gave Adam a leadership role when He formed him first; and 2) God gave men, in general, a disposition that “inclines more to rational, logical analysis of doctrine” and woman, in general, a disposition that “inclines more towards a relational, nurturing emphasis.”

This is my best paraphrase/semi-quote of what he said, because the e-book would not allow cut-and-paste.  Let me know if you disagree.

What the essence of Grudem’s words here boils down to is that God has designed men in one way and women in another, and women in general (though there may be exceptions) are more easily deceived due to their “relational and nurturing” nature, while men in general are less easily deceived due to their “logical, analyzing” nature.  (to be continued)

”t is sufficient for the complementarian interpretation of 1 Tim 2:13-14 that Eve took the initiative in the transgression (i.e. she acted first), and that Adam followed her lead. Which clearly did happen.

The problem I have with that is that Scripture doesn’t say she took any initiative.  It only records her interaction with the deceiving serpent while the man listened.  The fact that Adam just listened saying nothing and decided to do the same thing can be viewed as following her lead, but it does not of itself prove that Eve exercised any authority over the man.  It rather makes me wonder what your understanding of exercising authority is.

”In the comp view, Paul is saying in verse 13 and 14: Adam was meant to lead (because he was created first), but in the transgression Eve was deceived and took the lead. Therefore, a woman should not teach or exercise authority over a man (verses 11-12).”

That is an assumption read into what Paul is saying as he doesn’t actually mention anything about Adam leading or not leading.  And someone sinning before another person sins, does not really translate into the first sinner taking authority over the second sinner and compelling his sin.  We do know that isn’t what happened because Paul says that Adam was not deceived, therefore Adam sinned deliberately.

You also have the problem that this statement that you are reading as saying that Eve is not to teach because Adam was created before Eve, is not repeated anywhere else in Scripture.  And if God really meant that, it brings into question why He called the first leaders of the nation of Israel as two men and one woman.  And God called other women to lead as well.  And there were women teachers and leaders in the early church which Paul praised.

Now if Paul had NOT praised women for teaching and leading, and had he actually repeated this idea somewhere else, then your concerns would have more validity to me.

Thanks. I have read the chapter by Kostenberger, thanks to Martin Pakula’s recommendation. He has shown that the grammatical construction of verse 12 always pairs positive or negative ideas in all the Greek literature we have available.Since “teaching” is definitely positive in verse 12 (it is not “false teaching”, a seperate Greek word), “authority” (authenteo) is also positive—namely, a positive exercise of authority, not “domineering” or “abusive authority”.

In Titus 1 you can find the word for teach, didaskein, used with a negative overtone.

If I remember correctly, Baldwin (who wrote the chapter before Kostenberger) also showed that the word authenteo is not used with a negative sense until the 4th century.

Baldwin used one of his most important citations incorrectly, the Philodemus fragment. Kostenberger now admits that there is simply not enough lexical evidence for authentein to indicate that it was used in a positive sense. But we certainly have a very negative connotation for the word long before the 4th centurty.

Here is a clearly negative use of the word authenteo from the 2nd/3rd century,

    “Wherefore all shall walk after their own will. And the children will lay hands on their parents. The wife will give up her own husband to death, and the husband will bring his own wife to judgment like a criminal. Inhuman Masters will “authentein” their servants, and servants will assume an unruly demeanour toward their masters.” Hippolytus, On the End of the World 7. 

I can’t think of any positive occurences of the word authentein before popery made absolute power sound like it was not evil incarnate. It was a terrible word, and Chrysostom told men never to authentein their wives.

Please note- on these matters I can only cite other people, because I do not know any Greek. Therefore, I will not say any more on this. If someone who knows Greek is reading this, they are welcome to step in grin

I can read Greek, and I was terribly shocked when I started looking up the notes and references in the various articles on authentein. I still feel shocked. I don’t know what to do about it. I tell people, and I comment on blogs, but people just deny what is clearly so. They simply deny it and then delete me. I am not grinning.

Most of this is written up in Discovering Biblical Equality. It is not secret that many complementarian studies are somewhat compromised.

Hi Kristen
(first part of my response to post #6390 and #6391)

On the other hand, egals believe the story of Adam and Eve as used by Paul in this section, is meant to explain the phrase, “Let a woman learn.”  In terms of what the Adam and Eve story is about … I “want” it to be about women needing to learn … But this is why I said the issue boils down to which phrase is the controlling thought in this verse.

I have a problem with this, namely, that you are even cutting the first half of verse 11 loose from the second half of verse 11. In its entirety, verse 11 reads: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.” Paul is not making a point here about the fact that women should learn, but how they should learn: quietly and with all submissiveness.

Verse 9 provides a parallel: Paul is not commanding women to adorn themselves (obviously women should wear clothes!); he is telling them how they should adorn themselves: “in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control”.

So your view that “let a woman learn” is the controlling thought in this passage does not even exegete verse 11 properly, let alone the whole passage.

to be continued… (After some dinner and time with the wife!)

Jereth

Hi Kristen,
(2nd part of response to #6390 and #6391)

I agree with you that all interpretations of 1 Tim 2:13-14 (whether comp or egal) require additional reasoning apart from the “bare bones” of the text.

You have discussed Grudem’s second interpretation. I have said that while I consider it plausible, I lean more towards Grudem’s first interpretation, what he calls the “role-reversal” interpretation, which Douglas Moo supports.

You have correctly observed that Grudem’s second interpretation suffers from a similar weakness to the interpretation that you (and the others) have been advocating – namely, Eve is at an inevitable disadvantage. That is one of the reasons I lean away from it, and prefer the first (Moo) interpretation.

Nevertheless, a small (but significant) distinction can be noted. According to egalitarianism, God designed man and woman with complete mutuality, therefore it is inconsistent (within the egalitarian framework) to argue that Eve was created more vulnerable to the serpent than Adam. According to complementarianism, women were designed to rely on the leadership of men, therefore it is not inconsistent (within the complementarian framework) to argue that Eve was in some way more vulnerable to the serpent.

But I don’t want to labour this, because I am not an advocate of Grudem’s second interpretation.

The difference, in my mind, is that it can be definitively shown from the Genesis that Adam really did have experiences and knowledge that Eve didn’t share

Experience, maybe, knowledge - no. But in any case, as I have kept saying over and over, the Bible makes absolutely nothing of Adam’s additional experiences and knowledge. Specifically, the Bible does not teach that additional experiences and knowledge gave Adam some sort of advantage over Eve.

regards
Jereth

Craig,
(grr… I wrote out this reply to you, then somehow lost half of it and had to type it again. Frustrating!!)

Thanks for the challenging questions, brother.

Yes, I agree the deception was not fundamentally about role-reversal. The deception was a lie about whether or not they would die when they ate the fruit (verse 4).

The role reversal happens alongside the eating of the fruit. So, if you like, 2 sins were committed: the eating of the fruit (primarily), and Adam’s abandoning of his leadership role (secondarily). Hence God’s indictment of Adam has 2 parts:

And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife

and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’...

Was Adam deceived? No, the interaction with the serpent happened entirely with Eve. Adam was a passive participant—he simply received the fruit from Eve and ate it. There is no indication that he believed what the serpent said about the fruit.

Was Eve “deceived” into taking the initiative (lead) over Adam? Perhaps we could say that this was a secondary aspect of the deception. (The primary aspect was eating the fruit.) Nevertheless, Adam’s assumption of a submissive role was, like his taking of the fruit, something that happened passively. He did not ask Eve to lead him. Eve went ahead and acted all by herself; all Adam could do was react and follow. So again, Adam was not deceived.

I’m no Moo, but I hope that helps.

Jereth

The authentein does not mean “to have authority” nor is it related to concepts of authority, but rather to control or coercion.

The only place that authority is mentioned in the Bible in relation to marriage is in 1 Cor. 7 and it is completely mutual between marriage partners. The entire passage lays out mutual and reciprocal relationships.

According to egalitarianism, God designed man and woman with complete mutuality, therefore it is inconsistent (within the egalitarian framework) to argue that Eve was created more vulnerable to the serpent than Adam. According to complementarianism, women were designed to rely on the leadership of men, therefore it is not inconsistent (within the complementarian framework) to argue that Eve was in some way more vulnerable to the serpent.

I have never seen this argued.  My understanding is that complemntarians believe that in the situation in which both a man and a woman are involved in a marriage relationship or in formal church structure, women are designed to follow male leadership.

However, I think that all complementarians agree that if the husband is in some way incompetent, ill or whatever, or dead, if the woman is a single parent, or if she is a single missionary, or in leadership in secular government, then the woman is fully designed for leadership.

The design of woman to follow man is fully contigent on her being in a certain type of relationship with a man. A woman is in no way less capable of leadership than a man, if that is required of her by the circumstances.

I do not know how or why complementarians argue this, but I have heard it so many times, that I know it is their arguement. 

I do not believe that complementarians think that being married alters a woman’s design, but rather that the husband is not able to function properly within a marriage unless he is the leader. This is the only thing that I have heard as an explanation. I agree with Paul that the Christian is much better able to serve God if she is not married or in any headship relationship.

Half of women are single and woman are in charge of businesses and governments, women were in charge of all kinds of things in the Bible as well. Women were clearly designed with full decision-making and leadership qualities in the Bible. I don’t think that complementarians deny this.

Many women were single in the Bible, widows or abandoned, the husbands were soldiers or absent. Women slaves might have been technically single even if they were to serve their master. There is no discussion in the Bible to allow slaves in the NT to marry. Slaves did not have headship marriages.

Deborah, Judith, Phoebe, Lydia, Chloe and other women were clearly the decision-makers and the head of their own household.

Jereth,

I didn’t see two interpretations in Grudem.  I saw one teaching about Adam’s primacy and one about Eve’s deception. 

In my opinion, the Moo teaching you refer to is talking about Adam’s primacy, not Eve’s deception.  That is, it states that Eve was deceived into violating Adam’s primacy; it does not state why she was deceived, or why Paul would specifically mention that Eve was deceived , and not just that Adam was created first and Eve failed to honor that, or how Eve’s deception specifically relates to women not being allowed to teach men. 

What is Grudem’s “first” interpretation as to why Eve was deceived and how that relates to women not teaching men?  Am I just missing it?

I will have to address your other points later; I’ve got to work now.

“I have a problem with this, namely, that you are even cutting the first half of verse 11 loose from the second half of verse 11. In its entirety, verse 11 reads: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.””

Just a note to explain that.  “Let a woman learn” is the subject, the main point.  “With all submissiveness” is how she is to learn.  It’s a grammar thing. 

Odd - comments are only visible on the Feed, but not the main page.

Hi Jereth,

Thanks for seeking to answer my questions, brother. I appreciate it. By really pushing through with these questions, it really helps to evaluate a view. Not many people in my experience are really willing to think through the tough questions. When I ask a question, I don’t really know if they are “challenging” or easy, until I get the answer back. It seems that this was challenging, because it seems to raise more questions to me rather than clarifying your view.

“Yes, I agree the deception was not fundamentally about role-reversal. The deception was a lie about whether or not they would die when they ate the fruit (verse 4).”

So you agree that the deception was not fundamentally about role-reversal. But your view seems dependent on it being about this. Your view seems to depend on Paul meaning something by deception that you agree it is not fundamentally about. It has to take on a meaning in 1 Tim 2:14 that you call “secondary” and not its “primary” meaning. What is the evidence for this? Could it be “speculative”? Does this not make you question whether another view could be better?

Was Eve “deceived” into taking the initiative (lead) over Adam? Perhaps we could say that this was a secondary aspect of the deception. (The primary aspect was eating the fruit.)

You are saying that Eve was deceived in this “secondary” way regarding role reversal. You define deception as believing a lie. As I asked last time. Who told this lie to Eve? Where is it stated?

Adam was a passive participant—he simply received the fruit from Eve and ate it.

You seem to be saying that Adam was passive - he didn’t choose to eat the fruit. Couldn’t he have said “No thank you” and refuse to be led? Didn’t he choose to “follow”? You said that he “abandoned his leadership role” and he “listened to the voice of his wife” - do these sound “passive” to you?

Jereth,

Mark Baddeley, in the interesting conversation we were having on the Trinity and the nature of the Father, has turned off comments in the thread.  I don’t know what to make of this.  I sent him a private message in case the situation was accidental, but he has not responded.

Rachel, if you are able to fix the problem, or ask Mark to fix the problem, it would be much appreciated.

Kristen, Mark did not turn off commenting; commenting automatically closes a month after the article has been posted.

This is partly due to the large amount of spam comments we receive on older posts, and partly to allow authors time to write rather than correspond.

I do note that this is not actually stated anywhere, so I am sorry that you were caught unaware; I will see what I can do next time I’m in the office to add a message about the limited time period for commenting.

”Okay. So why does Paul specifically single out the women here? Why does Paul tell the women (not the men) to learn quietly and in submission? And in the following verse say that women must not teach men? Why didn’t he just say “everyone should learn in quietness and submission”, or “men and women should learn in quietness and submission”?
Shouldn’t unruly or deceived men also learn quietly and in submission?”

Jereth,
Paul isn’t drawing a hard line between men and women.  It is the concept of gender hierarchy that does that.  Paul is talking about one woman (or a group of women), not all women. And it is not reflecting all things in relationship between a man and a woman, but has to do with the learning process.  Letting a woman learn is the primary subject.  Everything after that has something to contribute to how and/or why the woman is to be encouraged to learn. 

As to false teaching and men, there were some men singled out but they were named and committed to Satan as though they were too far gone and unwilling to learn.

When one understands that Paul is talking about one woman, all these other concerns you named disappear.  It is simply a matter of not naming the woman that confuses us.  There are times when Paul has named both men and women, but here he chose not to. In Phil. 4:2 Paul names two women who were arguing. We cannot argue that one has to name or not name people.  When what one is writing may continue around the cities (I don’t think Paul knew his writing would last hundreds of years), then you have to consider the ramifications on naming or not naming individuals.

“In fact, one particular egalitarian has gone so far as to suggest this”

Jereth, he’s a complimentarian, not an egal. 
http://www.earngey.info/2010/06/16/cbe-reflections-why-im-still-a-complementarian-with-hierarchy/

I think Teri’s interpretation is sound.

For those who insist that Paul could not be talking about one particular woman, there is also this possibility:

From this essay by Philip Payne:

http://www.linguistsoftware.com/Payne2008NTS-oude1Tim2_12.pdf

Paul typically uses <en>oujdev</em> (the word translated “or” in the sentence in question) to convey a single idea, as do the two closest syntactical parallels to 1 Tim 2.12. In the overwhelming majority of Paul’s and the NT’s oujk oujdev ajllav syntactical constructions, oujdev joins two expressions to convey a single idea in sharp contrast to the following ajllav statement. Furthermore, the earliest known commentary on 1 Tim 2.12, Origen’s, treats it as a single prohibition.  Accordingly, the most natural reading of 1 Tim 2.12 conveys, ‘I am not permitting a
woman to teach and [in combination with this] to assume authority over a man’.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that because of the way direct objects work in Greek, the object “a man” is tied to authentein ONLY if is one thing being prohibited.

“I am not permitting (a) woman (to teach) nor (to authentein a man)” is how to parse it if it is 2 things.
“I am not permitting (a) woman (to teach-authentein a man)” is how to parse it if it is 1 thing.

What it CANNOT BE is “a woman cannot teach a man and a woman cannot authentein a man.”  But it does not seem like this in English.

So if “teach” and “authentein” are two different things that Paul is not permitting, then women cannot authentein men and ALSO cannot teach ANYONE.  This is clearly contradicted when Paul says elsewhere that older women can teach younger women.

So the scenario could very well be like this:

There are a dearth of educated women in Ephesus, and at the time Paul is writing to Timothy, there are none in the young church.  Some of the women converts are not learning “with quietness and submission” as is proper, but are arguing with their teachers (who are all male in this church) in such a way as to presume to teach them.  In other words, in presuming to teach, they are usurping the men’s authority.  These women have little knowledge of Christian doctrine but are accustomed to female priestesses being in charge in the temple of Artemis which was their last experience of worship.  Paul has therefore set a policy in his church (which he has temporarily left in Timothy’s charge) that women are not to “teach-authentein” men.  He does not make such a policy for men, because since there are no female teachers in Ephesus, the idea of men “teach-authentein”-ing women in a moot point.

So to sum up:

If there is no one woman Paul is speaking about, Paul is still not saying no women may teach a man in the church.  That construction is forbidden by the Greek grammar and syntax.  What he is saying is that he is not permitting the kind of teaching by women that would usurp the authority of their (male) teachers.  And he ties this to the command that women are to be “let” (allowed, encouraged) to learn, but discouraged from being loud and unsubmissive while doing so.  And the need for this policy is dictated by the particular situation of this individual church.

BTW, I appreciate what you said earlier, Jereth, when you said you were not expecting egals to accept your position, but merely setting forth that it was a comprehensive position that covered all the texts.  I am trying to show that an egal position can do the same.

Hi Jerith,

I’m still here Thanks for remembering.

  When one understands that Paul is talking about one woman, all these other concerns you named disappear.

Yes, that is correct.

Actually, on second thoughts Teri, the problems don’t all disappear. Paul will be saying that the one individual dodgy woman cannot teach any men. Fine. But she is still allowed to teach women, including good women.

If one single dodgy woman is the problem, Paul would have said: “I do not permit the woman to teach anyone”

If the problem was that she was teaching the leaders, he would have said: “I do not permit the woman to teach the leaders”

Instead, he commands her not to teach any men, and leaves it open for her to teach any women. Still irrational!

cheers
Jereth

Um, no, actually.  I’d just as soon end the “tennis match.”  I’m not finding what you’re saying any more persuasive than you’re finding what I’m saying.

Okay! I’m relieved. This is tiring. And now I’ll have some time for Craig
Thanks for the discussion. God bless you. happy thanksgiving

Jereth

Hi Jereth,

Thanks for getting back to me.
There are a lot of comments and questions that come to mind after your last comment.
I’d also like to deal at some stage with your 5 point critique from 18/11/10 at 7:49pm.
I’d also like to deal more with the view that I have been presenting. There are many things that you do not understand about it yet. Many of your problems with “egal” interpretations do not apply to it. So I would like to get your thoughts on what I am actually suggesting so as to be able to evaluate it better.
All of this is too much to deal with at this moment, but we only have until 10th December for me to “pick your brains” and for you to challenge my own thinking. I will begin with just a few questions, but if you are willing, there is a lot more on my mind after these. Let me know if it is all a bit too much, because I understand how much time and effort all this blogging takes.

Just a few questions to focus on your point that there is a “secondary sin”.  This was one of the points in the sermon earlier this year that made me start questioning all of this. I wonder if you are reading into the text too much. For example:
If temptation and sin hadn’t been involved, would there have still been an overturning of the hierarchy in this incident?
If a friendly horse (like Mr Ed if you are old enough to remember ) suggested Eve try one of the other lovely fruit on the other side of the garden, would this have “overturned the hierarchy”?
What about if Eve picked one of the fruit from a different tree and offered it to Adam ?
What about if the serpent had spoken to Adam first and then Eve persuaded Adam not to eat it? Would Eve be doing the wrong thing?
Did the fall really have anything to do with hierarchy at all? Didn’t it all revolve around disobedience? If you take out the disobedience, is there any sin left standing?
You seem to be saying that Adam “listening to his wife” was the secondary sin of “abandoning his headship”.  As I read this, it seems again that the problem is not that it was wrong for Adam to “listen to his wife”, or that she was exerting some kind of leadership over him which she shouldn’t be, but that she was offering him something evil. If Eve had suggested something good, wouldn’t that be ok?
When God said to Abraham “listen to whatever Sarah tells you” (Gen 21:12), was God suggesting a sinful overturning of the hierarchy.
Does your wife ever suggest anything good to you? Should she feel guilty about this? Should you not listen to her?
As I say, there are a lot more issues, but that might do to start with. Thanks

<i>In addition, according to Schreiner, rabbinic Judaism held that male headship was subverted in Genesis 3.</i>

Fascinating, I would like to see a quote on that. Most church fathers wrote that male headship was introduced in Gen. 3:16.

Jereth, I came back to glance at how the conversation was going, and I just can’t help asking one question:

Do you really believe that your wife (if you have one) is somewhere between yourself and the animals on a hierarchical scale? Do you believe that all women are somewhere between men and animals?

I don’t think you really do.  And I don’t recall Genesis 1 saying anything along the lines of “Male and female He created them, and He said to the man, have dominion over the woman, and then you and she can have dominion over the creatures as long as she remembers her place. . . “

Mark Baddeley had been making me feel better while I was here, that maybe comps (at least some comps)didn’t really believe that women were lower than men.  Now I’m wondering again.  You see, this is an issue that affects me deeply—the idea that I’m on a lower rung of creation, or that men think that about me, really bothers me.  Does complementarianism have to be about hierarchy?  Are women fully human, or not?

Jereth—Oh, I’m familiar with the comp arguments—but still there’s this talk of hierarchy.  You used the word yourself.  How do you have a hierarchy without some being higher on it and some lower, on a scale?  Isn’t that what a hierarchy is?  The dictionary definition says, “any system of persons or things ranked one above another.”

Believe me, I’m used to having comps treat me like I’m less because I’m a woman.  The fine-sounding equality language often doesn’t hold much substance, especially on this side of the pond.  Christian men know they are the lords of creation and they act like it.  And if a woman says anything, she’s just a rebellious feminist who won’t obey the Bible.

You said the problem in the Fall was that “the creation hierarchy is man, woman, animals. In the Fall, the hierarchy is overturned: an animal prompts the woman to sin, who then prompts the man to sin.”

So an animal got uppity and forgot its place, and then the woman got uppity and forgot her place.  The man was supposed to be supreme and he forgot HIS place and didn’t take proper control over his underlings.

There is a very bad taste in my mouth right now. . . If that is not what you meant, then what DID you mean?

All the versions of Supra shoes feature leather uppers that are patented by the company. At the same time it takes care of burberry glasses current fashion trends and features of new signature of Derrick Rose. White synthetic upper, with blue on the strap nike air shoes , heel, tongue, and soles gives it an interesting yet familiar color combination for such shoes.

Callan, I’ll try to answer your question before I go.

A policeman’s authority over me is limited.  He can’t come into my house without a warrant.  When he’s off duty, and comes into my house as a friend, he has no authority over me.  If I ask him to leave, he has to go.  Further, his authority is granted to him after careful training.  He isn’t born to it.  There is no “policeman caste” which means he gets to be a policeman purely by virtue of being born into it.

A huband and wife relationship is far, far different.  He is born to it—that is, if he gets married at all, his authority is granted to him purely by virtue of being born male.  The intimacy of his relationship with his wife gives virtually unlimited scope to his authority.  There is never a situation in which he doesn’t have the power to tell her what to do.  And if she wants to be a good Christian, she’s supposed to give in.  Every time.  Unless he’s telling her to sin, of course—but that’s really a pretty limited exception.  Is he telling her to sin if he tells her she can never go out with her friends?  He can say he has her best interests at heart and is only trying to protect her.  What is she supposed to do?

You will say that he’s not supposed to do that.  But if she goes to the church, guess whose side gets taken the vast majority of the time.  His.  After all, he’s the authority in the home and should be allowed to do it as he sees fit, right? And there’s never a time when he’s under her authority.  A policeman off duty, in my house, has to do what I say.  But waking or sleeping, at home or away, a wife is under her husband’s power.

No, the issue is not authority.  The issue is authority by birthright, without limitation and without reciprocity.  I do not believe the Bible grants this to anyone except God alone.

Hi Jereth,

Just some more questions concerning your view.
You said,

The “deception” of the serpent was his lie that Adam and Eve would not die when they ate the fruit; that God had spoken an untruth in Gen 2:17. However, at another level, we can say that the deceiving activity of the serpent included the fact that he attacked the woman rather than the man, therefore overturning creation order.

Are you saying that when Satan tempts a woman he is overturning the created order? Are you saying that a woman cannot and must not deal with Satan’s temptations herself with God’s strength? Must she find a man from somewhere to deal with Satan for her so as not to overturn the created order? Does this mean that a woman can’t really make any moral decisions without first getting a man to do it for her?

You said,

So my paraphrase of 1 Tim 2:13-14 would be:
“For Adam was created first, then Eve, and therefore the man is the head of the woman. And Adam was not deceived (attacked by the serpent), but the woman was deceived (attacked by the serpent) and became a transgressor, therefore the Fall undermined male headship.”

Paul actually says that Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived. Isn’t this different to being “attacked by the serpent”. Isn’t it possible to be attacked but not deceived? Didn’t Jesus do this, and can’t we also if we submit to God and resist the devil?

Hi Craig,

I am playing catch-up.
This is part 2 of a response to post #6437

I wonder if you are reading into the text too much. For example:
If temptation and sin hadn’t been involved, would there have still been an overturning of the hierarchy in this incident?

Good question. My first response is that what happened, happened. Creation order was overturned in Gen 3, fact. We can ask an infinite number of “what if’s”, but that will not change the fact of what happened in history, or what the Bible teaches about it.

It is not inherently wrong for a wife to suggest something to her husband. Nor is it wrong for a wife to correct her husband, or stop her husband from doing something bad. But these things can be done in manner whereby she honours his headship, or in a manner whereby she dishonours his headship. (BTW, without wanting to start a new tangent, I think this is what 1 Cor 11 is basically about.)

My lovely, intelligent, God-fearing wife has stopped me from acting foolishly on quite a number of occasions. But because she is firmly convinced that the Bible teaches headship, she makes it her aim to do this in a manner which honours our respective roles and and positions within God’s order.

To take an example that will be easier for us all to see: a child may say “mummy, can we go to the shops today?”, or a child may demand “mummy, take me to the shops now!” One way honours the headship of the parent, the other does not.

Theoretically, if Mr Ed suggested to Eve that she and Adam eat of the tree of life, this could have happened in a way that did not subvert Adam’s headship.

But if the widely held comp. understanding of Gen 3 and 1 Tim 2:14 is correct, then the serpent’s interaction with Eve in Gen 3 was a subversion of Adam’s headship. And if the Bible teaches that, we have to accept it as the truth of what happened.

When God tells Abraham to follow Sarah’s wishes in Gen 21, he is not asking him to abdicate his headship – because God would not do that. (As to whether Sarah was behaving in a manner which was disrespectful of her husband’s headship – that’s another question! It depends on her tone of voice in verse 10).

Does this go some way to addressing your questions?

I’ll respond to #6450 when I can—this is a busy week for me, it may haev to wait a day or two. Apologies.

Jereth

Jareth,

That is a rather novel spin you’ve put on sin in regard to our individual responsibility before God.  I would really like to see the scriptures you use to back this claim.  For certain it won’t be found in James 1.

I think that the women who find complementarianism the most disturbing are those who are the most familiar with it.

Hi Jereth,

Thanks again for your time in helping me think through these issues.
You said,

Creation order was overturned in Gen 3, fact.

This is one of the things I am questioning you on. I don’t think you’ve established your understanding of it it yet from Genesis 1-3. Creation order was actually animals, then man, then woman. (not man, then woman, then animals). This does not sound like the order you are saying is reversed in Genesis 3. I think you are referring to what you see as hierarchy being overturned, the “secondary sin” and at this stage of the discussion it seems a bit bold to just say it is fact. But at least your statement helps me to understand where you are coming from.

I may be wrong, but there seems to be an inconsistency.
The purpose of my “what if” questions was to establish whether in your mind, the hierarchy is overturned if sin is not involved. You seem to be saying that doing exactly the same things, if sin is not involved, is fine, as long as it is done in the correct manner.
So for this “secondary sin” to occur, the content is not the focus, it is the manner in which it is done.
So if Eve had of offered a different piece of fruit to Adam, this would be ok. If your wife suggests you have a piece of fruit, that is fine.
Yet you say that Eve offering the particular fruit that she did overturned the hierarchy.
It sounds like you are saying that it is ok for the hierarchy to be overturned, as long as it is done nicely, in a way that doesn’t overturn the hierarchy???
What evidence do you have from the text of Genesis that this offering of the fruit overturned the hierarchy? Is the only evidence you have from the way you interpret 1 Tim 2?
Your argument seems to depend on Eve giving the fruit to Adam in a certain way. What evidence is there that Eve offered it in any bad manner?
Why can you say that it is not wrong for a wife to suggest something to her husband, when this is what Eve did (with? evidence of bad manners) and it overturned the hierarchy?
Hopefully you can understand my question.

Hi Craig,

You’re in luck
BTW, where do you live? Are you on the same side of the world as me?

Paul actually says that Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived. Isn’t this different to being “attacked by the serpent”. Isn’t it possible to be attacked but not deceived?

Yes, there is a difference between being tempted and falling for temptation.

Our interpretation of 1 Tim 2 would hold that when Paul says “Eve was deceived”, this is shorthand for “Eve was successfully tempted and deceived by the serpent”.

Note that Paul says “Eve was deceived and became a transgressor”. We know that Adam became a transgressor too. So this strengthens the idea, I think, that Paul is making a point about Eve being prevailed upon first. Especially when taken alongside v. 13, which says that Adam was created first (i.e. the Fall reversed the order set up in creation). Paul Barnett and Thomas Schreiner (if I’m reading them correctly) support this interpretation of the text.

Creation order was actually animals, then man, then woman. (not man, then woman, then animals). This does not sound like the order you are saying is reversed in Genesis 3. I think you are referring to what you see as hierarchy being overturned, the “secondary sin” and at this stage of the discussion it seems a bit bold to just say it is fact.

Word use problems! By order, I meant hierarchical order, not chronological order. Often, comps like me try to avoid using the word hierarchy because egals have turned it into a dirty word. “Order” is a more neutral sounding way of saying the same thing. (Personally, I do not find the terms hierarchy and patriarchy objectionable, but if usage of those words will inflame emotions, I’ll try to avoid them.)

It sounds like you are saying that it is ok for the hierarchy to be overturned, as long as it is done nicely, in a way that doesn’t overturn the hierarchy???

I think you’re mincing me, mate! What I have said is that it is not wrong for a wife to take the initiative in a relationship with her husband so long as she does so in a way that honours his headship. This does not overturn creation order (hierarchy).

This would be like me going to a government official and making a suggestion (or criticism). I would have to show due deference to their authority over me.

What evidence do you have from the text of Genesis that this offering of the fruit overturned the hierarchy? Is the only evidence you have from the way you interpret 1 Tim 2?

1 Tim 2 is part of the evidence. There is also evidence from the fact that God said “because you have listened to the voice of your wife”. And if it is perceived that Adam was created head in Gen 2 (which, I understand, egals disagree with), it will be seen that in the Fall, headship is overturned.

Interestingly, even egalitarian William Webb sees patriarchical tones in the Genesis 2 story. He bizzarely explains it as being sinful patriarchal culture read back into the pre-Fall world! Bizzare!!

Your argument seems to depend on Eve giving the fruit to Adam in a certain way. What evidence is there that Eve offered it in any bad manner?

Eve led Adam into disobedience. When a wife leads her husband into disobedience, and he follows, this is always an overturning of created order. No matter how nicely she asks. See my analogy of screwtape persuading a whole family to stop attending church, by way of the child.

Regarding post #6459
The precise dynamics of a complementarian marriage are something which need to be worked out over time, with God’s help. There are no doubt differences in the way that each comp. marriage will work itself out. We have dozens of friends (about our age, late 20’s / early 30’s) who are in comp marriages. Our church teaches complementarian marriage, and so I assume that most married couples at our church are comp. No marriage dynamic will be exactly the same, but what we all have in common is that we are trying our best, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to obey what Scripture prescribes for our marriages because we believe that God only commands what is for our best.

cheers
Jereth

Hi Chris,

My wife and I were born and bred in the city of Melbourne!

Are you saying that it is ok for Eve (and women today) to deal with Satan if it is an individual issue, but Eve (and women today) do something wrong, if they deal with Satan when it is a family issue? Should they let the husband deal with Satan with family issues, otherwise they are allowing Satan to disorder the authority structures?

I think it is fine for a woman/mother to deal with family issues, so long as the husband’s headship is honoured. Like all the complementarians I know, I agree with the Bible that the father has ultimate responsibility for the spiritual well being of the family, and the discipline of the children. It is a great sin when fathers abdicate these responsibilities to their wives. But this does not negate the responsibilities that mothers have over their children and families. Mothers and wives are part of the spiritual battle against Satan.

(Note- there are always going to be exceptional circumstances when fathers become sick, or become disabled, or are absent, or die. I’m talking about the general rule when a fully functioning husband is present. But even in the situation of a disabled husband, I still believe that the husband is head of the wife. I do not hold a utilitarian definition of “headship”, as most people seem to.)

If Eve had told the serpent to bugger off, without consulting Adam, that would have been fine. As a human, she had authority over the animal. The subversion of Adam’s headship lies simply in the fact that Eve led him into rebellion (and he did not resist her).

I have never heard a satisfactory egalitarian explanation for why Paul blames Adam for humanity’s sin, in Romans 5. Without male headship, it simply does not make sense.

I am not sure that he gets added bonus points for “disordering the rightful authority structures in the family”.
...
I am also not sure what implication you are drawing from this disordering of the authority structures.

This is more of a philosophical question than an exegetical one. As a comp, I believe that God has set up authority structures in human society. These authority structures are good and right. Where these structures are respected, human civilisation flourishes. Where these structures are not respected, human civilisation founders. One of the way that the devil destroys human society is by undermining these authority structures. Because all authority derives from God, an attack on human authority structures is an attack on God.

Thank you for these questions!

Jereth

Hi Craig

“Eve was deceived”, is shorthand for “Eve was successfully tempted and deceived by the serpent”. That sounds ok, but I don’t follow the rest of it.

Sorry. I will try to clarify.

We know that both Adam and Eve became transgressors in Gen 3 (though only Eve was “deceived”). So why does Paul say: “Eve was deceived and became a transgressor”? This suggests to me that Paul is saying something about who became a transgressor first. So we could paraphrase verses 13-14: “For Adam was created first, but Eve was deceived, and became a transgressor first”. The man led in creation, the woman led in the fall. That is, the Fall overturned male headship.

This is, I believe, the essence of the Moo/Schreiner interpretation.

1.It is ok for wives to take initiative, correct, suggest, lead? at times, as long as she does it with due respect for the husband’s authority in the relationship and she is not leading the husband into sin. She is then not overturning the created order.

Initiative and correct, yes. Not so sure about “lead”. I think that when a submissive wife “initiates”, she does so in a way that prompts the husband to take the lead, as is fitting. So there is a difference between a wife’s initiative and a husband’s initiative. (I think that John Piper has some useful stuff to say about this, somewhere.)

2.But if she does the same thing and she leads her husband into sin, even if she is respectful of her husbands authority, then she is always overturning the created order.

I would say that leading one’s “head” into rebellion against God (the higher authority) is actually undermining that headship—no matter how submissive a manner is taken. An act of rebellion, even polite and respectful rebellion, is by definition an undermining of authority.

If a man exercises his authority and leads his wife into sin, is it made any better because he was at least upholding the created order?
If a woman leads her husband into sin, is it made worse because she was overturning the created order?

I would say:
A man who leads his wife (and family) into sin is not only a rebel himself, but he is showing contempt for the solemn responsibility that God has given him to sacrificially lead his family in a godly direction. (cf. the Old Testament, where the sins of Israel’s leaders is always graver than the sins of the people; and James 3, where teachers are judged with greater strictness.) Therefore his sin is magnified.

A woman who leads her husband into sin is not only a rebel herself, but she is subverting the good structures that God has built to protect the family unit. Therefore her sin is magnified. (cf. Exodus 32, where the people persuade their leader Aaron into sin, and everyone gets into big trouble)

All rebellion is bad. However, God regards us differently according to where each of us sit within the structures of family and society. We are not a homogenous, monochrome sea of individuals.

Thanks again brother. I would not want to hold on to a view that is not robust, and your questions are helping me know whether or not this is the case.

Jereth

”Like all the complementarians I know, I agree with the Bible that the father has <em>ultimate responsibility for the spiritual well being of the family, and the discipline of the children. “</em>

It is my impression that Biblically, discipline comes from both parents and both parents agree on the ‘rules’.  Most comps I know would agree.  Who mets out the punishment or correction and admonishing sermons is also something that is discussed by both parents.  In my experience it is only patriarchalists who think only dad can do those things.

I would like to know where in Scripture you get the idea that the father has ultimate responsibility for the spiritual well being of the family.  What does that mean exactly and how does the husband exercise spiritual control of wife and children?

”As a comp, I believe that God has set up authority structures in human society. These authority structures are good and right. Where these structures are respected, human civilisation flourishes. Where these structures are not respected, human civilisation founders.”

Actually, originally humans set them up by overpowering the weaker.  The strong ruled the weak.  Long after Noah and the flood, God formed a people to call His own with the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  To them God gave the Law through Moses.  Hebrew government was built on those teachings. American government was built on those principals.

However, this is not a principal one carries into a family making the husband a king and the wife and children his followers. Thus, it is confusing to try to claim husband as governor of the family.

“An animal does nothing wrong by suggesting to a woman to eat some fruit.
A woman does nothing wrong by giving some fruit to her husband.
There is nothing wrong with a man listening to his wife.

Your “secondary sin” of reversal of authority structures is like a mirage. You think you see it there, you want it to be there, but the closer you get to it , it disappears.”

Craig,
Exactly! It’s as plain as the nose on the face. It was ALL about disobedience to God’s command.

Otherwise, “role” reversal becomes the true culprit of the fall.

Hi Craig,

You were curious as to my view on egal/comp things. I will give you my current thoughts on the fall and creation order following our discussion so far.

I’m still curious to know what you think about Ephesians 5. (Not to get into a debate about the exegesis of it, but simply what your view is - husband headship vs. so-called “mutual submission” with no headship)

There seem to be quite a number of “1 point complementarian” people out there, who feel passionately about a husband’s leadership in the family, but do not believe women should be restricted from church eldership on the grounds of 1 Tim 2. They seem to be largely from the pentecostal/charismatic stream.

You have lost confidence in the comp. understanding of 1 Tim 2, fair enough. But there’s more to compism then 1 Tim 2 and women’s role in ministry.

If the sin of rebellion against God’s command is eliminated from the story, you have no problem with anything that happens. There is no sin left. If there was reversal of authority in the story, then you should still have a problem, but you have agreed that you don’t. 

I’m confused. That isn’t how I have expressed my view in our discussion so far.

The passage is not about authority structures at all, but about disobedience to God’s command. It is not about authority, or a reversal of authority.

I think I have expressed my views clearly enough already. The manner in which sin invaded Adam and Eve’s family involved an overturning of creation order, and as a complementarian, I believe that is significant. But we disagree, that’s fine.

Hope your homegroup goes well tonight. I’ve got homegroup too! (Malachi chapter 4—nothing to do with gender roles!!)

seeya later
Jereth

Teri,

You will find the answer to your question in many of the complementarian resources out there.

Jereth

Hi Craig,

I am finding this conversation with you to be fruitful. I’m not exhausted by it. I realise that Sola panel has a deadline, and in any case we’ve probably over stayed our welcome here! Also, I can’t help but get the feeling that this context has a tendency to attract “trolls” and people who just want to take cheap pot shots at us without a genuine desire (as you have) to understand or constructively critique the complementarian view.

Perhaps we could continue via email. Or, another possibility might be, if you are on facebook, to start a discussion there (which I believe is possible).

Anyway, we can continue here for a little while yet…

Jereth

Craig, Re #6480

Hi Craig,

Perhaps I haven’t expressed my understanding as best as I could have. I would like to put more thought into what I say generally, but hey, this is a blog. I’ll have another go at clarifying it for you.

I think that fundamentally the sin that occured in the garden of Eden was that Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s command not to eat the fruit. This is why the human race fell.

It also happened that the manner in which their sin occured involved a disordering of creation and its proper structures. An animal prevailed successfully upon the woman. The woman then successfully prompted the man to sin. The woman did not reject the advance of the serpent, and the man did not act to protect his family from spiritual attack, indeed he just went along with the rebellion.

The issue is not that Eve wrongly exercised authority over Adam. The issue is that she led the way into sin and he followed. When a wife leads her husband to sin, or a child leads a parent to sin, a disordering has occured. Parents have a role as spiritual guardians of their children, and husbands have a role as spiritual guardians of their wives and family. If sin takes hold of a family through children or a wife, then we have a failure of the husband’s spiritual leadership and guardianship. In this sense there has been an undermining of authority. It is not principally about Eve having a bossy or insubordinate attitude, or rudeness, or a bad relationship dynamic, or anything like that.

If you nicely make a bad suggestion to your boss, and he takes it against his better judgment, and as a result the company goes bankrupt, many people would look at that and say that there has been a failure of authority.

cheers
Jereth

Oops. Sorry. Should read
“but I think they would say there was a failure in wisdom and judgement of the person in authority.” (not “I don’t think”)

Hi Teri,

Thanks for that input. On Thursday night at our bible study group, a friend said how he had been interested in and enjoying the discussion. So there are still people out there who can benefit from our “public” discussion.
I appreciate Jereth’s good attitude and godliness, his intelligence and grasp of his viewpoint, and his willingness to spend the time and be pushed a little by my questions and comments. I appreciate the respect he has shown toward me. If nothing else, I think our discussion has been modelling the fact that Christians who disagree on these matters can dialogue in a polite way and work toward a better understanding of each other and the truth. (Thanks Jereth!)
I am still very new in investigating egalitarianism. When I read comments on this post and Mark’s recent series concerning some things that egals are “supposed to” believe, I don’t see why they do believe these things or why they “need to” to be egals. So I’m not sure that I do a great job of representing any particular “position”. I just keep thinking and praying for wisdom as I go.
I think another blog could be good. But there are also Mark’s posts to come in the future on the Sola Panel.

Hi Craig, re #6483

Egalitarians are likewise arguing from silence to say that Gen 2 establishes an egalitarian relationship between the husband and the wife. God does not verbally and explicitly tell Adam that he was in authority over Eve, but neither does God verbally and explicitly tell Adam and Eve that they are meant to practice a relationship of mutual submission, nor does he tell them that they should work out their roles based on their respective strengths and weaknesses. The egalitarian pattern of relationship lacks explicit command in Scripture.

Like other comps I can perceive many indications in Gen 2 (and related texts) that Adam originally had headship over Eve. There is no need to re-hash all these as I’m sure you’ve already read our arguments already. Narrative sections of the Bible do not need to spell out a principle explicitly in order for a principle to be conveyed—that is the nature of narrative. Gen 2 gives enough indications that men and women are created differently with respect to their relationships, and when taken together with explicit teaching found in the New Testament (in at least 5 passages) we are not left in any doubt about how God would have us live before him in our marriages.

God only wants what is good for us. When we live the way that he has commanded, it is for our joy and blessing.

I am still very new in investigating egalitarianism.

Can I suggest, brother, that you familiarise yourself with the majority egalitarian position. Discovering Biblical Equality edited by Fee/Groothuis is probably the most comprehensive book. At the same time, you should avail yourself of a sound critique of egalitarianism; I highly recommend Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth by Grudem. These 2 books together will cost you no more than $AU 70.

Jereth

Hi Craig,

The comp position is one of restrictions.

Try look at it in a more balanced way, mate. The majority of comps would say that there are 3 roles that are restricted to men: head pastor of a congregation, elder, and preacher to a mixed congregation. That leaves countless roles where there are no restrictions.

The Danvers Statement says
With half the world’s population outside the reach of indigenous evangelism; with countless other lost people in those societies that have heard the gospel; with the stresses and miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness, no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace known in word and deed need ever live without a fulfilling ministry for the glory of Christ and the good of this fallen world

You have RBMW—I trust you’ve seen the list on page 48-50 (page 58 of the old edition).
http://www.cbmw.org/Recovering-Biblical-Manhood-and-Womanhood/

Do you still honestly feel comp’ism is fundamentally a position of restrictions?

Your only appeal is to a few NT passages which many godly, bible believing christians interpret quite differently.

Godly, Bible believing Christians can come up with horrendously distorted interpretations of Scripture. My challenge to any married person is to read Ephesians 5, and then live by it knowing that God will one day judge your marriage according to this Scripture. If you can live by an egal. interpretation of Ephesians 5 with a clear conscience, good luck to you!!

My wife and I have considered this at length (we had Eph 5 read at our wedding) and know for ourselves that trying to live out an egalitarian marriage would see us slowly crushed by our consciences until we’d be forced to repent.

”Egalitarians are likewise arguing from silence to say that Gen 2 establishes an egalitarian relationship between the husband and the wife. God does not verbally and explicitly tell Adam that he was in authority over Eve, but neither does God verbally and explicitly tell Adam and Eve that they are meant to practice a relationship of mutual submission, nor does he tell them that they should work out their roles based on their respective strengths and weaknesses. The egalitarian pattern of relationship lacks explicit command in Scripture.”

Well, laughingly I have to agree with you on this because God gave NO COMMANDS AT ALL, except to warn them not to eat of the tree.  Unfortunately for comps this is an explicit acknowledgement that there is no foundation for hierarchy in Genesis.  Comps cannot claim there is a requirement from silence.  And you are also correct that indications can be read into anything.  This is because humans have a kind of mind that is able to tweek what we see to fit what we want to see.

But facts are plain that there were no commands of any sort to establish hierarchies between men and women.  God did not establish anything.

Now you say you have indications, yet no actual examples, while we have an actual example in God’s description of the woman.  Also, may I point out to you that an absence of specifics is a prime component of mutuality. The only thing left would be love.

”My challenge to any married person is to read Ephesians 5, and then live by it knowing that God will one day judge your marriage according to this Scripture.

Same thing I tell people.  But then I also go on to explain to them not to use the pick and choose method of interpretation nor to read into Paul’s words modern day American reasoning. Try to imagine yourself in the cultures of Paul’s day with no pictures of corporate America in your mind.

Note the differences of saying “head of” versus “head over”.  We tend to think head over which is corporate thinking.  Then we need to find the metaphors.  Paul has stated metaphors of Christ’s relationship to us before: vine and branches (no hierarchy), the beginning of the church (we are born from His side) preeminence and sacrifice, the one we are attached (joints and ligaments) to from whom we are nourished and have increase, and in Ephesians the metaphor of unity of ‘head of’ and ‘body of’ which together form one unit.

And lastly, pay attention to your own contributions. Wives are to stay attached to their husband (as if he were a head to their body) by freely given (not compelled)  submission.  But submission to what? Paul says submission to a person, not a position or to authority.  Then the bulk of Paul’s admonitions are directed to the husband who is to give himself (not give orders) for the benefit of his wife as if she were his own body. The husband is to sacrifice himself, his life, his wants and desires so that his body, himself (and thus his wife), might live and be benefitted. If a man truly lives and acts within those parameters, not adding anything into it (such as authority, commands, etc.) then a wife has no problems attaching herself to receive this from her husband.

Hi Teri and Kristen,
Thanks very much for your valuable comments.  Its great to wake up in the morning to such well thought out and helpful responses to Jereth. Saves me from having to think so hard . I am learning things from you both, and from Jereth, in different ways. I think this is one advantage of a public forum over private email.

Hi Jereth,

Try look at it in a more balanced way, mate. The majority of comps would say that there are 3 roles that are restricted to men: head pastor of a congregation, elder, and preacher to a mixed congregation.

How about assistant pastor, occasional rather than regular preacher, bible college lecturer, bible study leader- where do you draw the line?

Comps often realise how difficult it is to know where to draw the line, and then after someone saying “I think this”, and another saying “I think that”, you then get the sort of comment that “it doesn’t really matter so much where you draw the line, as long as you are trying to follow the principle”. I agree that “motive” is important, but if something is wrong, isn’t it wrong? Is it really ok to say it is wrong for some, and not for others, as long as their motive is ok? Do you apply this ethic in all areas of life?

All this sort of conversation amongst comps has to do with restrictions. Trying to work out what is restricted and what isn’t, and why it is really the best thing for God to have arranged things this way. This is a major difference with egalism. Compism allows fewer things for women to do, and this is what all the discussion is about.

Sure, there are plenty of ministries to be done, as the Danvers statement says, but egals can do all of them as well. The difference between the two, is the restrictions.

The other related issue is whether the restrictions are truly from God. If they are, then all evangelicals should accept them as coming from God’s wise and loving hand. The problem is that many evangelicals believe that the restrictions are not from God and that they are actually hampering the proper functioning of the church. Men, who could benefit from the ministry of a woman are being denied this, as women are prevented from using their gifts as God intended. If God has given a ministry of teaching a congregation to a woman, and you are restricting it, you had better be sure you are correct.

Restricting things that God says are good and wants done is serious. This is what the Pharisees did and Jesus was very critical of. Saying that there are still plenty of other things that you can do doesn’t really address the issue.

Hi Craig,

A consistent comp, who tries to live out his comp view in all areas of his marriage finds this passage a total contradiction. Why would compism apply to all areas except the intimacy of the sexual relationship? Why is sex different to other areas of marriage so that it needs different principles to govern it?

Sex does not have different principles to the rest of marriage. Husbands and wives should not deprive each other of any of their important needs. A husband is to lovingly and sacrificially give to his wife, to the best of his ability, everything that she needs. This applies to sex and everything else. As a young man at church reminded me today (he is in his early 20s and thinking about marriage), the Bible commands husbands to provide for their wives.

It is not comps who see in 1 Cor 7 a contradiction with the rest of the NT’s teaching on marriage. Egals are the one who put contradictions in Scripture. In this case, you perceive a contradiction with the plain reading of Eph 5. I do not see any contradiction, and never have. I suspect that if I asked all my comp friends whether they see a contradiction here, they wouldn’t either.

The principle “do not deprive each other of important needs” is not contrary to the principle “the husband is head of the wife”.

Comps often realise how difficult it is to know where to draw the line, and then after someone saying “I think this”, and another saying “I think that”, you then get the sort of comment that “it doesn’t really matter so much where you draw the line, as long as you are trying to follow the principle”. I agree that “motive” is important, but if something is wrong, isn’t it wrong? Is it really ok to say it is wrong for some, and not for others, as long as their motive is ok? Do you apply this ethic in all areas of life?

It’s really not that hard. Among comps who agree on the 3 main restrictions (elder, congregational pastor, Sunday preacher) we don’t have endless bitter warring over what women can’t and can do. We allow each other grace and charity to follow our consciences, and try to apply the “don’t cause your brother with a weaker conscience to stumble” principle. Like with many other areas of Christian obedience.

regards
Jereth

Forgive me for not having my blog better organized.

In brief, there is one example of kephale used as “source” when refering to a named person, that is Esau. This is found in Philo. Esau is the progenitor of his tribe, in a metaphoric reference.

There is also exactly one example of kephale used to refer to a leader. This is used of Jephthah in the LXX translation of Judges.

I hope that this provides some idea of how rare the use of kephale was in refering to people. In Hebrew the term rosh was used regularly for a leader of a tribe. However, this was translated into Greek by one of the many words that exist for leader, but not using kephale.

Jephthah was an exception for some reason. Perhaps because his own descent was irregular. He was the son of a prostitute, and the leader of a gang of outlaws, but was brought in to head of a battle. Perhpas it was thought that the other Greek words for leader were not appropriate for Jephthah, and a literal translation was made from the Hebrew. In any case, I do not think that Paul was using this as a reference for his use of kephale.

The use of kephale as source, as Eaau was called, is also an unlikely source of Paul’s meaning of kephale.

This does not put us any further ahead. I can only say that any discussion of kephale has to be prefaced with the fact that we don’t really know.

What we do know is that many examples put forward by Grudem are not as he presents them in popular literature and blog posts. There seems to be some attempt by Grudem to present something as certain that is not.

Jereth, you said:

Sex does not have different principles to the rest of marriage. Husbands and wives should not deprive each other of any of their important needs. A husband is to lovingly and sacrificially give to his wife, to the best of his ability, everything that she needs. This applies to sex and everything else. As a young man at church reminded me today (he is in his early 20s and thinking about marriage), the Bible commands husbands to provide for their wives.

And yet this is not all the passage says.  It says, specifically, that wives have authority over their husbands’ bodies, and vice versa.  It seems to me that to insist that it is just about meeting needs, ignores the “plain sense” of that word—and it’s the only time Paul actually uses that word in relation to husbands and wives.

“It’s really not that hard. Among comps who agree on the 3 main restrictions (elder, congregational pastor, Sunday preacher) we don’t have endless bitter warring over what women can’t and can do. We allow each other grace and charity to follow our consciences, and try to apply the “don’t cause your brother with a weaker conscience to stumble” principle. Like with many other areas of Christian obedience.”-

Craig,
Jareth already recognizes that his line of demarcation for “restrictions” differs from some complementarians.  Why is it that he can allow only those who agree on his 3 main restrictions the grace and charity to follow their consciences?  One has to wonder why Jareth chooses not to see egalitarians and mutualists, like myself, as simply having taken the last logical step in what complementarians have already begun?  The matter is really about how far from one’s own viewpoint one’s grace and charity allows others to choose.

People,

I’m not going to get into this. All I am going to say is, if you are truly interested in the facts, read pages 201ff. and 544ff. of EFBT.

http://www.cbmw.org/Evangelical-Feminism-and-Biblical-Truth-Online

If you want to carry on living in a strange fantasy land where headship does not imply leadership and authority, be my guest! Just don’t be surprised when you find that there are married complementarians all over the place in your churches who lack your capacity to live in intellectual (and spiritual) denial.

As I said before, if you are married: read Ephesians 5, work out what it says, and then obey it knowing that this is the standard to which God will hold you when you stand before him to give an account. God will not judge you based on what certain ingenuous scholars have decided that this passage means, but based on whether or not you have obeyed its clear teaching according to your own understanding and conscience.

regards
Jereth

Dave’s loose translation of Ephesians 5:22-33.

Wives:

Submit to your husbands because they are the source of your nourishment, provision and the one who cares for you.  They are not your enemy to be fought with and domineered and disrespected as they seek to lay down their lives for you as though this were a sign of weakness.  They are the ones who love you and give themselves up for you [if they are indeed being properly obedient to the word of God].

Husbands:

Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church - which was by dying for it in order to bring about its salvation and holiness by bringing an understanding of the truth to them [washing with water through the word]

Love your wives like you love yourself - ensuring that you provide and care for her.  If you do this, you are doing yourself a service because to hate and not care for your wife is ultimately against your own interests and it will only hurt you more in the end.

My comment:

Paul is all about ending the conflict between husbands and wives - to make peace where historically through the millenia since the fall, there has been oppression by the man and manipulation by the woman (and a host of other nastiness mixed in).

One of the first things to ending the conflict between husbands and wives is for husbands and wives to stop seeing each other as their enemy.

Now, I’m not 100% convinced by either the fully complementarian or the fully egalitarian position.  But this much I have figured out. 

If husbands are truly called to lead, then they should lead by taking the initiative in restoring the relationship with their wives by putting down their weapons first, to start their loving first [even if their wives do not immediately respond in kind].  To lay down their lives in loving service regardless of how their wives respond.  If men are called to lead, then that is HOW they are called to lead.

They are to lead by example - and lay down anything that gets in the way of them loving their wives - whether it be their pride, their hurts and wounds - or whatever else it may be.  To glory in self-sacrificing love.

They are to love their wives - to take the hit of her bitterness if such exists, and to love and keep loving - pushing through any pain in order to reconcile and be fully one again with his wife.

To the wives, Paul teaches that they can make this a whole lot easier [for the men] if they [also] put down their weapons and respond [to the man’s self-sacrificing love] with gentleness and respect [Paul summarisess the whole passage at the end when he says: The husband must love his wife, and the wife must respect her husband]

Hi David,

If husbands are truly called to lead, then they should lead by taking the initiative in restoring the relationship with their wives by putting down their weapons first, to start their loving first [even if their wives do not immediately respond in kind].  To lay down their lives in loving service regardless of how their wives respond.  If men are called to lead, then that is HOW they are called to lead.

Agreed, 100% brother! Very well put.

Jereth

The model of Christ as husband/head contains no authoritarian actions. In fact, Christ’s headship as husband is a complete contrast to the worldly model. Rather than operate as authoritarian ruler over his wife, the church, Christ acts by being a sacrificial servant. Over and over again in scripture this picture of Jesus persists. As “head” He washes the disciple’s feet, He insists his followers not to “lord it over” others and as “head” he suffers and dies so his bride can be cleansed. Paul stresses this sacrificial service when addressing the husbands and all believers in this passage. Certainly, no one can have the sense they are an authoritarian ruler over the one submitting to them after they get through with Paul’s description outlined in Ephesians 5:25-30. 
Christ is mentioned as “head” with authority in several passages - notably Ephesians 1:22. But Christ’s authoritarian headship there is not in relation to his bride but in relation to all of creation and for the benefit of the Church.
So, to find Grudem’s assertions questionable is simple and we don’t have to go outside of scripture to find it. You see, he forgot to include his proof verse in Ephesians 5 as one of the examples of headship. Right in front of his nose is the example of kephale without inherent authority.
Grudem claims:
“Christ does not submit to the church, but vice versa, and likewise the husband does not submit to the wife. These roles are not open to redefinition, reinterpretation, or adjustment. Any change represents a deviation from the divine purpose, rendering a marriage no longer a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church”
And so, if we carry through with his logic, the Church does not agapeo love Christ. After all, if we are talking unilateral roles, then love is one directional just as submission is, right? After all, Grudem agrees that the teaching carries all the way through to vs. 32 and therefore the instructions for husbands (i.e. Christ) only go one way.  So then, wives are exempted from expressing unconditional love toward their husbands.  The absurdity of Grudem’s line of argument astounds me.  He can’t have it both ways.

Hi Jereth,

Looks like we are back again at Sola Panel for a bit longer. I hope you are still out there.
While you are thinking whether you would like to continue the discussion, and whether Cheryl’s blog is a suitable place for you, I’ll just make
another comment on 1 Cor 7.

I don’t understand why you said this, @ 6514

1 Cor 7:1-5 is not about a general pattern of relationship. It is specifically about sex in marriage. Paul is commanding husbands and wives not to deprive each other of sex. He’s not saying anything more than that. To make this text say something about how husbands and wives should relate in general is dodgy hermeneutics.

if you believe this @ 6523.

Sex does not have different principles to the rest of marriage.

I asked you @ 6520 some questions about why sex would be treated differently to the rest of the marriage relationship. I didn’t see an answer. Does your second comment above mean that you have changed your mind?

Assuming you believe this second comment now, and that the principles Paul applies to sex also apply to the the rest of the marriage relationship, then comps do have some explaining to do.

You said @ 6523

It is not comps who see in 1 Cor 7 a contradiction with the rest of the NT’s teaching on marriage. Egals are the one who put contradictions in Scripture. In this case, you perceive a contradiction with the plain reading of Eph 5. I do not see any contradiction, and never have. I suspect that if I asked all my comp friends whether they see a contradiction here, they wouldn’t either.

1. I hear comps say that “authority” is unilateral in marriage. The husband has authority over his wife and never the other way around. It is never mutual.
However, Paul says in 1 Cor 7:4
“For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”

2. I hear comps say that “submission” is unilateral in marriage. The wife is to submit to her husband and never the other way around. Submission is not to be mutual.
However, Paul says in 1 Cor 7:3
“The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.”

3. I hear comps say that decision making is the responsibility of the husband. A wife is to submit to her husband’s decision.
However, Paul says in 1 Cor 7:5
“Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent.”

Paul clearly talks about mutual authority, mutual submission, and mutual decision making. This contrasts with the comp view that I have heard.
You seem to be trying to escape these things by saying @ 6523 that he means

<blockquote>
Husbands and wives should not deprive each other of any of their important needs. A husband is to lovingly and sacrificially give to his wife, to the best of his ability, everything that she needs. This applies to sex and everything else.
</blockquote)>

All of that is very true. Comps and Egals would agree with this, but this is not all that Paul is saying. You are not considering some important aspects of his teaching that I have outlined. I appeal to you to read what Paul actually says in the verses I have copied out above. How do you explain these contradictions between a comps understanding of how a husband and wife should relate to each other and what Paul actually says in relation to sex in marriage?

Thanks Jereth.

Dear oh me. They’ve given this another new lease of life.

Craig, are you on Facebook? Why don’t we create a group, and continue our discussion there?

I think I’ve had enough of this place!

Jereth

Craig,

Thank you for the invitation, but I don’t feel comfortable taking this over to another blog.

Here are the options I’m happy to proceed with
a. We call it quits. We’ve probably picked each other’s brains enough, eh? Anyway it seems we’ve moved well beyond 1 Tim 2 and Genesis and are getting into other texts—this could go on forever.

b. We go to facebook

c. We go somewhere like http://www.christianforums.com
and start a thread there.

(I used to spend hours on Christian Forums debating people about creation & evolution. Now that was a fun topic, unlike this one. )

Facebook and Christian Forums are public places, but they are “neutral territory”.

What do you reckon?

Jereth

Hi Jereth,

Either Christian Forums or Teri’s suggestion sound fine to me. I don’t know either of them. I’ll trust your judgement.
It seems like there are a few of us who are happy to continue the discussion. If you are as well, perhaps you could start it up wherever you would prefer, and give us all the link to it.
If you have had enough and would like a break, I am sure we would all understand.

Regards
Craig.

Hi David and everyone else, I’ve been a lurker except I tried to post one comment a while back but it never went through.

As I was reading through your comment, David, this part got my attention:
“Firstly, I suggest the different interpretations we arrive at for the passage in 1 Timothy 2 are theories. ‘Dear Paul, a woman should learn in quietness and full submission etc.’, does not plainly state, ‘Other than in exceptional circumstances, no woman anywhere ought ever lead a church’. Nor does it plainly state that there is one particular woman to whom Paul refers. If either of these, or anything similar, were plainly stated, then that is what the passage would say explicitly. Because we cannot merely find a doctrine of some kind plainly stated here, but instead are forced to infer our conclusions from the passage, and from anything that is otherwise relevant, whatever interpretation we settle on is a theory.”

I really like what you have said here, and find it logical and well thought out. And I’d like your thoughts on the fact that the most amount of women that Paul stopped from teaching, that can be proven (!), is only 1. I think this fact is pretty important. I’d like to know what you think about it since I enjoy your line of reasoning. I’ve gone over the passage for a long time, and there just is no way to prove that Paul prohibited more than one woman.

Food for thought that I want to put out there - can the restriction of teaching and the restriction of other ministries placed on women be justied (justice being a kingdom principle) in any form by a doctrine that absolutely cannot be proven?

And for all who have contributed to this discussion, i’ve learned alot. Thanks for helping me keep my brain sharp!

Hi Carolyn,
You said

the most amount of women that Paul stopped from teaching, that can be proven (!), is only 1.

Well said. But I would go even further. I would add that the most amount of women that Paul stopped from teaching BIBLICAL TRUTH, that can be proven (!) is Zero.
This woman (women?) in 1 Tim 2 was doing something wrong in her teaching, otherwise Paul wouldn’t have wanted it stopped. It was either because of gender or content. Where else in the scriptures is good bible teaching stopped because of gender? I can’t think of any. A deceived woman teaching error must be very definitely on the table as a “theory” for our consideration.

You also said

And for all who have contributed to this discussion, i’ve learned alot. Thanks for helping me keep my brain sharp!

Thanks Carolyn for your encouragement to all of us. I have been praying that others who are reading these comments would be learning along with me. Wonderful to know God is doing that!

Hello all,

Just a warning that comments will be closing permanently on this article in a couple of days (we only allow commenting for a month after a post goes online).

Thanks for your contributions and discussion. I’m sure everyone has benefited in some way. Mark Baddeley is about to run another short series with his views, so you may find yourselves sticking around!

Hi, Carolyn,

Thank you for the question and encouragement; these are difficult issues…

In answer to your question (which is a really excellent one), I think you are right in a sense. There is one thing we can say categorically about 1 Timothy 2—Paul without doubt refers to at least one woman. Whether he really refers to more than one, and if he does refer to more than one, how many more he refers to, is hard to establish.  But he definitely writes of at least one.

On the other hand, though, I think that while this is a certain fact about the passage, we’re not justified in ruling out the possibilty we might be able to make a very convincing positive case with respect to the extent to which Paul’s words apply. We might be able nevertheless to show with a high degree of probability that he definitely has in mind all women; some women not all; or one woman.

To look at the issue from the traditional point of view, there are significant facts that can be advanced in favour of it. For example, it is standard usage in many languages to refer to a large number of something by using phrases like ‘a such-and-such’.

To give a straightforward example—say you and I were writing a journal article about the relative merits of having a king as opposed to a parliament, to govern a state. We might well write throughout our paper things like, ‘A king will be decisive; a king will be efficient. He will not have to consult others, except for counsel.’

In our article the phrase ‘a king’ won’t refer to a particular king; it won’t mean all kings whatsoever (plainly kings can be weak). Despite having some appearance of particularity, and some appearance of absolute universality, it will mean in effect ‘almost any king we should have—that is, kings in general’.

Even though we might bring strong objections against reading 1 Timothy 2 in the light of this consideration, Paul’s use of the phrase ‘a woman’ there means I think that a very narrow interpretation is by no means certain at face value. The broadness to which phrases like ‘a such-and-such’ may extend is a solid fact about language that can justifiably be invoked in arguing for a fairly broad interpretation of what Paul writes.

This being said, I suggest the fundamental problem of interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 lies not in the fact we know Paul had at least one woman in mind: it lies in the fact that to justify a universal rule about women in the church, we have to be able to show that his words extend to all women whatsoever. If we cannot do this, then we cannot say there is a general rule forbidding women from teaching men.

As it happens, it is my personal view that we cannot show Paul’s words extend so far.

It’s worth (as much as you wish to do it) considering the arguments made in favour of taking Paul’s language to extend to all women whatsoever. Their quality is an indication of the merits of the traditional doctrines about women in the church. These arguments are (peace be with all those who disagree) not very good.

I can’t evaluate more than one—unfortunately there isn’t the space. However, to choose an example: the argument that seeing as the Bible represents men leading women generally, it means men ought to lead women.  The absurdity involved in this method of reading is a relatively simple and clear one. It lies in asserting that, in itself, the way things are or have been is a prescription for the way things ought to be. This is a view completely unsupported by the Bible’s language. It is also completely unsupported by any extra-Biblical fact about language. Naturally enough, the way things are in itself says nothing about what ought to be: if it did, any prevailing action among human beings could with real justification be said to be something we are all obligated to do.

Granted, we are talking here about what the Bible reports in general concerning men and women. But in general it merely reports the way things have been as a matter of fact.

Interestingly, the particular method of reading I’m objecting to has been thought fallacious since the time of Aristotle—if it were not before. It is thought to be fallacious now. It has always been thought to be fallacious. It is an error so well known, it has been given its own name—affirming the consequent.

That such poor arguments are (seemingly) without fail called on to support the tradition doctrines about women in the church and the family shows, I think, how badly the Bible’s language supports these doctrines.

I trust these reflections will be some help, as you ponder.

What can be wrong with teaching biblical truth? (Well, nothing if gender is not a part of the equation)

There is NO (0, zilch, nadda) truth in satan, and he was a murderer from the beginning (he murdered Eve through deception, but Adam sinned out of rebellion). This is a simple truth. That is what Jesus said. Satan can’t even tell a half truth because there is NO truth in him. And so, the archenemy of truth is satan, the father of lies. And what’s important to me, (I’ve always Loved the Truth since I was little) is that the truth is taught, and not hindered no matter one’s flesh/gender.   
The problem though is that gender hierarchy is claimed to be biblical truth, though it absolutely cannot be proven to be biblical from the very pages of the bible itself.

I think it’s best to stick with the evidence and facts that way we can come to better and safer conclusions.

I wonder, If there is no difference between men and women, besides women physically bear children and men don’t, what is the difference?

God could’ve given Adam another man for a helper, and they could have used budding or fission or some other method of reproduction - ok thats a bit silly, but still, there must be a difference other than child bearing, men and women are cursed differently at the fall. Jesus as representing humanity was a man not a women.

So what then is the difference? Why are these things so?

Hi Rachel,

Do you know the exact deadline? Is it midnight at the end of 9/12?
Thanks

Hi David A,

You said

I can’t evaluate more than one—unfortunately there isn’t the space. However, to choose an example: the argument that seeing as the Bible represents men leading women generally, it means men ought to lead women.

Thanks so much for your example of a poor method of reading and argument - “affirming the consequent”. This was very helpful.
If you have the time, and are willing, any more gems like this would be appreciated. I am sure there is enough space if you do one brief example per comment just as you did with this one.

With thanks,
Craig

Hi Callan,

You said:
“I wonder, If there is no difference between men and women, besides women physically bear children and men don’t, what is the difference?”

I think the matter lies in the fact that there are more similarities between men and women then there are differences. Are there more similarities than differences and if so then what does that mean for us as a living organism, body?
You also said:
“God could’ve given Adam another man for a helper, and they could have used budding or fission or some other method of reproduction - ok thats a bit silly, but still, there must be a difference other than child bearing, men and women are cursed differently at the fall. Jesus as representing humanity was a man not a women.”
Actualy neither were cursed but the actions of Adam were cursed and the actions of Eve, who was deceived by the serpent, were not. (A very careful reading shows this)

Hi, Craig,

I’m glad you found the thoughts about affirming the consequent helpful.

In the time that is left, I’m happy to offer a few other examples of what strike me as clear fallacies in the arguments we formulate in order to establish rules restricting women’s actions in the Church and family.

Another example—

The ‘plain statement’ fallacy. (This name is my own.) The argument we make for the traditional doctrines is in this case that in essence our scriptures state them directly.

The fallacy here lies in an error of judgement about what constitutes explicitness in what we read.

Say all the contributers to this thread together find a book on politics. Say we know it is entirely true. Say also that it contains this, in a set of general rules about government that is clearly marked as a set of general rules on the point: ‘No country should ever adopt a monarchical system. All countries should be governed by a parliament alone.’ What does it say explicitly? That no country should ever have a monarchy; that all countries should be governed by a parliament alone.

But what if the book instead contained an introductory letter, in which the writer expressed something less to a particular set of recipients, say people living in Sydney at the time of writing? And what if this were the only mention in the book of obligation in choosing our system of government? And say the writer provided readers with this: ‘Februrary 1, 2010. Dear citizens of Australia who live in Sydney, I do not permit a country to have a monarchy. A country must be governed by a parliament. For the first system of government ever embraced in human history was a parliament.’

What does this say plainly? That the writer of the letter has told Sydney-siders at the time of writing that he or she does not permit countries to adopt a monarchical system of government. Why not? Because the first government we know of was parliamentary.

What does this not say explicitly? It does not say explicitly that no country should have a monarchy, and that the only system of government anyone should have is parliamentary. (I only intend this example to be vaguely analogous with 1 Timothy 2.)

The point is, in order to state something explicitly, you have to state it, really, in so many words. It is I suggest a plain and simple fallacy to claim that something other than what is explicitly stated is in fact directly stated.

What does 1 Timothy 2 state plainly? That Paul says to Timothy that he doesn’t permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. That she (whoever and however many she turns out to be) must be silent. That she should learn submissively. And etc..

What does it not state plainly? That no woman anywhere ought ever lead a church. If it did state this latter plainly, that is what it would say.

I suggest we shoiuld resist this particular fallacy with the utmost staunchness, wherever it originates. It is widespread, common, and where it is embraced it conceals from us a wealth of serious and important problems with the evidence for the traditional doctrines.

Again, I trust these thoughts will be some help…

That is, the fact Paul is addressing Timothy is found in Ch 1…

Hi, Craig, hi, all,

Craig, I thought your comments there were most helpful.

Another error worthy of consideration might be called the ‘many-sentence fallacy’.

The mistake we make here lies in thinking that the sheer volume of sentences which are known to be true on a subject justifies the conclusion that the view they express is everywhere and always true.

The fallacy is generally employed in this way, re the traditional doctrines about women’s roles:  Paul mentions the issue of women in the Church and the family a number of times; therefore what he says about it applies everywhere, for all time.

Reflection shows I think that this too is a fairly straightforward error.

What matters in a case like this one is whether something is known to be true at many times and places and under many different conditions. That is what supports a universal rule. One sentence is plainly enough regarding women in the Church, if it is known to be true, and if it says, ‘It is a universal obligation in all churches whatsoever that only men hold formal leadership positions’.

On the other hand a million—a trillion—sentences stating a rule regarding women in the Church and the family, but that all refer directly to the same place and time, would not in themselves prove that women ought never lead churches. For these sentences would all express exactly the same very narrow thing: that in a particular place and time, there was such and such a rule.

Craig, commenting will close at 10:36am Friday 10 December, Australia Eastern Daylight Savings time.

Hi David,

Thank you for your response. It is much appreciated. These are difficult issues but I think that they are made out to be more difficult than they truly are…
I’m glad you understand what I was saying - Paul stopped at least one woman, that is a given. But I also think that it is not possible to be able to establish that he stopped more than one.
I do think that it is possible to make a convincing positive case but in the sense that we can become convinced about what a certain passage is saying, though it really isn’t even saying what we are convince it is saying.
I understand your point on using the singular ‘a king’ with an indefinite pronoun and how it’s use wouldn’t refer to a particular king and how it’s use would mean kings in general.
And I agree that a narrow interpretation of Paul’s usage of the singular is not certain at face value. How he uses it is to be determined by the context. I understand that there is justification in arguing for a broad interpretation - at face value, but when considered in light of the whole passage, I don’t see any justification at all. I cannot find it
Also I agree that in order for the church to justify the restriction of women in ministry it absolutely must be shown (proven) that such is what Paul intended. There is no justification if it cannot be proven. 
I’ve considered the comp arguments, I’ve been studying the passage for 5 years. I know there is no way to get women in general out of that passage - so long as the inspired grammar of vv 11-15 is not changed.
You said:
“The absurdity involved in this method of reading is a relatively simple and clear one. It lies in asserting that, in itself, the way things are or have been is a prescription for the way things ought to be. This is a view completely unsupported by the Bible’s language. It is also completely unsupported by any extra-Biblical fact about language. Naturally enough, the way things are in itself says nothing about what ought to be: if it did, any prevailing action among human beings could with real justification be said to be something we are all obligated to do.”
I agree. I think it’s totally ridiculous.
I didn’t have the time to put more thought into your response as I would of liked, but I am glad you did share your thoughts with me, David and at least I got to say a little something in return.
Thanks David.

Oh, one last thing, I think that logical fallacies have got to stop! They are ridiculous! And I think that we can all, or at least most of us can do much better than that.

Hi David,

Thanks for your answer, and I did think that it may have been an oversight. It is very easy to assume that something which appears in a modern translation is backed up by evidence, but the sad fact is that some things which appear in some translations are not backed up by evidence.

Suzanne McCarthy (Sue)

I switched to “Sue” a couple of years ago when I had an internet stalker. He seems to have gone elsewhere since then.

Hi Sue,

I would really appreciate your opinion on 1 Tim 2:11-15 with your expert Greek hat on. I know no Greek, but there are several Greek issues that seem important in this text, and cause contoversies eg plural to singular and back to plural, “I do not permit”, oude, authentein, anaphoric reference, perfect tense etc.
I would like to know your thoughts as to which views are truly “on the table” for consideration from your knowledge of Greek. Some people say a certain view can’t be possible “because of the Greek” and it is hard to know whether they are correct or not, and also whether their egal/comp perspective is really determining their judgement.
Are these views possible purely from a Greek perspective?

1. “Woman” in v 11,12 and “man” in v12 are a particular woman and man (or wife and husband) known to Paul and Timothy. V14b refers to Eve. Vs 15 “she” refers back to “woman” and “they” refers back to the particular woman and man.
2. As above except that v14b refers not to Eve, but to the Ephesian woman. Anaphoric reference, and perfect tense come into play.
3. If you assume Timothy has asked Paul about a particular woman and a particular man but Paul begins by discussing their situation first in general terms in v11,12, but then mentions them specifically in v15. So it would be
“In answer to your question about Betty and Bill, the general principle applies that a woman is to learn, and I do not permit a woman to teach and authentein a man (v11,12). The reason is…...(v13,14).  But Betty will be saved, if both Bill and Betty continue in faith…..(v15).

Thanks very much Sue. BTW I have appreciated your own blog with your comments on Greek issues related to the egal/comp debate.

Craig.

Hi, Carolyn,

Thanks for reading what I had written, and for your response. Thanks for sharing your views. I enjoyed the sageness of your comments.

Another error perhaps worth our reflection might be called the fallacy of false implication.

It is common in arguing for the traditional doctrines about women for us to appeal to implication. We argue in this fashion, ‘1 Timothy 2 (or what have you) implies that no woman should ever lead a church. I see very well that the traditional doctrines about women aren’t stated explicitly. But they are implied. And that shows there are definitely universally applicable rules concerning women’s roles.’

I suggest that often on this point, whether implication is invoked by a theologian, a minister or we ourselves, an error is being made.

Implication that gives us proof takes this form:

a)  Whenever the wind is southerly here, it rains.
b)    Tomorrow, the wind here will be from the south.
c)  (And now that which is implied by these things) Tomorrow it will rain here.

For it to be proven true by implication that there will be rain here tomorrow, firstly it must be true that whenever the wind is southerly here it rains; and secondly it must be true that tomorrow the wind here will be a southerly.

The fact that pending rain is implied by the first two sentences above is revealed to us because we know for certain on account of them—assuming they are true—that it will rain here tomorrow. That is, we know it will rain here tomorrow, seeing we know for certain that tomorrow the wind here will be from the south.

When something is strictly speaking implied, and thereby shown to be true, it is proven completely by something else that we know perfectly well is true.

If you study the sentences above which allow the implication, you’ll see that they say something extremely wide about the weather here—that every time the wind is southerly here, it rains.

In order for anything to be proven true by implication, the facts from which the implication is drawn have to be at least as wide as the conclusion taken from them.

You’ll also see if you examine my example that when implication occurs, the conclusion really follows very clearly from the related facts you already know.

I suggest that the traditional doctrines concerning women are not strictly speaking implied by our scriptures. Whatever support the Bible offers them, it is not by means of implication. We can see this quite clearly, I think, from the fact that our scriptures contain no sentence which touches on the subject of women’s roles, and which is actually as wide as the doctrines themselves. The traditional doctrines refer explicitly to all women, all churches, etc. But the passages from which we get them appear to be narrower than the doctrines.

In that case, genuine implication of the doctrines is categorically impossible.

The appeal to implication, too, is an error that, to my mind, we should energetically resist. Careless talk about implication can make the traditional doctrines about women’s roles seem quite plausible. But apparently the Bible’s language is in such a condition, it cannot possibly imply them.

May God be with all…!