Craig

Hi Kristen,
“In fact, Paul specifically says that the OT stories are for examples to us– not for grounding of truths– but I don’t have that reference at my fingertips.”
Do you mean 1 Cor 10:6?

Hi everyone who is there,
I haven’t actually had any conversations with anyone who actually holds the really genuine traditional “easily deceived” position. Webb does in his exegesis, but as I say, he believes it was only applicable in Ephesus at the time Paul wrote to Timothy due to local reasons, not due to women’s basic nature as is the traditional interpretation.
I know some who hold the more recently invented, updated version of the “easily deceived” position. This is the “women are more nice and friendly than men and so they won’t be tough enough on false teachers and so shouldn’t be elders” position.
There are many different comp positions, but if I ask a comp why they would believe that the way they understand v11,12 is normative for today, or why they believe he is giving a universal command, one of their responses will be that Paul basis his appeal on creation.
They seem to believe that an appeal to Adam and Eve immediately makes something normative, transcultural, universal, applicable for everyone, for all time in just the way it is stated. Webb disagrees with this, as does R.T. France in his book “Women in the Church’s ministry”. I have some thoughts, but I was wondering if anyone else would like to share what they think. Does an appeal to Adam and Eve ensure that something is normative for today?

“But it is not a good idea for everyone, agreed?”
Yes, we are all different.
Andrew and Cheryl popped in on another thread but I think the others must be silently lurking. Helloooooo out there 🙂

Hi Gengwall,

Like the trial lawyer who asks a question he does not already anticipate the answer to, this is a dangerous practice if your intent is to persuade.

Perhaps I see it more like a tennis match. I might try playing my opponent’s backhand and see what he has got there. If his backhand is weak, I will keep probing there. But if his backhand turns out to be quite solid, I will have to acknowledge that and try another approach. I think it is ok to try an approach even if I am not sure how he will answer, and then figure out my response once I know what he thinks. If the comp uses sound reasoning, I need to acknowledge that I can understand why he thinks the way he does on that issue. I may get some help from others (eg from here on Cheryl’s blog) to help me see any holes in his argument that I don’t see, but it may just be better to leave that approach alone, because it is a dead end. That is why I raised it here, and I appreciate your counsel that the hermeneutical approach is not what you would advise. I need to work out whether to find out through experience in the battle, or take your advice.
I agree that the more homework we can do to anticipate what response may occur, and have our answers ready before they reply, the better. But I don’t think that if I am not yet in that position, it necessarily means I can’t try some things and see where they lead. Sometimes a child’s question out of ignorance can lead a mature adult to think and change their whole attitude.

Hi Gengwall,

I think there is value in taking the “what if you are correct” approach, but only if you really know what your response is going to be and where the other side’s “correctness” leads. But as an avenue of discovery from a position of ignorance on any passage, it can be quite dangerous. So tread carefully.

I often ask questions from a position of ignorance. I often learn things this way. Could you please elaborate on the dangers of doing this?

Thanks Gengwall for your “little rant” @84. I can understand that there are dangers, but I don’t think this approach needs to go where you are warning against.
Let me give an example. Say you have a friend who believes we should wash each other’s feet, because Jesus told us to. Each time you go to his place, he insists on washing your feet, out of obedience to Jesus’ command.
You may actually agree with your friend that Jesus was giving his disciples a command to wash each other’s feet. But you may have reasons for believing that although it was an appropriate command for the culture at the time, it is not applicable in exactly the same way today. You may believe that the universal principle behind this command was to do with servanthood and love, and that there are more appropriate ways of expressing this today. You may believe that your friend washing your feet actually has the reverse effect to what Jesus intended by this command.
Does this mean Jesus was leading his disciples astray, or that Jesus is untrustworthy? Does it mean the scriptures are not inspired? Does that mean you are on a slippery slope? Does it mean that Jesus’ command is worthless for us today?
Could it not mean that that Jesus command was a very appropriate command for the cultural situation and a wonderful example of servanthood and love? The principle of servanthood is universal but the specific application of it regarding foot washing would only apply to us today if we all still walked around on dusty roads with bare feet or sandals.
If you agree with me, then you could use this “hermeneutical” argument in debating with your friend about the need for foot washing today. You would not need to use an “exegetical” argument, trying to convince your friend that Jesus really wasn’t saying that the disciples should wash each other’s feet. And you would not be a “liberal” even though you may not be obeying the “plain reading” of Jesus’ command.
I think this is the way Webb sees patriarchy. There may well be some problems with his approach, but I don’t think it can simply be dismissed because of the dangers of liberalism.

“When he does would you please post his response.”

Certainly Elaine, providing he is happy for me to do this. I know he is busy, and he has had to put off some further posts that he was going to make on the gender debate, but hopefully he will not forget to send me an email when he is able to.

Hi Gengwall,
I think you have understood Webb’s view fairly well (as far as I can tell).
I agree with you in that I think he is mistaken in his views on Gen and 1 Tim 2. But I am still wondering if there is some value in his book.
You know when you are discussing a passage with a comp. He says his view and you say your view. You disagree and reach an impasse. You have to agree to disagree.
Well, I am wondering if it is possible to use some of the material in Webb’s book to say “I don’t agree with you about the meaning of this passage, but let’s assume for a moment that you are correct. Can you really show me why you think we should still apply it in exactly the same way today.”
In a recent Sola Panel discussion I tried to use this reasoning and see where it ended up. I asked several times in various ways why slavery is considered cultural and patriarchy is considered transcultural. What are the indications from the scriptures that patriarchy is normative for today, in contrast to slavery (and several other issues that we now consider cultural)?
Unfortunately, the comp fellow leading the discussion was snowed under with lots of other comments, and he got sick, and was unable to answer before time ran out. He said he would email me privately with an answer but unfortunately I haven’t received it yet. I am sure that he will have an answer (he has thought a lot about his position and seems very intelligent) and I am interested to see it.
As I say, I am not sure if this approach would be useful or not. There may be big holes in it and comps may be able to answer these things quite satisfactorily. I have just started reading CBMW on it and I think some of there criticisms of the book are valid, but I am still thinking…….
It is interesting also to me that this comp himself said that he found the “hermeneutical” explanation of the egal position more feasible than the “exegetical” explanation although he didn’t agree with either.

I guess what I am wondering is that when something is wrong, it is often wrong from a number of angles. So if compism is wrong it may be wrong from several angles.
On Cheryl’s site, we generally seem to be saying that when understood correctly, bible passages are not teaching compism, so we debate with comps about what the bible meant in its original setting.
William Webb seems to offer a different approach. I am not sure if he is correct or not yet. If he is correct, then even if we agreed with comps about the meaning of passages in their original setting, then comps are still wrong in the way they apply them. He offers what he considers to be valid hermeneutical principles to show that patriarchy (even if it was taught in the bible) is a cultural, rather than a trans- cultural practice on a par with slavery.

For an egal, he is actually more comp in his exegesis than the comps are!
He believes the current brand of comps like CBMW have departed from the true historical understanding of 1 Tim 2:14 without any good reason. He agrees with Kostenberger and Schreiner’s understanding of 1 Tim 2:9-15 except for v14 where he thinks they have watered down the traditional understanding to accommodate our present understanding that women are not more easily deceived than men.
Webb does not believe that women are more easily deceived today, but that they were in biblical times due to lack of education, social exposure, age when they got married etc. So he maintains a traditional exegesis but ends up with an egal application. He believes a current application of the text would be to choose leaders (whether male or female) who are not easily deceived.

Thanks again for your comments @73 Gengwall. I think what you have said is very true and helpful.
Regarding #74 the author William Webb seeks to give us various criteria on which to judge whether an issue in the bible is cultural or transcultural. He deals not only with the issues of slavery, patriarchy and homosexuality but also with such things as primogeniture, foot washing, head coverings, monarchy, righthandedness, long hair, meat offered to idols, holy kiss, vegetarianism, sabbath etc.
He believes slavery and patriarchy are cultural, while the bible’s opposition to the practice of homosexuality is transcultural. (I hope that doesn’t spoil the excitement for those who haven’t yet read the book 🙂 )
You said “First, we had better be able to make universal proclamations based on situational or cultural biblical passages, or nothing in the bible matters”.
I think he would say that there are underlying principles to the situational commands and that these universal principles matter and are relevant to us today.
CBMW have many reviews and comments about the book so they apparently thought it was an important book to refute. I haven’t read these reviews yet.
So far, I think he is making some interesting points, but his hermeneutical approach for some passages doesn’t seem necessary to me because the bible isn’t really saying what he thinks it is saying. For example, he sees the possibility of patriarchy in Gen 1-2, and he thinks 1 Tim 2 says that women in general are more easily deceived than men. So he then has to explain why these things were thought then but are not universal things for today.

Hi Waneta,
Thanks for clarifying. Comps I have spoken with seem to think God gave Adam authority over the animals, expressed by his naming them. They also think God gave Adam authority over Eve, expressed by him naming her. They see Eve’s role as a helper in the tasks Adam was given, still with authority over the animals but under Adam’s authority. They think Eve would have had the authority to help Adam with the naming of the animals if she had been around at the time.
It is all very strained and seems to me to be an attempt to try and read the passage to find hierarchy rather than seeing what the text actually says, particularly in light of Gen 1:26-28.
As Gengwall says “For the comp position to be true, categorical naming or naming someone must be proven to be an act of authority.” I haven’t seen any proof of this yet. I have only heard it stated.

I am just reading “Slaves, Women and Homosexuals at the moment. It was recommended in a recent discussion about hermeneutics at Sola Panel. Has anyone read this?
He seems to make some very good points, but he does have an unusual egal view in some respects. For example, he seems to largely agree with comps on their “exegesis” of Genesis 1-2, 1 Tim 2, Eph 5, 1 Pet 3 etc but then uses hermeneutics to explain patriarchy as cultural and arrives at an egal application for today in our culture. Does anyone have any comments about this sort of approach? It seems quite different to other approaches like Philip Payne’s “Man and Woman, One in Christ.”

Didn’t Adam name the animals before Eve was taken from his side? So they were already categorized by the time she came on the scene

Ummm……. Yes….. but I’m sorry Waneta, I’m not quite sure of the point you are making. My brain is sometimes a bit slow off the mark 🙂

Eve had equal authority over the animals with Adam according to Genesis 1. So if Eve was just as authorized to name them as Adam, what possible correlation to authority could Adam’s naming of her have?

I am not sure I properly follow you here Gengwall. I think comps would argue (without any reason from Gen 1) that although Eve did have authority over the animals, it was not “equal authority” with Adam. Adam still had authority over Eve. So in their minds, Adam naming the animals and Eve shows his authority over both.

But was the Genesis 2 naming an act of authority at all? I don’t know how one can come to that conclusion based on the text. God did not bring the animals to Adam because there was some crisis of authority that need to be resolved. He brought the animals to Adam only because Adam was alone and that was not good. Adam needed to find his ‘ezer neged. Genesis 2:18-20 clearly show that Adam’s naming of the animals was an act of DISCOVERY, not authority.

Thanks for this Gengwall. Very well expressed.

I am not sure that in most comps’ minds that the naming of a species or category rather than an individual would be any less of an indication to them of authority. For example, they would say that Adam could name tigers because he had authority over tigers.
This argument

Naming someone does not establish, express, or validate any authority that doesn’t already exist. Nor is the presence of an authoritarian hierarchy necessary to give a name.

seems a stronger argument to me. Thus Hagar could give God a name later on in Genesis.
If this is true, then Adam naming Eve after the fall wouldn’t have necessarily shown his post-fall rulership either.

Hi Gengwall,

Besides, Adam didn’t “name” the animals (or Eve) at all, he categorized them.

Just wanted to check what you meant by this. Thanks.

Hi Gengwall,
Great to see you back again! When you were last here, I think your daughter’s wedding was approaching. I hope everything went well.

Just excuse me for a bit while I think aloud and answer my own question. I think I remember Jereth saying at one point that he believed that what went on in the verses between the creation of Adam and Eve showed Adam’s authority, and this is why Paul appeals to Adam being created first in 1 Tim 2:13. Jereth also didn’t put much weight on the primogeniture argument, so this may be how he puts it together in his mind. I may not agree with this, because I don’t see any evidence of authority being given to Adam here over Eve, but at least I can understand this explanation.
It seems a bit similar but different to the egal approach, of seeing that what went on between Adam and Eve’s creation explaining why Eve was deceived and Adam wasn’t.
So I guess I just need to discuss more with my comp friends whether the issue in 1 Tim 2 is authority or deception.

Thanks TL.
I remember several of us discussing this issue of creation order and the fall with Jereth on the Sola Panel.
“Creation order” also seems such a big thing to people in the church I belong to.
If I ask them why being created first gives someone authority, some will discuss primogeniture. But after discussing primogeniture some will admit it is not a strong argument.
But they still believe creation order by itself is a strong argument, based on their understanding of 1 Tim 2:13.
It seems to me that their only case is their assumed understanding of 1 Tim 2:13 and then reading this back into Gen 1-3.
But I wonder why comps think Paul would have thought that first created = authority over second created, if he wasn’t thinking of primogeniture. I can’t think of any other reason. I haven’t received a reasonable reply yet, apart from “it just seems logical”. Does anyone know of any other comp answers to this?

Good thoughts TL. Thanks.
Some comps relate 1 Tim 2:13 to primogeniture, but other comps seem to see the problems with this view. These other comps are big on the creation order idea but don’t relate it to primogeniture. They don’t seem to have any reason for thinking that being created first gives one authority, apart from “God says it does, in 1 Tim 2:13”. They see the fall related to the reversal of the creation order. Has anyone got any thoughts on this sort of view or brief summary of its main problems? Thanks.

Thanks TL, Elaine, and Cheryl for your helpful thoughts.

Hi everyone,

I have heard some comps say that Paul in 1 Tim 2:13 is using the understanding of primogeniture to say that Adam had authority over Eve because he was created first. They say that people in the first century would have understood this argument.
Comps agree that primogeniture is culturally based and not a universal principle. Comps don’t practise primogeniture today. So these comps must believe that Paul is saying that a universal principle (v11,12) is based on a cultural argument (v13).
Questions
1.I can think of examples where we should do a cultural thing because of a universal principle. I can think of examples where we should do a cultural thing because of a cultural reason. But I cannot think of any universal thing I should do because of a cultural reason. Can anyone else? Does this sound like a reasonable question to ask a comp, or am I missing something?
2.Wasn’t primogeniture to do with the first born male in the family, and not really to do with males and females? So would Timothy have really thought of primogeniture relating to Adam and Eve?
Thanks.

Hi TL,
I know that Cheryl has quotes from tapes of Bruce Ware in the Trinity DVD’s. Bruce says on these that we should pray to the Father and not to Jesus.

Hi Marg,
Great to “meet” another Aussie here. It is indeed a joy to be able to encourage and be encouraged by others from all around the world and also from other parts of Australia. God is very good to us 🙂 .

Hi Marg,
I’m from Hurstville in Sydney. I know Dave is from Ryde in Sydney and Mark the comp is also from Sydney. I didn’t realize you are also from Australia- whereabouts are you?

Prayers for a truly joyful Christmas for everyone from “down under” as well. (Interesting that my anti-spam word was “under”!) 🙂

Hi Charis,
Thanks very much for finding that information for me and providing the link. Very interesting.

Hi everyone,
While we are on other possibilities, I was wondering if anyone has heard any more of Michael Green’s suggestion in “To Corinth With Love” that authentien had a sexual meaning. On p159-161 he says that the main background of the word in Euripides, Philodemus, Phrynicus, and Wisd 12:6 is erotic, and John Chrysostom understood it to mean “sexual licence”. He links this with Jezebel in Rev 2:20, cf.Num 25:1-3. He says that in Ephesus, where many sacred prostitutes were attached to the shrine of Diana, worshippers were taught that fornication brought them into close union with the deity (and both the Gnostics and the Nestorians used the authentien root to justify this). He makes the bold claim that virtually without exception women teachers in Greek society were courtesans, and made it evident that in the course of their lectures that they would be available afterwards.
I haven’t heard anyone recently suggesting this as a meaning for it. I hear things like dominate, domineer, usurp authority, assume authority, exercise authority etc etc. Has the sexual meaning for it gone out of favor for some reason? Does anyone know anything about it?

Hi Kristen,
Even if Cheryl did misunderstand your exact meaning for authentein, wouldn’t the basic question still apply of why the women would only be stopped from teaching the men? I can possibly understand how the women may have been poorly educated and so shouldn’t teach false things in a way that purports to be authoritative. But why only mention teaching to the men and not to the women also? What situation at Ephesus could require v12 to be written as it is?
Cheryl’s particular individual woman view does answer this question quite well.