Frank

Well, Cheryl, I think you are doing a good job in accurately explaining what the Scriptures actually teach about women teaching and preaching, while pointing out the contradictions in his own position, and doing so with gentleness and respect. I made the following comments on his site, which support and elaborate on what you have already said:

Mike:

I assume from what you have said that, like Cheryl and myself, you believe that since the OT prophets and NT apostles wrote Scripture under the divine guidance and superintendance of the Holy Spirit, and therefore there cannot by any contradictions in what it teaches regarding our ministerial duties and responsibilities in the Body of Christ, correct? And according to you, in 1 Tim. 2:12, Paul absolutely forbids women teaching or preaching, whatever the form it is given,in a mixed audience during worship, correct? Then how do you square that with the teaching gave to the entire church, leaders and congregation, in Colossians 3:15-17? The Apostle writes as follows:

15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdeom through psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him(Col. 3:15-17, TNIV).

In these three verses, we find a summary of the teaching Paul earlier gave regarding congregational prayer and prophesying in 1 Cor. 12-14. The focus here is on “the message of Christ,” which is to be communicated by psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, with the purpose being to “teach and admonish one another with all wisdom” (v.16). This text in Colossians clearly indicates that in the NT house churches, psalms, hymns and songs not only praise and thank God for our great redemption in Christ, but also served a didatic or teaching function for all participating in the worship service. And regarding these “prophecies,” THE EXPOSITOR’S GREEK TESTAMENT states: “The precise distinctions intended are not certain, and perhaps they should not be sharply drawn. The meaning is, whatever kind of song it may be, let it be made the vehicle of religious instruction and admonition”(Vol. 3, p.541). Like 1 Cor. 12-14, this text not only assumes that both men and women will proclaim or prophesy the message of Christ together during worship, following the directives of 1 Cor 14 which were normative for all the Pauline churches; but it also expects and encourages them to do so, so as to instruct and admonish one another, resulting in everyone becoming wiser in the mysteries of Christ and his Gospel.

Now, Mike, if Paul absolutely forbids women,at all times and in all forms,to proclaim God’s Word to mixed audiences during worship in 1 Tim. 2:12, does this not contradict what he here commands them to do in Col. 3:15-17? If one thinks about this critically and logically, one must come to one of these conclusions:
1. Paul, when he wrote 1 Tim. 2:12,had forgotten what he wrote in Col. 3:15-17,and did not realize that he had written two texts that contradict each other. Well, liberals might believe this could have happened; but do we really think Paul was so irrational or forgetful that if somenone had pointed this out to him, he would not have recognized it as an apparent contradiction, and made some clarfying statement,like he did in 1 Cor. 5:9-11?
2. As you and Wayne Grudem argue, Paul made a distinction between prophecy and teaching, the first which he permitted women to do in 1Cor. 12-14,but forbade them to do the latter in 1 Tim. 2:12. Well, the problem with this argument is that several NT scholars-e.g., David Hill, Earle E. Ellis, and Kevin Giles-who have studied this subject in detail, have demonstrated that the NT does not make the rigid distinction between teaching and preaching(prophecy)that we moderns make. After all while Jesus is often called a prophet, the NT primarily focuses on his teaching and preaching. And even prophets like Silas and Judas preach to and exhort congregations on the basis of God’s Word revealed to the Jerusalem church (Acts 15),rather than on new revelations they themselves have received. So denying women the right to proclaim God’s Word in the congregation on this basis of a supposed distinction between teaching and prophecy is totally unwarranted.
3. Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor.12-14 and Col. 3:15-17 are normal guidelines and regulations regarding how men and women are to instruct, encourage and build up one another in the Lord during worship. But, as determined by its context, 1 Tim. 2:12 is a special ruling, addressed to an unusual or abnormal situation that existed in the Ephesian church. This being the case, 1 Tim. 2:12, because it is not part of Paul’s normal guidelines and regulations for worship and ministry,cannot be used as a regulatory law to deny women’s right to full participation in worship and ministry today.
So, Mike, which of these three conclusions is the most biblical and logical for us to hold, if we truly believe Paul wrote under the guidance and supervision of the Holy Spirit, and if we also believe that there can be no contradictions in the true teachings of Scripture?

I made two attempts to post these comments to Mike’s site earlier today. So I hope they went through. My only regret is that I can’t think of a good way to make clear to him that 1 Tim. 2:12 is not the strong tower and refuge for the complimentarianism that he believes it to be.

Kay, the partial quote from Gregory Dawes book was taken from Dr. Johnson’s article, “A Christian Understanding of Submission: A Nonhierarchical-Complementarian Viewpoint,” which appeared in Priscilla Papers, Vol. 17 Autumn 2003. And you’ll find some more of Dawes material in that article. I would be interested in getting a copy of Dawes’ book, but I find that English books, even when used, tend to be expensive. And TL, thanks for the futher clarification regarding how to translate hypatasso (“submit”) and its cognates

Dave, which dictionary/thesaurus did you check? I checked my Webster’s New School and Office Dictionary, which gave me the following definitions:

Submit: 1. To yield to the authority, power, etc., of another. 2. To present (something) to the judgment, discretion, etc., of another. 3. To offer as a belief, evaluation, etc.; suggest.

Subordinate: 1. Inferior in rank, value, power, importance, etc. 2. Subject to the authority of another. 3. In grammar, something that cannot stand alone.

The main difference I perceive between the two is, to use the philosohical terms, one involves a voluntary or volitional choice, while the other, being a relation of inferior to superior, is one of necessity which negates any voluntary choice. So I think I agree with you.

As regards the relationship of the Divine Persons of the Trinity, I agree with Athanasius, Kevin Giles, and Thomas F. Torrance: While they are distinct, none is prior to or greater than the other as regards their divine nature and attributes; all are fully and equally God. The submission of the Son to the Father, as our Redeemer and Mediator, applies primarily to the Incarnation. As far as I am concerned, the modern doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son is nothing but an ancient heresy put into new packaging. But is heresy, nonetheless.

I suppose it is no surprise that among the Pentecostals, who seem to take Galatians 3:26-4:7 more seriously than the rest of the Protestant churches, were the first to seek reconciliation between black and white Christians and work together in evangelistic and social ministries. Now they are the first to recognize and formally confirm the Spirit’s gifting and calling of Elizabeth Grant to be on their national board of elders. Hats off to them! May the Holy Spirit bring about such change in other church bodies, so that men and women together, united in the Lord and empowered by his Spirit, may powerfully spread the Gospel in our own generation. O Lord, may it be so! Amen!

Dave, you asked an interesting question about “submission” and “subordination,” which I am not quite sure how to answer. I know that the first is usually understood as one “willingly deferring or yielding to another,” while the other is usually understood as one “willingly placing or ordering oneself under another,” and so are understood to be synonyms and so used interchangably in several articles I have read in the past. Until you brought it up, it did not occur to me that there might be a subtle difference in meaning between the two. So I’ll have to check my English dictionaries and thesaurus and see what I can find out. But, no, I don’t think you’re being pedantic.

Dave, I appreciate both your and Kay’s comments and suggestions on my last comment. Right now, I am expanding and editing my comments on Colossians 3:15-17, as suggested by Kay, which I hope to post to Mike’s website later today or tomorrow night. And thanks, Dave. for the reminder of how Mike is likely to follow Grudem’s view of mutual submission, or in this case, mutual ministry. That is something else I plan to incorporate in the revised version of my comments on Col. 3:15-17, using material from Alan F. Johnson’s article in the Priscilla Papers, “A Christian Understanding of Submission: A Nonhierarchical-Complementarian Viewpoint.”

In the above article, Johnson discusses a book that I believe will prove troublesome for complementarians. It is by a British NT scholar, Gregory Dawes, entitled THE BODY IN QUESTION: METAPHOR AND MEANING IN THE INTERPRETATION OF EPHESIANS 5:21-33. Now as Johnson points out, egalitarians with find that they strongly disagree with some points of this author’s arguemts, but the book is still of great value.

The first thing Dawes does in this book is demonstrate is that in NT Greek, kephale is what is linguists describe as a “live metaphor,” which has a plurality of meanings that can only be determined by its contextual usage. So according to Dawes, because of its context, Col. 2:10 b is correctly translated, “[Christ] is the head over every power and authority,” while Eph. 4:15, because of its context, speaks of Christ as the unitary source from which the Church receives life and power for its growth and development, hence the translation, “we will in all things grow up into him who is the head, that is, Christ.” However, Dawes criticizes patriarchial-traditionalists for holding that kephale can only mean “authority over,” regardless of the context; and he criticizes egalitarians for refusing to see kephale as potentially meaning “authority over” in Eph. 5:21-33. But it is what Dawes argues about mutual subjection, contrary to Grudem and Piper, that I find most interesting and pertinent to what we are now discussing. Here I quote Johnson:

Dawes also argues that while hypotasso “in itself is not quite synonymous with ‘obedience’ (hypakouo), the two terms are closely associated in 1 Peter 3:5-6…and in Titus 3:1” (p.212). What then, he asks, can be made of the peculiar expression in Eph. 5:21, “be subject to one another” (hypotasso allelois)? Dawes believes that this expression when correctly exegeted means, “mutual subordination,” and that “it helps to undermine the (apparently) ‘patriarchical’ ethic of the following verses” (p. 213)…Finally, is there any reason to restrict the meaning of the word “one another” (as meaning “everyone to everyone”) to mean “some to others” as Grudem and Piper advocate? Dawes argues that the context shows that the exhortation, beginning with Eph. 5:19, where we find a series of five participles (speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks, and submitting to one another), are all dependent on the command to “be filled with the Spirit” (v.18) and give no reason to believe that any of the five participles are directed to only some Christians and not to others. Furthermore, verse 21, with its call to mutual submission (and from which verse 22 gets its verb), cannot be limited to the relationship between husband and wife, but it must be taken as a general Christian ethic addressed to every believer. Mutual submission applies to all Christians, and it can be applied to Christian married couples also because they too are members of Christ’s Body (Johnson, pp. 14-15).

And I think this is a good reply to Grudem’s nonsense regarding mutual submission. But you know, the more I interact with complementarians, the more I am convinced that they regularly violate this principle of biblical interpretation: A text must always be understood, explained and applied within its proper context. Or as I like to say it, “Any text, explained and applied from its proper context, is nothing but a pretext!”

Cheryl, I hate to say it, but it seems to me that as long as 1 Timothy 2:12 is understood by Mike as meaning that Paul prohibits the proper exercise of teaching authority, rather than the improper exercise of teaching authority; and then makes this one isolated text, understood in this peculiar way, the sole rule by which he measures every argument contrary to his own position, well, I think you will have a difficult time persuading him to see things differently.

However, I wonder if it might be more profitable to challenge him as follows: Now, Mike, as one who believes that the prophets and apostles wrote the Scripture under the inspired guidance and supervision of the Holy Spirit, you would agree that there can be no contradictions in what it teaches regarding our ministerial duties and responsibilities in the Body of Christ, correct? And according to you, in 1 Tim. 2:12, Paul absolutely forbids women teaching in a mixed audience during worship, correct? Then how do you square that with the teaching Paul gives to the entire church in Colossians 3:15-17? The Apostles writes as follows:

15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Col. 3:15-17, TNIV)

In these three verses, we find a summary of the teaching Paul gave regarding prayer and prophesy in 1 Corinthians 12-14, with his focus here on the message of Christ being communicated in psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, with the purpose being to “teach and admonish one another with all wisdom” (v. 16). This text clearly indicates that in the NT congregations, psalms, hymns and songs not only expressed adoration towards God regarding our great redemption in Christ, but also served a didactic or teaching function for all involved in the worship service. Regarding these “prophecies,” THE EXPOSITOR’S GREEK TESTAMENT says, “The precise distinctions intended are not certain, and perhaps they should not be sharply drawn. The meaning is, whatever kind of song it may be, let it be made the vehicle of religious instruction and admonition” (Vol. 3, p.541). Like 1 Cor. 12-14, this text not only assumes that both men and women will proclaim the message of Christ together in worship, but to one another as well, so as to instruct and admonish one another so to make each other wiser in the mysteries of Christ and his Gospel.

Now, Mike, if Paul absolutely forbids women to proclaim or teach God’s Word to mixed audiences during worship in 1 Tim. 2:12, does this not contradict what he positively exhorts them to do in Col. 3:15-17? If one thinks about this critically and logically, one must come to one of these conclusions:
1. Paul, when he wrote 1 Tim. 2:12, had forgotten what he wrote in Col. 3:15-17, and did not realize he had written two texts that contradicted each other. Well, a liberal might believe this could happen; but do we really think Paul was so irrational or forgetful that if someone had pointed this out to him, that he would not see the contradiction?
2. Paul made a distinction between prophecy and teaching, one which he permitted women to do in the congregation, according to 1 Cor. 12-14 and Col. 3:15-17, but forbade the other, according to 1 Tim. 2:12. Well, as most readers of Cheryl’s blog will know, there have a number of NT scholars who have studied the subject , and demonstated that the NT does not make the rigid distinction between teaching and prophecy, or preaching, that we moderns do. After all, while Jesus is called a prophet, the NT mainly records his teaching and preaching, and even prophets like Silas and Judas preach and exhort on the basis of the previous word revealed to the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15), rather than on new revelations they themselves have received. So denying women the right to proclaim God’s Word in the congregation on the basis of this false distinction between teaching and prophecy is totally unwarranted.
3. Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor. 12-14 and Col. 3:15-17 are the normal guidelines and regulations regarding how men and women are to instruct, encourage, and build one another up in the Lord during worship. But, as determined by its context, 1 Tim. 2:12 is a special ruling pertaining to an unusual or abnormal situation that existed in the Ephesian church, which situation Timothy was sent, by Paul, to correct.

So, Mike, which of the three conclusions is the most biblical and logical for someone to hold who believes there can be no contradictions in Scripture?

Mara, as regards the books I mentioned. Dr. Tracy’s book, MENDING THE SOUL, is part of an anti-abuse program offered by Radio Bible Class, and which was developed by Alice P. Matthews, a former missionary, a charter member of the Denver chapter of CBE, and presently the Associate Professor of Women’s Ministries at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. And I think you can order it through the CBE bookstore. As for Stephen Boyd, he was a former SBC pastor who left the denominsation because of what he regarded as its predominant, rigid “fundamentalism,” and is now involved with the American Baptist Church. He is presently the Associate Professor of Christian History at Wake Forest University and is a co-director of the men’s studies group sponsored by the American Academy of Religion. He is somewhat liberal in his thinking, and so there are some aspects of his book, such as his view on gays and lesbians, that I strongly disagree with. However, you’ll never find a finer survey, exposee and refutation of what patriarchy is and how it harms both men and women than this book. And if I wanted to give a book to shake up a hierarchicalist and make him face the negative reality of his position, it would be this one. But it was printed in 1995, and is available only through on-line used bookstores, as far as I know.

I have not responded to this posting until now, because, in many ways, it is painful to me. First of all, though I don’t wish to say too much, I have experienced both within my own family, and among dear friends, enough of domestic violence and abuse that I recognize it to be a great scourge in our churches as well as in society at large. And by God’s grace, I am at that place in my life where I wish to join in a “Blessed Alliance” with my sisters in Christ and drive this scourge out from among God’s people. For I know that men, especially Christian men who have the Spirit and truly yield to him, are not inherently or irreversibly violent, relationally incompetent, emotionally constipated, nor sexually complusive.

Yet all too many Christian men exhibit these negative behaviors. Why? Because “dominant masculinity,” as Stephen Boyd designates patriarchy, or hierarchical-complementarianism, is a unbiblical philosophy that distorts and misdirects the male’s identity as the image bearer of God and as an equal partner with women, who are also made in God’s image. “To the extent that we manifest these characteristics, we do so not because we are male, but because we have experienced violent socialization and conditioning processes that have required or produced this kind of behavior and we have chosen to accept, or adopt, these ways of being, thinking, and acting. This dominative form of masculinity can be theologically construed to be a punishment or, better put, a manifestation of human sin. That is, it exhibits an alienation from our truest selves, from God, and from others. It is a captivity from which we need release” (THE MEN WE LONG TO BE: Beyond Domination to a New Christian Understanding of Manhood, p. 14).

Unfortunately, John Piper and others do not see this “dominant masculinity” as a philosophical construct that institutionalizes a negative consequence of the Fall, male dominance, with its attendant distortions and abuses of the relationship between men and women in the home and church, which is not understood as one mutuality but one of competition. “One of the ways in which we are mystified by what I call ‘dominative masculinity’ is by clinging to the mistaken belief that our well-being is somehow in competition with that others. We are convinced that the progress of another somehow diminishes us. Not only is this not true, it is one of the aspects of this form of masculinity that itself contributes to the very attitudes and behaviors that diminish us and others” (Cf. Stephen Boyd, THE MEN WE LONG TO BE, p.14). And when we are competing with someone, the more we feel threatened by them, the more extreme we become in overcoming our competition and maintaining our superior position, even to the point that it involves violence, when other forms of persuasion fail to maintain the status quo.

Now, I am not trying to excuse men for their abuse of women. But we need to understand the spiritual and psychological aspects of this scourge, which the Enemy seeks to exploit to the harm of the Church. For if we are to truly end spousal abuse and domestic violence in our congregations, and so experience real healing and reconciliation, we must understand the causes and dynamics of this pathology before adequate therapy can be developed and implemented. And so I would recommend churches developing anti-abuse and restoration seminars, utilizing such materials as Steven Tracy’s MENDING THE SOUL: Understanding and Healing Abuse; anti-abuse videos and literature provided by the Radio Bible Class and by CBE, to begin with.

You know, Cheryl, I sometimes wonder if our hierarchicalist friends really understand Matt. 28:8-20, and the parallel passages, in the NT. Jesus makes it very clear that all authority and power in heaven and on earth has been given to him, and him alone, by the Father. And he, in turn, delegates authority to all disciples, as represented by the 11 and others present in Galilee when Jesus gave this commission to the Church, to be his representatives and authoritatively proclaim the Gospel, in his authority, not their own. And as for the religious leaders of Israel who forebade them to preach the good news of redemption, reconciliation and adoption in Jesus’ name, Peter and John, as representatives of the entire Church, replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:5-20, NIV).

So whenever any man or woman is gifted and called by the Holy Spirit to a ministry of any kind, in Jesus’ name, let them do so remembering that they engage in this ministry in Jesus’ power and authority, not their own, as Matt. 28: 18-20 makes clear. And let then remember that they have been gifted, called and authorized to do the kingdom work that he, the Father, and the Holy Spirit have jointly agreed, approved and empowered them to do, as Paul confirms in 1 Cor. 12:4-11. And let the modern Pharisees in our churches ask themselves who does right in the eyes if God, those who obey God and his word, or those who presume to speak in the place of God and his Word. But let us all who know the Lord, and have experienced the gifting and calling of the Spirit, obey God and fufill the ministries he has called us his servants, male and female, to do. So that is what I would say on this last aspect of the debate.

Kay,

I tried posting my comments on Mike’s site a second time, and if I read the message that popped up, I think it went through but will be posted later. And I think your are correct in your assessment of the complementarians understanding and use of Scripture. I also think it’s because of the linguistic-theological method they use in reading and applying the Scriptures to the modern churh.

I have been working on a six part series of articles on my website regarding egalitarians and the Bible. And in one of them, I list what I view as the six key elements in properly reading and applying the Scriptures today. And if Cheryl will permit me, I would like to share them with you:

1. Scripture has to be understood in terms of its own historical, cultural, and literary context before the modern interpreter can grasp the text’s true significance and application to modern intellectual, moral and socio-political issues. Any text read and applied apart from its context is nothing more than some pretext for a conservative, liberal or secular agenda unrelated to the teaching of Scripture itself. “It is necessary for us to take seriously the historical context of any given passage and of the Bible as a whole…Much misinterpretation has resulted from disregard for the historical context of the passage to be interpreted. A study of the Bible is always a study of a people. It is necessary therefore to enter the world of the Hebrew people and the people of the Early Church. This includes understanding their ways of thinking, their cultural pattern, and their distinctiveness amid the surrounding cultures and nations” (Willard M. Swartley. “Biblical Interpretation in the Life of the Church,” Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation, pp. 240-241).
2. The whole testimony of Scripture must be taken into account when examining any doctrinal, ethical, or socio-political issue. Obscure portions of Scripture are to be explained by the clearer portions, with the overall spirit of the total teaching of Scripture serving as the final arbiter of the correct meaning, significance, and application of the individual text under consideration. “One of the major errors in biblical interpretation is the failure to relate a given passage of Scripture to the overall message of Scripture. It is therefore necessary to take seriously the message of the Bible as a whole and compare Scripture with Scripture. This requires acquaintance with the unfolding drama of the Bible, its major themes, and how the various themes are related and integrated into a whole” (Swartley, “Biblical Interpretation in the Life of the Church,” Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women, pp. 241-242).
3. A text or portion of Scripture must be interpreted and applied appropriately according to its intended main emphasis as confirmed by the immediate or larger context of Scripture, and never for any attendant features. For example, prior to the American Civil War, various Christians who defended the institution of slavery argued: Since Abraham was a man of faith and a friend of God who was never censured for being a slave-owner, then one could own slaves without losing his good standing as a Christian, provided he was a benevolent slave master like Abraham. But the real question to ask was, “Is it proper and right to use the life of Abraham to defend the institution of slavery?” If so, Mormons and other sects, both then and now, ask on what grounds they are being punished for their practice of concubinage and polygamy. If Abraham and the other Patriarchs, as men of faith approved by God, were not censured for their practice of concubinage and polygamy, then why were they being condemned and punished for doing what these OT saints were permitted to do? Therefore, instead of using these Patriarchal narratives to defend slavery and polygamy, they should be used, as the author of Hebrews indicates in Chapter 11 of his letter, to show how the testing of Abraham’s faith in God and his promises, is to serve as an example of the Christian’s call to a life of steadfastness and faithfulness.
4. The fourth principle is that of Typological or Analogical/Messianic interpretation. This rule not only incorporates the concept that the relationship between the Old and New Testaments is one of Promise and Fulfillment, but also that of analogical typology between key OT persons, events and religious institutions with the Lord Jesus Christ and his Church in their joint redemptive mission, which has inaugurated the present and yet future Kingdom of God that awaits the Second Coming for its full, glorious manifestation in the world. The mainstream of biblical scholarship now recognizes that typology expresses the basic hermeneutic, indeed the attitude or perspective, by which both OT and NT writers understood themselves and their predecessors. “Each new community in the ongoing development of salvation history viewed itself analogously in terms of the past. This is true within the OT as well as in the NT use of the OT. The two major sources, of course, were creation and the Exodus. Creation typology is especially seen in Rom. 5 and the Adam-Christ parallel, while Exodus or covenantal typology predominates in both testaments. Positively, the Exodus was behind the redemptive imagery in Isa. 51-52 as well as NT salvific concepts (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:1-6). Negatively, the wilderness wanderings became the model for future admonition (e.g., Ps. 95:7-8; Heb. 4:3-11)” (cf. Grant R. Osborne, “Type, Typology,” The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, p.1118).
5. The fifth principle is that of the Pauline eschatological rule of the New Creation/New Age, which is clearly set forth in such Pauline texts as Rom. 4:13-17; 8:9-25; 1 Cor. 12:12-27; 2 Cor 5:11-6:2; Gal. 3:26-4:7 and Eph. 2:11-22. According to this biblical/theological rule, Paul teaches that through “the Christ event”–i.e., by means of Jesus Christ’s life, death, resurrection and his pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the Church–the eschatological promise of the Abrahamic Covenant is realized at the end of the Old Age, which is passing away at the dawning of the New Age inaugurated by the first advent of Christ and which awaits his Second Coming for its full realization. And this fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, both in Christ and those united with him, who is “the Seed of Abraham”-i.e., “the new humanity” and Body of Christ, made up of all who are united with Christ by faith, who all have received the New Covenant sign of baptism, who all live by the Law of Christ, who all have been renewed and baptized into that Body by the one Spirit who gifts and calls all followers of Christ to works of ministry–results in all believers lovingly worshipping God and serving humanity as did Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Abraham. “It is especially difficult for most of us to imagine the effect of Paul’s [teaching] in a culture where position and status preserved order through basically uncrossable boundaries. Paul asserts that when people come into the fellowship of Christ Jesus, significance is no longer to be found in being Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. The all-embracing nature of this affirmation, its counter-cultural significance, the fact that it equally disadvantages all by equally advantaging all–these stand at the very heart of a culture sustained by people maintaining the right position and status. But in Christ Jesus, the One whose death and resurrection inaugurated the new creation, all things have become new; the new era has dawned. The new creation, therefore, must be our starting point regarding gender issues, because this is theologically where Paul lived. Everything else he says comes out of this worldview of what has happened in the coming of Christ in the Spirit” (Cf. Gordon Fee. “Gender Issues: Reflections on the Perspective of the Apostle Paul,” Listening to the Spirit in the Text, pp. 59-61).
6. Lastly there is what I will tentatively call the pneumatic-communal rule of interpretation and application of Scripture. This form of explaining and applying the Scriptures involves the cooperation that must exist between the Holy Spirit and the Church in settling controversies and disputes that affect the life and ministry of the whole Body of Christ. And there are several distinct but related elements that constitute this form of Biblical interpretation and application:
   First, it involves the recognition by both leaders and the congregations that the teaching and guiding ministry of the Holy Spirit did not cease with the completion of the NT canon and the death of the original apostles of Christ. For the Holy Spirit is and remains, until Christ returns, the Ultimate Author and Interpreter of Scripture. He is still present and active in the Church, leading all true believers to a unified understanding of and compliance with the mind and will of the Lord Jesus Christ, the One and Only Head of the Church, as revealed in the Scriptures which he, the Holy Spirit, himself inspired (Cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-16; 13:1-14:1; 2 Tim. 3:14-16; 1 Jn. 2:27, TEV).
   Secondly, in every generation , the Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, gifts and calls both men and women to be church-planters, preachers, evangelists, and pastor-teachers (1 Cor. 12:1-14, 27-30; Eph. 4:7-11). Their responsibility is not only to bring Christians under their care to spiritual maturity in Christ, but also to help them discover their gifts and calling, then train them to be both biblically and theologically literate as well as practically competent so that are they are fully equipped for the “works of service” Christ wants all his people to do within the Body and in reaching the needy world around them (1 Cor. 14:1-12; Eph. 4:8-10). But they are not to lord it over the people, nor deny the gifting and calling they have received from the Spirit, who gifts and calls both men and women to ministry in full agreement with the desires and choices of both the Father and Son (Cf. 1 Pet. 5:1-4; John 16:12-15; 1 Cor. 12:4-7).
   Thirdly, it involves both leaders and people, working together and holding each other accountable to maintain the unity of truth, love and righteousness which is to mark the Church, the Body of Christ (Cf. Eph. 4:1-6). Not only are leaders to help the congregation stand firm in the faith, live righteous lives, and engage in effective ministry consistent with the Spirit’s gifting and calling, but the people, as fellow servants of the Lord and his Word, must also rebuke the leaders when they forget they are guides and equippers, and seek to be lords of the congregation when there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ; or when they depart from essential Christian doctrine and start teaching their own opinions as Gospel truth; or when they live such ungodly lives that Christ and the Gospel are profaned because of them (Cf. 1 Thess. 5:19-20; 1 Tim. 5:17-21; Jude3-4).

And I would also argue that this communal aspect of maintaining the unity and purity of the Church in life, doctrine and worship is, according to Alister McGrath, what the Reformers ideally understood to be the true nature and practice of the priesthood of all believers:
On the basis of the doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers, Luther insisted that every Christian has the right to interpret the Bible and to raise concerns about any aspect of the church’s teaching or practice that appears to be inconsistent with the Bible. There is no “spiritual” authority, distinct from or superior to ordinary Christians, who can impose certain readings of the Bible upon the church…Luther clearly believed that the Bible was sufficiently clear for ordinary Christians to be able to read and understand it…Luther insisted that all believers have the right to read the Bible in a language they can understand and to interpret its meaning for themselves. The church is thus held accountable to its members for its interpretation of the sacred text and is open to challenge at every point. The significance of Luther’s point can hardly be overlooked. By insisting it had a divinely ordained monopoly on biblical interpretation, the medieval church had declared itself to be above criticism on biblical grounds. No external critic had the authority to interpret Scripture and thus apply it to criticize the church’s doctrines or practices. Luthers’s response was to empower the laity as interpreters of the Bible and to hold the church accountable to its people for what it taught. And if they were not satisfied with the outcome, they, as laity, had the right to demand a reforming council be convened to address their concerns (Cf. Alister E. McGrath. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution, p. 53).
Therefore, on the basis of this pneumatic-communal rule, which is, in fact, the authentic practice of the universal priesthood of all believers–I would finally argue that in times of great doctrinal conflict and debate, not only the leaders but also representative members of the congregations, women as well as men, need to come together in a “reform” council for earnest, soul-searching prayer; careful and thorough study of what actually teach on the issue being discussed, depending on the Spirit of truth to bring all to a unified understanding of God’s mind and will therein revealed (Cf. Acts 15:1-6). After all the concerns and issues of all the parties involved in the controversy have been given a full and fair consideration–apart from any humiliation, censorship, or coercion of one party by the other–whether it be by a special “prophetic word” or not, it must be by the Holy Spirit that all come to a unified understanding and consensus as what the “true doctrine” is and how it is to be applied (Cf. Acts 15:30-36). For only through this process of pneumatic-communal reading, explanation and application of Scripture can the unity and peace of the Church be restored; only then can all Christians joyfully and harmoniously work together; only then can the Gospel of Christ, spread by a Spirit-renewed, united, and empowered Church, have the transforming impact in society and in the larger world (Cf. Acts 15:30-36).

Well, it’s a bit long, I will admit. But I hope you all find this informative and helpful. And please offer any constructive criticism you might have as well. As a teacher and apologist, I need all the help I can get. Thanks.

Dave, I agree with you. What Mike said in response to Cheryl’s question is logically inconsistent and incoherent for someone holding his view. And I tried posting the following questions to his website, but for some reason it would accept them:

Mike:
If 1 Tim. 2:12 is a divine law that prohibits women from expounding and applying God’s Word to mixed audiences in general, and of men in particular, in all times and in all places, then how do you account for the prophetic ministries of Deborah and Huldah?

In the first case, Deborah was both a prophet and judge, raised up by God, and given the same authority and approval as was Samuel, the last of the prophet/judges. And there is nothing in the OT that suggests she was God’s “second best” choice, nor any indication that the other leaders were rebuked for following her.

And in Huldah’s case, who was a contemporary of Jeremiah, King Josiah sent his envoys directly to her for interpretation of the Mosaic Law in a time of national crisis. Yet there is nothing in the OT that indicates either she sinned in giving the king counsel from Scripture, nor that the king sinned in receiving and acting on it.

Now if, as complementarians argue, that Paul’s use of the creation narrative in 1 Tim. 2:12-14 is intended to prohibit women in all circumstances in authoritatively teaching men in the covenant community, whether it be Israel or the Church, then the Apostle is forbidding what God in these two cases permitted. Isn’t this a blatant condtradiction within the canon of Scripture itself? And if not, why not? How would you explain this contradiction of Scriture, if you, like myself, don’t believe there is any true contradiction within Scripture?

I am flabbergasted at John Piper’s response, to say the least. There are so many points at which he should be challenged, it’s hard to know where to begin. However, one thing is clear to me, Cheryl, from what you have said how many churches regularly contact CBMW about what women can or cannot do in the church. Though David F. Wells may have not have had them specifically in mind, CBMW appears to be in the process of becoming, for some, a Protestant magisterium that decides how the Bible is to be interpeted applied. This is the warning Wells gave:

It is dangerous to assert that God the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, but somehow omitted to give us the key(s) to understand them! Systems of understanding are legitimate and proper only to the extent that they arise from the biblical word and are themselves disciplined by it. No one can legitimately impose a system on the Word. If we do not assert the right of Scripture to stand in authoritative relationship to every presupposition, custom, and tradition; every teaching, practice, and ecclesiastical organization, then that authority will be co-opted either by an ecclesiastical magisterium or by a scholarly one (Cf. “The Bible, Doctrine, and Theological Contextualization, THE USE OF THE BIBLE IN THEOLOGY, p. 187).

Pinklight, as per your question in Comment 24, there are a number of factors that would have to be explored to give you an adequate answer. And since I presently don’t have time to give you “the full answer,” I will give a “short” answer that may help you see what I mean. Because of their Covenant Theology, some Reformed comps don’t see any major changes between the Old and New Covenants that would permit women to full equals in ministry. Unfortunately, that is all I can say about it for now.

Amos is quite funny, but in his own way makes the same point others have made that Christ redeemed us to be his own people, a royal priesthood and prophethood that offers up spiritual sacrifices to the great Triune God who delivered us out of darkness and brought us into his glorious kingdom of light, and also to procalim the message of God’s present and coming Kingdom so that people may be saved and become children of light. The real problem, I think, is that too many complementarians have an old covenant mindset, which makes distinctions between priests and people that no longer holds under the New Covenant ratified by Christ. But that is a whole different topic worthy of discussion itself.

Cheryl, there are a number of points in Mike’s latest response which I believe reveal some erroneous thinking regarding biblical and theological interpretation. Consider, for example, what he says about disputes regarding eschatology. As a convinced Premillennialist, I can assure you that our viewpoint is based on more than one “proof-text” in Revelation 20. It is based on the consistent application of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation to all the OT and NT prophecies regarding the Messiah and the establishment of his Kingdom, in which a multiplicity of biblical witnesses are brought together to provide a complete and harmonious testimony as to the nature and extent of the Messianic Kingdom.

And the point I am making here is, of course, that the dispute over women in Christian ministry and leadership, like the dispute about the Millennium, is not due to egalitarians having a low view of the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, while hierarchical-complementarians have the higher view. Rubish! The issue is one of the consistent use of a biblical and theological method of interpretation derived from Scripture vs. the consistent use of a method of biblical and theological interpretation that incorporates foreign, pagan elements that actually sckew the true teaching of Scripture.

Then, again, he makes assumptions and assertions about elders and their role in corporate worship that is based more on the accidents of church history than on the actual teaching of Scripture. He certainly seems unaware of the comparative studies of 1 Tim. 4:12-5:2 and Titus 1:5-2:5 made by Kenneth Bailey, Aida Besacon Spencer, and Leonard Swindler, using so-called “rhetorical criticism,” which have demonstrated Paul is instructing both Timothy and Titus on halting heresy in the churches must be accomplished by putting qualified male and female elders in charge of the congregations. And where, pray tell, does it say in 1 Corinthians 11-14 that either men are in charge of who can pray and prophesy, or that women alone are forbidden to prophesy or judge any prophesy made? That idea is a reading back into 1 Corinthians 11-14 of what is, as we all know, a very questionable interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12-15. So there are a number of problems with Mike’s answer.

Well, I posted a comment to Mike Seaver’s website yesterday, and when I get a chance, I will reply to his response. Here I just want to briefly respond to some of pinklight’s comments. It appears to be a common practice among evangelical patriarchalists, or complimentarians if you prefer, assume that Paul assumes a timeless, transcultural hierarchical created order in 1 Timothy 2:12-14, use that as the interpretive lens through which they view what the rest of Scripture says about men and women in Christian ministry and leadership, and then after some rather clever but circular reasoning, conclude that this eternal, hierarchical creation order bars women from full participation in Christian ministry and leadership. But when challenged to prove their premise from Scripture as a whole, they can’t do so, simply because this viewpoint is not the teaching of the Scripture itself, but a self-serving distortion of Scripture.

Secondly, as John Jefferson Davis makes clear in his recent Priscilla Papers article, “First Timothy 2:12, the Ordination of Women, and Paul’s Use of Creation Narratives,” the case of Deborah the Judge and Prophet, is an unanswerable dilemma for those holding that this verse is a prohibition that is timeless and transcultural, rather than temporal and congregationally specific to the church in Ephesus. Here, in part, is what he says:

The case of Deborah poses a special dilemma for the “traditionalist” reading of 1 Timothy 2:12: If it is true that Paul’s use of creation texts is intended to prohibit all women in all circumstances from exercising authority over men in the covenant community, then the Apostle is FORBIDDING what God has in this instance PERMITTED–and this would amount to a contradiction within the canon itself. Various ways of evading this problem are not convincing. Was Deborah usurping authority rather than exercising it legitmately? There is no indication in the Book of Judges, the Old Testament as a whole, or in the New Testament that God disapproved of Deborah’s activities; on the contrary, Deborah is to be understood in light of the programmatic statement in Judges 2:16 that God, in his mercy, “raised up judges who saved them”; her leadership is a notable example of exactly such divinely empowered activity.

Then he goes on to make several observations and critical comments of these various evangelical patriarchal attempts to evade this dilemma, very similar to those Cheryl herself made in her own posting regarding Deborah. He then concludes:

The implications of the foregoing observations is that Deborah should be seen as a positive and not negative example of a woman exercising authority in the covenant community. Deborah may be unusual and somewhat exceptional in biblical history, but she is a positive example notwithstanding. Since God himself raised up Deborah as judge, and that which God chooses to do can not be INTRINSICALLY WRONG, it cannot be intrinsically wrong for a woman to exercise authority over a man in ecclesiastical contexts. The case of Deborah, seen as a positive example, is then consistent with a recognition of the CIRCUMSTANTIAL nature of the prohibitions in 1 Timothy 2:12; not all women are prohibited by God from exercising authority over men at all times in the church. The reading here presented then removes the appearance of a “contradiction within the canon” and provides hermeneutical space for the recognition of other “Deborahs” who may be called by God to lead from time to time.

So, as my friend, Robert K. Wright, Mike is going to have give an adequate and convincing explanation of this “biblical platypus” if we are to believe his position is truly logical and consistent with what the Bible teaches as a whole on women in ministry and leadership.

Cheryl, It looks like you are off to a good start in your debate with Mike Seaver. And I have remembered you and this debate in my prayers. Because of some other activities going on, I most likely will be making fewer comments than I would have preferred. I do note for now that he assumes certain things about the nature and structure of New Testament leadership, the nature and function of prophetic ministry, and so on. And your response and that of some others I have read so far, I would judge as well thought and respectful. And now for a brief comment or two of my own, which I will also post to Mike’s blog, if I get the time.

It would seem to me, as one who has studied prophecy and prophetic ministry in the NT, that Paul’s teaching and practice has to be examined and integrated as a progressive whole. After all, 1 and 2 Thessalonians and 1 and 2 Corinthians preceeded 1 Timothy and must serve as context in which the specifics of 1 Timothy 2:1-15 need to be interpreted and explained. Then, of course there is the promise and fulfillment of Joel 2 in the Book of Acts that also would fit in as part of this interpretive context. Such is my comment for now.

I have always had a high regard for Jimmy Carter and the genuiness of his Christian faith, even though on some points of Christian doctrine and ethics I am more conservative than he is. And I think we all agree with him that too many male religious leaders have twisted the Scriptures and made them a club to beat women down and keep them from full partnership in Christian ministry and leadership, which we know is part of the inheritance rights of all who are heirs of Abraham and co-heirs with Christ (cf. Gal. 3:26-4:7). I hope and pray that God may shake up the Church as a whole and cause it to rethink how has treated women.

But as someone who grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist church, and who tries to keep in touch with what’s going on in the complementarian camp by reading World Magazine, I must sadly tell you that, so far, the reaction by non-egalitarians that I have seen has been a negative one. For example, Cal Thomas wrote a piece for World where, after criticizing the Episcopal Church for its liberal beliefs and practices, then criticized Carter as a liberal who walked away when the Church taught and applied the Scripture against his own pet views, adding a comment on Carter’s apparent ignorance of “mutual submission” being taught in Scripture. I wanted to yell out to Thomas, “Cal, that’s the whole problem! The American Protestant Church, as a whole, does not teach or practice the mutual submission of Scripture.” It appears that Carter is not being heard as one crying out against injustice and oppression, but as a disgruntled liberal. So whatever else may happen, it seems to me the only thing we egalitarians can do is speak and do the truth in love, hoping to win people over to the truth as it is in Jesus.

I am glad you enjoyed reading my little study on male and female deacons, and that my observations and comments on the various aspects of their ministry were clear and understandable. I wish I could have done a little comparative study of 1 Timothy 4:1-5:2 and Titus 1:5-2:5, using what Kenneth Bailey calls “rhetorical criticism” to show similar “inverted parallelisms” or chiasms, in which Paul gives his directives regarding elders. First, he begins with some general statements regarding the qualifications and duties of the elders. Then he digresses, if that is the right word, into a pointed reminder to Timothy why these rules on choosing and promoting qualified elders must be strictly enforced to maintain the doctrinal soundness and spiritual vitality of the congregation. And lastly, he focuses again on the specific qualifications and duties, first of male elders, and then of female elders. For in these passages, many NT scholars have argued that presbytero and presbyteras are, as determined by the context and the chiasms involved, clear references to church leaders, “male elders” and “female elders.” And since there are several studies on this out already, I don’t think I’m saying something totally new to most readers of this blog.

But this being the case, the coffin for burying Wayne Grudem’s view of 1 Timothy 2:2 is, in my opinion, nailed tight. This is what I mean: If in these passages on deacons and elders include, as a necessary part of their ministry, the requirement that those engaged in this ministry must know, affirm and teach the essential beliefs and practices of the Christian faith to those under their care; and if 1 Timothy 2:11-15 does not apply to a temporary and abnormal situation at Ephesus, but is, as Grudem and other complementarians insist, a timeless, transcultural teaching–then we must conclude that Paul is either a very poor logician, is for some reason trying to deceive and confuse his readers, or that he is just plain insane. For to say, on the one hand that under no circumstances can women teach or exercise leadership in one passage, then say in another that as deacons and elders they must be trained and able to teach those under their care–this is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction. And anyone who violates this law of logic usually does so for one of three reasons: They are irrational thinkers and don’t understand the canons of logic; they are clever and deceitful sophists who are playing tricks on their audience; or they are crazy and need to be locked up in an insane asylumn. But if you insist on the complementarian view of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, your choices regarding Paul and his ability as a rational thinker are limited.

It seems there is another aspect of the Pauline epistles, which Wayne Grudem does not even consider in issuing his challenge. And that is Paul’s own teaching on elders and deacons, in both 1 Timothy and Titus, that also throws some light on this issue. While some, such as myself, having done comparative of Paul’s teaching on the functions of church leaders in 1 Thess 5:12; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-11; 4:12-5:2; and Tit. 1:5-2:5, and concluded that “elders” designated the leader’s maturity and authority, while “overseer” and “ministers” designated their primary functions in the congregation, others see a twofold distinction between elder/overseers and deacons/ministers (Cf. Gordon Fee,”Laos and Leadership under the New Covenant,” LISTENING TO THE SPIRIT IN THE TEXT, pp. 121-145). Now, with the help of Kenneth Bailey’s paper, “Women in the New Testament: A Middle Eastern Cultural View,” I want to briefly consider what Paul says about women deacons and women elders, and how it might be related to the women teaching heresy in Ephesus. So let’s begin with women deacons in 1 Timothy. Here’s what Bailey says about it:

A second text relevant to women deacons is 1 Tim. 3:8-11. Here the qualifications for deacons and for ‘the women’ appear. The two lists exhibit striking parallels which can be seen as follows:
1 Timothy 3:8-11
Deacons likewise must be: The women likewise must be:
1. Serious (semnous) 1. Serious (semnous)
2. Not-doubled tongued 2. Not slanderers (diabolous)
(dilogous)
3. Not addicted to much wine 3. Temperate
4. Not greedy for gain 4. —
5. They must hold fast to the 5. Faithful in all things (NRSV)
mystery of the faith (ekhontas to (pistas en passin) Better:
musterion tes pisteos) Believing in all things with a
clear conscience
These two lists are obviously intended to be parallel. The critical item for our subject is number five. The deacons must hold on to the faith. As seen above, the parallel item for the qualifications of the women is ‘pistas en passin.’ The other six occurences of this word in 1 Timothy are translated as referring to the act of believing in the faith. Here alone it is consistently translated ‘faithful in all things,’ referring to a character trait. Does not the parallel nature of the two lists make clear that ‘believing in all things’ is what is intended? These women can best be seen as engaged in activities related to the faith in the same way as the men. Deacons in Acts 6 appear in Acts 7 and 8 as preachers of the word (cf. Stephen and Philip). Regarding ‘the women’ here in 1 Timothy, John Chrysostom wrote: ‘Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should [Paul] introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject. He is speaking to those who hold the rank of Deaconesses.’ (“Women in the New Testament,” p. 3)
Some Obeservations and Comments:

Now, if male and female deacons, as part of their ministry to the poor and needy, were required to both know, firmly believe, and faithfully teach the Gospel, we know from other Pauline letters that Paul encouraged such ministry. But if there were any Ephesian women who were ministers in training who, having been influenced by the false teachers Paul actually named, and were mixing this heresy with the fundamental truths of the Gospel, can anyone doubt Paul would have called a halt to this? And then afterward require they be properly trained in Christian doctrine, before they be allowed to minister again? Yet Grudem’s prejudice against women and their full participation in the various aspects of the diaconate, including that of teaching and counseling the poor they minister to, blinds him to the fact that this passage is part of the total context in which 1 Timothy 2:12 is to be understood and applied.

Oops! I noticed an typographical error in my last comment (1). When I am quoting Belleview’s translations for when the Greek correlative of verbal nouns in 1 Tim. 2:12 is used in defining a purpose or goal, I copied the second translation as “I permit a woman to teach with a view to dominating a man,” I forgot the adversative particle “not.” So the correct translation is “I do not permit a woman to teach with a view to denominating a man.” Sorry about that.

gengwall, I think it would be very enlightening for us all if Wayne Grudem ever chose to actually engage with Cheryl about the main points of his “Open Letter.” Personally, I think Cheryl could do far more than hold her own with him; in fact, I think he would find both her questions and those of others who contribute to this blog very difficult to answer. However, I sincerely doubt he would do so unless he thought it would definitely advance the cause of CBMW, and I don’t think the quality of refutation he would receive here would be conducive to that goal. So, in my opinion, I doubt it is likely to happen.

Cheryl, the replies you and Sue make to this point of Grudem’s “Open Letter” regarding Greek correlatives is well made. But, to add to your arsenal against Grudem’s erroneous teaching, I thought you might like the following quote from Linda Belleville’s chapter in DISCOVERING BIBLICAL EQUALITY, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” pp. 217-219:

GRAMMAR
So how did “to exercise authority over” find its way into a majority of modern translations of 1 Timothy 2:12?Andreas Kostenberger claims that it is the correlative that forces translators in this direction. He argues that the Greek correlative pairs synonyms or parallel words and not antonyms. Since “to teach” is positive authentein must also be positive. To demonstrate his point, Kostenberger analyzes “neither + verb 1 + “nor” + verb 2 constructions in biblical and extrabiblical literature.
Yet there is a grammatical flaw intrinsic to this approach. It is limited to FORMALLY equivalent constructions, excluding FUNCTIONALLY equivalent ones, and so the investigation includes only correlated verbs. Thus it overlooks the fact that the infinitives (didaskein, authentein) are functioning grammatically not as verbs but as nouns in the sentence structure (as one would expect a verbal noun to do). The Greek infinitive may have tense and voice like a verb, but it functions predominantly as a noun or adjective. The verb in 1 Timothy 2:12 is actually “I permit.” “Neither to teach nor authentein” modifies the noun “a woman,” which makes the authentein clause the second of two direct objects. Use of the infinitive as a direct object after a verb that already has a direct object has been amply demonstrated by biblical and estrabiblical grammarians. In such cases the infinitive restricts the already present object. Following this paradigm, the 1 Timothy 2:12 correlative “neither to teach nor authentein” functions as a noun that restricts the direct object “a woman” (gynaiki).
It behooves us, therefore, to correlate nouns and noun substitutes in addition to verbs. This greatly expands the possibilities. “Neither-nor” constructions in the New Testament are then found to pair synonyms (e.g., “neither despised nor scorned.” Gal. 4:14), closely related ideas (e.g., “neither of the night nor of the dark,” 1 Thess 5:5), and antonyms (e.g., neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free,” Gal. 3:28). They also function to move from the general to the particular (e.g., “wisdom neither of this age nor of the rulers of this age,” 1 Cor 2:6), to define a natural progression of related ideas (e.g., “they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns,” Mt 6:26), and to define a related purpose or a goal (e.g., “where thieves neither break in nor steal” [i.e., break in to steal], Mt 6:20).
Of the options listed above, it is clear that “teach” and “dominate” are not synonyms, closely related ideas or antonyms. If authentein did mean “to exercise authority,” we might have a movement from general to particular. But we would expect the word order to be the reverse of what we have in 1 Timothy 2:12, that is, “neither to exercise authority [general] nor to teach [particular].” They do not form a natural progression of related ideas either (“first teach, then dominate”). On the other hand, to define a purpose or goal actually provides a good fit: “I do not permit a woman to teach so as to gain mastery over a man,” or “I do permit a woman to teach with a view to dominating a man.” It also fits the contrast with the second part of the verse: “I do not permit a woman to teach a man in a dominating way but to have a quiet demeanor [literally, ‘to be in calmness’].”

A long quote, I grant you. But once again, I believe, it is evidence that clearly shows that Grudem’s low estimation of egalitarian scholars capabilities and the adequacy of their answers to his questions is unwarranted, revealing it as biased and misrepresentational in nature.

Cheryl, in the last paragraph of Comment 5, I incorrectly referred to authenteo as a “hapex legomena”; that needs to be corrected to “hapax legomenon.” I tried notifying you by regular e-mail of this needed correction, but for some reason it didn’t go through.

And as regards the exchange between you and Stickler about Grudem’s blind agenda vs. his corrupt deliberation, I will say this. The problem with Grudem’s viewpoint and arguments are the very same we encountered in dealing with Chris, alias “Neopatriarch,” in our earlier discussion with him on 1 Tim. 2:11-15. It was the problem of a viewpoint, based on false or invalid presuppositions, argued consistently to its logical conclusion, while at the same time refusing to honestly confront and deal with the objections raised to both the presuppositions and the arguments flowing from them. As you will recall, one of the things I made clear to Chris was that while his arguments or syllogisms were formally correct, because they were based on a false or invalid premise, they and the conclusion they led to were also false.

All arguments, viewpoints, worldviews, philosophies of life consist of four elements: 1) Presuppositions or axioms; 2) Logic or rational analysis; 3) Facts, or the data of experience; and 4) Conclusions–the results of rationally analyzing and interpreting the data of experience. Presuppositions control everything in the system; like rules in a game of chess, they determine what the possible moves are. And logic is limited completely by the presuppositions it works under; if the presuppositions are false, the more honest and consistent you are in arguing for your viewpoint, the farther and faster you will depart from God’s viewpoint in Scripture.

That is why I have been, and continue to be, so vehemently opposed to the Neo-Arianism propagated by Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware. For as Athanasius proved so long ago in opposing Arius, if you deny the Son of God possesses all that God the Father possesses as Deity, except his Fatherhood; and then make him a secondary God subservient to the Father, not only are you guilty of idolatry, but of necessity, you reduce the Son from being our only Lord and Savior to a Being who shows us how to merit acceptance with God.

And so we have to constantly challenge the presuppositions underlying Grudem’s six questions as to whether they are biblically warranted; constantly challenge how well his arguments actually conform to the data of Scripture and unites this data in a rationally consistent and coherent way; and how practically, harmoniously, and fruitfully his viewpoint enables us, men and women, to live together the Spirit-filled life we are to live as the Body of Christ; trusting that the Holy Spirit will take the truth of God’s Word like a hammer and break down and reduce to rubble all strongholds and fortresses people raise against the truth of the Gospel of Christ. This is in part what Jude meant by our contending “for the faith that the Lord has once for all entrusted to us, his people” (Jude 3, TNIV).

Sorry, I didn’t mean to preach a little sermon. But I think you know me well enough that I am deadly serious about contending for the Gospel Faith, whole and undefiled. I wish all Christians were.

Isn’t it amazing how self-contradictory Wayne Grudem can be? On the one hand, he affirms that authenteo in 1 Tim. 2:12 does not have any negative connotations and that there isn’t sufficient evidence in ancient Greek texts to so understand this verb and its cognates, yet in a footnote he admits there is at least one such text where it does refer to hostile action and attitudes, and so should be translated as “compell”? Not to mention the points brought up by Sue McCarthy’s response. Nor does he seem to be aware of, or willing to respond to, the comparative studies Linda Belleville and Kenneth Bailey have made on the Latin and Arabic translations of this text. For example, Kenneth Bailey states:

So what is intended here? I would submit that the overtones of this rare, very strong word, make clear the author’s meaning. In Ephesus some women had acquired absolute authority over the men in the church and were verbally (and perhaps theologically) brutalizing them. Paul calls for a halt to this dehumanizing attack. Again our centuries-long middle-eastern exegetical tradition is instructive. The Peshitta Syriac (fourth century) translates with MAMRAHA. The root of this word has to do with insolence and bullying. The early Arabic versions, translated from the Greek, Syriac and Coptic, read either ‘YATA’AMARU’ (“to plot; to be domineering; to act as ‘lord’ and ‘master’; to be imperious”) or ‘YAJTARIU’ (“to be insolent”). The last two centuries have preferred ‘YATASALLAT’ (“to hold absolute sway”). Thus middle-eastern Christianity at least from the third century onward has always remembered that something dark and sub-Christian was involved (“Women in the New Testament: A Middle Eastern Cultural View,” THEOLOGY MATTERS, Vol. 6 No. 1, Jan/Feb 2000, p. 9)

Now if Grudem was an honest and thorough Greek scholar, he would acknowledge that in understanding the meaning and significance of a rare hapax legomenon, such as authenteo, one must consult the earliest translations of the Greek NT in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic. The fact that Grudem neither acknowleges or makes any reference to this evidence, which contradicts his own understanding of authenteo, leads me to doubt his sincerety to listen to egalitarians on this issue, or to seriously consider anything that goes against his set interpretation of this Pauline text.

Oops! In my last paragraph in comment 15, I made a reference to Rom. 8:12, when I actually meant to say Rom. 8:1-2. Sorry.

Cheryl, both you and I agree that in 1 Cor. 14:34, the phrase “women must be in submission, as the Law says” is a reference to Jewish oral legal traditions and not to the Old Testament itself. But there are some egalitarians who, understanding this passage to be a rebuke to noisy, boisterous women interrupting public worship, explain this “law” in terms of Paul’s rule of mutual submission. Such is the view stated by Sue and Larry Richards in their book, EVERY WOMAN IN THE BIBLE:

“To be submissive, as the law also says” (1 Cor. 14:34). The middle form of the verb indicates that Paul is addressing the women, calling on them to “submit yourselves.” The phrase “as the law says” indicates a principle understood to govern all Christian behavior. Some have thought that Paul was calling on these wives to submit to their husbands, while others have assumed he was calling on them to submit to the authority of the church leaders, whose responsibility it was to evaluate the words of the prophets. However, it is most likely that the universal principle Paul has in mind is the principle of mutual submission. This principle is expressed in Ephesians 5:21…and is also expressed in Philippians 2:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 16:16. Paul appealed to the Corinthian wives whose interruptions were so disruptive to consider others, and voluntarily stop their continual speaking up, that the church meetings might be edifying rather than chaotic (“Paul On Women,” p. 226)

While there are elements of truth in this intepretation, I do not think it is really adequate. First, except for Rom. 8:12, where nomos (“law”) might be understood as “principle,” depending on the context, Paul uses nomos to refer either to the OT Scriptures, Rom. 3:21; the entire Mosaic Law, Gal. 5:5-6; or Jewish oral legal tradition, such as he doe in 1 Cor. 14:34. Second, such is the strength of the adversative particle “e” and the negative rhetoricals coupled with it in 1 Cor 14:36-37, one wonders how Paul could so strongly repudiate any form of the law of mutual submission, if in fact that was the law referred to back in v. 34. But as you yourself said, there are many interpretations of this passage. I just I would bring this one to your attention, should anyone ask you about it.

Hello, Cheryl and company. I finally found some time to read the latest post and make a comment. I have been busy, among other things, doing studies in the Trinity, and have been relishing Thomas F. Torrance’s THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD: ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS. It is modern exposition and confirmation of the Unity, Coequality and Coeternality of the Three Persons of the One True God as argued long ago by Athanasius and Gregory the Theologian and which became enshrined in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 318 A.D. A creed, which I may add, is still recited as part of the liturgy common to the Catholic, Eastern Greek Orthodox, and Protestant churches. Torrance is an evangelical, Scottish Presbyterian theologian who also was involved in the formulation of “The Agreed Statement on the Trinity” by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Eastern Greek Orthodox Church which, among other things, forever closed the loopholes on subordinationism among the three Divine Persons of the Godhead. So if you want to read a good, solid theological exposition that puts the Semi-Arianism of Grudem and Ware to flight, I highly recommend you read Torrance’s THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. Now, as to the latest nonsense being propagated by Wayne Grudem.

Cheryl, I suppose you felt like I felt when I read about Wayne Grudem’s “Open Letter to Egalitarians”–you didn’t know whether to laugh or weep. Like you, I have done a lot of study and writing on prophecy in the early church, both as a gift and as ministry exercised by both men and women. And it was long ago clear to me, as others such as Gilbert Bilizekian and yourself have also demonstrated, that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 was not Paul’s own teaching, but that of a Judaizing faction which he repudiates in 14:36-40. And as far as the lexical evidence showing “e” in v.36 is an adversative particle, used by Paul to repudiate what is stated in vv. 34-35, anyone who has investigated this knows that Grudem is, to put it nicely, ignoring the evidence that counters his own view. But then, it has been his practice to redefine terms, suppress evidence that goes against his own view, and then loudly proclaim his own view as alone the truth. So I guess his current practice is to be expected.

Well, Cheryl, I’m sorry to learn that Chris, when he couldn’t defeat you on the “home field,” had to make a playing field of his own, where he plays against “straw women and straw men,” which are nothing but caricatures of his egalitarian opponents. And I am sure my criticism of his misuse of both biblical hermeneutics and logical reasoning didn’t win me a place on his “favorite persons,” either. Unfortunately, he is an example of the proverb, “People convinced against their will, oft remain of the same opinion still.” And that is all that I wish to say regarding him.

Have your read Jefferson J. Davis’ article, “First Timothy 2:12, the Ordination of Women, and Paul’s Use of Creation Narratives,” in the 2009 Spring Issue of the Priscilla Papers? In several ways, it confirms a number of arguments you have already made. He does two things in this article: 1) Argues the case against the traditional understanding and translation of authentein, and 2) argues the case against the traditional understanding of how Paul uses the creation narratives, especially in 1 Tim. 2:13 and 14. In fact, he clearly states: “The major focus of this article is an examination of Paul’s appeal to the Genesis creation narratives, with a view to showing that, in (1 Tim 2:11-15) and other passages, the apostle refers to these texts with the local circumstances and the problems of specific churches in view. It is here argued that previous discussions of this passage have not given adequate recognition to the CONTEXT-SPECIFIC way in which Paul applies the creation texts” (p.6) First he deals with the different ways Paul applies these texts to various aspects of the Jew and Gentile conflict in Romans 5 and 14, then the problem of heresy and false teachers in 2 Cor 11:3 and 1 Tim 2:12.

Regarding these last two texts, Davis states, “This comparison of 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:12 shows that Paul does not have a ‘one size fits all’ hermeneutic when reading and applying the Genesis narratives of creation and fall: ‘Eve’ can be seen as a figure of women in Ephesus or as a figure for an entire church in Corinth–because the local circumstances differ, though false teaching is a danger in both settings. Applications are drawn from Genesis in a church-specific and contextually sensitive way.”

And I believe that what Davis argues about Paul’s “church-specific and contextually sensitive” understanding and application of these creation and fall narratives is the same view that you, Cheryl, have so well presented and demonstrated in these Pauline dialogues of yours. I think Chris and his supporters are upset with you, in part, because you have, by this means, have invalidated their cherished notion that Paul had a “one size fits all” hermenetic that they can use to promote their viewpoint.

I have read through Interview Rounds 8 and 9, and found them very good. But I wonder if our rigid distincitions between elders, overseers and ministers (which in Greek are prebuteroi, episcapoi, and diakinoi respectively) is really correct. So let me share some observations based on some previous study of New Testament leaders, and let me know what you think, eh?

Years ago, when I studied both prophecy and prophetic ministry in the NT, it became apparent to me, as I made a comparative study of their functions and gifts, that while “elders” was a designation of the leaders’ maturity and seniority, “overseer” and “minister” described their primary functions as those who discipled and trained the rest of the congregation. And the various spiritual gifts, as they pertained to those who were leaders, indicated how they fulfilled their leadership functions as “overseer” and “ministers”.

Now, if you compare the requirements and responsibilities of the elders and deacons in 1 Timothy with those of the elders, who alone are mentioned in Titus, they are essentially the same, which indicates to me a distinction of an office (“elders”)and its functions (“overseer” and “minister”). Furthermore, in Philippians 1:1, where the NIV and other English translations have “together with the overseers and deacons [ministers],” according to Greek grammar and syntax, this phrase would better be translated something like “together with the elders who minister [there among you].” It was because of clues like these in the NT that I came to see that leadership in the Earliest Church was less hierarchical and rigid as it was by the third and fourth centuries, when the Church was no longer a body of believers but a highly organized institution. And Gordon Fee’s books, Paul, The Spirit and the People of God and The Spirit and the Text, have further confirmed this view for me.

And along the same lines, Kenneth E. Bailey’s article in Theology Matters, “Women in the New Testament: A Middle Eastern Cultural View,” by the consistent use of what is called rhetorical criticism, demonstrates that 1 Timothy 4:6-5:22 and Titus 1:5-2:5 apply to the requirements and responsibilities of both men and women who served as elders and ministers. I strongly recommend you read Bailey’s article, if you have not done so.