Suzanne

It is sad but accurate to accept that the NASB and NIV and many other translations added masculine terms in English where they do not exist in Greek.

PPS When I wrote,

“This is the ONLY occurrence of authenteo is ancient literature.

I meant near the time of the epistle to Timothy. There were more later, but they were also negative.

PS I notice that Grudem has said “hupotasso, passive” I don’t remember the word Passive being there before, since I responded to the page before it had been edited, but here is an example with the middle/passive.

1 Clement 38.1: “So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (hupotassestho) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”

In this example, there is no authority either. Perhaps this is a better example. The CBMW pages are a moving target, but I think this helps.

Oops. I missed the anti-spam word and copied the code from the other page.

Grudem’s Open Letter to Egalitarians has been well answered many times. In fact, that webpage used to contain the responses of Linda Belleville, to whom I am indebted for much of my research.
.
Since I have started to quote from that page and from Belleville and have proven that every one of the points was based on evidence that does not exist, CBMW has vastly edited that page and other pages to remove all their supposed evidence from their articles.
.
I wish I had saved the earlier pages from the CBMW website. There are very simple ways to refute each of those arguments.
.
1. Grudem: Specifically, we cannot find any text where person A is called the ”head’’ of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons.
McCarthy: ”the whole family of the Ptolemies was exceedingly eminent and conspicuous above all other royal families, and among the Ptolemies, Philadelphus was the most illustrious; for all the rest put together scarcely did as many glorious and praiseworthy actions as this one king did by himself, being, as it were, the leader of the herd, and in a manner the kephale (head) of all the kings.” Philo, Moses 2:30
.
Clearly, Philadelphus was not the authority over the other kings in his family. His father was also a Ptolemy, and Philadelphus could hardly be the authority over his own father.
.
2. Grudem: Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for ”be subject to’’ (hypotasso, passive) is used to refer to one person in relation to another and does not include the idea of one-directional submission to the other person’s authority?
.
McCarthy: 2 Macc 13.23,

”[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded (hupotage) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.”
.
The king ”submitted” to the Jews, who had no authority over him. He yielded to them for political reasons.
3. I have not researched this.
.
4. Grudem: Our problem is this: we have never seen any clear example in ancient Greek literature where authenteo must mean ”domineer’’ or ”misuse authority.’’ Whenever we have seen this verb occur, it takes a neutral sense, ”have authority’’ or ”exercise authority,’’ with no negative connotation attaching to the word itself.
.
McCarthy: BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): ”I had my way with him [authenteo] and he agreed to provide Catalytis the boatman with the full payment within the hour.”
.
This is the ONLY occurrence of authenteo is ancient literature. This citation is listed in the original study by Baldwin under the meaning of ”to compel, to influence someone.” and Grudem agrees with the translation ”compel.” (Ev. Fem & Biblical Truth. page 677 – 680.) According to Grudem other translators suggest ”prevail” and mention that this is a hostile relationship involving insolence.
.
The only example is listed as ”to compel.”
5. Grudem: oude 1 Tim. 2:12. … when we look at other examples of this Greek construction, in the form ”neither + [verb 1] + nor + [verb 2],’’ only two patterns occur: (a) verb 1 and verb 2 are activities or concepts that are both viewed positively, such as ”neither sow nor reap,’’ or ”neither eat nor drink,’’ or (b) verb 1 and verb 2 are activities or concepts that are both viewed negatively, such as ”neither break in nor steal’’ or ”neither leave nor forsake.

McCarthy: Since authenteo can only have a negative meaning, both verbs must have a negative force in this verse.
6. I have not looked at this either.

For # 1, 2 and 4 there is a clear response to Grudem. However, I have not researched the others to find examples of specific grammatical patterns. The Lexicon is clear that the meanings are ambiguous, but I just haven’t taken the time to find a collection of examples.

I have been able to disprove many of Grudem’s  statements against the TNIV as well. I have sent many emails to CBMW asking them to take down evidence taken out of context, or claims that are not supported by fact. They started doing this but ultimately gave up and stopped responding to my emails. They  at first got me to review some stuff and got the authors to respond to me. However, they could not take down the entire kephale study, which is for the most part inaccurate, so they did just start ignoring me.

Here is another important trend. On Gender Blog, Ligon Duncan wrote the following a couple of days ago.

“- Our ministry to men and women must be rooted in a proper understanding of the doctrine of God. Being created in his image means ministry must carry the different distinctions between equal persons of the Trinity.

– Biblical manhood and womanhood must be rooted in the doctrine of the work and person of Christ. Therefore all women’s ministry in the local church must rely on the doctrine of Christ. Jesus is the example of perfect submission. The work and submission of Christ radically reorients Christian service for Christian women because it is following in the footsteps of our Savior. ”

Now, think about this. In ministry men reflect God and women reflect Christ.

How that is carried out is that women imitate Christ in his submission and work. We all know that the work of Christ is his death on the cross, that he was punished for our transgression and God bruised him for our sin.

I just don’t see the early church fathers and Reformers putting women in the position of sole imitators of Christ.

If there are concerned complemenatarians reading this blog, please join in and offer a alternate interpretation of what I am citing.

PS I meant funny wicked, not wicked wicked – if you know what I mean.

Its okay, Greg, I have done lots of wicked stuff myself. I am getting prissy in my old age.

Christ is subordinate to God.
God is subordinate to man.
Woman is subordinate to man.

The three tenets of the Systematic Theology.

Greg,

I don’t think there is any point in saying things about other people on the internet.

On the other hand, if someone writes a book in order to subordinate women, I’ll take every sentence apart in public. Here is one that is really worth thinking about.

“Recently some writers have denied that the creation of Eve as a helper fit for Adam signals any difference in role or authority, because the word helper (Heb. ezer) is often used in the Old Testament of someone who is greater or more powerful than the one who is being helped. In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone “helps” someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or our modern day use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped.”

Then he goes on to quote Cline who says about God and anyone who helps,

“… in the act of helping they are being “inferior”

This is on page 461 and 462 of Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem and is available through books.google.com

There is no doubt that this book clearly teaches that in helping man, God is “inferior” to man. Don’t ask me how this book ever got published. Please will someone just take this apart.

Hi Jayne,

Why don’t you email me. My email is in my profile on my blog.

Suzanne

Jayne,

I don’t have an opinion either way on the Bayly’s. I don’t care to analyse people on blogs. However, I will gladly deconstruct a published book using quotes from that book.

Cheryl is doing some good and necessary work. I heartily support it.