gengwall

In order for Mark to read authority into 5:22, he also has to establish authority in 5:21. I didn’t read through the whole email so maybe he has attempted that. I know that CBMW tries to make the submission in 5:21 to be to an authority, but it is a complete fantasy. Without authority in 5:21, there is no way to establish it in 5:22. Comps have a very difficult time with this, which is why they try to completely disassociate 5:21 from 5:22.

Regarding 5:21. The Greek from Textus Receptus has “God”, and the Greek from the Majority Text and Westcott-Hort/Netle-Aland have “Christ”. Bad place to have textual variants if you ask me.

The statement about Adam’s rule is not directed at Adam and it is not imperative, so it seems clear that it is not a command. It is “future” (I know that isn’t necessarily a tense in Hebrew but that is how the line is understood) and is therefore predictive. Since it is directed toward Eve regarding how Adam will treat her, it is either a warning or a blessing. Given the overall context of Genesis 3, not to mention the immediate context of vs. 16, I don’t see how Adam’s rule could be viewed as having anything but a negative impact on Eve. Therefore, I can’t envision any interpretation other than a dire prediction.

A very “vivid” recitation Barbara – thanks! It is good, nay, essential, to bring the Hebraic perspective in. We can tend to get too Western and English-centric when viewing these pasages. We sometimes need to be reminded that the original language was built on a pictoral alphabet. Not only words but individual letters “portray” meaning. Am I correct?

Since you jumped on this old post Rachel, and since Cheryl’s last post before yours speaks of “testing all things”, I will share a very refreshing excerpt from our pastor’s sermon this last Sunday. This is a paraphrase but not in the least exaggerated.

“I am not the most important person in this church and I’m certainly not the smartest. I have only been gifted and blessed with the opportunity to teach but you [the congregation] need to know, I can certainly be wrong. You need to be like the Boreans and test everything I, or any other “teacher” says, against scripture to determine if it indeed is true and correct. This is YOUR responsibility”

My wife says that this is the way she was brought up. Even though it was a fundamentalist church, her parents made certain their children went back to the bible to confirm anything any human said was “true”. As such, and this should be no surprise, her parents had, at least from my “out-law” objective observation, a reasonably egalitarian marriage. It can be done, but only if we don’t get mesmerized by the words of fallen men.

And just for fun, here is my “cherry-picked” version of the passage, where I take bits and pieces from various translations to provide an even more accurate, IMO, picture of what Paul is saying.

Verse 11
A wife should learn (Aramaic Bible English Translation)
in peace, (The Complete Jewish Bible)
being ready to cooperate in everything. (New Century Version)
Verse 12
But I do not allow (common)
the wife (The Word of Yah)
to teach (common)
[false doctrine] (my extra-biblical addition based on the context)
or to be domineering over (Concordant Literal New Testament)
the husband, (The Word of Yah)
rather, she is to remain at peace. (The Complete Jewish Bible)
Verse 13
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. (common)
Verse 14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression. (Analytical-Literal Translation)
Verse 15
But she will be saved (many)
through the birth of the child, (God’s Word Translation)
if she and her husband continue to live (Weymouth New Testament)
in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. (common)

Here is how I concluded my series of posts on 1 Tim 2:11-15.

When 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is reviewed with close scrutiny of the Greek text and a mind on the overall context of the first 2 chapters of the letter, a stunning realization occurs. Not only is this passage of Scripture poorly translated, but the interpretation and application of those poor translations are completely erroneous. Entire philosophies about marriage and church leadership and conduct have been developed around this foundational error. It may be that only men should lead churches, that women should be silent, and that a woman’s place is in the home bringing up children, but Paul’s letter to Timothy does not teach it. What this passage does teach is that false teaching and domineering behaviors in the home require special handling, but even in that most private of settings, a remedy and restoration can be found in Christ.

Douglas – please try to remove your male priviledge blinders and see Paul’s letter to Timothy for how it was intended. You are correct that the first two chapters are about false teaching. But to make some global gender based “law” is to take Paul wildly out of context. Paul never says that women as a gender can’t teach any more than he says that men as a gender can teach. He is not making gender based proclamations on marital, church, or any other hierarchies. He is dealign with specific circumstances and specific people only, some of whom happen to be men (see chapter one) and some women. To read any more into the text is dangerous and injurious not only to Paul’s words but to the Body of Christ.

“Words have set meanings and always will. Do you use a dictionary?”

I certainly do use a dictionary, as you suggest Douglass, but it is important to use the right dictionary. A dictionary of English words often proves fruitless when dealing with Greek text. I suggest that you look to the Greek when analyzing 1 Tim 2:11-15. Some interesting things you may discover:

The word often translated “silence” in verses 11 and 12 actually means to be at peace. It has nothing to do with audible sound or keeping one’s mouth shut. To infer that Paul is telling Timothy that women should not speak completely misunderstands the word.

The word often translated “usurp authority” or “exercise authority” in verse 12 actually means to completely dominate someone. In fact, the first definition often given is “one who with his own hands kills another or himself”. To believe that such an act is not allowable for women is understandible. But is such a thing allowable for men either? Certainly not. No one in the body should domineer another person – to do so is clearly sin. So the passage is not talking about some God ordained authority that men have over women and that women are somehow usurping from men. To assume that this verse signals male authority over women comepltely misunderstands the word being used.

The word used to speak of “the woman” in verse 14 is in the Perfect tense, indicating an ongoing action. The correct literal translation is “the woman, having been deceived, HAS FALLEN into transgression”. In other words, Paul is not speaking of Eve at this point, but of some contemporary woman in Timothy’s congregation that has fallen prey to deception as Eve did.

The word that some translations give as “women” in verse 15 is actually singular and continues to refer to the indivudal woman from verse 14. Paul is not talking about all women, Christian women, women in Timothy’s congregation, or any other generic feminine grouping. He is talking about an individual woman. Any attempt to apply this passage to women in general completely misses Paul’s intent.

The word often translated as a verb so as to yield “the bearing of children” or some other similar form is actually a noun. Not only that, but it is accompanied by the definite article indicating that a specific birth is in view. The literal translation is “the childbearing”. So, you see, women don’t actually have a second chance at some works based salvation. They are saved the same way you and I and our male brothers are saved – through the birth of Jesus. Paul discusses this first in chapter one, and this is just an extension of that promise. You are right that you can’t bear children. The same is sadly true for many, many women. Luckily, this passage has nothing to do with obstetrics.

I don’t know what translation you use, Douglas, but I have reviewed over 80 English translations of this passage and find them seriously lacking. Moreover, anyone who then takes those translations and attempts to derive the meaning of the passage based on an English dictionary has doubled down on thier erroneous analysis. I give you here a very literal translation of the passage, using Greek as the basis instead of English, from the Concordant Literal New Testament. Please read it carfully. I suspect it sounds very different from what you have read in the past.

“Let a woman be learning in quietness with all subjection. Now I am not permitting a woman to be teaching nor yet to be domineering over a man, but to be in quietness (for Adam was first molded, thereafter Eve, and Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded, has come to be in the transgression). Yet she shall be saved through the child bearing, if ever they should be remaining in faith and love and holiness with sanity.”

I ask you, in light of this far more literal and accurate translation, what possibly could this passage have to do with women generically teaching men?

Awesome analysis Kristen. What I have also heard preached, and what I think your analysis would support, is that the Ephesians 5/6 teaching on these three relationships has at its root Ephesians 5:21 where all Christians are called to submit (“yield” in your words) to each other.

If Mark is the Mark who has posted here frequently, then I have always contended that he was comp in name only and that the way he lived out his life and marriage was pretty egalitarian. He, of course, says that isn’t so. Yet many of the examples he gives even from his own marriage tend to stray to the egal side of the road.

This is common in the conservative evangelical and even “old fashioned” protestant circles that I run in. People talk a good “male authority, head of houselhold, king of the castle” game, but when it comes down to how they actually live their lives and interact in their families, the talk is all bark and no bite. (Reason being, the one with bite in the family is usually the wife and if you bark too loud, she will bite back hard.)

Then there’s the classic, “Rodents of unusual size? I don’t believe they exist.” This parallels the comp statement, “Women called to the pastoral ministry? I don’t believe they exist.”

But here is the potential dark truth in that comparison. Westly actually saw an ROUS just before he made that statement. He said that not because it was the truth, but to pacify Buttercup and continue her confidence in his “leadership” through the fireswamp. I wonder how many comp leaders actually believe their denial of women called to pastoral ministry, given the abundant examples of such not only in the bible but throughout history all the way up to contemporary times. Yet an ignorant flock is a compliant and complacent flock. Even if comp leaders knew that their blanket denial of leadership to women was on shakey, if not blatantly false grounds, they hardly could admit it without causing either a crisis of confidence or open rebellion amoungst their “Buttercups”.

“According to the complementarian view Craig is describing, the comp position is that Eve’s sin was, at it’s heart, NOT about believing the serpent rather than God. It was about acting FIRST, without looking to Adam for guidance or permission. The problem is that nothing in the Genesis text says anything like this.”

You are absolutely correct about the lack of textual support for such a notion. But reading into text is habitual for comps so they don’t recognize it. The very notion that Eve would have to look to Adam stems from the presumption that Adam was in authority. And so starts the endless circular argument, because the basis for Adam’s presumed authority stems from pther presumptions about things like creation order and naming of animals. All of this is unsupported in the text of Scripture (not the facts; the conclusions), but that doesn’t persuade them it isn’t true because they have presumed male authority.

It reminds me of the scene in Princess Bride (this blog’s favorite movie, right???) where Vizzini and Westley (as the Man in Black/Dread Pirate Roberts) are engaged in a battle of wits. Vizzini, a self proclaimed genious, spouts off a string of presumptive reasoning about what kind of person his opponent is. In the midst, Westley says (sarcastically) “Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.”. Undaunted, Vizzini replies “Wait til I get going” and continues on with his wild analysis. Comps are a lot like Vizzini. And I often get dizzy dealign with their argument as it spins in circles.

Just thinking more on my above post. So, if a person views “women are more easily deceived” as a godly position, they are violently out of line with Scripture. God clearly does not hold such an opinion.

Turning to Paul, who clearly was a godly man who wrote God inspired words. If your position is that Paul is alluding to a fundimental principal of humanity, then Paul has become your God because there is no such principal in Scripture and, in fact, Scripture clearly promotes the opposite. But what if Paul is simply commenting on a cultural bias as Webb suggests. If Paul is commenting on a cultural bias, then is there any other conclusion you can draw about that commentary other than it is somehow refuting that bias? After all, can Paul positively promote what God denies? The notion that Paul somehow might be speaking positively of the idea of female deceptiveness is tantamount to claiming Paul himself is in opposition to God in the debate.

Which brings us back to 1 Tim 2. How could Paul possibly be promoting female deceptiveness either as a fundimental biblical principal or a cultural bias? He simply can not. At least not if the bible is trustworthy. So Paul is either refuting that women are more easily deceived, an even more confusing and fantastical interpretation than any I have ever heard, or he isn’t talking about female deception at all. The latter is the only logical conclusion I can come to. It is then up to the individual to discover what Paul really IS talking about. A positive step forward in my view.

If 1 Tim 2 is indeed accusing women of being more easily deceived than men then it is not only an isolated accusation, but contradicts volumes of biblical history and teaching. The list of wise biblical women is long and illustrious. Sarah, Rehab, Esther, Abigail, Deborah, the Proverbs 31 woman, Priscilla, Phoebe, and Pilate’s wife come to mind right off the top of my head. I’m sure there are more. In several of these cases, the woman is portrayed as more wise than her husband. In Abigail’s case, this gender contrast is striking (Nabal’s name means “fool”). The godly attribute of Wisdom is even personified as a woman. To accept the comp position, you must not only read it into this passage without proper textual foundation, but also must believe that the vast testimony to female wisdom and resistance to deception is somehow some exception to the rule. I would say, to believe that would indicate that you yourself are easily deceived, wether you are male or female. Which is what i believe Paul would say as well.

Craig – I like your outline of what Merkle might argue and you are probably right because the arguments often follow that line of thinking. The only problem is that it is all conjecture. 1 Tim 2 says nothing of the sort. Comps always start with the empty presumption that male authority is a fact and then read that presumption into the text. It is circular reasoning at its worst.

“So it leaves the door open to believe that Paul could be using Adam and Eve in 1 Tim 2 for a specific situation occurring in Ephesus. Thanks Kristen for mentioning this and also Elaine (back @41).”

And, of course, that is what Cheryl argues here. 1 Tim 2 speakes to a specific situation in Ephesus but it isn’t the situation of women being deceived. That is where the train goes off the tracks. Everything is singular in this section of the chapter. A group is not in view. Nor is the setting the church (Paul left church gatherings in verse 10). And authority structures are only remotely related to the discussion. Comps get all three of these fundimental elements completely wrong. They think the passage is ALL about women in the church setting as it primarily relates to authority structures. They have this belief not because the text in any way supports it, but because of their presumptions about women, church, and authority.

BUT, there is universal application – some people who are deceived and therefor sin in ignorance, like Eve (and like Paul in chapter 1), can be saved if they and those close to them take certain action.

Webb’s error, in my mind, is focusing on the cultural bias that women are easily deceived. He and many comps perceive that that is what Paul is alluding to by invoking Adam and Eve. As usual, the text doesn’t support that focus. But once they are stuck there, well, they are stuck there. Their whole hermenuetic revolves around that erroneous focus.

“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.”

So they would say “because Eve was deceived, all women are easily deceived”? How convenient. In the same appeal (and throughout scripture), Adam’s informed transgression is far worse than Eve’s ignorant transgression. Would they also claim then that all males are immune from deception? If so, why worry about female teachers. Even more significant, would the conceed that all males because of Adam are prone to blatant, conscious, deliberate disobedience while females are conversely immune from it? I doubt it.

“I haven’t actually had any conversations with anyone who actually holds the really genuine traditional “easily deceived” position.”

Funny you should say that. Cheryl just responded on a different post day before last to a guy who holds this position.

BTW – where is everybody. It’s been me and you, Craig, for like four days.

Well put Craig. I have total confidence in you taking that approach. But it is not a good idea for everyone, agreed?

Hi Craig. I think I did elaborate on the dangers and you have given a well thought out response that mitigates those dangers. My concern on asking out of ignorance relates to this being a debate. 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. (The point being, you can hardly pursuade from a position of ignorance)

My main concern is that many turn 1 Tim 2 into one of those “we’ll just have to agree to disagree” passages. I strongly disagree on this approach. I think we have to convince comps that the true meaning of 1 Tim 2 has nothing to do with women being a more easily deceived gender. So, if you want to begin by asking the question “what if the ‘easily deceived’ position is correct”, more power to you. But you had better not be ignorant of the very harmful results of such a conclusion, and how to point them out to someone, because the person you are talking to clearly doesn’t see it or they wouldn’t hold that position to begin with.

Sorry Craig, I didn’t really answer your main question. 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. In your own mind, the question really should be: “although I know you aren’t correct and I know exactly why you aren’t correct, let’s explore what a horrible world it would be if you were correct in hopes that you will see the light.” BTW – I welcome that approach from the other side. I am more than happy to defend the egal position from accusations that IT would lead to something bad.

(To all – sorry for all my typos. I’m typing fast and not really proofing. I will try to be more careful)

Craig,

I don’t think your approach is without merit, but at the end of the day, this is still a debate, not a negotiation. Someone has to be right. That is why I wrote my “Show Stoppers” series of blog posts. Not coincidentally, which passage do you think was the crowning show stoppers in the gender debate? That’s right – 1 Tim 2.

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.

Of course this is the case. The hermeneutical approach is at best a compromise and at worst a down right surrender.

There are very significant dangers in allowing the discussion to venture down this middle of the road path (pardon the mixed metaphor). But your approach to the discussion is a good way to illustrate those dangers. Let’s assume Webb is right, that female deceptiveness (either active or passive), was a cultural bias and only that is being addressed in 1 Tim 2. If that is so, then wouldn’t that mean that Paul was favorable, or even “all in”, to that cultural bias? And if Paul fell victim to a cultual bias that we, at least we egals, now know to be erronious, doesn’t that mean that Paul was providing false guidance to Timothy? And if Paul could lead Timothy astray, then how can we trust anything instruction he has for any of us? And if Paul is untrustworthy, they how can we trust scripture itself, or at least the inspired nature of scripture?

That is the slippery slope the egal slides down if they accept Webb’s hermeneutical approach. And many egals have already slid down that slope. Many believe that Paul was a mysogynistic bastard and therefore don’t give value to anything he says. In fact, many have even been brought to the point of doubting that the Scriptures are God inspired.

And what of the core teaching of 1 Tim 2? Such an approach renders any instruction moot. If it isn’t trans-cultural, then it is worthless to us here and now. Again, the sovereign inspiration of Scripture is called into question, and great confusion reigns. After all, if 1 Tim 2 isn’t trsutworthy, how trustworthy is 1 Tim 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” Webb’s approach leaves us picking and choosing which passages to pay attention to and which ones to discard. We are now playing god, as it is now us who determine what is God breathed and what is not; what is profitable and what is not.

This little rant of mine may be a little melodramatic but I am passionate about truth. I have seen far too many Christians who have created their own personal edited bible. Almost always, it begins with
the simple statement “that doesn’t apply to us today”.

I’d like to pursue this line of mushy egal thinking but first I want to make sure I have it right. If I understand correctly, in 1 Tim 2, Webb is arguing that the culture believed women were more easily deceived. Although we no longer support that thinking in a general sense in modern culture, there are some comps who still believe the same thing about women and use 1 Tim 2 as a trans-cultural proof. So in essense, Webb is accepting that comp view of women, but only to the degree that it was a cultural bias. He rejects the trans-cultural application of that view by comps. Do I have it right?

Well, I would agree with him about patriarchy. It is a cultural phenomenon that is exposed in biblical history but not supported at all in biblical teaching. But I don’t agree about 1 Tim 2 and I can;t find any support for patriarchy in the garden. That seems like quite a stretch.

Back to 1 Tim 2. I still view that as a cop out. We need not be afraid of the text, especially if it is trying to teach us something. 1 Timothy 2 is not biblical history, it is biblical teaching. As such, it is trans-cultural. But for that very reason, because there are cultural elements at play in the context, we need to dig deep to understand the trans-cultural lesson. When one studies the lanuage really close, as Cheryl has done here, it becomes clear (at least it did to me) that what Paul is telling Timothy is not what comps say Paul is telling Timothy. Webb seems to accept the comp view but explain it away as irrelevant to the here and now. But the comp view simply does not fit the text. So accepting the comp view is accepting a lie. And explaining away the comp view as cultural is rendering the teaching meaningless. So I find Webb’s approach not only unhelpful to the egal cause, but unhelpful to the growth of the entire church.

In turn, I wonder how effectively Eastern men (since we are making this a geo-gender issue) live out the second part of 1 Peter 3 marriage counseling. Is demanding subservience from a wife “living with her in an understanding way”? (1 Pet 3:7). Is assigning her second class status “showing her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life”?

As a husband, I can testify to the blessing that I receive when my wife follows Peter’s good advice (for I certainly am guilty of not always obeying the Word”). And she can testify to the blessing she receives in like kind when I listen to the apostle. But none of that has to do with any authority structure within our marriage. We are both under God’s authority to be sure, but we are neither under the other’s authority. There is only room for one authority in our marriage and neither of us is qualified for the job.

Hi Hamish,

There is nothing in 1 Peter 3 for women, western or otherwise, to explain away. Peter isn’t giving a command here, he is making a suggestion for women who are in a particular situation. Peter isn’t calling for women to be under the authority of their husbands, especially the type of husbands in the immediate context – those who are not obeying the word (1 Peter 3:1b – a part you interestingly left out). Peter is showing women how they can win over such sinful husbands by showing unconditional respect even though the husband may not deserve it. This is no different than the Lord’s command to turn the other cheek. Such an attitude is one we all should take as we all subject ourselves one to another (Ephesians 5:21). But in the immediate context that Peter is dealing with here, it is especially effective when wives do it for their badly behaving husbands.

“For example, he…thinks 1 Tim 2 says that women in general are more easily deceived than men.”

Wow – I had hoped at this stage in our development we had gotten past this notion. I’m curious how he handles 1 Tim 1:13 where Paul basically says that he was deceived prior to his conversion. Does he provide any biblical (or even biological) evidence that women are more easily deceived, or does the entire house of cards stand on the account of Eve?

I haven’t read the book you reference but I am familiar with the argument, especially regarding 1 Timothy 2. In fact, before reading Cheryl’s blog which motivated me to really look at the passage in the original language, I basically took this position. It is the “it’s only situational” approach. The reply to comps is, “you can’t make any universal proclamations about men and women based on situational or cultural passages”. The problem is two fold. First, we had better be able to make universal proclamations based on situational or cultural biblical passages, or nothing in the bible matters. Second, the situational argument is basically a status quo argument. It give nothing but also takes nothing. I changes no minds and doesn’t move the discussion forward. So it is basically a cop out IMO.

That’s right Craig. That is the position comps take. The problem with that position is it entirely dismisses the eqaulity in Genesis 1 and it misses (or ignores) the whole reason Adam needed a “helper”. That position proposes that Adam needed someone to help him with “tasks Adam was given”. But that isn’t at all what Genesi 2:26 says. According to God, there was onloy one thing wrong in the garden that Adam needed any “help” with. It wasn’t the housekeeping or mowing the lawn or tending the garden or any other activities of daily living that comps seem to attach to the “helper” role. In fact, the only thing Adam needed help with was his aloneness. Eve wasn’t created to help Adam with chores or even to help him with ruling the animals. She was created to make Adam whole, to complete him, to be his soul mate. Once that is understood, the naming of the animals takes on a whole new light. It wasn’t a task associated with Adam’s rule, it was a task associated with Adam’s need for companionship. In that context, hierarchies and authority relationships are not even on the radar.

Oh yes – and I forgot the other simple point. Eve was not one of the animals, so even if the comp position were true about naming authority over animals it would be irrelevant in regards to Eve. Which brings us back to the act itself. For the comp position to be true, categorical naming must universally be an authoritarian act. Let the comp spin his wheels on that proof for a while.