gengwall

Craig – authenteo appears only once in the NT, in this verse. You are correct that comps view this as “normal” and “good” authority. Every Greek dictionary and lexicon proves otherwise. Here are the possible definitions from the lexicon on blueletterbible.org

1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3) an absolute master
4) to govern, exercise dominion over one

It should be clear that this is not a benevolent authority. Surely, it would not be any more correct for a male in the church to exercise this kind of authority over anyone, let alone his wife.

It is also true that egals do not believe that any kind of authority should be exercised between believers, benevolent or otherwise. But that is not the main egal objection to this word. It is the dark malevolent nature of the authority this word expresses that proves it simply can not be the kind of benevolent authority comps believe is tolerable in marriage or the church. We are more interested in how comps have mischaracterised the word than we are in a general conversation about authority at this point in the passage. It comps took the word at its true meaning, they would disapprove of authenteo even if it was a male exercising it and they would reject the exercise of authenteo anywhere in the Body.

Holly – if you click on the 1 Corinthians 11 category in the sidebar, you will get a wealth of info and background on this passage and especially on kephale. I would start with this post: http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/05/26/verse-by-verse-through-1-corinthians-11/

Craig – just to expand on what Cheryl said in relation to your questions @39-41. We know a specific woman is in view in verse 14 because of the use of the definate article. The Greek says literally “the woman” instad of simply “woman”. Now, it could be Eve since Eve is the most recent specific woman spoken of at verse 13. But, two circumstances steer us away from Eve.

One is by implication which you have noted – Paul doesn’t repeat Eve’s name, but instead refers to some unnamed woman, where he does call Adam by name a second time in verse 14. It seems odd at best if Paul is referring to Eve still.

But the second reason, the grammatical one Cheryl details, is conclusive. The deceived state is ongoing – there is no other valid conclusion based on the tense of the “to be” verb. How virtually all translators get this wrong is mind boggling, until one considers that most were men who probably had the same presupposition that this passage deals with all women (which would explain the translators even grosser error in dealing with singular and plural throughout the passage). But it doesn’t change the reality – Paul is talking about a specific woman who continues to be under decpetion at the writing of his letter. It simply can’t be Eve.

We then look to see who it can be. Verse 15 refers again to a specific woman who can be saved (or redeemed) in the future. Again, this can’t be Eve, but the construction of 14 and 15 make it seem, at least to me, obvious that the same woman is being spoken of in both verses. But who is this woman? Was she pulled completely out of thin air? Did Paul suddenly have a “squirl!”* moment, becoming completely distracted? Or is it possible, considering the consistent use of the singular in verses 11-15, that this woman we know to be a specific human being from verses 14 and 15 is the same woman in the whole passage? To me, that makes perfect sense.

Let’s imagine for a moment that Timothy had written Paul something like this:

“I have this woman in the congregation who is immersed in pagan worship and teaching. More than that, she has brought this false teaching into her home and her husband seems either unwilling or unable to stop her. In fact, it appears that she completely dominates him as we rarely see him and when we do, she actually will not allow him to speak. I have even heard rumors that she has rejected the teaching of the church and abuses her husband if he tries to speak up. Never-the-less, I am uncomfortable bypassing her husband and challenging her directly. I am at a loss as to what to do. Is there any hope for this couple or should we remove them from the assembly?

Paul responds (keep in mind that the letter from Paul has an implicit “regarding what you wrote me” in front of every instruction to Timothy. I have included how this might possibly have been interptreted by Timothy considering his close relationship with Paul)

[Regarding what you wrote me about a particular woman] A wife should learn in peace, being ready to cooperate in everything. But I [Paul, as an apostle and authority in the church] do not allow the wife to teach or to be domineering over the husband [so go ahead and name drop Timothy], rather, she is to remain at peace. [Now let me describe for you a similar situation we are all familiar with] For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, [back to your situation] but this woman [like Eve], having been deceived, has come to be in transgression. But she will be redeemed through the birth of the child [just as I was – see chapter 1 of this letter], if she and her husband continue to live in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint [unlike what has been going on to date in their marriage].

Makes perfect sense to me. We have to accept that Timothy and Paul were close enough that there was some reading between the lines and some things were perfectly left unspoken. That doesn’t mean we can;t apply what Paul teaches. But it does mean that we can’t jump to conclusions about what Paul is talking about without considering context at three levels – what was going on in Ephesus at the time, what Paul’s theme is, and how close Paul’s and Timothy;s relationship was.

*Sorry for the reference if you haven’t seen the movie “Up!”. On the other hand, if you have, the reference as applied to Paul and this passage seems perfectly appropriate. If you accept the grammatical facts (most comps choose to ignore them) but still see this as a prhibition on women in general, then you have to conclude Paul went completely bonkers for a moment to find any “sense” in the whole passage.

Cheryl – your last paragraph in #45 is the most succinct description yet of the 1 Tim 2 passage and really pulls all of the discussions and analysis here in the last year or so together. Bravo. Here is the key to me. “If one starts with this presupposition [that Paul is making a global prhibition on women], it is very difficult to draw any sense from verse 15 in particular.” The converse is also true. If one looks at your summation above, the passage, and verse 15 in particular, make perfect sense. This evaluation of what makes “sense” is what really turned me around on this passage even before I started digging into the grammar. The comp viewpoint simply never made any sense. There were too many holes; too many contradictions. But now, thanks in great amount to the numerous discussions and “iron sharpening iron” that goes on here, Paul’s wisdom and instruction to Timothy makes perfect sense.

Craig – I have just begun reading a book called “I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking I Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence” which basically is looking at the passage with the pagan situation in Ephesus that you refer to as the main focus. I have not read very far yet but I think that they are going to make the argument that Paul is dealing with bunches of people, not an individual couple. I’m not sure but that seems to be the direction they are heading. (BTW – anyone read this book?) That doesn’t necessarily preclude Paul from addressing one couple as an example of the larger group. (In essence, that is what comps say he is doing, although the “one” is Eve and the larger group is all women, or at least all Christian women within the setting of the church service. To me, the evidnece is clear that “the woman” and “she” in verse 14 and 15 can not be Eve, so I reject their notion).

The bottom line is we don’t have Timothy’s letter to Paul which prompted Paul to write. We simply can’t know for sure if there was only one couple involved or if one couple is emblematic of a broader problem. What we do know for sure is that “she” in verse 15 is a specific woman and she is not Eve, so the application of the prohibition of the passage to all women for all time is simply not supportable and the teaching that is involved must be false teaching.

Holly – the KJV only debate is a whole ‘nother can of worms. It boils down to quantity vs. quality.

The Greek foundation of the KJV is called the “Received Text” because it was basically all we had “received” (very little) at the time of the translation. The term currently used for the same text with the addition of the many, many more manuscripts we now have available is “the Majority Text” because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts. Please note that the KJV has been updated a number of times since 1611 and we have a few other “Majority” based translations like the New King James.

The Greek foundation of almost all modern translations is based on just a few Greek manuscripts, but they are much older and more complete than what is used for the King James.

Now, three things you must know.

1) Even within a manuscript “family” there are variations. Not all of the King James based Greek manuscripts were completely in agreement which led to one of the major debates about the Greek leading up to the KJV, the inclusion of the so called (and extrabiblical IMO) “Johanine Comma” in 1 John 5:7-8. So, there are variations within and between families of manuscripts. That is why translators actually rely mostly on a consolodated Greek text to do their work, leaving the consolodation to other scholars. As mentioned above, that consolodated text for the KJV was the “Texus Receptus” (received text) which was compiled by Erasmus. Newer KJV-like bibles used the “Majority Text”. And all other modern translations use the Nestle-Aland text which uses those fewer but older and therefore presumably (in the view of the compilers at least) more reliable Greek sources. The bottom line is that no originals exist. Everything, even the oldest Greek manuscripts we have, are copies of copies of copies, often created hundreds of years after the original author penned his original gospel or letter.

2) Despite all of this variety, the manuscript evidence for the bible is far, far stronger than for any other ancient writting.

3) And even with the variation in the Greek sources, there is no variation in fundimental doctrines. It is not because of the Greek sources that we have these arguments, it is because of the introduction of cultural and editorial biases in the translation of those Greek sources.

That is why it is important to use a variety of translations – some literal (i.e. KJV or NASB), some semi-literal (i.e. NIV), and some paraphrase (i.e. NLT) when doing a deep study. If one finds discrepancies or even stark contradictions between translations, that is the time to go back to the Greek and, in essence, do some translating yourself.

There are many online resources that can help you, as well as hard copy resources. For hard copy translations of the NT, I have an 8 translation parallel bible (Get Here at Amazon). It includes KJV, NASB, NCV, CEV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, and The Message. For hard copy standard bible, I use the NASB, although as I noted above, it performs rather poorly on this passage. Online resources that many here use include http://www.blueletterbible.org which has really good multitranslation listings of verses, interlinear “view” (showing the Greek), and a great listing mechanism when you select a Greek or Hebrew word which shows all verses that use that word. Other people use http://www.studylight.org, which has an even better interlinear (Greek underneath English). For the best interlinear bible (both OT and NT) evah, we use http://www.scripture4all.org. You can also download thier interlinear bible as software with even greater functionality like a lexicon and search capabilities. It absolutely rocks and has been indispensible when it comes to understanding the underlying grammer (the Greek is fully parsed) and word order of a verse or passage. Oh, and this should make you happy, the current English translation being used is the good ole KJV (with the underlying Greek also being the “Received Text” which is the basis for the KJV).

One more thing Holly. I have done an exhaustive review of over 80 English translations of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. I am sad to report that only one translation, the Concordant Literal New Testament, gets this passage completely correct from the Greek in terms of grammar. Here is the CLNT translation. Read it carefully and see if it gives you a better sense of what is going on and what Paul is talking about.

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.

Now, I have also done a paraphrase by cobling together parts of various translations which not only get the grammar right but use English words which seem to best carry the meaning of the equivalent Greek words. I think you will find this translation in stark contrast to what you have been taught about this passage:

A wife should learn in peace, being ready to cooperate in everything. But I do not allow the wife to teach or to be domineering over the husband, rather, she is to remain at peace. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression. But she will be saved through the birth of the child, if she and her husband continue to live in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

Remember that I did not make up any of that; it all comes from published English translations. What a contrast, wouldn’t you agree?

Some other interesting tidbits from my scoring:

The KJV had a score of only 20 out of a possible 60 points. That was actually about average.
I am sad to say that my favorite translation, and the one I quote most, the NASB, scored only 10 points.
The worst translation was the Contemporary English Version at -1 points.
The best “mainstream” translation was the American Standard Version with 50 points.
As I mentioned, the best overall with a perfect score of 60 was the CLNT.
There were some translations that scored as well as the King James, but are much more damaging to women when they did go wrong. The worst possible single phrase I have ever seen, (and also the most unsupported biblically) comes from a version many young people use – The Message. Although The Message scored a 19, I was inclined to (but didn’t) fail it all together based on the paraphrase of the last half of vs. 14 where it says: “woman was deceived first – our pioneer in sin! – with Adam right on her heels.”

Hi Holly,

I would like to take a stab at your question pending Cheryl’s response.

You must have been brought up on the good old King James. That is one of the few translations which renders vs. 11 as “the woman”. Actually, the definite article is not present in either verse and so both should technically be translated “a woman”. I believe the intent of the King James with “the woman” in vs. 11 is still to imply a generic woman. In that light, “a woman” in vs. 12 flows just fine. In other words, I do not believe for a minute that the King James translators thought that a specific woman was in view.

Now, Cheryl and many others including myself, do believe a specific woman is in view. In my opinion, the true Greek of the rest of the passage makes it perfectly clear that Paul is speaking of a particular woman and a particular man or set of men that she is engaged with in false teaching. So why was Paul not specific at the onset of the passage in vs. 11? One possibility is that this was a personal response to Timothy regarding issues Timothy had already written Paul about and therefore Timothy would have known exactly who Paul was speaking of, even though it is more obscure to us. Another possibility is that although Paul does get specific in the end, it may be that the problem was pervasive and so Paul was speaking about the type of situation in general to begin with, and then concluding with a specific remedy for the specific couple Timothy wrote about as a template for dealing with any couple that had similar issues.

Whatever the reason, it does not negate two facts. One – the type of teaching that Paul is addressing is undeniably false teaching, so any application of this passage to stop women from teaching sound doctrine in the church is a great overreach. Two – a specific woman is clear by verse 14 and unmistakeable by verse 15 and therefore any application to women in general is completely unsupported.

To Elastigirl – “anybody want a peanut?”

No Kristen, but I think I left a wheelbarrow on top of the albino by the secret tree entrance to the pit of despair. (COM’ON you PB ignorants – you have GOT to want to watch it now)

Craig – Cheryl has discussed kephale a number of times and a search by subject may show you that egals are in fact remaining true to the Greek definitions. You may also be interested in my blog post (pardon the self-serving plug Cheryl) on Paul’s head/body metaphors and how definitions can be a show stopper in the egal/comp debate. The link is:

Show Stoppers – Kephale: Benevolent Monarchy or Mutual Dependency in Paul’s Head/Body Metaphors.

Mara – yes, it is refreshing to know that at least a couple people here can recite the lineage of the Dread Pirate Roberts.

Craig – It occurs to me you may not know what Kay is addressing with the verse parsing issue. In certain Greek manuscripts, specifically the ones used and compiled to make up the “base” Greek text for all modern English translations of the New Testament, “verses” 21 and 22 of Ephesians 5 read as:

“and submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ; the wives to their own husbands as to the Lord”

In other words, the verb to submit is not repeated in verse 22. Whereas many English bibles make a break in the text between verses 21 and 22, implying that there is no clear connection between the two sections of the chapter, the actual Greek text makes it clear that verse 22 is a direct extension of verse 21. The mutual submission, absent of any authority, that verse 21 clearly calls for is identical to the submission wives are to have in regards to their husbands.

It is legitimate to ask “why the redundancy directed at wives in particular”, and I think we have covered some of that ground in the comments here. What is not legitimate is to claim that the submission wives are to have is something different than the submission we are all called tohave in verse 21. And it is totally disingenuous to claim such a distinction should be in place based on extra-biblical chapter/verse separations.

As I said before, this is a great gig if you are a guy. Not only do you get to boss your wife around, but you get to claim you are doing it as a “burden” and “a sacred duty” for your wife’s own good. “It’s good to be the king!”

Kay – “gengwall,
Add me to the “yep never saw the movie” list.”

Man in Black to gengwall – “get used to disappointment”

“gengwall, yep never saw the movie. it all sounds delightful though.”

Inconceivable!

Cheryl – sorry to hear about old wounds. I’m glad our little sidebar brings a smile.

Alas – TL – those “wake-ups” are not my own but are actual objects referred to in the movie, although they certainly would wake someone up all on their own. Don’t tell me you are also Princess Brideless.

“top 10 lists of romantic or chick-flick man-approved movies”

PB is definately man approved. It has “fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles…”, and of course: “My name is Indigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!”

More than enough to suffer through the kissing parts.

SM – “PS I haven’t seen Princess Bride, but, boy, does that line fit this issue.”

Inconceivable! Have you been mostly dead? Or simply lost in the pit of despair (*gengwall clears throat*) Maybe you are blathing? Truly you have a dizzying intellect. I suppose you are also going to tell us you are not left handed. Quick, someone get SM a holocaust coat, a screaming eel, and a rodent of unusual size! I promise you it isn’t a kissing movie, if that turns you off.

I suggest you get yourself a nice mutton-lettuce-and tomatoe sandwich, take a chocolate covered miracle pill, sit back, and enjoy the movie, for there will be blood tonight!

“Based on what I have read and heard, the terms are not contrasted but are used interchangeably and sometimes in novel ways. In reading comp material online, listening to sermons, and in comments on this blog, I have noticed a redefining of terms and misuse of words to accommodate ideology. Effective communication is very difficult when words are not used grammatically and according to their denotations which were decided long before this conversation began.”

I second this. I was recently at a wedding where the families and denominations involved are observably soft-comp. As luck would have it, the sermonette was on Eph 5. Most of what the pastor said was just fine. But he mentioned “biblical leadership” in relation to the husband at one point. It is clear, what he meant, was male authority in the soft-comp sense (he had just finished talking about the husband’s “role” to “guide” the marriage). So, leadership and authority, in this example, were definately interchangeable. It is just that “leadership” sounds much more PC

Craig – I really do like the way you are hanging in there. You are not afraid to hear the contradictions in the comp arguments and ponder them. It is usually at this point that most of our comp friends move the goal posts. So bravo.

I should also note that your continuing questions and firm insistence on narrowing the definitions is a great sharpener for us. Rarely do we get to the point where we have to refine and pinpoint our arguments to address the more prickly details of topics like authority vs leadership. This has been good iron sharpening iron all the way around.

Hi Craig,

I was responding more to your comp hat than your marital reality. Many soft-comps actually do try to make a distinction between “mutual agreement” and the final decision. They actually do claim that although they and their spouse had a mutual agreement to follow a course of action, the “decision” was still theirs and theirs alone. So, I was just pointing out the contradiction in a typical comp argument, not trying to pin that argument on you as a practical example of your own marriage. Sorry for the confusion.

Mark’s example keeps coming up as the perfect illustration of the soft-comp contradiction. He says that he makes the “decision” regarding when his children leave the table. But he can’t claim that such a decision is unilaterally deligated to the male, at least not biblically. Nor can he claim that he always makes that decision – if the tom-cat’s away, it is his wife’s play. Nor can he demonstrate that such a decision shows his authority over his wife, since he would not, I presume, pretend that he can tell her when she can leave the table. Not can he really call his wife’s deference “submission” since she is not actually submitting to him but is simply supporting an approach to child rearing that they both agree with and have mutually “decided” to employ. So everything that Mark claims his example shows about headship, submission, and authority is actually unsupported by the very nature of the act within the example.

Hey Craig,

Sorry if it sounds like we are picking at you. We appreciate your openness. You have to understand that we have heard this kind of soft-comp double-talk (I make the decision once we mutually decide, act “x” is leadership if a man does it but submission if a woman does it, etc.) for a long time so we get a little cynical. It isn’t you.

“It’s something like wrapping a bowling ball in a blanket”

Absolutely, hands down, the best analogy to soft-comp double-talk that I have ever heard.

“This idea of authority is new to me. The most “authority” meant to me was that if some situation arose (and it never did) where my wife and I couldn’t come to some mutual agreement after prayer, discussion, time, counsel etc, I would be responsible to make the decision.”

And I would respond that you neither have “made the decision” or exercised “authority” in this scenario. Aren’t the phrases “mutual agreement” and “mutual decision” the same? Or are you saying that you would declare “I have decided that we will do the thing we mutually agreed to do”? Doesn’t that sound rediculous? Nor is any authority exercised because there is noone to exercise it over – your wife and you are in agreement.

Craig, ha we cross posted. Let me just respond briefly to #163.

I agree that comps do not see such a sharp contrast. I contend that they have tunnel vision or blinders on. At any rate, they depart from reality when it comes to their view of authority. Watering it down rhetorically so that it “looks” nice and safe and “soft” doesn’t change the reality that the exercise of authority and Genesis 3:16 authoritarian “rule” are exactly the same thing.

Craig,

I understand what you are saying about leadership but it is an unrealistic paradigm. What SM was saying is “given the exact same act of ‘loving sacrificial service’ performed by a man or a woman, what makes it leadership for the man but not leadership for the woman”. Your “comp hat” example requires that there is a specific, exact, uncrossable line between “loving sacrificial service” acts that a man does as opposed to those that a woman does. But not only does the bible make no such distinction, it teaches exactly the opposite. Gifting for “loving sacrificial service” is not specific to gender. So any act of “loving sacrificial service”, even one that falls under the category of “leading”, can be performed by a man or a woman with the blessing of God. SM’s point is, how can the very same act be identified as leadership if it is performed by a man but not so identified if it is performed by a woman? Conversely, where is the list in the bible of what acts constitute leadership and therefore are restricted only to men? Especially in the marriage realm?

The reality is that there are a million activities of daily living that qualify as “leading”, especially in marriage. Virtual every decision and every task can have one spouse or the other “take the lead”. They also can be acts of “loving sacrificial service” to the other spouse, to our children, or to the marriage itself. The argument that men are the only ones qualified to do any act that involves leadership is demonstrably false. The argument that God directs men to do any act that involves leadership is without biblical support. And the argument that women simply are forbidden to do any act that involves leadership denies the gifting of the Spirit. All of the comp arguments in support of the notion that “the man is to lead in a sacrificial, loving way…a woman is also to exhibit loving, sacrificial service, but not as a leader” are cultural, not biblical.

Which is why, Kay, in the end they have to revert to “God said so” – leaving God holding the bag for their incoherant, illogical, and unsupportable conclusions about male authority.