1 Timothy 212 Two Prohibitions Or One

I welcome both comps and egals to comment here on whether Paul is forbidding two things or one in 1 Timothy 2:12. Also it would be appropriate to discuss why Paul saw a need to single women out and if the prohibition is also applicable to men. Thanks! 🙂

The prohibition is listed as God is against women assuming authority for themselves to teach men. This view has been brought out by Philip B. Payne in “Man and Woman One in Christ” pg 338.

Since this is the point made by Payne then what’s his reason? I’ve not read the book. I wonder if in Payne’s view it is applicable to men also? If not then there must be a reason why it is not and why only women are singled out?

And here is the follow-up I made to that comment:
***
Here is a quote from Payne’s essay that encapsulates what I’m saying:
“Unless 1 Tim 2.12 is the one exception, none of Paul’s oujdev constructions selectively transfers only a qualifier from the second element to the first. Whenever Paul does use text following oujdev to qualify the element before oujdev, the entire construction
expresses this by combining the two elements to express one idea.”

With regards to the word “usurp” — based on your definition, that does seem to be the wrong word to use. Payne says the most likely sense is “assume a stance of independent authority” or “seize or assume authority for oneself.” This would relate specifically to men because it was towards the male teachers that this was being done.

Finally, I have looked up 1 Tim 1:6-7 in the interlinear: did you know that the word Paul uses there is not “men,” but the word “tisine” (plural, “tines”) that is most often translated “some”? So we cannot read 1 Tim 1:6-7 as if it were about “men” in contrast to 1 Tim 2:11-15 being about “women” (or “a woman”). Some of these false teachers in 1 Tim 1 could have been the woman or women of 1 Tim 2, in which case, both passages would apply to them (or her). Or it could be that there were no male false teachers at all; that the word “some” in 1 Tim 1:6-7 refers to EXACTLY the same group as in 1 Tim 2. That these are not the same group as in 1 Tim 1:19-20 is clear, in that the “some” there have gone beyond confidently teaching when they don’t know what they’re talking about, but have actually “rejected faith and a good conscience.” In any case, the issue is not that the “some” in 1 Tim 1:6-7 can go ahead and “assume authority for themselves” while the women in 1 Tim 2:11-15 can’t– if they are the same group of people.

BTW, I agree that authority in the Kingdom is based on the authority of Christ and His teachings, and on the inspired teachings of the apostles which later became the New Testament. “Authentein” is a word that is related to the word “authority,” and I think it does have something to do with authority. But I’m NOT saying (and I’m not sure Payne is saying) that “seizing authority” is the same as “assuming authority for themselves without a properly delegated authority from men.” Who properly delegates authority? God. In whose authority do teachers teach? In Christ’s. Men do not “delegate” authority. A congregation and its elders may acknowledge or recognize the giftedness of a person to teach, and that person may then be a “teacher” to teach God’s authoritative teachings. I think “teach-and-authentein” has something to do with overriding the acknowledged, recognized teaching gift of another and teaching as if you yourself had that acknowledged, recognized gift to be a “teacher.”
I hope that clarifies my position. 🙂

All the different interpretations of 1 Tim 2 only prove it is not a clear cut foundational doctrine to be used to shut up over half of all believers.

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

Craig,
I’ve not heard of Michael Green’s suggestion. Though interesting, even if authentien had a sexual meaning there’s no way to get that meaning out of the passage itself. Unless I’m missing mounds of evidence? It’s like with Paul using the singular genericaly. Neither can be taken out of the passge itself. The possibilities outside the passage or text itself can be stacked up miles to the heavens, but they can’t tell us anything at all about what’s held within the passage itself. I’ve heard elsewhere or by someone else the suggestion that authentien had a sexual meaning, and I thought it was an interesting read at the time.

Kristen,
This catches my eye:

As for the nature of my statements about Eve, they assume that Paul is saying something theologically similar to what he says about Adam in Romans 5:12, that just as all humans sin in Adam, so all women partake of the sin of Eve, and that to say Eve is “saved” is a metaphor saying that womankind is saved through the belief of women in Christ, just as humankind are saved from the sin of Adam through belief in Christ. To refer to Eve in a form of present tense would be metaphorical; Eve as a symbol of all women.

I can see what your saying but how could one be absolutely sure that v14 is refering to Eve when Paul switched from proper name to a particular woman, “the woman”? My interests lies in what we can be sure of.

I’ve more…

As for the nature of my statements about Eve, they assume that Paul is saying something theologically similar to what he says about Adam in Romans 5:12, that just as all humans sin in Adam, so all women partake of the sin of Eve, and that to say Eve is “saved” is a metaphor saying that womankind is saved through the belief of women in Christ, just as humankind are saved from the sin of Adam through belief in Christ. To refer to Eve in a form of present tense would be metaphorical; Eve as a symbol of all women.

So the first woman failed in that she was deceived by the serpent, yet womankind would be saved through the belief of women in Christ? This is confusing. All women partake in the sin of Eve? She was murdered. Jesus said that the devil was a murderer from the beginning. Adam though sinned willfully. I’m trying to add up what you’ve said here and push it around in my head…

Ahh, what happened to my last comment? It should’ve been #11.

In response to what I quoted of Kristen’s above. On of the things that crossed my mind was that Ecve was murdered whereas Adam sinned willfully. I don’t think Paul would set up Eve as an example who’s sin women partake of since she was a victim of the devil. it doesn’t add up. Jesus said that he was a murderer from the beginning and didn’t hold to the truth.

Hopefully Cheryl can rescue my other small comment from space.

Was it Eve’s nature as to why she sinned or Adam’s? Adam chose to sin willfully therefore once he did that it was a matter of him having a nature to rebel. Eve didn’t. So here again I cannot see women partaking in Eve’s sin. She didn’t sin out of a rebellios nature. Trying to make sense of this…

I agree with you, Kristen, that Paul is using Eve as a metaphor for “everywoman”. The consequences of the decision of Eve will be reversed. I also think THE CHILDBEARING is a metaphor used for the formation of Christ within- Paul uses the same metaphor in Gal 4:19.

“and she {Eve/everywoman} shall be saved {from the consequences of her decision} through the child-bearing {formation of Christ ala Gal 4:19}, if THEY remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” YLT

I wonder if the “THEY” above could be a married couple? In that case, the passage can be taken as a PROMISE for the marriage of ANY CHRISTIAN WOMAN- that she will be saved/restored/made whole in a reversal of the fall’s consequences (“he shall rule over you”) back to her status as a co-heir with Christ, back to her queenly, ruling position of the Garden-BESIDE Adam- rather than being the mistress/subordinate/underling to Adam’s “master-hood”. But this restoration to a “garden of eden” marriage would need the husband on board: Notice “if THEY continue in faithfulness…” (1 Tim 2:15)

I don’t know if this will work, but hope you don’t mind my trying……

OK, sorry. it didn’t work. but you can go to

I can’t get it to show the slides for me TL. I tried to look. I think it’s this computer, it always was kinda slow, links don’t exactly work, and it just doesn’t seem to function that great.

*computers figures*

awww. I’m sorry. it probably is your computer, as it shows them fine on my computer at the website. 🙁

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

There are two problems with this view when comparing to the biblical text.

If the beautiful Lucifer seduced Eve and she turned around and seduced Adam, it explains why Adam didn’t put up any resistance!

If we take deception meaning the same as seduction as Paul said that Eve was deceived by the serpent, then we can also clearly understand that Adam was not seduced since Paul said that Adam was not deceived. The article quoted above shows that sexual seduction is not in the text, and the meaning of seduction has to be within the boundaries of deception.

Also in the account of the fall deception came from the serpent alone. It was not Eve’s deception that Paul was afraid of but the serpent’s deception that deceived Eve. I have never seen a biblical proof text that Eve deceived Adam. Adam was not seduced or deceived into sin. He willingly partook of the fruit with his eyes wide open to the truth.

When I first heard that the word “authentein” may have had sexual connotations I thought that egals were going too far. However the more I read early church Greek writings, the more I see that sexual promiscuity was a HUGE problem in the church. Especially in the churches that were surrounded by a culture where cultic prostitution was a normal part of life.

“Licentious doctrines continued to vex the church for several centuries, to the dismay of the church fathers. Clement of Alexandria wrote a detailed refutation of the various groups who endorsed fornication as accepted Christian behavior. He complained of those who had turned love-feasts into sex orgies, of those who taught women to ‘give to every man that asketh of thee’, and of those who found in physical intercourse a ‘mystical communion’. He branded one such lewd group authentai (the plural of authentes).” (Kroeger 1979)

Also, the conjunction “oude” invariably links words conveying a similar idea to form a single concept. This is very plain when reading the NT.

Here’s wishing you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a fantabulous New Year! Godspeed and may Providence keep you safe!

Thank you Greg and a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you as well. Also to all the blog followers we wish you a very blessed and joyous time with your families.

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

Merry Christmas from me too, another Aussie “down under”.
So just how many Aussies are regular readers and posters here?
🙂

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

Hi Craig,
I’m on the Central Coast (NSW), but born and bred in Sydney suburbs. 🙂

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

Cheryl, where is your post where you quote some statements by Ware claiming that believers should not pray to Jesus but to the Father.

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

Craig & TL,
Here is an excerpt from Ware’s book “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance ” The link opens to pg18 were he is discussing prayer “to the Father through the Son.”

Hi TL,

Sorry for still being so slow. I am out of the country right now on a late trip with ministry work that we just finished during the Christmas break. Our ministry partner had a brain aneurysm burst recently so things have been topsy turvy here and not relaxing as I had hoped. She survived, thank God.

thank you all very much. When I get a chance today I’ll need to compose a response for the Sola Panel regarding something I said about Ware. It’s regarding the ninth post on compism and egalism.

We’ve missed you Cheryl. But I certainly understand about needing quietness in one’s soul. Praying for God to refresh your spirit. 🙂

I’m having such a blessed time right now. I just wanted to come in and say *hi* to everyone! Hi ya’ll, miss you guys! It’s been quite here. And hope you’re resting up Cheryl! 🙂
Blessings everyone!

Hi everyone,

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

”2.Wasn’t primogeniture to do with the first born male in the family, and not really to do with males and females? So would Timothy have really thought of primogeniture relating to Adam and Eve?”

This is true. Also, God did not practice preference of the firstborn.

1. Cain and Able. God preferred Able because of his good heart.
2. I don’t think Abraham was a firstborn
3. Ishmael and Isaac, God choose Isaac before Ishmael was born
4. Esau and Jacob, God choose Jacob in prophecy at his birth
5. Of Jacobs children, Reuben was firstborn, but God choose Joseph and Judah.

And so forth. In God’s economy it’s not about who is born first at all. It’s about who has godly character and is able to formed into the person that God can use.

The only reason that comps get away with promoting that idea is because so many Christians don’t read the Bible.

Craig,
I like the way you present your arguments. And I agree with TL – it’s “smoke and mirrors.”

It reminds me of the discussion we had here with a comp regarding Cheryl’s article “Husband as Priest of the Home.”

Comp – “Distinguish between principle and practice in your hermeneutics and you will see again that in 1 Cor 11 there is a principle that is rooted in creation (the husband/man is the head of the wife/woman shown through the creational order) and then there is a cultural practice to implement this teaching (head covering).”

Egal – “Then how can the practice ever be UNimplemented since its very root is Creation? Has Creation changed? No? Then it must be permenantly valid.”

Comp – “It’s the principle that doesn’t change, not the practice. The practice will change from culture to culture. The priciple in both texts is one of male leadership whether that is in the marriage or in the church. Paul supports both arguments for this from the creation account. The practice at the time in 1 Cor 11 was a head covering for a woman. This practice will change from culture to culture.”

Egal – “It would be very helpful to me if you could explain, step by step, the process you follow that reveals a distinction between them due to some component of the Creation account?
Because from where I’m standing, it appears that you are basing this doctrine on some un-named thing in the Creation account that allows you to see a difference between:
a.) head covering rooted in the Creation
and
b.) teaching and authenteining rooted in the Creation
– whereby one is rendered temporary and one is rendered permanent.
What is *it* in the Creation account that you are basing this upon?”

As you can see, many comps don’t even recognize the problem.

Craig,
You said:

I have heard some comps say that Paul in 1 Tim 2:13 is using the understanding of primogeniture to say that Adam had authority over Eve because he was created first. They say that people in the first century would have understood this argument.

This is easy to say but impossible to prove biblically as no husband or wife was given rule over the other because of their age. My goodness what would happen if a wife was older than her husband?

It is true that in the culture primogeniture was only about first born males, but the basic outworking was about inheritance, not about “rule”. Adam was not Eve’s sibling so where would the connection have come from without any biblical example? It appears to be another case of reading one’s view into the text.

But I cannot think of any universal thing I should do because of a cultural reason. Can anyone else? Does this sound like a reasonable question to ask a comp, or am I missing something?

Your question sounds reasonable to me.

TL,

Good point about God’s choice not always connected to the first born.

Elaine,
The “conversation” you quoted makes my head spin as I remember the trips around the bush with comps who were more interested in holding onto a view that was comfortable to them rather than seriously considering the holes in their view.

pinklight,
Yes it has been quiet here. My life has been very complicated for some time and it has been hard for me to slow down to write. When our ministry partner had an aneurysm in her brain on December 30th, I didn’t right away see the amount of work that would be added to my plate. She is not capable right now of writing the regular quarterly newsletter so that is now an added pressure. When the stress lessens enough for my mind to get working again, I will be back. I hope it is sooner than later. 😉

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

The irony about the comp claim that Genesis shows firstborn preference, is that in the whole book of Genesis not one first born was preferred by God over the second born.

So a question one might ask is, where DID the concept of firstborn preference arise from. I suspect they were looking for the Savior. And it arose from there to give special attention to the firstborn male just in case he might be ‘the one’. After all they did not know exactly how God was going to do this.

Cheryl,
I hope your partner recooperates completely and is whole again soon. In the meantime perhaps God might find you some help. 🙂

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

“They don’t seem to have any reason for thinking that being created first gives one authority, apart from “God says it does, in 1 Tim 2:13?. “

Well, Paul does not say that God says it does. Paul says the he, Paul, is not now permitting something. This is not how God institutes a divine new (NEW, not used before, never before stated anywhere in the OT) law.

“They see the fall related to the reversal of the creation order. “

I don’t understand this. If they believe that God made the male to rule over the female in the ‘creation order’, then a reversal would be God making the female to rule over the male. If they don’t believe that there was any ruling over one another in the creation order, then a reversal would be both trying to rule over the other, which might make more sense. However, that does nothing for their case as it does not institute a male over female order. In reality, there is no rule in the OT for men to rule over women. There is only the law of ungodly desires for the powerful to control the weaker.

“They see the fall related to the reversal of the creation order. “

oh, they may mean to think that the sin was not eating of the fruit but the woman not deferring to the man. Problem with all that is that God didn’t tell them that she should do that. Thus, not deferring would not be a sin. Only the eating of the fruit was sin.

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

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

I recollect that Jareth thought that Adam’s naming of the animals showed he had authority, and since Eve didn’t name the animals then she didn’t have that authority. And somehow this all translated into Adam having authority over Eve (as if she were one of the animals), which gave him the right to name her. A bit confusing thinking. But these guys want authority so much they will grasp at anything and cling to it with gusto.

The naming=authority argument fails on many fronts.

Adam (and Eve) already had authority over the animals per Genesis 1, so there was no need for God to invent some act to establish authority. Therefore, the naming must have had some other purpose, which of course, it did as scripture clearly shows – it was designed to illustrate to Adam how none of the other animals could meet his need for human companionship.

Adam’s “naming” of Eve shows how effective God’s chore for him was, as Adam rejoices in having his need met with one of his kind – “woman”. Adam really did not name Eve per se, but instead showed how Eve contrasted the animals in relation to his aloneness, which was the whole point of the naming exercise in the first place.

Besides, Adam didn’t “name” the animals (or Eve) at all, he categorized them. So appeals to parental or other authoritarian naming conventions are meaningless.

Those naming conventions themselves, like primogeniture mentioned above, are cultural in nature and have no basis in scripture.

And those naming conventions are not limited to males, so the whole argument that it demonstrates male authority over female is lost. Even Eve named some of her children. And no husband in the entirety of scripture ever named his wife (that I am aware of). So even the cultural argument fails when considered either on gender or inter-relational grounds.

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

Hi Gengwall,

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

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

I know what Gengwall meant.

He didn’t name one of the lions, Rex and one of the cheetahs, Flash. He gave a name or catagory for all of their kind.

Thanks Craig – yes all went well with the wedding.

To “name” someone or something in the cultural context where authority is somehow attached to the naming act is to give a proper, individual name. Adam did do this when he named Eve “chue” in Genesis 3. (Side note – Cheryl and others will undoubtedly point out that this was after the fall and therefore Adam’s first act of sinful authoritarian “rule”). This, of course, is what we do when we name our children or our pets or our cars. (Am I the only one?)

That is not the activity that Adam carried out in Geneis 2. In that chapter, Adam catagorized the animals by type. He didn’t call an individual tiger “Bob”, he called all of that species “Tiger”. In other words, he gave a “name” (or really, description) to each type, not each individual.

That is a different kind of naming than the kind appealed to by naming=authority advocates. Therefore, the cultural naming=authority argument is irrelevant to Genesis 2.

AND BTW the man named pairs as they all came in pairs. This shows that he was giving species names, not individual names. In the same way God named the species of human or mankind or humanity (whichever you like) adham. It shows this in Gen. 5.

2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[adham] when they were created.

It should be pointed out that even the naming=authority argument has many flaws. Naming someone does not establish, express, or validate any authority that doesn’t already exist. Nor is the presence of an authoritarian hierarchy necessary to give a name. While naming as an act and authority as a position may both be present in a relationship, as in parents naming their children, such coexistence does not prove any correlation. Naming our children doesn’t establish our authority over them. In fact, the act of naming is not an authoritative act at all. It is an act of love.

It was also God that named human gender ish and ishah. God did this when He presented the ishah to the human. He did not present an ‘it’ and wait for the human to call her an ishah. God presented her to the man as an ishah

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

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

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

I would agree that those two points are the clinchers. It doesn’t hurt though to have an abundance of reasons why their thesis is in error.

Nebuchadnezzar changed the names of his POWs – Daniel and his companions. Was it “right” for Nebuchadnezzar to do this? Just some food for thought about naming – it has more than one purpose.

“For example, they would say that Adam could name tigers because he had authority over tigers.”

Two thoughts on that. First, Eve had equal authority over the animals with Adam according to Genesis 1. So if Eve was just as authorized to name them as Adam, what possible correlation to authority could Adam’s naming of her have? It couldn’t possibly be an extension of that naming authority because he and Eve were peers in that regard.

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

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

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

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

Thanks for this Gengwall. Very well expressed.

Didn’t Adam name the animals before Eve was taken from his side? So they were already categorized by the time she came on the scene–unless all her mental faculties and senses were already operating before she was taken out of the man, and she had some kind of mental telepathy input in the process of naming them.

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

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

“I am not sure I properly follow you here Gengwall. I think comps would argue (without any reason from Gen 1) that although Eve did have authority over the animals, it was not “equal authority” with Adam.”

They, of course, can argue anything they want. But their argument has no substantiation in Scripture. Genesis 1 clearly states:

Gen 1:26-28
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

There is no hierarchy of authority in there no matter how you read it. So any argument that Adam had more authority over the animals than Eve is a complete fantasy.

I think I see what you are saying, though, Craig. A comp will ignore Genesis 1 if it is convenient. But even in Genesis 2, God says nothing about authority. It is an argument pulled out of thin air. For that argument to be true, all men for all time would have more authority over the animals, specifically in the act of naming, than any woman. Even in absence of Genesis 1 (which clearly rebuts such an assertion), that simply isn’t reality, either in the bible or in practical living, in any culture at any time any where.

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.

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

Craig,

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

Sorry for not making my comment clear.
I was simply adding that comps could claim (and probably do) that since Adam named the animals before Eve came on the scene, that he was the one with authority, that even if she also had authority when she arrived, that she never used it to name the animals because Adam had already completed the job. However, they don’t see Eve’s late arrival as the reason for Eve’s not naming them; they see it as a male-authority principle. I guess they think/assume if she had the same authority that Adam did, that God would have made sure she was there in time to name the animals with him. Therefore, (since Eve didn’t name the animals) it appears they assume that Genesis indicates only Adam had the authority to name animals, and even his wife.

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

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.

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.

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

“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?

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

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

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.

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?

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

“Unfortunately, the comp fellow leading the discussion was snowed under with lots of other comments, and he got sick, and was unable to answer before time ran out. He said he would email me privately with an answer but unfortunately I haven’t received it yet. I am sure that he will have an answer (he has thought a lot about his position and seems very intelligent) and I am interested to see it.”
Craig,
When he does would you please post his response.

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

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

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)

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

Hi Gengwall,

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

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

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.

Hi Gengwall,

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

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

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

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

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

Cheryl,

I hope your ministry partner is doing fine with recovery and you take it easy as much as you can.

Everyone, who has posted, nice comments 🙂

I’ve been watching. A couple times almost posted something and then one of you said what I was thinking, so I just kept reading as I’ve had time.

🙂

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

“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.

“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.

“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 so love to see good logic. 🙂

@97
True – the comps who soft-peddle the “easily deceived” aspect are shown then only extrapolating what they want from verses 13 & 14:

Adam formed first = male “headship”
but
Eve deceived = not all women deceived

Yeah?….hmmmm….doesn’t add up for me either.

Craig asked,

“Does an appeal to Adam and Eve ensure that something is normative for today?”

2 Cor. 11:3 shows Paul appealing to the deceit of Eve in conjunction with a problem specific to the Corinthian church at that time.

1 Cor 11 invokes the creation (man is the head – source- of woman) in order to support the time-and-culture-specific impact of what a person wore or didn’t wear on his head, on his or her source.

So no– invoking the creation account (or any other OT text) does not automatically make the NT teaching universal and timeless. In fact, Paul specifically says that the OT stories are for examples to us– not for grounding of truths– but I don’t have that reference at my fingertips.

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

It seems like 1 Cor 11 is a good passage to illustrate how Adam and Eve can be used to discuss a specific situational subject (head covering). 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).
2 Cor 11:3 is also a helpful reference. Thanks.
About a month ago, one of the staff at church, when I asked him what sort of situation did he envisage taking place at Ephesus that might have moved Paul to write 1 Tim 2:11-15, he replied that there needn’t have been any situation at all. He thought Paul could have just been sprouting forth general universal principles for all churches for all time.
Thanks everyone for all your comments.

Craig, I’ll look up that 1 Cor 10:6 reference tomorrow– it’s pretty late here. But the question I would ask anyone who asserts that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is about universal principals for all churches for all times, is that if that were the case, why did Paul speak of it just once, in a private letter to his “deputy,” rather than in a letter to the whole church? And why didn’t he say anything about it to the church at Rome, where women had a much greater chance of being educated and ready to preach? Why did he spend so much time at the end of Romans praising what women were doing rather than telling them what they weren’t supposed to be doing?

It doesn’t make sense.

Sorry I forgot the “a)” before the “Adam first” bits.

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.

Thanks for your reply Gengwall @106. Your approach could well be the best way forward and is a very good summary of how we might argue with the method:
“This is what I believe, that is what you believe. I am right and you are wrong for these reasons.”
I am just thinking about the other method of argument for a moment (using the sort of arguments Elaine used @41 and Kristen @100):
“This is what you believe (about 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11). It is not consistent with itself. Therefore you have to consider the possibility that you may be wrong.”
Comp: 1 Tim 2 is a universal command not a command to a specific cultural situation.
Egal: Why?
Comp: Because Paul argues from Adam and Eve.
Egal: Paul argues from Adam and Eve in 1 Cor 11 and applies it to a specific cultural situation.
Comp: Ah, but 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2 are different. The principle of male authority flows directly from Adam being first created, and that is a timeless principle in both passages. The application to head coverings is a specific cultural practice that may change. Merkle wrote a good article answering this supposed inconsistency.
Egal:???
At this point do I abandon this line of reasoning, saying “ok I can see how in your mind, this could explain the inconsistency and enable you to be settled in your own mind with regards to these two passages”. I would then embark on a different approach – possibly like the one you have put forward.
Or can someone see a hole in Merkle’s explanation of the apparent inconsistency? Thanks.

Hi Gengwall

“Everything is singular in this section of the chapter. A group is not in view.”

I remember your discussion with Cheryl last year on this. I have one comp friend at theological college who is giving some proper thought to this view, but generally I have found it gets dismissed too quickly, despite references to 1 Cor 5, 2 Cor 12, Jn 4 etc. To me, it makes the most sense of the context and the rest of scripture, but I am eagerly awaiting any further support from Greek experts and other prominent egals. One staff member at church read Cheryl’s post on the “anaphoric reference” and said he would give it a very poor mark if it was presented in an exam. Others have asked, “if it is such a good view, why is it that we have never heard it before, and that other prominent egals who know Greek well have not adopted it? At this stage I don’t have really good answers to these questions. Cheryl said that in the future, she might do a post on this issue and try and get some comments from well known egals who support her position. This would be helpful.

Craig,

I would have to see more evidence of why they claim the head-covering part is indirect and the not-teaching part is direct. What you have quoted has no actual support for such a position. What is so much different between these two passages, that they can say head coverings proceed indirectly from the idea, and not teaching proceeds directly? Other than the fact that they make that assumption to start with?

Of course, there is also the fact that egalitarians don’t believe authority is in view in 1 Cor 11 at all– and in 1 Tim 2 it is only the misuse of authority that is in view.

BTW, yes– the verse that supports my position that OT references in the NT are for examples, not for grounding, is 1 Cor 10:6.

And, of course, they have not addressed 2 Cor 11:3 at all. The deception of Eve is not a grounding for anything there– it is simply an example of someone being deceived in a similar manner to the way Paul was afraid the Corinthian converts might be deceived. How they can get any sort of universality from that is beyond me.

Thanks Kristen. I see from the time you commented that you were up late again. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Unfortunately, all I have is what I quoted for you.
I haven’t actually used this line of reasoning yet, so I don’t know if they will argue this way or not. Gengwall encouraged me to be prepared as much as possible for how they might reply, rather than my usual ready, fire, aim approach 🙂
You have given some good food for thought.
I think the comps I fellowship with could see it more as you have indicated (if I understand you correctly). This would be
1 Cor 11
a)Adam first, then Eve b) Men have authority over women c) head covering
1 Tim 2
a)Adam first, then Eve b) Men have authority over women c)women shouldn’t teach from an authoritative position.
This would make head covering on a par with women not teaching. Both are indirect and so it must be considered whether both could be cultural.
This could help with the “women not teaching” part.
Of course, your other points are also helpful. Thanks

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.

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.

Hi Gengwall,
I think the sort of things you are saying @112 and @113 is why I don’t find very many evangelical Christians holding to the truly traditional “more easily deceived” position. As I understand it, the truly traditional interpretation is that women as a gender, beginning with Eve, have always been and will always be more easily deceived by Satan and false teaching than men. This doesn’t make sense biblically or experientially. Do you find many people who really believe this now?
Most comps I strike don’t believe this, and CBMW as I understand them don’t believe this. They have worked out some more palatable views of 1 Tim 2:13,14.
I am not sure that I understand your point about Webb’s view. I don’t think Webb sees Paul as refuting or promoting women’s deceptiveness. Webb sees Paul as just giving appropriate instructions for a situation that existed at the time. He believes that at that point in time in that particular place the women were more easily deceived and so shouldn’t be teaching. He is not refuting or promoting their deceptiveness, but saying they shouldn’t teach while they are in that condition. This view certainly has its problems, but I am not sure that I understand the problem you are seeing.
I think you would agree that Eve was “more easily deceived” than Adam in the Garden. She did not have the same knowledge and experience at that point in time as what Adam had. Webb is just saying the same sort of thing about women in Ephesus at that time. Cheryl is saying the same sort of thing about a particular Ephesian woman. I think Cheryl’s view makes the most sense, and will be widely accepted if it can be positively demonstrated and accepted that Paul could have and would have used these Greek words to discuss the problems concerning a particular woman.
I certainly didn’t raise the subject of Webb’s book to promote his understanding of 1 Tim 2. I raised it to discuss the method of using hermeneutics to show the deficiencies in the comp view of not just 1 Tim 2, but patriarchy in general.

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.

Craig said,

“This would make head covering on a par with women not teaching. Both are indirect and so it must be considered whether both could be cultural.”

I think there’s probably a better way of putting it, though– because there isn’t really any way teaching, or teaching from a position of authority, can be considered a cultural practice in the same way head coverings are. I think it’s not that both women not teaching and women’s head coverings could be cultural– it’s that they are both related to time-and-place specific situations and are thus not universal or unending.

What I mean is that head coverings were time-and-place specific because they were cultural, but the not-teaching prohibition was time-and-place specific because it was related to the education level of a particular woman or women. Both are time-and-place specific, but for different reasons.

Hi Kristen,

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.

@115 Yes that’s the one. Quite common amongst Sydney Anglicans whom I mingle with all the time. It saves them from the problems of the traditional “easily deceived” view, but as you say, suffers from the problem of not being in Genesis at all without some very fancy footwork. Some admit that this sin of Eve’s is secondary but can’t see that it is really not there at all.
The ones I know also say that Adam was deceived, but Eve was deceived FIRST. Trouble is, Paul says Adam was NOT deceived. It would seem a better explanation that Adam sinned rebelliously, with knowledge (Hos 6:7) rather than being deceived like Eve.
@116,117 Thanks for helping to clarify things.

“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.

Gengwall– oh yes, The Princess Bride. Vizzini is an excellent example of comp thinking– especially when he keeps saying “Inconceivable!” about things that are not only very conceivable, but have actually happened. . . I like to quote Inigo Montoya when comps start talking about women’s “equality” in terms of equal dignity but permanently subordinate roles. “Why do you keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means.” Or words to that effect.
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.”

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”.

Hi Kristen,
While you are there, I don’t mean to interrupt, but while I think of it, I wouldn’t mind discussing with you at some stage (and anyone else who is interested) a bit more about authority and leadership. No hurry.
In our recent discussion on the Sola Panel Jereth seemed to have a view that authority, responsibility and leadership were similar. This I think is a fairly normal comp view.
Mark seemed to have a different view that authority and responsibility were quite different to leadership. This I think is a fairly normal egal view, and yet he is a comp. So Mark seemed to be hinting that he was quite happy for women to be doing all sorts of leadership things in church and family, as long as they weren’t the ones in “authority” and “responsible” for the results.
Mark said he would be posting later on to expand on this issue, but it could be a long time away now.
Is this the way you understood Mark to be thinking? Do you (or others) have any comments on Mark’s view (if I have it correct)?
Sorry to interrupt your enjoyment of the Princess Bride, I enjoyed that movie to. It was a big hit out in Australia as well. I had never thought how good it was for illustrations!

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.)

Hi Gengwall,
Different Mark. Sorry for the confusion.
Certainly I agree with you that many comps are actually egals in practice when it comes to marriage. The more comp they become in practice, the worse their marriages will be. Many hide the comp part in a very small locked cupboard under the house just in case it is necessary, but in practice, if they have learned to live in marriage the way God has designed, they never have to open the cupboard. If they do have to use it, it is very dusty and smells quite bad.

I think that Mark said on Sola Panel that he didn’t however have the trump card view of authority. I think he sees authority as more like having the overall responsibility.
Some comps seem very reluctant to say that women are “leading” men, even when this in fact is what they are doing. They emphasize how men are to lead and women are to submit and follow and support etc.
Mark seemed quite happy to say that women could lead men in lots of ways, but just they are not responsible – my wife said that sounds like a pretty good deal 🙂

Just a couple of quotes from Mark on the Sola Panel (not Mark from Cheryl’s blog) to fill you in:

First, I don’t collapse the authority of a public office into the ability to lead all kinds of people to God. People can do that very well without holding those offices.
Second, and related to that, I don’t go with the idea that maleness involves leading and femaleness submission.

Do I think women can have leadership in the church and it would benefit?  Yes.  But ‘leadership’ is not the same as ‘authority’ for me.  And you can look at Kristen’s distinction between the Father having primacy and him having authority to see something analogous on that.  Often the influential leaders in a group aren’t the ones with the authority.  The Jensen brothers senior arguably were the two most influential leaders in the Sydney Diocese when they were a rector of a parish church and the principal of Moore – of which neither position had much direct authority over how the Diocese was run. That distinction needs more attention in this debate, in my view as well.

Doesn’t sound reasonable to me.

In my view of leadership, it involves guardianship, a type of overseeing, and a stepping before in areas the leader is knowledgeable in. This is very much like a guide. You want to go hiking in an area you’ve never been in before. Do we think our gender makes the difference in who should be the guide? Most people recognize that they would be wise to choose a guide (whether male or female) who was most knowledgeable of the area and most experienced and skilled in the terrain, animals, weather, etc.

In spiritual matters God calls and equips the persons He knows are best suited and then matures them into the knowledge and skills they need. This is just another reason why it is plain nutsy to assign someone just newly a believer to be any kind of leader in the church. It is especially nutsy choosing a man just because he’s male over a mature woman with knowledge and experience.

In the same way, to say that one can lead without authority is a mistaken view of authority. Worldly authority carries privileges to command and demand with little accountability. This is reasonable on some corporate levels, because the business is owned by the main person in charge. But as Christians we don’t own anything to do with our ministries. Our authority is different. Our authority is power and ability to lead a righteous life, to lead also by example, and to speak knowing what we are talking about because we have experienced it. Any believer who effectively (not by reason of granted privileges) leads people toward a more righteous life indeed does so in the authority of the Holy Spirit. There is no authority higher, more powerful, more responsible and more demanding of the person leading.

Hi TL,
I like your hiking illustration.

Craig,
Yes, that is the way Mark on Sola Panel seemed to be viewing authority. What he seemed to be saying is that women could lead, but not have authority– which logically translates to women’s leadership being a sort of beta-wolf leadership, under the alpha male wolf (if you don’t mind the analogy). In other words, the one responsible for the outcome must ultimately be the one in charge. Any leadership women would have would be delegated leadership. That is, they could be gifted to lead and could do any leadership that the one in authority permitted them to do– but ultimately, their leadership would have to be under his control. They could not be allowed to lead outside the scope he had granted– otherwise, how could he be responsible for the results? If an under-leader did step out from under her authority tp do something he wouldn’t want her to do, then she would be at fault– but he is the one ultimately calling the shots.
The way Mark appears to see it is kind of like the way things work with my boss at work. He gives me a lot of latitude to do my job– but he is the one who sets the perameters, and I must stay within the boundaries of his delegation. Because I’m a paralegal and he’s a lawyer, that means I can, in my own discretion, interview clients and collect data from them, draft legal documents using that data, and research and follow court procedures in the course of my work. Ultimately, though, I can’t do anything he hasn’t given me the power to do, and I can’t practice law– I can’t advise clients, send out a document I have drafted without his approval, and so on. He may consult me on office systems and policies, but he’s the one who has the final say on what systems get used and what policies get set.
So Mark’s view of women’s leadership, as far as I can see, still does contain that trump-card idea– it’s just that he doesn’t want us to notice.

“it’s just that he doesn’t want us to notice.”

This is in effect the impression I get when hierarchical minded men try to say how beneficial it is for women to be under men’s “protective” leadership, not having to be so responsible, not having so much stress, etc. It’s rather like the wolf in sheep’s clothing presenting presents so that the poor women will willingly accept the gifts that will bring her soul death.

Yes– in effect, because her leadership is always accountable to his authority, she can get “in trouble” with him if she does something that has less than perfect results. The way this often works out in practice is that he may take responsibility publicly, but he also blames her privately for anything that goes wrong.

“and I can’t practice law” – I reckon you’d make a pretty sharp lawyer Kristen. I wouldn’t want to be on the opposing side 🙂

*bows* thank you, kind sir. 🙂
I never really wanted to be a lawyer, though. I prefer the supporting role– as long as I’m not told it’s God’s will that since I’m a woman, it’s the only role I’m allowed!
I didn’t go to law school, because what I really wanted was to have kids and work part-time– but that was my choice, not a role imposed on me by anyone else.

So am I correct here do you think:
Comp position 1 (eg Mark):
Women leading men is ok, but only under the authority of men.
Comp position 2 (eg Jereth):
Women shouldn’t lead or exercise authority over men.
I’m just thinking aloud (possibly not very clearly!) how they would see different scriptures for their positions and some possible problems for them.
In comp position 1, do they still see the “role reversal” thing, or “going against the created order” as the “secondary sin”? Or would Eve be off the hook because she led but didn’t go against Adam’s authority- ie he was ok with it. Am I making sense or do I need to put my brain back in properly? 🙂

Ok, I’m going to try to throw out a few thoughts here, off the top of my head. I’m not sure how clear they will be.
I think Mark’s view, as he’s expressing it above, demonstrates a very simplistic understanding of the historical context. He says patriarchy is a “philosophy” (I assume he means a “system”) and patriarchal marriage, slavery and the parent-child relationship were all patriarchal in nature. Then he says that egalitarians believe Paul’s purpose was to subvert the practices of patriarchal marriage and slavery from within– but that in saying this, we ignore the parent-child relationship, which is also authority-based.
In order to say this, Mark appears to be defining “patriarchal” as meaning “based on the authority of one person over another.” But that’s not what “patriarchy” means– particularly as it was expressed in the 1st-century Roman Empire. “Patriarchy” in the Roman Empire meant a system of “households” which were different from our modern nuclear families. A “household” was an economic unit ruled by a patriarch– the “pater familias” who was the ruler of his wife, grown children, their children, and his slaves. It is a modern misconception to think that the only “children” who were being addressed in Ephesians 5 were minors.
(to be continued)

(continuing from above)
Mark appears, then to be switching the real meaning of patriarchy with “relationships containing authority.” As you already pointed out, Craig, he starts with an apples-and-oranges comparison of “marriage” with “slavery,” where the true comparison would either be “marriage” with “economic relationships where one person works for another” OR “patriarchal rule in marriage” with “master-rule in slavery.” He then wants to say that the Bible’s approach to patriarchal marriage and patriarchal slavery was different– that there is evidence that slavery was not meant to be a permanent thing, while marriage (and therefore patriarchal marriage) was intended to be permanent. And the reason he appears to want to give for this is that parental authority over children is naturally a permanent thing. But he’s slipping in “marriage equals patriarchal marriage” as an unchallenged assumption.
(to be continued)

But let’s do an apples-to-apples comparison instead of an apples-to-oranges.
Paul is talking about three basic relationships: the relationship where two humans unite to produce children, the relationship where two or more humans unite to accomplish an economic goal, and the relationship where one or two adults and one or more children unite to accomplish the goal of bringing the child to adulthood. Patriarchy approached each of these relationships with the idea that all the power was to be concentrated in the hands of one central human male, with other human males (his adult sons) given some delegated power, and everyone else (women, slaves and minor children) having no power at all.
Given that idea, one can say without any inconsistency at all that Paul’s goal was to teach a new way of approaching ALL THREE of these relationships such that power was shared. The human males in whose hands the power was concentrated, were told to act like Christ in laying down their lives for their wives, treating their slaves with humility, and not exasperating their children. The ones without power were told to respond by yielding (for wives) and obeying (for slaves and children). By making this differentiation, Paul is acknowledging the economic nature of the slave relationship (that in an economic production unit, someone has to be in charge), and also the economic nature of the father-child relationship where the children are adult males working for the “company” (which was the household). But the nature of the wife relationship is not economic, but one of intimacy and oneness– and Paul seeks to restore the oneness God intended in marriage, partly through the use of that word “submit” (“yield”) instead of “obey.
(to be continued)
(To be continued)

(continued)
For the relationship of parent to minor child, Paul also exhorts obedience– in this case because the child is not ready for adult responsibilities. But the fathers are to lay down power in that relationship as well.
What Paul is NOT doing is saying that any and all authority in relationships is bad. But he IS saying that in authority relationships, those in power are to look on those under their power as of full, equal value and dignity. This would tend, over time, to subvert patriarchy– where power was concentrated in the hands of a male– in favor of more balanced-power relationships, such as our current employer-employee relationships, or modern parent-child relationships where the state views the children as having fundamental rights which the parents cannot violate with impunity.
Given this context, then, the egalitarian can easily agree with Mark that the Bible– including this Eph. 5 passage– treats marriage differently than the other two relationships. But “marriage” does not have to mean “marriage in which patriarchy remains intact” any more than “an economic relationship where one person works for another” has to mean “slavery.” Marriage is an intimate relationship between two people, in which (in Paul’s time) all the power was concentrated in the hands of the male. Take power out of the hands of the male and share half of it with the female– and you have not changed the fundamental nature of marriage itself; you have only changed its patriarchal structure. It is MARRIAGE, not PATRIARCHAL marriage, which the Bible treats as a special, God-given relationship from the beginning of the creation of humanity. It is not inconsistent for Paul to seek to remove the male-power structure from this relationship at the same time he seeks to remove the male-power structure from slavery and parenthood (which I think he does), while at the same time treating marriage as something unique among all other relationships.
(to be continued)

So, given the above– what is it about the parent-child relationship that makes it still necessary for minor children to obey their parents? The fact is that in this relationship, the necessity for obedience still exists, due to the nature of minor children. It is not inconsistent for egalitarians to acknowledge this as a fact, while also acknowledging that the partriarchal system in which adult children were still supposed to obey the pater familias, was unnecessary, has now passed away and there is no need to go back to it. Similarly, the need still exists in an economic relationship for the worker to obey the business owner– but the old structure that gave the owner absolute power over the life and personhood of the worker, was unnecessary, has now passed away, and there is no need to go back to it. In marriage, the power structure that gave the male the power over the female is unnecessary, has passed away– and yet the church still clings to it and tries in every way to restore it. That is what the egalitarian objects to– not legitimate use of authority in necessary ways acknowledged by society, but illegitimate use of ancient forms of power that are now viewed as unjust by society– the perpetuation of which ends up damaging the gospel of Christ, in Whom we are supposed to be set free.

Thanks so much again Kristen for so many helpful thoughts. #140 seems a great summary. I have been very busy today, but I hope by the weekend to have some time to process properly what Mark is trying to say and the thoughts you have given in response, and then I will write back to him.
Anyone else who has any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

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.

“the perpetuation of which ends up damaging the gospel of Christ, in Whom we are supposed to be set free.”

Yes, gender hierarchalists not only miss this they never comment on it. In Christ all believers are set free from the power of sin in all its forms of bondage in order to become and mature into the example of Christ Jesus doing the same works that He did. It is not only men that get to mature to be like Jesus and women are to mature to be like Mary. Rather all are to do the same works of the Holy spirit and more as the Holy Spirit guides us.

Hi Kristen,
Do you mind if I send your response to Mark? I will just add a few of my own thoughts and send it to him on Saturday if that’s ok. I will let you know his response.

Just to clarify. I will let him know its from you. I wouldn’t claim it as my own- I’m sure he would know I was cheating 🙂

Craig,
Yes, you can send him my answer– but please soften this:

“I think Mark’s view, as he’s expressing it above, demonstrates a very simplistic understanding of the historical context”

To something more like, “I think Mark’s view of the historical context oversimplifies.”

I want to show that I respect him, and I wouldn’t want to imply any insult.

Thanks!

I admire your patience in dialogue Kristen. Usually I’ve a lot of patience but every now and then someone really challenges it. Guess it keeps me reminded of my human vulnerabilities. 🙂

Hah. There have been plenty of people who have pushed my buttons good and proper, and I have responded by getting very upset. Do you remember the Evangelical Village blog we all visited last year? I didn’t make a very good showing there as a rational or patient person! When they treated me as if I didn’t exist, I responded by “screaming” loudly. (grin)
So don’t sell yourself short, TL. Mark and I came to some sort of understanding, for some reason, that he didn’t come to with you– so he treats me better than he treats you, and he doesn’t push my buttons. I’m not even sure why. But I’m not more patient than you– I just seem to be able to talk to Mark.

Gracious woman, you are …. says Youda! 🙂

Craig,

I think your arguments are terrific, I agree with all of them and I wouldn’t change a thing.

Thanks for your encouragement, Kristen. I’ll let you know when Mark responds.

When is Cheryl returning. I really miss her! 🙁

Same for me, and I am sure for all of us. I do hope she has been able to get some much needed rest and refreshment from the Lord.

No word from Mark yet.

Craig, since we last wrote to one another, I learned some things that relate directly to our Sola Panel discussions and the issue of slavery.

I recently found on CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality), a link to this 34-page essay by egalitarian leader Kevin Giles. It was written in response to a complementarian conference he attended in Melbourne, Australia in October 2010. As I read this over, it became increasingly clear to me that the attitudes of the Sola Panel contributors (that egalitarians were all “liberals” who had abandoned a high view of Scripture because we just didn’t want to obey the plain sense of the Bible with regards to women’s roles) were a direct result of that conference.

Kevin Giles addresses directly the attitude that complementarians have some sort of moral high ground with regards to reading the Bible, which egalitarians have supposedly abandoned. I found his words very heartening.

Looking at this pro-slavery treatise, especially on and after page 45, you will see the following arguments (these are summaries, not direct quotes):

That the Church has traditionally, for 1800 years prior to the the current age, supported slavery.

That the plain sense of the Scriptures is pro-slavery.

That the problem is not the institution of slavery, but the abuse of it by some men.

That those who oppose slavery are bowing to the godlessness of their own modern culture.

That the African race is designed by God to be under the white race, as can be proved in the book of Genesis, and is happiest when it embraces that design.

Also look at this source. The main argument here is that slavery was normative in the Bible and therefore should be considered divinely sanctioned today.

Sorry, the first source I meant to link didn’t get linked. Here it is:

Thanks Kristen for this information.

egalitarians were all “liberals” who had abandoned a high view of Scripture because we just didn’t want to obey the plain sense of the Bible with regards to women’s roles

One of speakers at the conference, Martin Pakula, contributed on the Sola Panel just after this conference and seemed to be advocating this view in the discussion.
Some from my church have spoken highly of the talks from this conference. Thanks for the link to Kevin Giles’ comments.
Thanks also for the links and your comments about slavery.

Hi Kristen and others who may be interested in a response from Mark B to #150.
Mark just sent me an email to apologize for not replying earlier. He has been busy with other priorities but he hopes to get on to it this week.

Craig,

Mark’s post is interesting but makes me a little sad. Especially the way he appears to view Jesus– his words about Jesus as his Lord seem to coincide with those of Peter when he said, “Lord, you shall never wash my feet!” But Jesus apparently thought it necessary to act as if he were Peter’s lowly slave, in order for Peter to understand what Jesus had come to do. But I’m mostly sad because Mark still seems blind to the fact that women, just like slaves, were meant by God to become fully functioning, full-status individuals in the Kingdom. And his point of view represents something deeply entrenched in the church as a whole. How long, O Lord?

At any rate, I will come up with a reply, but it will take me some time.

It is always sad for me to see yet another man who views life as given by God to be all about who has authority and who doesn’t. Then, of course, there is the question of how to exercise that authority and how those under it are to respect it, honor it, and yield to it even obey it. But seldom do they question that foundation.

Thanks Kristen and TL for reading and thinking about all of this material. I really appreciate any thoughts you or others have, whether they be on just one small point, or on all that Mark has written.

“To say that the whole church got it wrong for two thousand years about something so ethically important is a big claim.”

This is not really a valid concern. Humanity has gotten so much so wrong for so long, its really a wonder we get much right. Even with the presence of the Holy Spirit in the sacred temple, God’s people were doing much wrong, much from selfishness. Only the priest had a real inspiration to keep pure, since they’d lose their lives when they went into the Holy place if they weren’t right with God. But its our sinful nature to fool ourselves into accepting as much wrong behavior as we can get away with. That leaves a lot of social behavior as open for gaming. And we do. I always find it amazing how much our leaders can get away with doing while still remaining in positions of leadership.

Holiness of heart, intent, and thought are really the last battlegrounds. Yet, it is from there that all our actions proceed.

Interesting!

I think Mark needs to re-read Ephesians 5-6. To claim that Paul is NOT suggesting big challenges to the then understanding of slavery/master and parent/child relationships is plain wrong. To tell slaves to submit to their masters freely as to the Lord and to then tell the masters to treat their slaves in the same way IS A BIG DEAL!! For fathers to be told not to exasperate their children – A BIG DEAL!!

With respect (well…a little bit, perhaps) I think Mark is once again relying on longwinded but not well thought through arguments. I think what Paul wrote to a society that was patriarchal about marriage makes perfect sense for someone who was trying to introduce egal thinking – not reinforce patriarchal thinking. I have no doubt that the Ephesians understood marriage as patriarchal – which is exactly why Paul said what he did.

Mark also needs to go back to the beginning of Eph 5 where Paul tells everyone to imitate Christ who gave his life for others. This coupled with his statement that we should submit to one another are very radical statements to make in a patriarchal society. It is no wonder that he felt he needed to emphasise the point to husbands, slave owners and parents. BUT – how does emphasising the point to them somehow negate it?

How we can turn things on their head!

Hi TL,
@165

“To say that the whole church got it wrong for two thousand years about something so ethically important is a big claim.”
This is not really a valid concern.

I agree that this argument carries little weight. Many individuals, groups, denominations, if not all Christians for varying amounts of time throughout history have got some pretty important issues wrong.
Am I correct in thinking that it is only fairly recently (in terms of 2000 years) that Christians have generally been willing to at least say that women are not inferior to men- that they are equal in value? Haven’t they generally been thought of as more easily deceived? Yet I don’t think Mark would say that women are inferior and that they are more easily deceived.
I think there would be things taught at Moore Theological College (where I think Mark studied) that have only been really accepted within the last few centuries if not less.

Hi Craig,

It wasn’t always that way with God’s people. But at various times in world history, humans have devalued women. It influenced the people of God in how they read Scriptures. Women were thought to be mentally inferior, to be created as sexual beings for the benefit of men, to produce children, to please men and so forth. There are some devastatingly cruel and arrogant things Christian and Jewish men have written about women in history.

Yet, rather relevant to how the Holy Spirit has always had a remnant who could be reached, there have always been a remnant of men and women who viewed women with respect and honor. And that goes with anything imbalanced I imagine. There were always people in the world who saw through racism of various kinds, gender prejudices and so forth. Women were preaching in the 1800’s and before, writing books, being evangelists, etc. even while generally they were not allowed to get an education. There are stories of women like Thecla (not many years after Christ ascended) who were amazing ministers of God’s Word in spite of those who thought them indecent to do so.

Thanks TL.
What I was trying to think of was an example where Mark himself would agree that the church was generally wrong for “x” number of years and so the argument he is using is not valid. Just because something has been generally believed by the church for “x” number of years doesn’t make it right.
I have heard it said that comps like Mark really aren’t that traditional themselves because even his view of women is different (and better) than the church has traditionally believed. They say how new the egal view is but there are aspects to the traditional view that even they can’t swallow and have therefore changed.
Of course, throughout history, as you say, I am sure that the Holy Spirit has been doing amazing things through remnants that aren’t bound by the traditions of men.

Craig– one example is the “divine right of kings.”

Mark said,

“what is going on is the reshaping of authority to be used as an exercise of service to those under authority rather than as a lording over them. My question here is – does Jesus model the kind of way of using authority that Kristen is speaking about here? Does he use it with humility? does he lay down his life, does he not exasperate us? And would she (and you) be happy with describing that as Jesus ‘laying down power’ in his relationship with us? 
I certainly wouldn’t be happy to use such language about the one I call Lord. And yet he is the model, and I don’t see it as a model of laying down power, but of using it in a servant way.”

But is Paul really reshaping authority so it is service rather than lording over? I think the same question arises in Matt 20:24-28.
Mark is rightly concerned with how the readers of the time would have understood what is said in the bible. A servant had no authority over anyone he served. Wouldn’t an exercise of service be viewed as an exercise that wasn’t with authority. When Jesus washed the disciples feet and calls us to serve one another, submit to one another, be as slaves to one another, he is not telling us how to exercise authority. Christians at that time would have understood that serving others had nothing to do with authority.
I am happy to describe Jesus as “laying down power” Phil 2. Isn’t this central to what Jesus did for us on the cross? He is the King of the universe, but He laid down His power, “made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, humbling himself.”
Do others have the same sort of response to this comment of Mark’s? Is this where you were heading Kristen @162? I look forward to your further comments as you have the time.

Mark said,

For me, 5:22 and 5:24 can’t be reconciled to an egalitarian understanding. Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord, and as the church submits to Christ in everything so wives are to their husbands. Are there two kinds of submission that we offer to the Lord? One where he does not have authority, and one where he does? And if so, how do we distinguish between them? And if not, how can we submit to someone as to the Lord, and yet that not indicate authority? How would such words have been understood by an overwhelming patriarchal society with no pre-existent concept of egalitarianism?

Does anyone have any comments on this? Thanks.

Thanks Kristen for #170.

As Christ says in Matt. 20:26-28, the point is to NOT exercise authority over others, RATHER we are to serve and become freely committed slaves in serving the Body of Christ.

@ Craig, #172.

I would like to comment that Mark has assumed that when the church submits to Christ it does so because of authority – Christ’s authority. As I have argued many times, submission does not dictate authority. Add to this the words of Jesus in John 15:14-15 and we are reminded that Jesus does not see his relationship with us as one of master/servant, but friends. In saying this I am not denying who Jesus is, though scripture does not suggest he has authority but rather that he is above all authority (Eph 1:21) and the origin of all authroity (Col 1:15-19, 2:10). Jesus does not need authority…he invented it!

Now Paul might have been talking to an overwhelmingly patriarchal society at this point, but they were also a church and I assume they understood to some degree the relationship Jesus has with his brother and sisters (Eph 1:4-5, 5:1&8).

I don’t think Mark can reconcile these passages to an egal argument because he has not listened to an egal argument!

Hi Dave,
Thanks for #172. I always appreciate your comments. Thanks for being willing to “argue many times” because I am a bit slow and each time it sinks in a bit better and I appreciate a different angle.
We are studying Galatians at church at the moment. I wonder if the comp view of our relationship with Christ is a bit like law vs grace. Submitting to the Lord is viewed as the obligation of complete obedience of a slave to the all powerful master rather a loving, voluntary, joyful response to all that Christ has done in His love and grace.

Sorry Dave, I meant thanks for #175.

“I wonder if the comp view of our relationship with Christ is a bit like law vs grace. Submitting to the Lord is viewed as the obligation of complete obedience of a slave to the all powerful master rather a loving, voluntary, joyful response to all that Christ has done in His love and grace.”

That would help to explain some of their legalistic tendencies.

Just thinking aloud. Why do you think Paul said in 5:21
Submit to one another “out of reverence (or fear) of Christ” rather than “out of love, thankfulness, joy in our relationship with Christ”?

Craig,

thinking out loud back. I suspect it has something to do with God’s great gift of salvation. He has graced us so much. It is only reasonable that we seek to be more like Him, extend grace to one another without demanding anything in return, such as obedience or anything really. Christ does not demand obedience to Himself. He encourages strongly for us to obey the truth, become holy, do good toward one another.

Thanks TL, but unless I am not following you I am not sure that this answers my “wonderings”. I am wondering why Paul chose “fear of Christ” rather than as a “loving response to God’s grace”as the motivation for submitting to one another. Maybe I am contrasting these too much?
Dave commented how “Jesus does not see his relationship with us as one of master/servant, but friends”.
If Dave is correct and this is the aspect of the relationship with Jesus that Paul is emphasizing when he tells wives to submit to husbands as to the Lord, why would he not say in v21 submit to one another out of “friendship with Christ” rather than out of “fear of Christ”?

I note that in the Greek verse 21 actually says “Be subject to one another in fear of God”, not Jesus. This goes some way to helping us…I guess! Paul is not asking us to submit as a result of our relationship with the Son, but with God (Godhead? The Father?). It follows on from verse 20 that tells us to give thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I preached on Matthew 10:26-33 this morning. Jesus tells us not to fear men who can only(!) kill the body, but rather be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Thats God, by the way!

As Proverbs 9:10 reminds us, the Fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom. 1 JOhn 4:18 reminds us that [perfect love drives out all fear.

I guess Paul talked in terms of fear, but in the context of a letter that speaks about God’s perfect love in Jesus Christ (Eph 1:4-10, 5:1-2). But it all starts with a fear of the Lord, otherwise Grace is meaningless.

Must be one of those variant reading thingies because one Greek text I looked up says “God” and another says “Christ”. KJV has “God”. NIV, ESV, NASB have “Christ”.

Hmmmm…. perhaps it is. I will check it out and get back to you.

It is nice to visit this lovely forum again!

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.

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.

Westcott-Hort/Netle-Aland actually have Christos instead of Theo. That’s weird. Scripture4all.org has Theo. They are using the Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus edition. The said:

“One should also recognize that NO printed Receptus Greek text edition agrees 100% with the aggregate Byzantine manuscript tradition (Majority/Traditional Text), nor with the Greek text presumed to underlie the Authorized Version. However, all printed Receptus texts DO approximate the Byzantine Textform closely enough (around 98% agreement) to claim a near-identity of reading between those Receptus forms and the majority of all manuscripts.”

Just thinking about an inconsistency I see in the comp position and wondering how to express it best. Any thoughts to correct or improve it are welcome.
In the culture of the day a servant/slave had no authority and was under the authority of his master. If the word “slave” was used, people thought of one under authority.
Yet Comps can usually accept that one can serve someone else without implying being under the authority of the one being served.
If someone is said to be a servant of someone else in the bible, or commanded to serve someone else in the bible, or we are commanded to serve one other Gal 5:13 no thought of being under authority comes to mind. We may think of it as voluntarily giving of ourselves to meet the needs of others. We think of this as something all Christians should do- male or female.
Similarly, comps argue that in the culture of the day if someone submits to someone else, then it means that this person is under the authority of the one being submitted to.
Why is “submission” treated differently to “service”?
Why is it that if one submits to someone else, it implies being under the authority of the one being submitted to?
Why is it that if someone is said to submit to someone else in the bible, or commanded to submit to someone else in the bible, or we are commanded to submit to one another Eph 5:21 the thought of being under authority immediately comes to mind. Why does it seem so unthinkable that it could be voluntarily yielding of our own desires to put others first and meet their needs Phil 2:3,4. Why can’t we think of this as something all Christians should do- male or female?
Just hypothetically, what would comps think if after Galatians 5:13, Paul had written
“Wives, “serve” your husbands as you “serve” the Lord. As the church “serves” Christ, so also wives should “serve” their husbands in everything.” Would they limit Gal 5:13 as just those under authority are to serve those in authority over them? Would it mean that husbands did not need to serve their wives? Would it without doubt mean that husbands are in authority over their wives, just as Christ is over the church?

Craig,
You might find useful/interesting some of Mark’s recent comments on the Sola Panel discussion “Choosing the hill to die on.”

Westcott-Hort/Netle-Aland actually have Christos instead of Theo. That’s weird. Scripture4all.org has Theo. They are using the Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus edition. The said:

🙂

Why is it that if one submits to someone else, it implies being under the authority of the one being submitted to?
Why is it that if someone is said to submit to someone else in the bible, or commanded to submit to someone else in the bible, or we are commanded to submit to one another Eph 5:21 the thought of being under authority immediately comes to mind. Why does it seem so unthinkable that it could be voluntarily yielding of our own desires to put others first and meet their needs Phil 2:3,4. Why can’t we think of this as something all Christians should do- male or female?
Just hypothetically, what would comps think if after Galatians 5:13, Paul had written
“Wives, “serve” your husbands as you “serve” the Lord. As the church “serves” Christ, so also wives should “serve” their husbands in everything.” Would they limit Gal 5:13 as just those under authority are to serve those in authority over them? Would it mean that husbands did not need to serve their wives? Would it without doubt mean that husbands are in authority over their wives, just as Christ is over the church?

lol

Hi Pinklight,
I hope “lol” means that you thought the reasoning of #189 was ok. I just sent something with similar reasoning to Mark B. I thought it may be easier to deal with one thing at a time from the very long email @161. How are you going Kristen? Are you still planning on replying to Mark?

Yeah, Craig I was just observing your reasoning and questioning. It’s good 🙂

I checked both of my Greek NT editions and they both have Christ, not God for 5:21. In case people are not aware, these NTs both have notes on any textal variant worth mentioning, for which they then list the manuscripts containing the various variants. This allows the reader to determine which might be the original. The reason I keep two editions is the older edition sometimes has variants that are now no longer considered worth mentioning.

Well, both editions have Christ and neither have any referance to a variant they consider worth mentioning. This very strongly suggests that the original is considered Christ, and has been for the past 40 years.

By the way, there is a committee who decide what is and is not worth mentioning. They provide notes for their decisions and how they made them. For them to not even mention ‘God’ as an option suggests a very strong case for accepting ‘CHrist’.

So if this is the case…perhaps someone would like to clarify why Paul exhorted the Ephesians to submit to one another out of fear of Christ!

Thanks Pinklight @194.
Hey Dave. Good question @196 🙂 I was hoping you would have the answer and I could sit back and enjoy!

Just thinking aloud.
2 problems in the church (and culture):
1. Abusive authority. Submission in fear of man. Corrected by “not in the fear of man, but in the fear of Christ”.
2. Only unidirectional submission. Corrected by “one another”.

Ahhh, if only CHeryl was here!

I enjoyed your ponderings Craig. Sorry I cannot answer the questions.

I your ponderings you mentioned that Christ is in authority over the church. I have done a bit of a search and cannot find scripture where it says Jesus in authority over the church. Can comeone help me?

I did find that Jesus is the origin of all authority.
I found that Peter describes the supreme authority we should submit to is the emperor!
I found in Corinthians that one day Jesus will destroy all authority.
I found that while on earth the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins.

I wonder how much we miss if we see Jesus as an authority figure as opposed to the source of all authority. I think there is a difference.

Just another question for you Craig. For too long you have been the asker…! 🙂

“How are you going Kristen? Are you still planning on replying to Mark?”

I have not gotten anything ready yet. It took him almost a month to get back to us. I figure it won’t hurt him to wait a bit. (grin)

Hi Dave,
“In your ponderings you mentioned that Christ is in authority over the church.”
Where did I actually ponder that Dave? Not saying I didn’t, I just don’t remember it. Maybe I am at that age…….

Hi Dave,

I have done a bit of a search and cannot find scripture where it says Jesus in authority over the church. Can comeone help me?

Jesus gives us commands to us (an indication of authority), and after saying that all authority had been given to Him in Matt 28:18 he commands the disciples to go therefore…

Hi Kristen,
Are there any single issues that Mark raises that you would like to discuss here first, or would you prefer to wait and do one single reply when you are ready?

Craig, it was in your ponderings at the bottom of 189, “Would it without doubt mean that husbands are in authority over their wives, just as Christ is over the church?”.

Yeah, commands are an indication of authority, and Jesus does command us as his disciples. But where does he command the church? As individuals we are not the church.

I guess where I am going is, if we believe there are some similarities between husbands and wives and Christ and the Church (which is scriptural), then what do we do with authority if CHrist exercises authority over the church? I guess I want to first ask if Jesus does exercise authority over the church.

Think of the picture of the church from Rev 22:17…the Church works in unison with the Spirit, if not now, then in the future. Is it really a relationship of authority, or rather one of working together as we conform to the likeness of Christ (Rom 12)?

PLease don’t hear me wrong. As Jesus is the origin of all authority he has all power and dominion…but it this how he relates to his bride?

Just thinking out loud…because I have time at the moment!

“I guess where I am going is, if we believe there are some similarities between husbands and wives and Christ and the Church (which is scriptural), then what do we do with authority if CHrist exercises authority over the church?”

We have to stick with the metaphor that Paul gave: the husband is “head” of the wife as Christ is “head” of the church. That means that the husband as “head” cannot be different towards his wife than what Christ is towards the church as its “head.” It does NOT mean the husband can take on other roles of Christ towards the church than “head.”
Christ is “Lord” of the church (which definitely entails authority), but “head” as used in Ephesians is not synonymous with “lord.” Christ is the Object of worship of the church– but “head” as used in Ephesians is not synonymous with “object of worship.” Husbands must not appropriate other roles than “head” when it comes to their wives– and Ephesians itself identifies what “head” means. It has to do with being the source of growth and provision (as per Eph. 4). It has to do with going down to the church’s level and raising her up to be “seated” with Him above all other things (per Eph. 1). But “head” as used throughout Ephesians is simply not about an authority-subordinate relationship. “Lord” has that meaning, but husbands are never told they are “lord” of their wives.
As far as I can see, the issue is not that Christ is not in authority over the church. The issue is that being “head” is not about authority.

When I said,
“But “head” as used throughout Ephesians is simply not about an authority-subordinate relationship,” I was referring to “head” as related to “body.” As the “body,” the church is raised up to be WITH Christ– it is everything else that is under His feet. The husband is to raise his wife up to be beside him in authority– not to consider her under his feet.

Craig said,

“Are there any single issues that Mark raises that you would like to discuss here first, or would you prefer to wait and do one single reply when you are ready?”
Right now I don’t know whether or not I want to discuss anything. As I formulate my reply, I might raise an issue or two here. I certainly will want you all to respond to what I say before anything gets sent to Mark.
Thanks for asking!

Hi Kristen,

I was not sticking to the metaphor that Paul makes, because scripture provides more on the metaphor than what Paul does in Ephesians. I agree with what you said in relation to what Paul says in Ephesians.

I accept that Christ is Lord of each of us in the church, but where are we told that he is Lord over the church, or Lord of the church?

You said, “It has to do with going down to the church’s level and raising her up to be “seated” with Him above all other things (per Eph. 1). ”
If this is the case, then how is Jesus Lord over her?

I see in John 15 Jesus telling his disciples to love each other – a new commandment. Thus he would appear in authority over them, and yet it is the command that he himself has obeyed and involves laying down your life – even to the point of death. He asks us to submit as he has submitted.

You said, “As the “body,” the church is raised up to be WITH Christ– it is everything else that is under His feet. The husband is to raise his wife up to be beside him in authority– not to consider her under his feet.”
Once again, I am not sure where this leaves us with Christ being in authority over the church. The church partners with Christ in his work, as indeed Eve was to do with Adam.

Not meaning to be a pain, but I have never thought this through all the way before. I am getting more questions than answers!

Dave

Sorry Dave- just to add to your questions. How can Jesus be Lord over each of us individually and not be Lord of us collectively as the church?

Hi Dave,
You said

Craig, it was in your ponderings at the bottom of 189, “Would it without doubt mean that husbands are in authority over their wives, just as Christ is over the church?”.

Just to clarify. That bit was not actually my ponderings. I was rather hoping that if I said this to a comp it would make him ponder. They believe that husbands are in authority over their wives, just as they believe Christ is in authority over the church. I was hoping that when I write this to a comp it would make him question whether this is really what Paul is saying. I don’t think it is what Paul is saying. I don’t think the issue of Christ’s authority over the church is on the agenda in Eph 5. We have to look at the rest of the bible on that one. What about the letters to the churches in Rev 1-3. Do you think they indicate the authority of Christ over the church?
Sorry if I wasn’t clear with #189.

I’m with Kristen on this one. Jesus relates to the Church in a variety of ways. In Ephesians, and in particular in the head/body metaphors, it is addressing just one of these relational paradigms. In that paradigm, there is no authority element. The mistake that people make is to ignore the metaphor and start to assign English meanings to the translated English word “head”. (I’m not saying anyone here is doing that, just that comps often do). But the actual relationship between Christ/husband/head and Church/wife/body within the context of the metaphor can not take on any elements outside of the anatomical head/body relationship. In that literal, physical relationship, authority is non-existent and symbiosis, unity, and equality are the fundimental characteristics. Yes, Christ has some relational paradigms with the church that involve a level of authority. But not this one.

It is this errant blending of Jesus many relationships with the church that often lead to significant problems in our own inter-relational interactions. I will give one very disturbing example.

I once had a person advocate for domestic discipline (physically disciplining of the wife by the husband) by quoting Revelations Rev 3:19 (Jesus speaking to the church at Laodicia) “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” He coupled that with the Ephesians 5 command for husbands to “love” their wives and Jesus’ relatively violent cleansing of the temple in John 2:14-16 as example of a valid form of “rebuke and chasten”. In other words, in his thinking, a valid expression of Ephesians 5 “love” toward ones wife is to “rebuke and chasten her” with a switch to her back side when she is in sin to help her “repent”.

Does anyone here believe for one minute that this is what the Bible teaches? Yet the Revelations passage my friend began with did indeed involve, to a degree, Jesus relationship with the Church. Clearly though, it was a different relationship than Jesus as husband to his bride the Church, is it not?

This is a very clear example of helicopter theology with cut and paste teaching. He pulled things out that contextually had little to do with each other and reformed them into a new doctrine. This is what gender hierarchalists do all the time. They form ‘traditional’ ways of understanding certain verses that believers get accustomed to, so no one really double checks for context.

BTW the Shepherding Movement taught wifely discipline. They chose spanking. Basically, it is viewing the wife as a child that is not allowed to grow up.

We must continue to point out that comps are “cherry picking” only certain attributes of Christ they wish. Most will not claim that God has “placed all things under the HUSBAND’S feet” or that the strength by which wives stand against the wiles of the devil is her husband’s strength. (“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power.” 6:10) And while there are some patriarchists who claim this as part of the husband’s head/Christ “role,” generally comps do not. Which once again illustrates their “cherry picking” method for the attributes of Christ they wish to confer on husbands at the same time ignoring the general context.
The enthronement of Christ dominates the first part of Ephesians. It defines the basis of all that the believers have in their salvation and outlines a powerful ministry in His body. – “The Church, the body of Christ, is already seated in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 2:6) Comps seem to ignore the basis for Paul’s use of the head/body metaphor – unity and growth in the body of Christ. ( Eph.4) “Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” Eph. 5:1-2

Hey Craig, you said, “Just to clarify. That bit was not actually my ponderings. I was rather hoping that if I said this to a comp it would make him ponder.”

I knew that, I was simply saying it was your pondering of what a comp would ponder, as you referred to them as your ponderings! It just got me thinking.

Just to clarify, my ponderings are based on more than simply Ephesians and Paul’s use of head. I am even thinking OT and the likeness of Israel to an adulterous wife and also Song of Songs (I follow Stanley Grenz’s thinking in regards to God also being a God of eros…not sure if I want to go into that right now!).

I am still without a clear cut scripture relating to Jesus as having authority over the church though I would want to clarify that I think there must be a bit of now-not-yet tension going on. In the future all authority will be done away with, and the church should be being prepared now to be the bride in the future. Perhaps this holds the answer?

Also there is the possibility that although Jesus might have authority over the church now, though this is not the relationship he chooses to have with his bride, or perhaps will not have in the future?

Craig, with regards to how Jesus can be our Lord as individuals, but not the church, scripture shows the church as different to individuals. The church has a relationship with Jesus that individuals do not. It is when two or three gather in his name. I am not the bride of Christ. God’s redemption plan was never for just Adam, or just Abraham (or Eve and Sarah even!), but for a people that would number more than the stars in the sky. There is something in the richness of community with Christ as head that is lost as an individual before Christ. I know I am not providing you with an answer as to how exactly, but there is a difference. These are ponderings, remember! Perhaps, indeed it is the same for us now as it is the church, that Jesus has authority over us now, but in the future authority will not be a dynamic in the relationship and we are talking a now-not-yet tension again.

I am not convinced by Revelations (though it was good thinking to bring it up), but I think I have answered enough of my own ponderings (though input would be appreciated). Sorry to have gone on – I was not trying to stress anyone out!

Dave,
It could be the problem lies in our human perception of authority – which when applied to humans is basically all about having the power to enforce rules. God is not losing any sleep over whether or not He has it! A veritable non sequitur.

More “pondering” – so, Jesus has authority “over” the Church. How does He exercise that, what does He do with it? Quoting again “gengwall’s 3 things”: Christ is only ever shown sacrificing, interceding, and serving.

Hey Dave. Good question @196 I was hoping you would have the answer and I could sit back and enjoy!

lol me too! 🙂

Christ does give the disciples as a group, commands. Also he tells the 12 after the Resurrection: “All authority in heaven and earth is given to me. Go you therefore. . . ”
In other words, the Father (who is the source of all authority) has given it all to Christ, who then sends his church out in his authority. The church, then, functions as a partner with Christ, acting in Christ’s authority. As his Body, she is “together” with him in authority, and the passages which describe the “head-body” relationship focus on that togetherness. But I think that Christ has the power to command the church, so authority is implied in that.
But husbands and wives who are Christians are BOTH in the church. I think the complementarians forget that. They act like only husbands are in the church, and the wives are sort of like add-ons. The wife is just as much under the direct authority of Christ as the husband is. It isn’t a heirarchy.
But I think that in the final consummation, when we become “like Him, for we will see Him as He is,” authority will become moot/obsolete. There will be no more need of commands, for our desires will be united with God’s (and yet somehow still be our own).

Anyway– I’m sick today, so that’s all I’ve got. I’m hoping to get a chance to really focus on Mark’s comments this weekend.

Craig,

My response to Mark would be short and to the point. He continues to purposely ignore the voluntary, mutual submission in vs. 21, which also defies any “normal” sense of the Greek word. Paul is clearly going beyond the norm here. Marks “raft of problems” is made moot by vs. 21.

Craig,

Ask him where married men are exempted from Eph. 5:21.(?)
And since Jesus redefined leadership as a form of servanthood, -”You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave” – then how does that servanthood then inexplicably revert back to “having authority over” when applied to the marriage relationship?

Craig,

cont…Especially in light of the fact that the metaphor in Eph. 5 is “head of,” not “head OVER” as in Eph.1:22 (“And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body”)

He may try to ignore the difference…but I doubt he would claim that everything is put under a husband’s feet…

Dave@215,
I emailed you.

Thanks Elaine and Gengwall for your help. I will ask him questions along the lines you propose.
In “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” George Knight (a comp) on p166 describes submission as “voluntary yielding in love”.
He says this comes from BDAG. He actually seems to believe in mutual submission and relates it to Phil 2, Matt 20:26-28, 1 Peter 5:4,5, Eph6:9.
Mark doesn’t seem to agree with this at all. I am not sure how he relates Eph 5:21. As you say Gengwall, he seems to ignore it.

I honestly don’t understand where Mark is getting the idea that egals think “submit” means “put the other first and meet their needs.” “Submit” means “voluntarily yield to.” As such, it can happen whether the person you are voluntarily yield to is in authority, or not. Christians are asked to “voluntarily yield” to government authorities, not to “put them first and meet their needs.” They are also asked to “voluntarily yield” to one another. Because voluntary yielding can be given to someone in authority or someone not in authority, it may, but need not, convey the idea of authority. That’s not hard to understand.
Mark’s making a straw man argument. No egal I ever talked to has given the word “submit” the meaning “put first and meet the needs of.”

As for this sort of question:

“The Church submits to Christ in everything in a way that has no authority connotations?”

No– I don’t think that’s what’s in view in Eph. 5. There are certainly authority connotations in the household codes given by Paul. But the point I would make is that the authority of the husband/father/master is a shared assumption of Paul and his readers in that time and culture– not a divine mandate. When this is understood, it is not the instructions to the wife, slave or child that are so radical (except that we tend nowadays to miss the fact that Paul was doing something revolutionary in speaking directly to those to be ruled, as if they had some will of their own in the matter). What is really radical is the instruction given to the one in power. Mark wonders where it is that Christ is spoken of in terms of submission to the church. Surely it is in the moment when He yielded voluntarily to those who cried “Crucify!” as spoken of in Eph 5 (“he gave himself for her”), many of whom, no doubt, became the church when Peter preached to them in Acts 2 (“God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom YOU CRUCIFIED.”)
Paul says, “submit to one another . . . husbands, lay down your lives as Christ did for the Church.” If that’s not an illustration of submission, I don’t know what is. And I honestly don’t see how Mark doesn’t see it in Christ “emptying himself” and “becoming obedient to death” in Philippians 2 as well.
Yes, Paul tells those under authority in that culture to submit to those in authority over them. But then he tells those in authority to lay down their power. But what Paul never does say is, “Men, your authority over your wives, children and slaves is by divine right.”

Finally, I would point out that not only does Paul never say the authority of males is a divine right– Peter actually puts husband-authority in a list of “human instititutions” that Christians are being asked to voluntarily yield to. 2 Peter 2:13 is the introduction to the section that begins with kings and ends with husbands. “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every institution of men.” Peter’s first letter is largely about how Christians are to get along in a hostile world and its institutions of power. There is no indication that when Peter starts talking about husband-authority, he is suddenly switching to some divine mandate.
Paul, on the other hand, writes in Ephesians about being “in Christ,” and makes it clear that marriage “in Christ” is more than a human institution– and in Paul’s view, it involves husbands laying down their power and raising their wives up to be beside them– as God first intended in Eden when he gave the woman as the man’s “face-to-face strong aid” (which is what “help meet” really translates as) to have dominion together with the man.

Hi Kristen,
You said

I honestly don’t understand where Mark is getting the idea that egals think “submit” means “put the other first and meet their needs.” “Submit” means “voluntarily yield to.”

I must “fess up here that this is my fault.
As I wrote in #226 I have heard “voluntary yielding” is the main idea behind submission. When I have thought about how I do this “to one another” in the church and to my wife I have thought of it as “voluntarily yielding of my own desires so that I put others first and meet their needs”. I expressed this to Mark. He has then applied this definition to all types of submission (like to governments and slaves to masters and to Christ) and of course found it wanting. He sometimes left out the voluntary yielding part and just used the last part. I should have just left it as “voluntary yielding to” as you say and then he wouldn’t have taken off with it like he did. I’ll try and learn from that.

Craig,
Oh, I get it. Well, Mark is focusing on the results of an attitude of submission, and mistaking that for the submission itself. He has turned your definition sideways. I think once you point that out to him, it will clear matters up on that score, anyway.

Mark said

I don’t think submission is in Phil 2. I think that is a crux passage for this debate, but I think you only see submission there once you’ve decided that submission means putting others before yourself and meeting their needs. The word isn’t there (from what I can see), and in this instance I think the concept isn’t either.

Again George Knight on p166 discusses Phil 2, Matt 20:26-28, 1 Pet5:4,5 Eph 6:9 and Eph 5:21 as all explaining the voluntary yielding that is a characteristic of the Christian community. Just letting you know that these ideas that you are disagreeing with are not just from egals.

Mark said

While the word ‘serve’ can (and did) have non-authority usages, it is harder to see how that can be done with the ‘submission’ words without changing their base meaning in a way that then doesn’t make sense in their non-biblical usage. ‘Obeying your instructions’ ‘Bowing the knee’ etc becomes ‘put you first and meet your needs’.

See above

That’s what Peter is telling slaves to do in 1 Peter 2:18? There’s no indications of submitting to authority there? It’s putting the master first and meeting his needs? It’s what he is saying in 2:13-15 to Christians generally with regards human rulers of different kinds? It’s what Paul is saying in Roman 13:1ff on the same topic?

In the case of slaves in 1 Peter 2:18, do we know that the slave is under authority because the word submit is used? No, I don’t think so. We know he is under authority because of what we know of the culture at the time. Slaves were under the authority of their masters. Do we know that this authority is divinely established because he is told to submit? No, we have to study the rest of scripture to determine if that is the case.
For the king and governors in 1 Peter 2:13 do we know that they have authority just because the word submit is used? No, I don’t think so. We know from our knowledge of the culture at the time that the king had authority. Christians were under the authority of the king. Do we know that this authority is divinely established (divine right of kings) because the word submit is used? No, we need to search the scriptures and study to see if this is so.
Likewise, I think this same reasoning would apply to husbands and wives in 1 Peter 3.
I think you may be placing more meaning and significance to the word submit than it actually carries in and of itself.

Mark said

Or do we now have two “submits” in the NT? In some places it means what it normally meant and its meaning hasn’t been transformed by Christ—submit to masters, rulers, God means what any contemporary would immediately recognise. But other places, oh let’s see, ah, husbands, there it means something different. There is some connection being made between 1 Peter 2:18 and 3:1, so I think the ‘submit’ needs to be the same in the two instances—either it has no authority connotations for slaves, or it does have authority connotations for wives.

See above. I think it always means voluntarily yield to. I think in the culture of the day, the patriarch did have a similar authority over the slave and wife. Slaves and wives are told to voluntarily yield to their master and husband.

Mark said

And if we have to accept that ‘serve’ and ‘submit’ must both have been transformed by Christ, because both were part of being a slave, but were put to different usages in the NT, why leave out ‘obey’? Slaves had to obey their masters, but obedience is a general Christian virtue, and slaves need to obey their masters in Eph 6, and Sarah obeyed Abraham in 1 Peter 3 (and surely the case could be made that in the record we have in Genesis it is hard to see Sarah’s relationship with Abraham being her doing what he tells her to do – so the example in Genesis should shape how we understand it in the NT). If it is inconsistent to say ‘serve and not submit’ then surely it is to say ‘serve and submit but not obey’ are transformed.

Just thinking aloud. Obedience to God is a general Christian virtue. But we are never told to “obey one another” as a general Christian virtue. We are told to serve one another, and submit to one another.

Mark said

And if that’s the case, how would you go about indicating that we should (pick a word that we used to use ‘submit’ for to do the work) to God’s authority from the NT? The issue for me is not what it could mean, but what it does given the parallels.

If the NT said “submit to God’s authority” that sounds ok to me. That would mean voluntarily yield to God’s authority. No problems in interpretation. Just needing lots of God’s grace for the application 🙂

Mark said

If ‘submit’ here means ‘put others first and meet their needs’ or it means something like ‘serve’ then I cannot see any substantial difference between Paul’s instructions to wives and to husbands. The ‘submission’ wives offer to husbands is basically the same as the ‘love’ husbands offer to them. Different words are used to indicate the same basic reality. If not, what is asymmetrical at this point? What should wives be doing that is not a requirement for husbands in this context and what is a requirement for husbands that is not for wives in this context?

I think this is an important question. Could it be that there is not a lot of difference and that this is Paul’s point. Submission is to be mutual v21. Yesterday, my wife and I were at a church conference all day. As we looked around, I saw a spot in the auditorium where the type of seats would be more comfortable for my sometimes bad back, but my wife preferred a different seat in a different spot in the auditorium so she could see (she is a little vertically challenged 🙂 ). We decided to try the spot where she could see and I found I could manage with a towel behind my back in that spot. I would see that as a very small example of me submitting to her. Generally she is much better in this than me and putting herself out for me. Is this submission or is it love? I am not sure, but I think it is both. It happens throughout our lives in a mutual kind of way.

There is still more stuff in Mark’s email. I think that may do me for a while. I could send what I have done so far and see what he says. Do you think I am on the right track?
Let me know (especially Cheryl if you are there?) if all this is a bit much for everyone. Is it interesting or a bit of overload?
I find it helpful to get feedback from those of you who have thought through all these things a lot more than I have.
Thanks everyone.

Craig@235,
Just a thought on the fly here. Maybe you could ask Mark if a slave owner’s “authority” real in God’s eyes? Or is it just something man-made?
So, even though Paul is instructing believers to act in this way under the circumstances it does not necessarily legitimize the “authority” or show God’s approval of it.

“We can respond to Christ in submission out of respect for his authority or out of love and thankfulness for all he has done for us. Both are valid. Ephesians 5, and the head-body metaphor seem to me to be emphasising the latter.”

Craig,
Another quick thought – is it possible for these two to be separated in a believer’s life? Somehow it doesn’t seem possible to me…”Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” It doesn’t say “respect the Lord your God”… Love has to be the core of everything.

cont… The motive for the slave:
“Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.” Eph. 6:6

In short there’s just no way to make human authority exactly the same as God’s authority. It’s two different things. And if it’s two different things (which clearly it is) then the submission wouldn’t be identical either.
As I pointed out before, comps don’t try to claim all the things Christ has for the husband (ie. all things under his feet, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”) but only the things they want (ie. the final say-so).

If everything about Christ doesn’t directly apply to husbands then perhaps (tongue-in-cheek) the “authority” doesn’t either. Perhaps they ignore vs. 21??? Maybe they just like picking and choosing the attributes of Christ they want???

Hi Elaine @241,
I think this is a good thought. It has been mentioned to Mark in the past but may be worth mentioning again. Thanks.
@242. Referring to #237. Certainly love has to be the core of everything. Respect without love would seem like lifeless religion.
If I am understanding our discussion before properly (which may be highly doubtful!) I think I am trying to say here what Gengwall @211,212 and Kristen @219 said. I think there is still a true and valid authority that Jesus has over the church but that is not what is in view with the head/body metaphor. Maybe I could express it a little better, and maybe I am wrong. I think Dave is questioning whether the bible really speaks of Christ’s authority over the church at all. I think you are also questioning this concept, but at this stage I am sorry to say I am still struggling to follow what you and Dave are saying and put it all together.

Craig, I like what you’ve written a lot. I would suggest that you add in there, something along the lines that husbands are not to their wives everything Christ is to the church (such as redeemer or diety– Mark will surely not disagree with this), and that therefore husbands must not try to be more to their wives than “head” to their wives’ “body.” As for what that relationship entails, let Paul himself define it in the Letter to the Ephesians. The head-body relationship of Christ and the church in the Book of Ephesians is simply not pictured in terms of the head’s authority over the body, but in terms of the unity of the head and body, the provision and nurture from the head to the body, and the raising up of the body to be with the head.

Ok– that’s as much as I have time for now. I may be able to get to the next points later this evening, or it may have to wait a few days or a week. I will end with this statement of Mark’s, because my answer to it is very short:
If we lost the wealth that modern society can produce and went back to the kind of society where it is big grind to produce enough food to feed people and there is little discretionary capacity in society for people not to be involved in food production (and so not much of a police force or bureacracy, let alone any social welfare or universal education) then I think we’d return to more authoratarian society strucutres fairly quickly, even with a view of universal human dignity. I think we have little grasp how much what we take for granted is actually the conditions of a society where everyone is rich. Even our poor people have a kind of wealth unimaginable in earlier eras.

Is Mark a sociologist? Because I simply don’t see what his reasoning is behind this. I’m not a sociologist either– but I don’t see how authoritarian social structures spring of necessity from subsistence farming. I think they do spring of necessity from the tendency of humans to seize power whenever there isn’t anyone to stop them– but simply from needing to work hard just to survive, no.

Thanks so much Kristen for all your work and such excellent comments. I will send them on to Mark. I hope they are helpful for Mark. They certainly have been for me and I am sure everyone else who visits here.

Kristin,
Yes, it seems that in Mark’s opinion (or he would like us to buy into the notion), everything else in society would automatically revert in exact parallel fashion. Apparently Mark has studied enough sociology to note the link made between the beginnings of horse/plow agriculture and more complex less egalitarian societies. By contrast, in the previous hunter/gatherer foraging societal systems there is so much interdependence, these families/societies have a centralized sharing of resources and consensus is needed for major decisions. As a result, they are highly egalitarian with substantial cross-over among duties (women often hunt small game and men gather foods). Whereas, in agrarian society women’s status dropped because their work became less visible, thus less valued, and foraging is compatible with pregnancy/caring for infants but operating plows and controlling draft animals is not.
Frankly, I think he shoots himself in the foot with this one. He is trying to use early agrarian societal norms to defend authoritarian structures.
Sheeesh, isn’t capitulating to culture what comps accuse egalitarians of doing? And I wonder why Mark didn’t go further back in history to base his claim? To whom does he think the hunter/gatherers were capitulating? Or maybe concensus is not a concept he favors?

“Jesus said in Matt 28:18-19, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples. . . .” Any authority that anyone in the church has, therefore, is actually Christ’s authority and not his/her own. In Titus 2:15, when Paul tells Titus, “Encourage and rebuke with all authority,” the word is not “exousia,” (“have rights/authority over”) but “epitage,” which means a command from God to be passed on. Delegated authority is the only authority we humans have.”

Kristin,
I’m glad you brought this out so clearly.

Thanks again Kristen for such a wonderfully clear explanation of the overall teaching of scripture on this subject. I’ll pass it on to Mark for you.
Congratulations on 23 years married to your best friend! I had my 28th just a few days ago – likewise to without doubt my best friend and “strong aid who stands face to face with me”. Praise God for His goodness and grace toward us!

Hi Kristen,
Just checking if this bit

Ok, this last section is pretty volatile. I hope it doesn’t make Mark terribly angry– but he was blunt and direct about what he said about the egalitarian position, and I must in honest rebuttal, do the same.

was intended just for our benefit or would you like me to pass this on to Mark also.
Thanks again for your willingness to pass on all your research, wisdom and knowledge for the benefit of others.

Craig– no, I had not intended to share that first bit with Mark. I was simply sharing with you folks here that have done my best to mitigate any potential offense my arguments might cause him– but if he takes offense, then so be it. I believe I am speaking the truth in love to the best of my ability.

Hi Kristen,
Mark has just written that he has been busy on Sola Panel but is pulling back from that and hopes to have more time to reply to us shortly.
I think you make some great points in #254 in a very “speaking the truth in love” kinda-way. I would be surprised if Mark or anyone could take any offense at your tone whatsoever. You come across to me as polite, calm and considerate while still making your points clearly and with conviction.

Thanks, Craig. You’re sweet.
It’s not my tone I’m worried about, however. I have learned the hard way that any time parallels are drawn between racism and complementarianism, or between black slavery and female subordination, it can be cause for serious offense. That’s why I have tried to explain that I’m not accusing him– or any comp– of anything.
It may help that he’s Australian and not from the US. We’ll see.

Where’s Cheryl?

Hi pinklight (or is that pinklightlight?)
I am still here but so many things have happened that I feel like I have to do some digging out just to get to street level. I really want to be back writing again and I will be. In a week I finally get a week vacation and it is my intent to spend time catching up and this blog is top of my list.

I’m sure that things will progress better when your remodeling is done.

But we surely do miss your interaction here.

Aloha Nui,

TL

There you are! 🙂 Just saying *hi* and want to make sure you’re doing okay! Miss you Cheryl.

Ditto!

“Why, then, did “the whole church get it wrong for two thousand years about something so ethically important?”

Kristen does a great job answering this but I think this question is very important because so many turn to church history instead of the scripture to define a pet doctrine.

Church history is a bloody mess and we should be ashamed to appeal to it. How long did Christians believe in a state church? Divine right of kings? Or how about the Dark Ages when it was a crime to read the Bible unless you were a priest? Church history is full of wrong doctrine such as transubstantiation, sacraments as Grace, God-War shield, etc.

For goodness sake, just the facts about how the Church of England came about should give us all pause in referring to “church history”!

While Luther was courageous to stand up to Rome, we all now cringe at what he wrote about Jews. Some of us cringe on what he says about women, too.

To appeal to church history is to appeal to a lot of ignorance, blood, sin and disgrace. It only makes me see the Glory of God that He preserved a remnant for Himself throughout the ages. And someday, we will know who they were.

On another note, comp doctrine is illogical in many ways with the entire scope of the Word both Old and New Covenants. Women are never once prohibited from teaching men in the OC but are now prohibited in the New? Does this make sense?

The Joel Prophecy is ignored and/or taught that is only exists for one day? Salvic Roles for women are taught which make Joanna in Luke 8 a huge sinner. Women are taught a religion of “works” for only them because of a horrible translation of 1 Tim.

I could go on and on with the cognitive dissonance of how scripture is interpreted by comps. Someday, I am going to make a huge list.

There is no way I would submit to the teaching authority of a woman. Period.

Those who love the truth, don’t care who gives it to them.

Rob, welcome to my blog.

As far as taking authority over other members of the body of Christ, I don’t believe in that, nor do I believe that this is taught in the Scriptures. As far as teaching the truth of God’s word for a man’s benefit, we are to give our God-given gifts for the common good. I agree with TL that those who love the truth won’t care which vessel the Holy Spirit uses to teach God’s truth to them.

Rob, since there’s no way I would submit to your teaching authority, I guess we’re even.

In the vein of what Cheryl said, there is no such thing as “teaching authority”, as in another has to do what another said because they are a recognized teacher. Rather, it is the other way around. A recognized teacher is such because they have aptly demonstrated the authoritative ability of the Holy Spirit in their teaching. It is not worldly authority that gives special people special privileges that Scriptures speak of. It is rather the observation that the teacher has the ability to be guided by the Holy Spirit that should cause the people of God to be willing to be persuaded by not only the teacher’s words but his/her life as well.

Rob: There is no way I would submit to the teaching authority of a woman. Period:

Rob, however you want to screw up your own life, insult God, and miss out on some incredible blessing, that’s your own choice.

Keep in mind, Rob, that your understanding is a matter of perception and more than likely man’s tradition that you have accepted. The question is, is yours accurate because it is biblicaly provable without a doubt? And fact is, the answer is, “no.”

This thought is a little unrelated to what we have been discussing so I thought I would put it under a different post on 1 Tim 2:15.
I remember discussing 1 Tim 2:15 with Mark here a while back, and he was saying how it was bad theology to relate one person’s salvation to the actions of another. He was arguing against Cheryl’s interpretation. I just noticed that Paul says the same sort of thing in 1 Tim 4:16. He tells Timothy to persevere, because if he does, he will save himself and his hearers. This sounds a bit like “they” persevering resulting in the salvation of “she” in 1 Tim 2:15.

Excellent point, Craig and very deep thinking that connects two related points in the same letter!

I was just thinking more about 1 Tim 4:16 when Paul tells Tim to persevere, “because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers”. I was wondering if this has any more implications for 1 Tim 2:11-15.
In 1 Tim 4:16 Tim’s salvation is spoken of as future, and yet he is obviously a believer at the time of writing. Perhaps this suggests that although it is reasonable to conclude from the rest of v11-15 that “the woman” is not yet a believer, the future tense of v15 does not absolutely prove this in and of itself. The future tense would be consistent with this and goes along well with this view, but does not absolutely prove it, if you can follow my point.
When I make statements to people, I just like to be accurate, because if I am not, then they have a habit of coming back to bite me!

We still have context to reckon with. In chapt. four, Paul is speaking to someone who is alive. To us who are alive we remember that we are saved at the moment of belief, and we are saved daily from ourselves and sin, and finally if we persevere until death we will be ‘finally’ saved. But all of this is settled at the moment of death. Thus, all discussion of doing anything to be saved in any fashion whether daily or finally at death, has to apply to someone living.

Hi TL,
I hope you are recovering well from your operation.
The issue I am thinking about here is not whether the woman is alive or dead, but rather whether the future tense indicates whether she is a believer or not at the time of writing.
The way I read it, there is a sense in which a believer who is currently alive, like Timothy at the time of writing, or you or I today, “will be saved” in the future (1 Tim 4:16) and also a sense that we “have been saved” (Eph 2:8,9).
I think you expressed it well by saying “we are saved at the moment of belief, and we are saved daily from ourselves and sin, and finally if we persevere until death we will be ‘finally’ saved.”
So I am not sure that we can know for sure that “the woman” is not a believer simply from the fact that the future tense is used of her salvation.

So my question is only a very small one. If this whole passage is dealing with a particular Ephesian woman, can we know for sure whether she is a) an unbeliever or b) a believer, belonging to the church, who has been deceived by Satan (cf Paul’s concern that this not happen to those in the church at Corinth 2 Cor 11:3) and also, what part does the future tense of v15a play in that decision.
This is only a small point in the overall scheme of things, but I am just thinking that the future tense alone cannot decide this issue. We have to look at other things like the commandment for her to learn, and that she is not permitted to teach, and that she is in transgression through being deceived. Also that Paul says “BUT” she will be saved, if they persevere. The “but” to me would indicate that all these other factors cast doubt upon her salvation. So he is saying “but, in contrast to the way it looks now, she will be saved, if….”
We need the context to decide these things. The future tense alone (because of the way it is used in 1 Tim 4:16) doesn’t decide it by itself.

Craig,

If I’m getting your point correctly, we may not be able to tell absolutely if she is a non believer or a new convert needing to learn more. But it may not matter. If she learns, and then seeks to live a holy acceptable life unto God, then she will be saved through The Childbearing.

That’s about it TL. Thanks for taking the time to follow my ramblings. 🙂
I’m just pondering away here, thinking about what can be known with reasonable certainty and I can therefore argue/teach with real conviction, and what I think is a reasonable guess but I can’t be sure of, and thinking of any implications there might or might not be from what I’m thinking.

No problem, Craig. Your ramblings as you call them, are quite helpful. It is good to recheck the room a few times while cleaning, to make sure one get’s all the cobwebs out. 🙂

I just found something that may be significant. Others of you may already know this, but I am a real novice in Greek and it was news to me.
I was aware that in Greek there is no indefinite article.
I have been told by several comp friends that “woman” in 1 Tim 2:11 was indefinite. If Paul had meant a definite woman he would have used the definite article and said “the woman” and not just “woman”.
In “Learn to read the Greek NT” by Ward Powers on p32, it says “the beginning of a sentence is an emphatic position, and the most important word in a sentence may be placed first to give it emphasis. Often a word in this position is considered definite enough not to be given the article in Greek.”
“Woman” begins the sentence in v11, and “but woman” begins a clause in v12.
This to me gives more weight to the idea that Paul is speaking of a definite woman, and not speaking generically of “any woman” in v11,12.
Am I on the right track? Is this common knowledge?

Craig,
You are correct in that emphasis is through word order. I did not know that the first word in that way could be taken as a definite. Very interesting.

Yes it is very interesting to me. I have been able to grasp how v14b, 15 seem to definitely refer to a particular Ephesian woman, and how “the woman” could refer back anaphorically to v11,12 – but it still didn’t quite sound right. V11,12 still sounded more generic than passages like Jn4. If “woman”, because it is at the beginning of the sentence should be translated “the woman” then it all makes a lot more sense to me.

Craig,
If you have the ability to scan that page and email it to me, I would be interested in looking at it.

Thanks to Craig, here is a scan of the part of the page that lists point that the first word doesn’t necessarily have to have a definite article to be definite.