Search — Theology Explorer

egalitarianism mutual submission cultural accommodation

Three main egalitarian arguments against husband authority in marriage

Mike outlines the egalitarian case before presenting his own view.

1 Peter 3:1-7 1 Peter 3:1-7 hypotasso ESV translation

Teaching through 1 Peter 3:1-7 - wives told to be subject to husbands

Mike reads and begins teaching through the first main passage.

Genesis 18:12 Sarah Genesis 18:12 kyrios

Sarah calling Abraham 'Lord' (Genesis 18:12) and what it means

Mike examines the only verse where Sarah calls Abraham 'Lord.'

Colossians 3:19 Colossians 3:19 pikraino (embitter) authority and abuse

'Do not be harsh' (do not embitter) implies husband's authority

Mike argues the warning against harshness actually confirms authority.

1 Corinthians 7:4 1 Corinthians 7:4 polygamy sexual ethics

1 Corinthians 7:4 rules out polygamy and challenges Greco-Roman sexual double standards

Mike draws out implications of the wife's authority over the husband's body.

Peter Davids Testament of Abraham E.P. Sanders

Problems with Davids' reliance on the Testament of Abraham

Mike conducts detailed analysis of the extra-biblical source Davids relies on.

Ephesians 5:21-22 Craig Keener hypotasso Ephesians 5:21-22

Keener on verb borrowing: verse 22 borrows 'submit' from verse 21

Mike examines a grammatical argument about the Greek text.

BDAG hypotasso lexical definition

BDAG lexicon definition of hypotasso: 'to cause to be in a submissive relationship, to subject, to subordinate'

Mike appeals to the authoritative Greek lexicon.

Traditional interpretation: using NASB over ESV because ESV translates 'woman' as 'wife'

Mike explains his translation choice as the ESV makes interpretive decisions he wants to leave open.

ESV NASB gyne

Philip Payne inconsistent interpretation katakalupto

Payne interprets the same Greek word differently for men vs. women

Mike identifies an inconsistency in Payne's interpretation of 'covering.'

1 Corinthians 11:10 Craig Keener 1 Corinthians 11:10 exousia

Keener on verse 10: the authority belongs to the woman, not someone over her

Mike presents Keener's strongest egalitarian claim about verse 10.

kephale headship church history

Question 3: What does kephale mean? Conclusions from video 8 on male headship

Mike references his prior detailed study on kephale.

Richard Oster Roman head covering customs first-century culture

Question 4: Cultural customs of head coverings at the time -- scholars' areas of agreement

Mike begins the most historically complex section.

1 Corinthians 11:15 Romans 12:17 1 Thessalonians 5:15 1 Corinthians 11:15 Alan Padgett anti

Greek word analysis: anti in verse 15 means equivalence, not replacement

Mike examines the Greek preposition debate in verse 15.

1 Corinthians 11:5-6 1 Corinthians 11:15 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 analogy argument 1 Corinthians 11:15

Why verse 15 is an analogy: four reasons supporting the traditional cloth covering view

Mike builds his case that Paul is making an analogy, not an identification.

Leviticus 13:45 BDAG LSJ akatakalupto

Greek word akatakalupto means 'uncovered,' not 'hair hanging freely'

Mike examines the hair-up proponents' evidence from Greek terms.

Genesis 38:15 BDAG katakalupto Septuagint

Greek katakalupto: never used for hair in ancient Greek, always refers to cloth covering

Mike presents the strongest Greek evidence for cloth coverings.

men's head coverings katakalupto hair-up view

Three reasons the Greek pushes against the hair-done-up view

Mike summarizes the Greek evidence against the hairstyle interpretation.

kephale akatakalupto Philo

Philo uses akatakalupto coupled with kephale to refer to cloth coverings

Mike provides first-century textual evidence for cloth covering meaning.

1 Corinthians 11:6-7 Philip Payne inconsistent interpretation katakalupto

Philip Payne interprets katakalupto differently for men vs. women -- same word, contradictory meanings

Mike delivers what he considers a decisive critique of the hair-up view.

Esther 6:12 Septuagint Preston Massie kata kephales

kata kephales in verse 4: Septuagint evidence from Esther 6:12 confirms cloth covering

Mike examines another Greek phrase supporting cloth coverings.

cloth covering conclusion Greek terminology hair-up view refuted

Conclusion on Greek words: cloth coverings are overwhelmingly indicated

Mike summarizes the Greek evidence.

Richard Oster Corinth as Roman colony Roman religious customs

Richard Oster's key insight: Corinth was a Roman colony with Roman religious head covering practices

Mike presents Oster's two main points.

Plutarch Elaine Fantham Roman vs. Greek worship

Plutarch and Elaine Fantham confirm: Romans covered heads when worshiping gods

Mike adds textual confirmation of religious covering practices.

1 Corinthians 11:14 F.F. Bruce Plutarch physis

Question 8: What does 'nature' (physis) mean in verse 14?

Mike examines the meaning of Paul's appeal to nature.

logical fallacy custom vs. nature hair length

Something being custom doesn't make it only custom; it may also be grounded in nature

Mike prevents a logical fallacy in interpreting the nature argument.

Ephesians 5 Ephesians 5 gyne aner

Question 9: Is this about men/women generally or husbands/wives specifically?

Mike examines the woman/wife ambiguity in the Greek.

Tom Schreiner BDAG exousia

Exousia CAN be used symbolically: BDAG, Greek fathers, and Diodorus of Sicily support this

Mike counters Keener's claim that symbolic exousia is 'unnatural Greek.'

1 Corinthians 11:10 1 Corinthians 11:10 exousia kalumma

Early textual variant substitutes 'covering' (kalumma) for 'authority' (exousia) in verse 10

Mike provides additional evidence from manuscript tradition.

Mark Goodacre translation comparison Troy Martin peribolaion

Euripides source: all published translations use clothing metaphor, not testicle

Mike examines the second and stronger piece of evidence.

Troy Martin peribolaion anti

Six reasons Martin gives for testicle in 1 Corinthians 11 -- all fail

Mike systematically refutes Martin's case from the text of 1 Corinthians.

manuscript D manuscript F manuscript G

A.C. Wire's analysis showing the displacement manuscripts are connected

Wire demonstrated that every displacement manuscript is either a Greek-Latin bilingual or Latin text with traceable connections.

1 Corinthians 14:28 1 Corinthians 14:30 Pauline style laleo sigao

Four key Greek terms in verses 34-35 prove consistency with Pauline style

Mike identifies four Greek terms in the disputed verses that appear throughout 1 Corinthians 14.

1 Corinthians 14:28 1 Corinthians 14:32 hupotasso Pauline style 1 Corinthians 14:28

Two more key terms: 'en ekklesia' and 'hupotasso' found throughout the context

Mike continues demonstrating the passage's consistency with its surrounding context using Greek terms.

lectio difficilior textual criticism principles

Textual criticism principle: the reading that explains the other readings is likely original

Mike applies a standard textual criticism principle to the manuscript evidence.

1 Corinthians 14:36 quotation-refutation view 1 Corinthians 14:36 e/eta (disjunctive particle)

Greek hinge point: The disjunctive particle 'e' (eta) in verse 36

Mike examines the Greek word translated 'what' or 'or' in verse 36 that carries the entire weight of the refutation argument.

D.A. Carson e/eta (disjunctive particle) Walter Kaiser

Walter Kaiser's argument from Thayer's lexicon and D.A. Carson's correction

Mike examines Walter Kaiser's 1986 Christianity Today article supporting the refutation view.

Romans 3:28-29 e/eta (disjunctive particle) Romans 3:28-29 rhetorical reinforcement

The disjunctive particle 'e' reinforces rather than refutes what precedes it, shown from Romans 3:28-29

Mike demonstrates how the Greek particle functions using Romans 3:28-29 as an example.

Matthew 20:15 D.A. Carson e/eta (disjunctive particle) Thayer's lexicon

D.A. Carson: every NT use of this particle in analogous constructions reinforces what precedes it

Mike presents Carson's comprehensive conclusion about the Greek particle.

1 Corinthians 14:36 1 Corinthians 14:36 D.A. Carson monous

The masculine gender of 'only' (monous) in verse 36 does not prove it addresses men specifically

Mike addresses the argument that the masculine word 'only' proves Paul is rebuking men, not the whole church.

quotation-refutation view

Positive case for the refutation view has nothing strong going for it

Mike summarizes that after examining all the positive arguments for the refutation view, none succeed.

Craig Keener Paul, Women and Wives education view

Craig Keener's version of the education view

Mike presents Craig Keener's more balanced version of the education interpretation.

1 Corinthians 10:1 1 Corinthians 12:1 Plutarch agnoeo idiotes

Education View Hinge 1: Why only women? Why not uneducated men too?

Mike presents the first critical hinge point that undermines the education view.