Your comment #31 is right on. I really like reading the different parts of scritpure together.

Maybe we should shape our lives and churches by the Word, not the other way around.

The ‘word’ here is authentein, which occurs once in the scriptures and once outside the scritpures at that time.

Kostenberger writes,

he likelihood was suggested that “exercise authority” (Grk. authentein) carries a neutral or positive connotation, but owing to the scarcity of the term in ancient literature (the only NT occurrence is 1 Tim. 2:12; found only twice preceding the NT in extrabiblical literature) no firm conclusions could be reached on the basis of lexical study alone.

The two pieces of evidence which Kostenberger cites are,

41These two references are: Philodemus (1st cent. BCE): “Ought we not to consider that men who incur the enmity of those in authority (συν αυθεντουσιν) are villains, and hated by both gods and men”;

and BGU 1208 (27 BCE): “I exercised authority (Καμου αυθεντηκοτος) over him, and he consented to provide for Catalytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.” For full Greek texts and translations, see Baldwin, “Appendix 2” in Women in the Church, 275–76. (in the PDF page 13)

But, of course, the first piece of evidence does not exist as many people now recognize, and I can prove to you if you read Greek or have some patience.

The second occurrence is usually translated as “compel.” There was no official authority of any kind. One person made someone else do something.

So, that is the evidence for authentein. Jerome translated it as dominari, which is how he translated the verb mashal in Gen. 3:16,

I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for[a] your husband,
and he shall rule over you.

So, 1 Tim. 2:12 should read,

I do not permit a woman to teach or to rule over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Then we would understand that it is a result of sin that man rules over woman, and this is not to be corrected by woman ruling over man.

So, how did “exercise authority” enter the text. Erasmus in 1516 revised Jerome’s Vulgate and wrote “usurpare authoritatem” instead of dominari.

Then Tyndale, 1525, translated that as “have authority” and the KJV went back to “usurp authority.”

However, the reality is that “to exercise authority” is a revision of Tyndale’s translation of Erasmus’ revision of Jerome’s translation of the Greek word authentein. In fact, authentein had such a bad rap that Chrysostom forbade a man from ever authentein his wife.

So, those who quote that a woman is not to “exercise authority” over a man, are quoting an odd text.

Kostenberger earnestly argues that if one of “teach” or “authentein” is either positive or negative, the other is attracted to it in meaning, so if authentein is neutral then it must be a good thing because teaching is good.

But others argue by the same token that authentein is clearly negative, so the text says that a woman shall not teach and dominate a man.

Well, there is a little history of interpretation that is not much wanted in the church. All of this is known as a fact to some of the best complementarian scholars but they keep it quiet.

Brian you write,

Maybe we should shape our lives and churches by the Word, not the other way around.

I wonder how much the church has shaped the word in this case.

I understand what you are saying brian and believe me I’m not up for a debate right now either. I just wanted to point to the fact that you said a passage clearly said something and that there was something else in that passage that was clearly said that will cause a lot of people trouble if they try to take the “clearly says something” point of view.

I’m sure you have an answer to the issue I raised with my literal reading of “remain quite” but as soon as you try to speak about a wider context or the meaning of the phrase “remain quiet” or what Paul really means (assuming he doesn’t mean women should never talk and instead remain silent around men) then you have just gone against your own argument for what Paul clearly says because you are then saying it is not actually that clear. I ‘m sure you see what I’m getting at.

And as far as the link from Wade, I’ve read plenty of CBMW resources and I just don’t find them convincing at all, and instead I often see them approaching the evidence in sort of a pick and choose method (like young earth creationists do with science) and jumping to weird conclusions that either don’t go where the evidence leads or go further than the evidence can take them. Plus it’s generally made up of a particular conservative brand of scholarship that I don’t see eye to eye in terms of method, presuppositions and hermeneutics.

All that to say for some of us who do not agree with complementarianism, it is not a case of us not having read the relevant books or evidence.

Blessings,
Bryan L

I don’t want to debate all of these things on here right now anyways b/c you men won’t change your mind anyhow, and frankly, I don’t have the time. Read the link that Wade posted for that.

My WHOLE POINT was not the meaning of the gender roles, etc., but rather, that the Bible does give us instruction regarding different roles with respect to gender. Now what those mean and how they are fleshed out is a whole other topic which men much wiser than I have written on.

Bless you men,
~Brian

My goal for a later lengthy response now seems unneeded. I would have only been trying to show that I am attempting to be faithful to the doctrine presented in Scripture that has been given to us to govern our practice. Since you have said “both sides have very compelling arguments and their strengths and weaknesses” I am happy.

Paul telling Timothy to watch his life and doctrine is one reason we must search for the truths presented for guiding the practicing of our faith.

We may come down on different sides (concerning practice) while here on earth, but I look forward to the day that we can sit together before our Savior as He gives us the final word.

Grace and Peace to you my brother!
WadeC

Honestly guys, I honestly don’t care to debate about egalitarianism/complementarianism. I don’t even know where I stand on the issue (though I do know it’s certainly not where Piper or Burk stand). The only thing I want everybody to acknowledge is that this is not such an easy issue where we can just say “lets just do what the Bible says.” Both sides have very compelling arguments and their strengths and weaknesses. I wish everything in life was so easy where I could just quote a little verse and have the issue settled, but unfortunately it’s not that simple. I love the Bible, I believe it is inspired and is a means to know our God and Lord, but it is not some little magical book where we can just quote little verses and have issues settled. It’s contextual. Some of those contexts contain eternal, timeless truths and principles, but it is a mistake for a 21st century Christian to try and live rigidly by a few little verses.

At the heart of the matter seems to me to be that Scripture MUST be read in context, and I will clarify the difference between a woman teaching/having authority over a man (why women don’t teach in my church) and women wearing head coverings(why they don’t wear them in my church).

Brett in 29 writes, “Your comment leads me to believe that you have not honestly engaged this issue.”

You making the above comment leads me to believe that you have not honestly engaged the context of the texts being discussed. I really don’t have time tonight or tomorrow to explain, but later this week I hope to have time to explain. There are plenty of works already written on this issue that you can read. http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books/Recovering-Biblical-Manhood-and-Womanhood/Head-Coverings-Prophecies-and-the-Trinity

I hope that this will provide some immediate help.

God, Neighbors, Brothers- Lovin them all!
WadeC