The way you extend ideas is speculative. Eglitarians believe in the extending of equal participation to all believers. Others don’t. This is a difference in model, not a difference in how we understand the actual text. If authorship of Christian books can be extended to women, then teaching biblical concepts should be extended to women. IMO. What you say is in your opinion. That’s okay.

There certainly were Christian women “leaders”, Acts says these women became Chrisians.

Just think of all the missionary and social enterprise carried out by women. Does God diffrentiate spheres as some churches teach. I disagree. If it is in your nature to be a leader, God accepts a woman leader in the social and secular world AND in the church. He sanctifies the natural gifts of a woman, as he does those of a man. Shall women be allowed only profane gifts? Or is the Spirit powerful enough to sanctify the gifts of a woman. Maybe the Spirit does not touch a man as he does a woman. But the scriptures do not indicate that. Shall a woman teach classical Greek in the university but not in the seminary?

You write,

Others who have studied just as long and as hard as you also have their ideas. And still you are allowed to disagree with them. Can’t you see that they are claiming accuracy just as you also are?

The only answer to this is to actually look at the fragment itself. That is why I posted it. In a private conversation with a very respected complementarian scholar, he indicated to me only this. A word, which can be construed as either authentew or authentes, appears to exist in this fragment, there is no mention of “those in authority”. There are mentions of public figures and great people, but the connection of one to the other is obscure. Not only is this a fragment, with about one third of the text missing, but, in fact, it no longer exists. There is only a pencil sketch that someone made of the fragment.

The fact is that this is known to at least one complementarian author, and yet the others quote this fragment as if it was evidence for “exercise authority”. Please ask anyone to read this fragment for you. Don’t take it as a matter of opinion. This is not about my reputation over against someone else’s. This is about the fact that people like Kostenberger and Grudem quote something that doesn’t even exisit and people accept it because they want support for this idea. If male authority over the female were true, it would have to be true without this curcial fragment.

What am I to think, knowing that there are many quotes like this in biblical scholarship. Don’t we need to take a step back and ask if we are being like the Pharisees.

Benjamin,

I know I can’t persuade anyone, but it meant something to me to know that all the kerfuffle about 1 Tim. 2:12 is based on human opinion and nothing more.

The word authentein was translated in the early centuries as “progenitor” “dominate” “suicide” etc. That is the evidence – this is not someone’s “ideas”.

The truth is that this is not about these kinds of details, this is about what we believe is God’s overall intention for humankind – one person to another – either hierarchy is the base model – or reciprocity.

You say-
“This is crystal clear to me. 3800 years of slavery, nondemocratic government and male dominance means that this is God’s will.”

The only things I pointed out as being God’s will was male leadership in Israel (priests) and the church (pastors). I said nothing about slavery, nondemocratic government or male dominance. You mentioning them here tells me your argument against the comp. view is deeper than an understanding of 1 Tim. 2:12.

You say-
“I would suppose that you also do not believe that those of other races have much to offer either. Historic dominance of the white race, justifies dominance of the white race.”

Again, I mentioned NOTHING about ‘historic dominance of the white race’. The O.T. priesthood was limited to Jewish men who were Levites. That would have excluded me and I don’t feel threatened by that knowledge, nor do I feel less valued or appreciated by God.

You say-
“And overall, 1 Tim. 2:12 is a throwaway to you – that is something we agree on. But it doesn’t bother you that all the major authors, excepting Wolters – have no idea what authentein means, but they pretend they do. You don’t feel that accuracy is something that deserves respect.”

In post #32 you said, “I will have to confess that I am not entirely sure what 1 Tim. 2:12 means.”

So you have your ideas. Great. Others who have studied just as long and as hard as you also have their ideas. And still you are allowed to disagree with them. Can’t you see that they are claiming accuracy just as you also are?

You say-
“That is what astonishes me. No one cares about scholarship at all.”

I’m sorry you feel this way. I must respectfully disagree.

Grace and peace,
Benjamin A.

I think you are making too much of an argument from silence based on what God didn’t do. According to the same type of reasoning people could exclude far more than just women from leadership in the church (see some of the groups I mentioned above). Not only that but any glimmer of light that shines forth that shows a woman doing something within the Bible traditionally associated with men you want to snuff out and say it’s not enough when you compare it to all the other things that men did.

BTW 4000 years is a bit generous. It’s more like 1000-1400. Anything before Moses is traditional patriarchy within the family.

Blessings,
Bryan L

You admit that women composed, prophesied, judged and taught. But they aren’t listed as authors of major books.

So that necessarily means that women can now be authors but they cannot prophesy, judge and teach in the church,

This is crystal clear to me. 3800 years of slavery, nondemocratic government and male dominance means that this is God’s will.

I would suppose that you also do not believe that those of other races have much to offer either. Historic dominance of the white race, justifies dominance of the white race.

You don’t think that God wishes people to have a role according to their design, teh way he actually made them?

And you particularly don’t think that the Bible should address “brothers and sisters” because why? It hasn’t done so in English for a few hundred years.

You don’t think we should care about the fact that the Greek word addressed both. You think that a history of male dominance justifies male dominance.

And overall, 1 Tim. 2:12 is a throwaway to you – that is something we agree on. But it doesn’t bother you that all the major authors, excepting Wolters – have no idea what authentein means, but they pretend they do. You don’t feel that accuracy is something that deserves respect.

That is what astonishes me. No one cares about scholarship at all.

I said-No women served as priests-

You said-We now have the priesthood of all believers. Christ is our high priest.

Yes, all believers have direct access to God the Father with Jesus as our high priest. My point was there were no woman priests in the O.T. by God’s divine design. God appointed male spiritual leadership over His divinely chosen people. That is a significant role distinction between men and women in the O.T. Yet again, men and women were spiritually equal before God. It’s a role issue not an equality issue.

I said- None of the O.T. authors were women-

You said- Proverbs 31, Psalm 68 and Judges 5.

Again, none of the O.T. authors were women. God used men to write down what He wanted communicated. And in some cases they added, as these three chapters you mentioned indicate, material composed by others. And no one is trying to deny that fact. AGAIN-Women were not inferior in any way.
I also said none of the N.T. authors were women. That is a significant point. Had God wanted a woman to author a N.T. book He could have done so- He can do anything He wants. But God by divine design, again His choice, not mine or any other male on planet earth; by God’s divine design He had men write His words down and author the books of both the O.T. and N.T.

I said- No woman had an ongoing prophetic (speaking before people) ministry like that of Elijah, Elisha, or the other prophets-
While Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), and Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8:3) are called prophetesses, NONE had a permanent calling to that office-

You said- I think Deborah did have an permanent calling as a prophet.

OK, so you THINK it was permanent. Scripture doesn’t indicate that one way or the other, so it becomes an argument from silence. Tough to win those arguments. AGAIN- No woman had an ongoing prophetic (speaking before people) ministry like that of Elijah, Elisha, or the other prophets- that is an indisputable fact.

You said- Exactly what does your list mean? Think of how few women in the NT are listed as part of a couple. Very few. Does that mean most women weren’t married? I just don’t see what the relevance of any of your list is about.

4,000 years of male spiritual leadership (again by God’s design if you believe in inspiration) and yet you fail to see any relevance. God called men to spiritually lead His chosen nation; and God has called men to spiritually lead in the church of Jesus Christ.

You said- Children are mentioned once or twice in the NT. Does that mean children are not important? I miss your point.

I just did a simple search of the word ‘children’ on my palm concordance and it found 116 matches. Mark 10:14, Jesus said “Permit the children to come to Me; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” Children are very important to God, as are all people. “For God so loved the world . . .” (Jn. 3:16). So please don’t miss my point, just because God chose to have men write the books of the Bible doesn’t make them more important to God. The point was to indicate God’s design in role distinctions between men and women. The issue here is on ROLES not WORTH.

Grace and peace,
Benjamin A.

#47 was not me.

No women served as priests-

We now have the priesthood of all believers. Christ is our high priest.

None of the O.T. authors were women-

Proverbs 31, Psalm 68 and Judges 5.

No woman had an ongoing prophetic (speaking before people) ministry like that of Elijah, Elisha, or the other prophets-
While Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), and Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8:3) are called prophetesses, NONE had a permanent calling to that office-

I think Deborah did have an permanent calling as a prophet.

Exactly what does your list mean? Think of how few women in the NT are listed as part of a couple. Very few. Does that mean most women weren’t married? I just don’t see what the relavance of any of your list is about.

Children are mentioned once or twice in the NT. Does that mean children are not important? I miss your point.

If one woman can be a judge, or prophet, or apostle, or teacher, or host a house church, then it is not against the moral law of Christ.

You seem to be gifted with the languages and I would encourage you to consider a field like linguistics. Wycliffe is always looking for good linguists to accomplish the work of ministry through translation.

I did train in linguistics and translation but my career is not on the table here. Thanks.

But that is why I cringe when I read some of the most frequently cited authors.

The problem is this – very simply. No author has correctly cited the Philodemus fragment. They are all in error.

You tell me. Who has authority? The one who knows how to read this fragment and actually does it, or the one who knows how to read this fragment and refuses to do so, even though he cites it as evidence?

Do you know that “brother and sisters” is the first meaning in the lexicon for the plural of the Greek word adelphos? Yet the men who drafted the Colorado Springs Guidelines did not know this when they drafted the guidelines. Did you know that every line of that document has a lingjistic error in it?

This simple fact makes any Bible with “brothers” in it, instead of “brothers and sisters”, less than literal. It is North America that needs trained linguists in the ministry.

Why do men have authority for these things and not those who are trained in linguistics, biblical languages and translation? I am so embarassed to know that Christians produced that docusment without doing any research.

Good points.

One of the things you said stuck out to me. You said,
“No women served as priests-
None of the O.T. authors were women-
No woman had an ongoing prophetic (speaking before people) ministry like that of Elijah, Elisha, or the other prophets-
etc…” and you also used similar arguments in the NT.

I think it’s interesting because we could probably replace women in there with something else like disabled person, or eunuch, or gentile, or slave, or pick whatever you like. If we can use those things you pointed out as a consideration against women in leadership roles, couldn’t the same arguments possibly be used against those other classes? I just bring them up because it sticks out to me when ever someone notes how women weren’t priests in the OT. Because not only were women not priests but disabled or disfigured people weren’t, non Aaronites weren’t, obviously gentiles, slaves and eunuchs weren’t so what would that kind of argument say against those groups and their status in the church today?

Anyway that’s just a consideration to take into account, and to make us think about what type of evidence we use in these debates.

Blessings,
Bryan L

You said #47-
“The gasping sound you hear might be Benjamin A and Kevin Jones fainting at the thought that anyone, much less DENNY, might consider ignoring a verse on the grounds of cultural context.”

I survived the thought and live to see yet another day- Praise the LORD!

You said #32-
“However, I most earnestly believe that everything in the scriptures instructs men to elevate women to equal roles in the church. I do not believe that women are designed as followers and men as leaders. I see no indication in the scriptures that there is this distinct design or intent by God.

Every scripture points to the gifts of the spirit, and women were given the gifts as men were. This is contrary to what some complementarians believe, that women are given “their” gifts. The scriptures does not teach this, and most complementarians fall short of truly believing that women do not have the gifts of teaching and leading.”

and post #25-
“Nympha hosted a house church.

Women are the managers of their own house.

Women are prophets.

Junia was an apostle, whatever that means, but likely a leader of some kind.

This is why Paul recruited leading women, Acts 17:4 – so they could be leaders, no doubt. Phoebe was a patron who helped those in need out of her own resources. Evidently she had her own resources.

In Greek the men were to “proistemi” their house. Phoebe was a “prostatis”. This comes from the same Greek word. Whatever the men did, that is what Phoebe did.

We do not know the details but Phoebe was listed as a deacon. You may make of this what you like.

Women also announce the good news and divide the spoil in Psalms 68.”

OK- all of that is correct. But have you considered-

No women served as priests-
None of the O.T. authors were women-
No woman had an ongoing prophetic (speaking before people) ministry like that of Elijah, Elisha, or the other prophets-
While Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), and Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8:3) are called prophetesses, NONE had a permanent calling to that office-
Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah gave only one recorded prophecy, and Isaiah’s wife none, she’s called a prophetesses because she gave birth to a child whose name had prophetic meaning-
Another woman mentioned as a prophetess, Noadiah, was a false prophettess (Neh. 6:14)-
While God spoke through women on a few limited occasions, no woman had an on-going role of preaching and teaching-

Yet the O.T. did affirm that women had an equal spiritual status with men.
Mosaic law was given to all Israel, men and women (Deut 1:1)-
Both were to teach it to their children (Deut. 6:4-7; Prov. 6:20)-
The protection of law applied equally to women (Ex. 21:28-32)-
Women had inheritance rights (Num. 36:1-12)-
Women and men alike participated in the Jewish religious feasts (Ex. 12:3; Deut. 16:9-15)-
The Nazarite vow was open to both men and women (Num. 6:2)-
Women were involved in spiritual services (Ex. 38:8; Neh. 7:67)-
God didn’t hesitate to deal directly with women (Gen. 3:13; 16:7-13; Judg. 13:3)-

Spiritual equality between the sexes did not however do away with the differences in their roles which is abundantly put on display throughout the O.T.

The same is true in the N.T. Women are spiritually equal to men. Yet-

There are no women pastor/teachers in the churches-
No woman elders in the churches-
No woman authors of N.T. books-
There are no sermons or teachings of women recorded in the N.T.-
While the daughters of Philip are said to have prophesied (Acts 21:9), neither the occasion nor the message is defined; thus there’s no reason to assume they had an on-going preaching ministry, or that they taught during the public worship-

But then again-
The first person Jesus revealed His messiahship to was a women (John 4:25-26)-
Jesus healed women (Mark 5:25-34; Luke 13:11-13)-
Jesus taught women in contrast to the prevailing practice of the rabbis (Luke 10:38-42)-
Women ministered to Jesus and the disciples (Luke 8:2-3)-
Jesus’ first post-resurrection appearance was to a woman (Mark 16:9; John 20:11-18)-
Women were involved in prayer services with men (Acts 1:13-14)-
The fruit of the Spirit are for both women and men (Gal. 5:21-22)-
So again, spiritual equality does not preclude differing roles.
And that is the testimony from cover to cover.

The O.T. and N.T. together span some 4000 years of human history; and in the cultural context of those 4000 years God has men leading spiritually. So 1 Timothy 2:12 is just a small slice of that history.

By the way, while in seminary I had a woman prof. in my Hebrew language classes. And she was a good teacher, no a great teacher. Yet she stated she wouldn’t teach men in the context of the church gathered for worship. So outside the church gathered for worship she was able to exercise her spiritual gift of teaching. Like Priscilla and Aquila who, outside the church gathered for worship, both instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26) in “the way of God more accurately.”
You seem to be gifted with the languages and I would encourage you to consider a field like linguistics. Wycliffe is always looking for good linguists to accomplish the work of ministry through translation. I can highly recommend a book written by a single woman who spend 20+ years doing translation work for Wycliffe: And the Word came with power by Joanne Shetler. It is a must read for anyone interested in great commission ministry.
Grace and peace,
Benjamin A.

I wrote this rather unthinkingly. I would highly recommend the NRSV in general, although not in every detail. But it is by far the best Bible overall, and the TNIV is a close second, more tailored to evangelical tradition.