Let’s Get Technical: The Meaning of authenteō

WARNING: This post is going to be a little bit technical. Enter at your own risk!

Commenters under my previous complementarian posts have been debating the meaning of authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12—whether it has a negative meaning (“usurp authority, domineer”) or a neutral one (“exercise authority”). In particular, the comments have called into question the work of Henry Scott Baldwin who has argued that authenteō does not have a negative meaning.

Commenters have disputed Baldwin’s interpretation of authenteō in its three uses in extra-biblical Greek written prior to 1 Timothy, but they have not actually engaged Baldwin’s arguments that are contained in his essay. I have been resistant to rehashing all of Baldwin’s material here and have hoped that people would go read Baldwin’s study for themselves. I think it stands on its own two feet.

Enter my good friend Chris Cowan. Chris has put together a summary of Baldwin’s arguments on the meaning of authenteō. This summary is no substitute for your actually picking up the book and reading it, but I think it will help to improve the conversation a little bit here. Baldwin’s study combined with Kostenberger’s syntactical study on 1 Timothy 2:12 show conclusively that “teaching” and “exercising authority” should be viewed as positive activities, not negative ones. What follows is Chris Cowan’s remarks and summary of Baldwin. Thanks, Chris!

—————————————————

[From Chris Cowan, associate editor of The Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood]

I think it would help to include Baldwin’s arguments and rationale for each of the three uses of authenteō in question. One is certainly free to disagree with him. But it strikes me as unfair and lacking merit to challenge his decisions and claim that the evidence does not support him—without actually engaging his arguments. The relevant works are:

Here are Baldwin’s comments regarding each of the passages:

(1) BGU 1208 (27 BC)

Baldwin lists this under Meaning 2a, and writes, “‘to compel, to influence someone something,’ is to seek to exercise authority and/or possibly gain the ability to exercise authority/control.” He cites three “clearly positive examples” [Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Ammonius].

He continues, “However, the three remaining examples probably should not be understood to prove a negative meaning for authenteō in and of themselves. That is, they may not indicate ‘coercion’ in its worst sense. In BGU 1208 the influence the writer exercises is based on his authority over his own funds and property. He is seeking to get what he considers an honest payment made to a boatman for services rendered in transferring his sheep across the Nile. In the other two cases, though the results of the act are negative (the fall, the crucifixion), we cannot say more than that the context indicates a negative connotation. There is not sufficient warrant to postulate a new meaning such as ‘tyrannize’ or ‘coerce.’ To the contrary, Chrysostom says that Eve ‘exercised authority wrongly.’ The implication, obviously, is that Chrysostom could not make the negative force felt without the addition of kakōs, and he therefore did not regard the verb authenteō as negative itself. Malalas’s use is somewhat different: though the Jews pressured Pilate, influencing his decision, it cannot be said that they usurped his position or coerced his complicity in Jesus’ death, as if Rome were subservient to Jerusalem. But at least we must say that ‘compel’ is the intended meaning, if not something stronger” (Badlwin, “An Important Word” in Women in the Church, 2nd ed. [2005], p. 46).

(2) Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos (2nd cent.)

Baldwin puts this under Meaning 2, and writes, “‘to control, to dominate,’ reflects authority from the standpoint of actually having control or ability to dominate an object. It may be used either transitively or intransitively. Ptolemy writes that Saturn dominates Mercury and the Moon” (Baldwin, “An Important Word,” p. 46).

Then in a footnote, Baldwin adds, “This should not be confused with ‘domineer.’ The distinction between ‘domineer’ and ‘dominate’ becomes an important one in the exegesis of 1 Tim 2. Therefore, the two terms should not be taken as interchangeable. For “to dominate,” a transitive verb, The Compact Oxford Dictionary of the English Language (Oxford, 1971), ad loc., gives the meaning as ‘to bear rule over, to have a commanding influence on, to master.’ In the context of some human relationships, this could have a negative connotation, but it is not intrinsically so. In contrast, ‘domineer’ is defined as an intransitive verb meaning ‘to rule or govern arbitrarily or despotically . . . to exercise authority in an overbearing manner.’ Therefore, dominate and domineer are not synonyms unless it is shown that the domination is considered improper” (Women in the Church, 2nd ed., p. 199).

Later in the footnote, Baldwin adds, “F. E. Robbins in the Loeb Classical Library series translates the fuller passages this way: ‘If Saturn alone is ruler of the body and dominates mercury and the moon, if he has a dignified position with reference to the universe and angels, he makes his subjects lovers of the body.’ Robbins clearly does not mean anything pejorative like ‘domineer’ here. For confirmation, see E. A. Sophicles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (New York: Scribner’s 1887), 276, who lists this same instance under the meaning ‘be in power over, to have authority over” (Women in the Church, 2nd ed., p. 199).

(3) Hippolytus, On the End of the World (3rd cent.)

Regarding (presumably) Roberts’s translation found in Schaff’s ANF series, Sue writes, “So clearly authenteō meant to ‘lord it over someone as a master over a slave.’ Why did Baldwin change the translation as he did?”

One would assume from this that Baldwin has offered a different translation without providing rationale. But before we burn Baldwin in effigy, perhaps it would be helpful to read what he actually wrote regarding his and Roberts’s translations:

Baldwin writes the following in a footnote on p. 682 of Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: “Arguably, Roberts has missed the translation here for two reasons: (1) apanthrōpoi is an adjective that modifies despotai [“masters”], not an adverb [Comment: Thus, Baldwin translates as “Inhuman masters” with apanthrōpoi being used adjectivally to modify the noun vs. Roberts’s “Masters will lord it over their servants savagely,” with apanthrōpoi being used adverbially to modify the verb]; (2) he has missed the importance of the middle voice. In the other two instances of the middle voice it means ‘to be in force, to have legal authority over’ (see the Chronicon Paschale, below). Sophocles held the middle to indicate ‘to be in force.’ If so, ours is a better translation. The case cannot be decided with certainty. The structure of the sentence does not provide the parallelism expected. If Roberts’ translation of the middle voice were correct, we should expect to see (morally negative adjective—’inhuman’) + (morally neutral noun—’masters’) + (morally negative verb—’lord it over’) paralleled by (morally negative adjective—’factious’ or ‘rebellious’ or ‘lazy,’ etc.) + (morally neutral noun—’servants’) + (morally negative verb). But as it is ‘servant’ is not modified. Therefore, the choice to translate authentoumaiin a morally neutral sense in this passage cannot be validated or invalidated from the structure of the passage. On balance then, the rare use of the middle, if the evidence from the Chronicon is taken as normative, suggests itself as the most significant factor, and authenteō should be taken here as ‘have legal authority over.'”

Let me conclude with a quote from near the end of Baldwin’s article (“An Important Word, p. 49). It’s lengthy, but very important:

“Since the publication of the first edition [of Women in the Church], there has been significant discussion of what constitutes a ‘negative use,’ a ‘negative connotation,’ ‘positive meaning,’ and so on, for a particular use of authenteō. It is well to note that there are two definitions of authenteō offered here that are ‘morally negative,’ the intransitive meaning 2c ‘play the tyrant,’ which is attested by only a single datum [4th cent.], and the transitive meaning 3c, ‘flout the authority of,’ attested by three data [7th cent. and 10th cent.]. There are some six to ten instances, depending on how one interprets the larger discourse, where a positive meaning of authenteō is used in an overall negative context. These, however, do not thereby create a transferable meaning that is ‘morally negative.’ Consider, for example, the English word ‘heal.’ In Luke 6:7 when the Pharisees wonder ‘if on the Sabbath Jesus heals,’ there is no question that, in the context, the enemies of Jesus would view it as a grievous moral error to heal on the Sabbath day. But that context would provide no justification to define ‘to heal’ and use it in other contexts with a meaning such as ‘to commit grievous moral error.’ Much of the discussion of authenteō has been bedeviled by exegetes failing to recognize the difference between a transferable lexical meaning and the meaning that the total passage bears when a legitimate, transferable meaning is inserted in the context under investigation.”

90 Responses to Let’s Get Technical: The Meaning of authenteō

  1. D.J. Williams June 26, 2008 at 8:03 am #

    I’ve been interested to hear someone give a good response to Sue’s points, and as a bonus it ends up coming from my uncle. Thanks!

  2. David (not Adrian's son) Rogers June 26, 2008 at 8:28 am #

    First of all, thanks for posting this response to Sue’s points.

    Baldwin’s quote:

    (1) BGU 1208 (27 BC)

    Baldwin lists this under Meaning 2a, and writes, “‘to compel, to influence someone something,’ is to seek to exercise authority and/or possibly gain the ability to exercise authority/control.” He cites three “clearly positive examples” [Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Ammonius].

    He continues, “However, the three remaining examples probably should not be understood to prove a negative meaning for authenteō in and of themselves. That is, they may not indicate ‘coercion’ in its worst sense. In BGU 1208 the influence the writer exercises is based on his authority over his own funds and property. He is seeking to get what he considers an honest payment made to a boatman for services rendered in transferring his sheep across the Nile.”

    Baldwin says “probably should not” and “they may not indicate ‘coercion’ in its worst sense.”

    Is ‘coercion’ in a milder sense possible? Why does it have to be the “worst sense” in order to qualify as “negative”? The possibility of “compel” could have some kind of negative quality, maybe not the “worst” but some, maybe?

    Sure, everyone one has “authority over his own funds and property” and that in and of itself is usually enough in a economic transaction to establish the commerce. That being understood, it is ordinary. So why mention it? Is it possible that there needed to be a little extra compulsion? He is seeking an “honest payment”. Granted, it is in the realm of possibility that Baldwin’s positivizing of this example may be correct, but is there any possibility that his acceptance of “compel” as a possibile might contain a whiff of the negative? Just asking.

    Again thanks for posting, requiring people to do the careful work of analysis is a good discipline for biblical exegetes.

    David

  3. David (not Adrian's son) Rogers June 26, 2008 at 8:46 am #

    Oh, a comment on Kostenberger’s syntactical study. I’m not necessarily challenging his conclusions about the syntax of the usual practice of two positives linked or two negatives linked.

    Is it at all possible that “teaching” in the sentence indicates an ironic “negative” attracted quality even though the word itself does not have a negative quality.

    In our day, the terms “preaching” “preach” and “sermon” have a positive feel for some. Others use it with some nuance of negativity. “Don’t preach at me!” “Now, I’m not preaching, I’m just saying.” These instances have been used by those sympathetic and hostile to “preaching”. The usage is determinative by the situation and the mood of the speaker. I am a “preacher” and yet I can use the terms positively and negatively even in close proximity of time. The listener of my rhetoric and interpreter of my words can sometimes weed out when I mean the terms negatively and positively.

    Is it at all possible that when Paul uses the term “teaching” in this sentence he is using it in light of an Ephesians situation of which Timothy has informed him. “Paul, there are some nagging disruptive ‘spirit-filled’ women who are compelling their husbands publicly to shut up and listen while these women ‘teach’ what they spiritually claim.” Is it possible that Paul (or his amaneuensis), knowing the situation, decides to use an ironically charged negatively tainted “didaskein” in this situation in conjuction with “authentein” (as slightly negatively meaning “compel”)?

    I know this is speculation. But is it egregiously so?

    “I’m not preaching, I’m just asking.”

    David

  4. Truth Unites... and Divides June 26, 2008 at 8:55 am #

    Denny,

    I was wondering whether you were going to post this resource by Kostenberger and Schreiner. I’m glad you finally did!

    Unfortunately, and even though it should, it will not stop the “deadly cancer” of egalitarianism from spreading, as Pastor Tommy Nelson put it.

  5. David (not Adrian's son) Rogers June 26, 2008 at 9:04 am #

    If I make a few comments or ask a few questions am I encouraging people to light up a few smokes?

    David

  6. Sue June 26, 2008 at 9:13 am #

    Thanks for posting this. Baldwin makes a good effort at not having authenteo look so bad. Not much good about it either. I’ll be by later.

  7. Sue June 26, 2008 at 9:44 am #

    Point by point as time permits.

    To the contrary, Chrysostom says that Eve ‘exercised authority wrongly.’ The implication, obviously, is that Chrysostom could not make the negative force felt without the addition of kakōs, and he therefore did not regard the verb authenteō as negative itself.

    Adding a modifier does not mean that the word was not negative.

    She ranted wildly.

    Modfying “rant” does not make “rant” a nice word.

    She swatted her kid with enough force to cause a bruise.

    Of course, “swatted” is a neutral word with no negative connotation. You can swat carpets, or a mosquito. But you cannot do this to another human being. Modifying “swat” does not change its connotation.

    Chrysostom does say that a husband should not authenteo his wife. No modifier.

    Yes, I think that authenteo means “to rule or govern arbitrarily or despotically.”

    Bring in other meanings from Chrysostom like,

    “wish to have your own way”
    “rule absolutely”
    “have even that independent”

    The sense is that it is absolute power, self dependent and sovereign such as belongs to God. It is also setting oneself above someone else’s power, usurping power.

    For BGU 1208, why does Grudem quote,

    “This passage is about a hostile relationship; his action is called ‘insolence’ in the text. None of the other uses of pros in the over three columns devoted to it in BAG seem to fit the text.””

    The point is that egalitarians are being perfectly consistent with research when they see a negative connotation. All others can say is that one cannot PROVE only a negative connotation. I think one could but I don’t have the time or resources. But one can easily see that a negative connotation is perfectly reasonable.

  8. David (not Adrian's son) Rogers June 26, 2008 at 9:59 am #

    Now that Sue has made her points which question Baldwin’s conclusion and I have raised a few questions (although mine may not be as powerful as hers), it is now incumbent for comment to respond to what she has now said.

    Restating Baldwin is not enough. He needs to be defended in light of this subsequent analysis. Maybe he can be. Or maybe not. But please if your only response is to re-state without responding to the points raised, let’s shut down the comment thread on this one lest it grow far too large with round and round with no progression of back and forth with advancement of dialogue.

    Blessings at the foundation of all our dialogue,

    David

  9. Sue June 26, 2008 at 11:16 am #

    Malalas’s use is somewhat different: though the Jews pressured Pilate, influencing his decision, it cannot be said that they usurped his position or coerced his complicity in Jesus’ death, as if Rome were subservient to Jerusalem. But at least we must say that ‘compel’ is the intended meaning, if not something stronger”

    This is a negative context.

    Where are the occurrences with a positive context or connotation?

  10. John June 26, 2008 at 12:14 pm #

    It appears things aren’t as black and white as you think, Denny. People that agree with you on things do not always show things conclusively, especially in this case.

  11. Ellen June 26, 2008 at 1:27 pm #

    People that agree with you on things do not always show things conclusively, especially in this case.

    The opposite is also true. People who do NOT agree with you on things do not always show things conclusively.

  12. Benjamin A June 26, 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    David,
    Your post #2 gives credence to Grudem’s statement that

    “we have never seen any clear example in ancient Greek literature where authenteō must mean “domineer’ or “misuse authority.’”

    Clearly authenteo DOES NOT have to mean what you, Sue and others want it to mean. Your very words indicate to me that you too can see this. Thank you!!

    Also, what more can be said than has already been said? Seriously. Denny’s post here demonstrates, in my opinion, that authento cannot be proven to have a negative overtone. Can it be used in a context that has general negative overtones? Sure. However, as Baldwin points out, that negative context doesn’t make authenteo negative lexically.

    Another Question: Why the silence from you/Sue/(egalitarians) regarding Dr. Wares sermon Denny posted? Sure Sue got fixated on one part that she misrepresented (my opinion), she claims other wise; as if that negates the entire message. It doesn’t. Now, there’s no doubt in my mind, if your mind is made up concerning egalitarianism, you will find fault with all 10 points made by Dr. Ware. And will no doubt have a different (and obviously more accurate) interpretation of said passages. So Fine. Go live out your egalitarian views in both your home and church. No one is stopping you.

    However, just be informed that some of your fellow brothers in Christ see egalitarianism (and the new trajectory hermeneutic) as a cancer (something that kills) and as a ploy of Satan to harm the church of the living God. And you my brother, are seen by some, not all (Sue still likes you!), as an instrument toward that end.

  13. Scott June 26, 2008 at 1:56 pm #

    Benjamin,

    I see overly zealous fundamentalists as “cancers” and tools of Satan. The difference is I don’t go around bashing them all the time. Additionally, I don’t see it as my academic or pastoral goal to fixate on 2-3 issues and attack them with a fervor best reserved for other initiatives. Denny posted about radical Baptists that deny the deity of Christ. I’ll fight that false belief system all day long. Get over the fixation.

  14. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 26, 2008 at 2:05 pm #

    Dear Benjamin A,

    Thanks for your post in #12. It is excellent throughout.

  15. Benjamin A June 26, 2008 at 2:11 pm #

    Scott,

    I may see “overly zealous fundamentalists” the same way you do. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on that.

  16. John June 26, 2008 at 2:15 pm #

    Denny,

    I’m very surprised you keep letting TUAD’s condescending and arrogant remarks go through, yet when I try and call him out, you moderate me. Keeping with the cancer motif, he is a cancer to this blog, and no person can have honest dialog with him without him being hateful and closed-minded. Even if you agree with him and act the same way, it is only fair for you to accept comments that try to keep him in line.

  17. David (not Adrian's son) Rogers June 26, 2008 at 2:19 pm #

    Benjamin A

    I ask questions. I make comments. I hope that whatever they do, they will cause one to think. If you can formulate better responses as a result then I think the interaction is helpful.

    Are you threatened by the questions? If not answer them or plead for someone else to reply to the specificities. Maybe my comments have flaws. But how will I learn if I read the scholars and find questions but then am accused of being a instrument toward “cancer” spread or a Loew’s dept. store of Satan’s tools for asking the questions?

    I guess from your perspective I should keep my questions to myself.

    One more comment at risk of spreading cancer, Grudem’s category of “domineer’ or “misuse authority” is not the only negative concepts (and I’m not necessarily conceeding that either). I suggested that “compel” might have a negative tinge to it. Grudem does somewhat maybe allow that.

    Thus “authenteo” does have some negativity in its meaning, that is, as far as the research I’ve read suggests.

    I would like evidence that there is no way that “compel” can be negative. Or that “compel” is an impossible translation for “authenteo”

    I guess I should shut up now.

    One more, at great risk, I haven’t had time to even listen to Dr. Ware thus I haven’t commented on him. I only comment on matters of which I have had access to. I have Baldwin’s work and Grudem’s. Thus I comment, but I guess I shouldn’t since that makes me an instrument toward cancer and tools.

    Shutting up now,

    David

  18. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 26, 2008 at 2:21 pm #

    John,

    You are being hateful, close-minded, condescending, and arrogant for saying that I am.

    I merely agree with Denny, Pastor Tommy Nelson, and Benjamin A, and for that I am unfairly subjected to your vicious vitriol.

  19. Scott June 26, 2008 at 2:26 pm #

    Benjamin,

    Well at least we agree on one thing 😉

    Sorry for being over-zealous on that comment! Need a dose of my own medicine. Thanks for a kindly reply.

  20. Benjamin A June 26, 2008 at 2:29 pm #

    Sue,

    This is a repeated question that as of yet you haven’t had time to address. Just didn’t want it to get dropped.

    Can you provide one example of aner rightly being translated (person/man-generic) from the New Testament text?

    You cited many from much later sources, showing that aner can be used generically, so I’m curious what you have found in researching the New Testament text.

    In the New Testament text, Vine’s says this: aner- is never used of the female sex; it stands (a) in distinction from a woman….

    Have you discovered this not to be the case in the N.T. and if so where?

    Also, could you source this Grudem quote you have used as I would like to see it in its broader context.

    Grudem: “I could add a note here on the Greek word aner: Greek scholars for hundreds of years have known that aner means “man” not “person.” Recently, with no new evidence, but under cultural pressure, some have discovered a new meaning, “person.”

  21. Benjamin A June 26, 2008 at 2:38 pm #

    David,

    Your question: “I would like evidence that there is no way that “compel” can be negative. Or that “compel” is an impossible translation for “authenteo”

    Compel is morally neutral. Context dictates positive or negative overtones for how one compels another (positively/negatively).

    Compel: Webster’s 9th; “1. to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly; 2. To cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure; 3. Archaic: to drive together”.

    Thus evidence that compel does not automatically imply negativity.

  22. Sue June 26, 2008 at 3:01 pm #

    Compel: Webster’s 9th; “1. to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly; 2. To cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure; 3. Archaic: to drive together”.

    And how is this supposed to reflect proper church leadership? Only the Spirit can compel. Is this the proper exercise of authority. (I haven’t forgotten your other questions.)

  23. quixote June 26, 2008 at 3:07 pm #

    John,

    Denny deleted my comment to TUAD as well, and the accompanying comment to Denny himself regarding Dr. Ware’s statement on abuse. Yet look at TUAD’s #18, left untouched. Alas.

  24. quixote June 26, 2008 at 3:07 pm #

    David (NAS) Rogers,

    PLEASE don’t shut up. Or if you do, can you leave a link where I can read more of your exegesis?

  25. Benjamin A June 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm #

    Sue,

    Overseers (1 Tim. 3:1-7) are to compel Christ’s church to engage the world with Christ’s mission/message.

    Overseers are to compel believers living in open sin to repent and be restored in fellowship.

    I could go on…

    Is that answering your question?

  26. Benjamin A June 26, 2008 at 3:19 pm #

    David,

    I concur with Quixote, please don’t stop sharing/asking questions. Freedom of speech means free to speak as you wish. Just as others are free to do the same. Your contributions to this dialogue have been and are welcome as far as I’m concerned.

  27. Darius June 26, 2008 at 3:19 pm #

    John, could you please point out a comment of TUAD’s ON THIS THREAD (besides #18, which was merely turning your comment around and sending it back at ya) or are you just intolerant of other people’s viewpoints? Is simply calling a spade a spade no longer allowed in Christian circles, even though that’s what Jesus did on repeated occasions (read: where He called the Pharisees evil)?

    At the same time, I recognize that TUAD has his moments where he could be more gracious (or at least not toy so closely with the ad hominem line of arguments)… but is that not true of all of us? It is certainly of me.

  28. Sue June 26, 2008 at 3:28 pm #

    Benjamin,

    Here is 1 Tim. 4:11

    παράγγελλε ταῦτα καὶ δίδασκε

    transmit these things and teach.

    This is not coercive.

    -set a good example.
    -cut a straight path for the word,
    -set these things before the brothers.

  29. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 26, 2008 at 3:50 pm #

    Quixote,

    You’re something else.

    On the Pastor Tommy Nelson thread:

    Quixote: “I’d like to read a female scholar’s defense of complimentarianism. Are there any? So far, all I’ve heard are old(er) white men bullying the pulpit. Which leads me to think it’s just a matter of keeping women in their place…under men.”

    TUAD (provides links to): “Dr. Dorothy Patterson

    Professor Mary Kassian”

    Quixote: “TUAD,

    I am not an egalitarian. I am just looking for answers. And yours seem so arrogant and chauvanist, that I’m inclined to think you’re simply sexist and reading Scripture through your personal lens.”

    ???????

    No acknowledgement of my answer to her question by providing the specific examples of Dr. Paige Patterson and Professor Mary Kassian. Instead, I just receive ad hominem name-calling insults.

    Beyond sad.

  30. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 26, 2008 at 3:53 pm #

    Ooops. I meant to write Dr. Dorothy Patterson. Not Dr. Paige Patterson.

  31. Benjamin A June 26, 2008 at 4:19 pm #

    Sue,

    I’m not sure what parangello has to do with our discussion of authenteo?

    However, parangello is better understood as ‘give a charge’ or ‘command’. Your rendering “transmit” is not sufficient. Other usages of parangello clearly indicate that point. Try using “transmit” in these verses below. Doesn’t capture the writer’s intent.

    Mark 6:8 “He ordered (parangello) them to take nothing for their journey except a staff…”
    He wasn’t asking, He was telling…

    Luke 8:29 “for Jesus had commanded (parangello) the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For ….”
    Again, Jesus didn’t say “If you would choose to come out, well great… He told the unclean spirit what to do. Command!

    Luke 9:21 “And having warned them He gave orders (parangello)to tell no one”
    This is what He expected. He ordered them not to tell…

    Acts 5:28 “Saying, [did we] not with a strict command (parangello) charge you not to teach in this name…”
    Transmit just doesn’t work here either….

    2 Thess. 3:4 “And we have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that you are doing and will go on doing the things that we command (parangello).”

    See also 2 Thess. 3:6,10,12 (more of the same).

    Again, you said of parangello “This is not coercive.”

    However, it seems that parangello is rather coercive. So in 1 Tim. 4:11 a good translation could read “These are the things you must insist on and teach.(NRSV)” Or simply, “Command (parangello) these things and teach.”

  32. Benjamin A June 26, 2008 at 4:30 pm #

    Sue,

    By the way, not looking to engage in a different word study issue. I did engage on parangello, but again, authenteo [compel] is where this rabbit trail began. I don’t want to blur the issue or get off task.

    Again, authenteo is clearly morally neutral and is thus subject to context (positive/negative overtones).

    You questioned what that would look like in church leadership and I gave a couple of examples. See post #25.

    And from there we somehow landed on parangello???

    What objections do you find with my examples from post #25? Can’t you see that overseers are to compel (authenteo) the church of God on to Christ-likeness???

  33. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 26, 2008 at 4:39 pm #

    (Read this on another blog)

    When I say secondary, I mean secondary. Not unimportant, but secondary. There is primary, and secondary, and tertiary, etc. It is of primary importance that people “love one another” and “love the Lord with all your heart…”. In a liberal wicked culture, this means something **quite** different from the meaning it had in the context the early Church.

    [Set off in Block Paragraph]

    Thus the attitude which says “theology is very much secondary” and means “we can ignore theology as long as we all just get along” (as opposed to meaning “theology is secondary because it is a means to an end… an end which requires that sound theology but is more than just theology”) is, quite frankly, the kind of attitude which is at the heart of the modern apostasy… and the kind of thing you’ll regularly hear from the homosexualists and other heretics.

    [End of Block Paragraph]

    This is absolutely true. And so how did [this denomination] get to this place? It is because Christians have not loved each other. But I’m not talking about tea and crumpets and pasta dinners. I’m talking about love that stands up and confronts. “I opposed Peter to his face” out of love and “shall I come with a stick” out of love and “I am perplexed about you” out of love and “my soul takes no pleasure in cowards” and “remove such a one” out of love and “stop sinning or something worse will happen to you” and “reject a contentious man” out of love. It takes this kind of love to protect the church. This kind of love gains nothing for the one that dispenses it. It divides. It creates tension. It roots out. It is painful. This kind of love is born of only one place – a mystical union with Christ. A pure love of Christ and a powerful life unhindered by a bad conscience. It take the humiliation of confessed sins.

    Theology teaches us skill in how to love, but you have to have the heart right first. A coward with a sword makes a useless soldier.

    When is last time you (a figurative “you”) actually confronted a cantankerous person? When is the last time you stood ground and had others break fellowship with you? When is the last time you confronted a brother about his sins and had a complete mess on your hands as a result? This kind of love is what is missing, not some sappy feeling that says “you’re ok, I’m ok” or “include all at all costs”. I’m talking about the kind of love that excludes when necessary, and longs and burns for Christ, to the point it is willing to confront sin head on and not back down when the wicked threaten with instability.

    Love is offensive, but “the wicked flee when no one persues”. However, the wicked don’t flee when Christians don’t love on the offensive. The wicked have not flown the coop because they are not scared. There has been a failure to love in the power of Christ. This kind of love always will “silence the enemy and the avenger.” (Psalm 8).”

    Pastor Tommy Nelson has this kind of “offensive” Love in preaching complementarianism, and preaching against the aberrant errors of egalitarianism. God bless him.

  34. Sue June 26, 2008 at 4:47 pm #

    Benjamin,

    Please understand that I am catching only a very few seconds.

    Can’t you see that overseers are to compel (authenteo) the church of God on to Christ-likeness???

    What verse are you quoting here? If you mean only 1 Tim. 2:12, then the answer is no, that is not supported elsewhere in the scriptures.

    Authenteo is neutral when refering to the neutral absolute power of the master over the slave, ruler over the ruled, God over people, the Spirit over people, a planet over people.

    Where is authenteo neutral for one person over another?

    This word means to have or take over power.

  35. quixote June 26, 2008 at 4:56 pm #

    TUAD#33,

    Would that you re-read your #33 comment a hundred times over. There is a difference between a truth/love that offends and a person who’s just plain offensive.

  36. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 26, 2008 at 5:08 pm #

    Citing Wayne Grudem’s book, Nelson said that egalitarianism is the “new path to liberalism” because it effectively sets aside the authority of the Bible. He said that the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church. Pastor Nelson says that egalitarianism is “Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

    Praise God for pastors like Tommy Nelson who will preach a truth/love that offends without being offensive!

  37. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 26, 2008 at 5:16 pm #

    Quixote,

    Read post #29 over and over again until you have it memorized.

  38. Ferg June 26, 2008 at 6:11 pm #

    TUAD – I’m pretty amazed that you cannot see that maybe, just maybe, you can be a little arrogant.

    And also perhaps it is offensive to say that what egalitarians believe is Satanic and cancerous.

  39. Sue June 26, 2008 at 6:44 pm #

    Benjamin,

    Aner is a rabbit trail as far as I am concerned. Grudem writes,

    (I could add a note here on the Greek word aner: Greek scholars for hundreds of years have known that aner means “man” not “person.” Recently, with no new evidence, but under cultural pressure, some have discovered a new meaning, “person.” But no scholar has produced any convincing examples among the 216 uses in the NT. Even if it could mean “person” in rare cases, is would require compelling evidence from each context to overturn normal use. But with no compelling evidence, the TNIV translates aner in a gender-neutral way 31 times.)

    NIV James 1:12 Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

    TNIV James 1:12 Blessed are those who persevere under trial, because when they have stood the test, they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

    What’s wrong? The TNIV mistranslates the Greek word aner, which means a male human being. Thus it loses the probable allusion to James’ brother Jesus, “the man” who truly persevered under trail. It also loses the allusion to the example of the “blessed man” in Old Testament wisdom literature (Psalm 1:1; 32:2; 40:4, etc.).

    But I rightly show that before from classical Greek (not later than, as you state) there are many cases where translators of Greek into English have translated aner with “person” or some other gender neutral term.

    a) ἀνήρ(singular) as ‘person’

    i) εὐφήμει: οὐ μεντἂν καλῶς ποιοίην
    οὐ πειθόμενος ἀνδρὶ ἀγαθῷ καὶ σοφῷ.

    Hush, hush! Why, surely it would be wrong of me
    not to obey a good and wise person. Plato. Hipparchus. 228b

    ii) ἀλλ’ ἴσως, ὦ βέλτιστε, φαίη ἄν τις ἀνήρ,
    ὃς ἐμοῦ τε καὶ σοῦ σοφώτερος ὢν τυγχάνοι,
    οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἡμᾶς, λέγειν, οὕτως εἰκῇ ψέγοντας ἄγνοιαν,

    But perhaps, my excellent friend, some person who is wiser
    than either you or I may say we are wrong to be so free with our abuse of ignorance. Plato. Alcibiades 2. 143b

    b)ἀνήρ (singular) as ‘everyone’

    πᾶς ἀνήρ, κἂν δοῦλος ᾖ τις, ἥδεται τὸ φῶς ὁρῶν

    Slave or free, every one is glad to gaze upon the light. Euripides. Orestes. 1523.

    c) ἀνήρ (singular) as ‘they’

    ὅταν ἀγασθῶσι σφόδρα του, σεῖος ἀνήρ φασιν,
    οὕτω καὶ ὁ θηριώδης ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις σπάνιος:

    ‘Yon mon’s divine, ’they say–, so a bestial character is rare among human beings; Aristotle. Nic. Ethics. 1145a 25.

    d) ἀνήρ (singular) as ‘citizen’,
    either male or female

    ποτὲ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς γίγνοιτ’ ἄν,
    τὴν ἀνθρώπῳ προσήκουσαν ἀρετὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἔχων …. ,
    εἴτε ἄρρην τις των συνοικούντων
    οὖσα ἡ φύσις εἴτε θήλεια, νέων ἢ γερόντων

    … in which a member of our community–
    be he of the male or female sex, young or old,–
    may become a good citizen,
    possessed of the excellence of soul
    which belongs to man. Plato’s Laws 6. 770d.

    (In this sentence, the Greek word ανθρωπος is translated as “man” generic, “the excellence of soul which belongs to man”, that is, the human, either male or female; and the word ανηρ is translated as citizen, either male or female.)

    e) ἀνήρ as ‘individual’

    ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν τοῦ χρυσοῦ τε καὶ ἀργύρου
    ἀπληστίαν πᾶσαν μὲν τέχνην καὶ μηχανήν …
    ἐθέλειν ὑπομένειν πάντα ἄνδρα, εἰ μέλλει πλούσιος ἔσεσθαι

    every individual, because of his greed for silver and gold,
    is willing to toil at every art and device, noble or ignoble,
    if he is likely to get rich by it, Plato’s Laws. 8.831d.

    f) ανδρες as ‘friends’

    ὦ πάντων ἀνδρῶν ἄριστοι

    Most excellent friends, … Plato’s Laws. 5.741a.

    g) ανδρες as ‘citizens’

    νείμασθαι δὲ δὴ καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας δώδεκα μέρη

    And he must divide the citizens
    also into twelve parts, … Plato’s Laws. 5.745d.

    Dr. Grudem claims that the Today’s New Internation Version “mistranslates” aner because

    “Greek scholars for hundreds of years have known that aner means “man” not “person.” ”

    But, in fact, a hundred years ago Greek scholars where translating the word aner in a gender neutral way fairly frequently from calssical Greek sources. So, no, the TNIV was not bowing to cultural pressure to do something wrong, but to do something right.

    The TNIV translators have the right to translate aner in a scholarly acceptable way without being harrassed by Dr. Grudem’s articles on the CBMW website.

    I would like to see this material taken down and an apology made to the translators of the TNIV before all the people involved die of old age.

  40. Sue June 26, 2008 at 6:50 pm #

    If anyone wants more detail on that I have written a paper on it and I appealed to Dr. Grudem to take down his attack on the Today’s New International Version.

    If there are further questions I can assure you that there are more articles about aner around.

    Here is the conclusion by Dan Wallace,

    All in all, the evidence is not great that aner sometimes refers to a person rather than specifically to an adult male. But it is compelling enough, in some of these examples, to warrant its force as a legitimate meaning for the term in Koine Greek. Preference in most passages should be given to adult male as the meaning, but certainly not in all.

    Quite frankly, it is not worth worrying about but for some reason Dr. Grudem was not aware that for over 100 years, scholars have been translating aner with “person.”

  41. Truth Unites.. and Divides June 26, 2008 at 6:53 pm #

    Ferg,

    I’m never amazed when someone who holds to error calls the person who holds to and proclaims truth as arrogant.

    When falsehood can’t beat truth in the realm of discussion, then what’s left is for falsehood to name-call and make insults.

    But even this plan B ploy doesn’t work with me. One, I see it for what it is. Falsehood just trying to get in a cheap shot so that it can feel better for not having prevailed in the discussion. And two, I just put up the titanium mirror and the cheap shots boomerang back with twice the effect towards the shooter. Then the banshees really start screaming!

    P.S. Sue discredits Grudem’s entire text, Systematic Theology, as being seemingly pagan because she distorts what he’s saying and equivocating-claiming that Grudem subordinates God to humans.

    Then Sue discredits Ware’s entire sermon based on her distortion of what he’s saying about abuse.

    I simply point out what she’s done. She’s rightfully discredited by me for distorting and misrepresenting Grudem and Ware in her continual attempts to wrongfully discredit them.

    Let’s discern rightly.

  42. Sue June 26, 2008 at 8:12 pm #

    Denny,

    Could I just politely ask you if you noticed that you wrote,

    Commenters have disputed Baldwin’s interpretation of authenteō in its three uses in extra-biblical Greek written prior to 1 Timothy,

    Only one of the occurrences is before the epistle. This is (1st BCE) “compel.” The others are (2nd D)”dominate” and (3rd AD) either “have the authority of a master over a slave” or “lord it over.”

    Where is the evidence for “exercise authority over” as in church leadership? Is there evidence for this?

  43. Sue June 26, 2008 at 8:13 pm #

    The others are (2nd AD)”dominate.”

  44. John June 26, 2008 at 8:26 pm #

    TUAD,

    Do you understand that it is people like you that make others want to have nothing to do with your theological belief system? I don’t know you, nor do I know what you do, but something is driving you to act in such a divisive, arrogant manner…and it’s not “truth” or “Jesus.” The sad thing is TUAD, you actually believe people confront you on these issues because “the truth hurts” and “the Gospel is offensive.” That, sir, is tragic.

    Think about these things…

  45. Truth Unites... and Divides June 26, 2008 at 8:38 pm #

    John,

    As you said, you don’t know me. Then why are you so judgmental and quarrelsome?

    You don’t think “the truth hurts” sometimes? You don’t think people claim that “the Gospel is offensive”?

    Do you understand that it is people like you that make others want to have nothing to do with your theological belief system?

    Dwell upon these things….

  46. JNG June 26, 2008 at 9:49 pm #

    I have to say I agree with John on this one. TUAD I have stayed out of this discussion, but from an outsiders perspective your attitude and the way you converse with people is a big turn off. I won’t preach to you, but you may want to do some study on walking in love, I think that TRUTH has a lot more emphasis placed on it in the Bible than whether or not a woman can speak in church, and it is clearly defined. It is deeply saddening to see someone of faith who obviously has a lot of knowledge of scripture behaving the way you are. It is disheartening because it certainly does not give a very good testimony.

    I know we can all get heated in these discussions, but I ask that you take a step back and really look at the way you are treating other people you disagree with. This issue is not as cut and dry as you believe and compelling arguments are being made on both sides. A little humility and a lot of love go a long way. Without it I am afraid your arguments will never carry as much weight as you would like them to.

  47. Truth Unites... and Divides June 26, 2008 at 10:08 pm #

    JNG: “This issue is not as cut and dry as you believe and compelling arguments are being made on both sides.

    I disagree. Obviously I disagree. The arguments for the complementarian position are compelling. And the arguments for the egalitarian position are not compelling.

    I’ll give you an analogy that you won’t like, but that I do. The serpent said to Eve, “Did God really say….?” Speculating, the serpent could use your line of reasoning to deceive Eve: “The issue of the forbidden fruit is not as cut and dry as you believe and compelling arguments are being made on both sides as to whether the fruit is really forbidden to you.”

    Saying that something is blurry and fuzzy when it’s actually clear and making the self-righteous claim of humility is the way of deception and destruction.

    Peddle it somewhere else JNG.

    Let me offer another analogy: The Fox tv show, House M.D. I submit to you that Dr. House is the *MOST* loving doctor to his patients and students because he pierces through their self-deceptions and heals the patients. He practices the “offensive” love that I spoke of in #33.

  48. JNG June 26, 2008 at 11:17 pm #

    “peddle it somewhere else”

    I highly doubt that even in your offensive love, and it is quite offensive that you would say such things to people’s faces. If you do then I doubt you EVER make any headway and often end up “with a complete mess on your hands as a result”.

    Your love is not offensive love it is just plain offensive. There is no love in your comments no matter how you want to justify them.

    Your truth is not concrete truth. I am sure there are many issues we agree upon, but you missed my entire point. A little humility and a lot of love go a long way in strengthening your arguments. I highly doubt Paul used the language and tone you carry when confronting Peter. It has been pointed out by many of us, and if you refuse to see and continue to lash out you are only harming yourself and your testimony. I am regretful of both, but mostly of your harming your testimony.

  49. Truth Unites... and Divides June 26, 2008 at 11:25 pm #

    JNG,

    I find your remarks offensive.

    Especially since you fail to acknowledge what I wrote before to you:

    “Saying that something is blurry and fuzzy when it’s actually clear and making the self-righteous claim of humility is the way of deception and destruction.”

    It grieves me that you fail to see the harm in blurring God’s Word.

  50. John June 26, 2008 at 11:34 pm #

    It’s pointless, just leave it be. He posts on 100 other blogs and is very seasoned in his “apologetic” skills about justifying himself for behaving in this manner, so any attempt on our part is worthless.

  51. Benjamin A June 27, 2008 at 12:27 am #

    Sue,

    Thanks for your #39 post. The way I’m reading/understanding Grudem is that he is saying Greek scholars know that in the N.T. text, aner means man (male). Could there be a rare occasion? It seems Grudem is saying, “Sure”. Rare. Just as Dan Wallace is saying, rare.

    The way you couched it before post #39, made Grudem look like an idiot; as if he didn’t know sources outside the N.T. text used aner to mean ‘person’. I believe he clearly knows that to be the case.

    There is a big difference between the two so I’m glad you provided more of that Grudem quote to clearly show that his statement was referring to the N.T. text. Thank you!

    The reason this is not a rabbit trail is that the TNIV, as Grudem pointed out translated aner as gender neutral some 31 times (that would not be rare). By the way, do you know where I could find a list of those 31 occurrences? I would like to look each of them up to evaluate them in context.

    Denny, perhaps you know of such a source??

  52. Sue June 27, 2008 at 12:52 am #

    Benjamin,

    These are quotes from Dr. Grudem,

    So where is the evidence that aner can mean “person” without implying a male person?

    We do not wish to deny the possibility that the plural of aner could take on a wider sense such as “people” in the fixed idiomatic expression, andres + plural noun, such as “men of Athens,” “men of Israel,” etc. But where is the proof?

    If substantial evidence is forthcoming, we would be happy to change out understanding of plural andres, and we recognize that there may be such evidence that we have not yet seen, especially with regard to fixed idioms such as “men of Athens,” etc. But we have not yet seen clear evidence that this is the case. So we cannot at this point agree with the TNIV’s claim that aner “was occasionally used as a generic term for human beings.”

    If any meaning “person” existed, scholars would have found many clear examples centuries ago.

    The major way to establish how to translate something in the Bible is to see how it is translated elsewhere. This is why the evidence is important. If aner is translated as “person” outside of the Bible then it can be translated that way in the Bible.

    Dr. Grudem’s complaint against the TNIV is not valid. Wallace’s paper was written in order to defend the use of aner as rare but permissible.

    Kostenberger also had written a paper that aner cannot mean person, but he later said that he had changed his mind.

    So, in all, Dr. Grudem’s complaint against the TNIV on aner is not important.

    The 31 instances of aner not translated as man in the TNIV is not significant theologically in most people’s opinion.

    The fact remains that Dr. Grudem wrote,

    “If any meaning “person” existed, scholars would have found many clear examples centuries ago.”

    But, in fact, scholars did find those clear examples years ago. Grudem clearly meant that there were no clear examples of a gender neutral use of aner, and Plato clearly says that the aner can be male or female.

    Benjamin, you wrote,

    The way you couched it before post #39, made Grudem look like an idiot; as if he didn’t know sources outside the N.T. text used aner to mean ‘person’. I believe he clearly knows that to be the case.

    No, I honestly do not think that Dr. Grudem was familiar with most of the evidence that I have posted here. Otherwise he would not have said what he did.

    This is important because the translators of the TNIV is translated by both complementarians and egalitarians who agreed that aner sometimes means simply “person.”

  53. Sue June 27, 2008 at 12:55 am #

    The way you couched it before post #39, made Grudem look like an idiot; as if he didn’t know sources outside the N.T. text used aner to mean ‘person’. I believe he clearly knows that to be the case.

    I did not mean that I would characterize Grudem as you have said, but I believe that he is not a scholar of classical Greek.

  54. Sue June 27, 2008 at 12:56 am #

    Sorry, too many typos. So many good questions, Benjamin.

  55. Truth Unites... and Divides June 27, 2008 at 1:45 am #

    “As a philosophy major then, I created my own one-woman women studies department, wrapping any course I happened to be taking – existentialism, Hegelian logic, Dewey and the Amercian experience – around my core passion: to see women delivered from the condition the Rolling Stones described as “Under My Thumb” into absolute freedom and a level playing field with men.

    As for God, well he was simply a construct of men, and the epitome of the Oppressor. On his behalf the Church had persecuted and destroyed the keepers of the older, feminine divine wisdom.

    With my countercultural background, words like “submit” and “obey” had not been the stuff my dreams – or reality – were made of. My marriage as a strong-willed radical feminist to an equally strong-willed man had been four years of great accomplishment as we worked together to build a family, home, and business; but it had been one of constant turmoil. Though our New Age spiritual practices put us in harmony with the universe, it did not put us in harmony with each other. He wanted things his way. I wanted things my way.
    But God wanted things his way and so when we became Christians – fortunately at the same moment – the greater part of this discord was laid to rest as we placed ourselves in submission to God.

    For me it was quite simple. In agreeing to make Jesus Lord of my life, I was committing to obeying his word. I wanted a Christian marriage. My husband’s challenge was different as he had to learn to take the reins and hold them, becoming fully responsible for the decisions and direction of our family.

    Working heartily had never been a problem for us, but now our work would be freed from constant disagreement and together in his service.

    1 Timothy 2:11-14 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

    I have come to see women differently than I used to. We are not at our best when we are loud and bossy. As a Christian I have been disappointed and disturbed by women who are dominating and desperate to control everything from Sunday School discussion to the flow of prayer. In one church we attended the Leader of Women’s Ministries felt compelled on a regular basis to grab the microphone right before the final blessing to share whatever epiphany she had had during the pastor’s sermon. I wondered how she could be so unaware that while we all had responses to the sermon, the pastor was the one designated to hear in advance from the Holy Spirit what we needed to hear. How could she not trust the Holy Spirit to work in our individual hearts without her help?

    It’s lapses in judgment like hers that help me understand how Eve could have made such a grave error. And, yes, I believe we share her weakness and her shame.

    Genesis 2:18 18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

    And did God make the helper only to cook his food and wash man’s clothes? By no means. He made a helper whose way of apprehending the world was different, who could fill in the gaps that might sometimes appear, who could serve as an early-warning system, who could catch his attention when he was feeling especially impetuous and – in her best Esther-like manner – draw his attention to certain information he might need.

    Man’s challenge is to accept the help women can offer. Women’s challenge is to offer that help in a way that does detract from the model of submission God has given us, and to give her husband the final word.”

    Read it all at Reflections of a former feminist on submission

  56. Ferg June 27, 2008 at 3:07 am #

    TUAD – equating yourself to Dr. House. I now have a new appreciation for your humour!! (I presume your were joking). Perhaps I might write a book about the love of Dr. House and how he brings the light of Jesus to people. Thanks for the inspiration.

  57. D.J. Williams June 27, 2008 at 7:29 am #

    House is funnier. 🙂

    Seriously, though, TUAD – as one who actually agrees with your theological position, please reconsider the tone of your argumentation. I do think it has come across as arrogant, which is the last attitude that good theology should produce.

  58. Paul June 27, 2008 at 8:53 am #

    Sue,

    I asked this a few weeks back. And I do not think I ever recevied a reply. If so, I apologize. What is your fascination with Chrysostom? Is he the only Church Father? Have you done any research on other Church Father’s?

    Paul

  59. Truth Unites... and Divides June 27, 2008 at 9:21 am #

    On the right hand side of Denny’s home page he has a blog roll. One of them is Touchstone magazine.

    There is a blogpost over there about egalitarian Professor John Stackhouse’s book, Finally Feminist.

    John Stackhouse interacts with the commenters over there in this thread, Hutchens’ Maid

    One commenter wrote: “[I] wish if Dr. Stackhouse really believed their critiques were substantively off, he would have substantiated that charge rather than resorting to sarcasm and complaints about stye.

    If you’d like, here is Dr. Hutchen’s review of Dr. Stackhouse’s book: A Maid to Order Bible

    Excerpt: “Worst of all, it became apparent as the work progressed that there was a controlling agenda behind it that came not only from outside the Bible, but outside any historically plausible definition of Christianity.”

    Light. Clarity. Truth. Tough Love.

  60. Sue June 27, 2008 at 10:25 am #

    Paul,

    I’m sorry. Do you have a specific question? Yes, I have done research on other church fathers. But it is far from exhaustive.

    I forget your question but it was not intentional. In my view these threads are being destroyed by interjections which do not further the discussion.

    Please ask again. I just lost track.

  61. Truth Unites... and Divides June 27, 2008 at 11:12 am #

    Paul: “What is your fascination with Chrysostom? Is he the only Church Father? Have you done any research on other Church Father’s?”

    FYI and FWIW, Dr. Hutchens, in his aforementioned review linked to in comment #59 quotes Dr. Stackhouse on the Early Church Fathers:

    “We properly revere the early church fathers for bequeathing us much classic wisdom,” he says, “but their general misogyny is a scandal. Most of them, as far as we know, really did see women as not only spiritually and intellectually inferior to men, but also positively dangerous to men’s godliness.”

  62. Sue June 27, 2008 at 11:20 am #

    And that is why we must read the church fathers in their context and read connected passages, and read their letters and name them by name.

    Why lump people all together? But it is true that Chrysostom did say that reason teaches that women are subordinate and women are subordinate because of the contention between man and woman.

    But, he also said, and Augustine and Jerome oncur, that women were subordinated in Gen. 3:16. by the fall.

  63. Sue June 27, 2008 at 11:21 am #

    – concur –

    This topic is way too complicated for this thread.

  64. Benjamin A June 27, 2008 at 11:49 am #

    Sue,

    Thanks for your response in post #52. We simply see the same thing but come to differing conclusions. I do not think Grudem is unaware of classical Greek usage (Plato- as you pointed out). I do believe he is looking at the N.T. text and saying what he’s saying. Thus his using “men of Athens” and “men of Israel” as examples.

  65. Sue June 27, 2008 at 12:13 pm #

    Benjamin,

    I have reason to think otherwise.

    Many masculine gender words in Greek routinely referred to women as well, just as “men” used to in English.

    Adelphoi, for example, usually translated as “brothers,” is used to name Cleopatra and Ptolemy, her brother. They were called adelphoi, clearly “siblings” nad not “brothers.”

    Dr. Grudem put in the original gender guidelines that adelphoi cannot be translated as “brothers and sisters.” However, this was later changed after consulting a lexicon of classical Greek. Dr. Grudem wrote in his book on the gender neutral Bible that he had not been aware of the content of the classical Greek lexicon.

    Here maybe this will help,

    On June 2, 1997, when the initial Colorado Springs Guidelines were agreed on, Guideline B 1 originally read,

    “Brother” (adelphos) and “brothers” (adelphoi) should not be changed to “brother(s) and sister(s).”

    In The TNIV and the GNB, 2004, p. 425 – 426, Poythress and Grudem write, “Examination of further lexicological data (as indicated in chapter 12) showed that this guideline was too narrow.”

    The following refined guideline was approved on Sept. 9, 1997,

    “Brother” adelphos should not be changed to “brother or sister”; however, the plural adelphoi can be translated “brothers and sisters” where the context makes clear that the author is referring to both men and women.
    What was the ‘further lexicological data’? In Poythress and Grudem’s own words,

    “in fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, ‘brother” sometimes means “brothers and sisters” (see BAGD, 1957 and 1979, Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and even 1869).

    This material was new evidence to those of us who wrote the May 27 guidlines – we weren’t previously aware of this pattern of Greek usage outside the Bible. Once we saw these examples and others like them, we felt we had to make some change in the guidelines.”

    So I have a good reason to say that I do not think that Dr. Grudem explored the lexicons of classical Greek as much as he ought to have, when researching gender language.

    Now, look at Acts 2:22. In the context, it appears that the people being addressed were, in fact, the “people of Israel” and not the “men of Israel.” Since the expression was a normal form of address to citizens in public, it follows that women were included. We see in Plato that aner is the citizen and not the “man, the male.” For Plato it is both male and female.

    However, a Bible can translate this word as “men” and no one will form a coalition against that translation. But when it is translated as “people of Israel” then there is a concerted public effort to discredit that translation.

    So, my concern is that those who say that aner cannot be “person” or “people” realize that there are two possible sides to this, and accept openness to both sides.

    I think that you would agree with that. That both are acceptable interpretations.

    Look at

  66. Benjamin A June 27, 2008 at 12:26 pm #

    Sue,

    In your post #34 you said, “Authenteo is neutral when refering to the neutral absolute power of the master over the slave, ruler over the ruled, God over people, the Spirit over people, a planet over people.

    Where is authenteo neutral for one person over another?

    This word means to have or take over power.”

    Authenteo is neutral when referring to absolute power of:

    1. Master over the slave. A master is a person and a slave is a person. Authenteo is either negative or positive depending on how the Master (one person) treats the slave (another person). Your question was, “Where is authenteo neutral for one person over another?” Your own statement gives you the answer.

    2. Ruler over the ruled. *Apply same logic as above (see #1) [one person over another].

    Authenteo does not mean “to have or take over power”.

    Authenteo simply means “to have authority” or “to exercise authority” and is morally neutral; relying on context for positive or negative overtones. And if one wants to push for the meaning ‘compel’, that’s fine too because ‘compel’ is also morally neutral dependant on context for either positive or negative overtones.

    There’s not one shred of proof that authenteo MUST be inherently negative regardless of context. NONE.

  67. Truth Unites... and Divides June 27, 2008 at 12:28 pm #

    Benjamin A, et al,

    Please do look at this thread where Sue commits the root fallacy” in her lexical research.

    Here’s are excerpts:

    “Sue’s fantasies of interpretation arise out of the “etymological root fallacy,” an interpretive error common among the amateurs and those with special agendas.”

    For an explanation of the root fallacy, click here . Also on this page is an explanation of an error dubbed “the overload fallacy.” It looks very much like what D. A. Caron has styled “the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy,” and Sue’s comments might well be an example of this interpretive fallacy as well.”

    “Sue,

    There’s no problem with running to a lexicon. The problem arises when one gets there and finds a range of meanings, dependent on context, which the lexicon-user then ignores, resorting first to an interpretive criterion alien to the text in which the word appears. This generates any number of word-meaning fallacies, some of which I referred to in that link I provided. The “root fallacy” is one of the more common of these.”

    From: Egalitarian Flummery No. 2

  68. Sue June 27, 2008 at 12:37 pm #

    Is this the example for authority in marriage and the church? If so, we should know about it.

    Authenteo is either negative or positive depending on how the Master (one person) treats the slave (another person).

  69. Sue June 27, 2008 at 1:32 pm #

    Authenteo simply means “to have authority” or “to exercise authority” and is morally neutral; relying on context for positive or negative overtones.

    Where is the occurrence of authenteo with context which gives it positive overtones?

  70. John June 27, 2008 at 5:03 pm #

    TUAD, your exegetical skills are amusing. Anybody can post a link to an article by somebody, so if you can’t interact with the textual issues, then don’t interact. I’m not trying to be mean, I’m just trying to give you some pointers for in the future so you can save face a little bit (which is pretty hopeless on this blog, but maybe not on one of your other 100 blogs).

  71. Sue June 27, 2008 at 8:28 pm #

    I have changed my link to my personal site so people can comment there.

  72. Sue June 27, 2008 at 8:30 pm #

    I have changed my link to my personal site so people can comment there.

  73. Truth Unites... and Divides July 2, 2008 at 8:14 pm #

    Benjamin A, et al,

    It may be of interest to you to look at this thread (here are some excerpts):

    Green Baggins, #25: “Sue, a couple of thoughts here. Firstly, the range of authenteo is by no means limited to negative “domineering.” That is one possibility, but by no means the only possibility. Even Baldwin, in his monumental, exhaustive study of the word did not conlude that domineer is an impossibility. See pages 49-51 of the second edition of _Women in the Church_. Simple, positively viewed “having authority” is a genuinely attested usage. Add to that Kostenberger’s unshaken (and basically unchallenged) study of the syntax of “neither this nor that” such that both activities are viewed either positively or both negatively (and it is quite apparent that teaching is viewed positively, since negative teaching has another word for it), then authenteo is viewed positively as simply having authority. That is then negatived such that women are not to have authority over men in the church.”

    Sue, #96: “This is the first time I have posted on a site where people don’t read Greek. I am not used to working from commentaries. I really don’t know what else to say. I can’t show you how it works if you don’t read Greek.”

    Green Baggins, #97: “I have had 7 years of Greek, Sue, including 3 years of classical Greek at St. Olaf College, and 4 years of NT Greek at Westminster Theological Seminary. What on earth made you think that I don’t read Greek?”

    Green Baggins, #100: “Fancy that, Sue. Two people who both understand Greek coming to completely opposite conclusions about what the word means. I don’t think it is the first time. …

    You still have not answered the grammatical argument of Kostenberger. His argument does not depend on the meaning of authenteo. In fact, his argument heavily influences how we should read the verb.”

    Green Baggins, #101: “Sue, my confusion over two very similar names should not lead anyone to conclude that I don’t read Greek. This does not give me much confidence in your powers of logic.

    Sue, are you truly teachable? Are you truly humble? I have tried exceedingly hard not only to listen to your arguments, but to all the egalitarian arguments. I have tried to answer your arguments. As sad as your experience with men in the past has been, it in no way constitutes any reason why I should be convinced by your arguments. This is not to downplay what you have experienced. The interpretation of passages of Scripture cannot be based on our experience. Rather, Scripture judges our experience.”

    Green Baggins, #104: “No, Sue, I have not in the least sidestepped Philodemus. I argued that just because we do not have the original any longer does not mean that we don’t have it. So your argument about it not existing is not valid.

    Contrary to your assertion, Sue, I am not side-stepping your arguments. Rather, you are side-stepping mine.”

    From Galatians 3:28 and Feminism

  74. Truth Unites... and Divides July 4, 2008 at 1:17 pm #

    Sue, #1197 in Bruce Ware thread (excerpt, but read it all): “When are people going to understand that the greatest danger to women in America and all over the world is their own husband. Ask any emergency ward.

    This is what women need protection from.”

    To see such rancid bitterness manifest itself ….

    Ai-yi-yi-yi-yi. Not good.

  75. Sue July 4, 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    Sadly, this is a fact. It should not get in the way of confronting the meaning of authenteo.

  76. Truth Unites... and Divides July 4, 2008 at 2:07 pm #

    Sue, #1210 on Bruce Ware thread: “The highest cause of mortality to a pregnant woman in America is homicide by the father of the baby. I was myself shocked. I am just citing facts, unpalatable facts.

    The highest cause of mortality to unborn babies in America is the decision by the mother of the baby to abort the baby. 1.3 million abortions per year in America. (2005 data). I was myself shocked. I am just citing facts, unpalatable facts.

  77. Sue July 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm #

    Thank you, TUAD, for your expression of fellow feeling. How right you are.

  78. Don Johnson July 4, 2008 at 8:19 pm #

    We are not sure what authenteo means, not even sure if it is positive or negative. didasko/teach is used both negatively and positively in the Bible, so even assuming the neither/nor construction is either both positive or both negative we are still not sure.

    And Paul might have broken that model.

  79. Lydia July 4, 2008 at 11:01 pm #

    “Clearly authenteo DOES NOT have to mean what you, Sue and others want it to mean. Your very words indicate to me that you too can see this. Thank you!!”

    But there is another way of looking at this that is very important. Why on earth did the Holy Spirit inspire a word that is so rare in usage? Why not a typical word for authority in the Greek that most everyone today would have a clear meaning of it’s definition? There are quite a few words used elsewhere in scritpure for authority that would have worked to communicate what the comp position teaches.

    But, The Holy Spirit did not inspire those common ‘authority over’ words.

    It should give us pause to build an entire doctrine that shuts up half of all believers from proclaiming and teaching the Word to ANYONE, reqardless of gender, around such a rare word as authenteo.

    That, my friends, is a cancer on the Gospel.

  80. Sue July 4, 2008 at 11:19 pm #

    Clearly authenteo DOES NOT have to mean what you, Sue and others want it to mean.

    It is relatively likely to mean what the examples in ancient Greek literature show that it means, the power of master over slave, or the power of forcing someone to do something, or taking over another person’s authority.

    Didasko is used in a negative context, as Don points out, and authenteo is not used in a positive context.

  81. Don Johnson July 5, 2008 at 11:39 am #

    My take is authentein is referring to some strange thing at Ephesus. Paul doing some remote control (and thus cannot be fine tuned) tells Timothy that the deceived woman is to learn, and while learning, not teach anything nor authentein a man.

  82. Sue July 5, 2008 at 2:37 pm #

    That’s what I think to. It is something inappropriate.

  83. Truth Unites... and Divides July 5, 2008 at 5:52 pm #

    “Here is yet another little quote drawn from that great big book I’ve been reading. In his Old Testament Theology, Bruce Waltke is careful to prove that gender roles and differences are rooted not in society and culture but in creation. He shows that, though men and women have been created equal, man was to take the leadership role in family and in the church. This is not a result of the fall into sin but a part of the created order. This brief quote stood out to me as an example of godly submission and one that is, of course, exceedingly counter-cultural. Here we see submission not as suffering but as a glorious and meaningful expression of faith.

    “Mary’s response to the angel’s announcement that she would be with child, “I am the Lord’s servant. May it be to me as you have said,” models for Christian women an obedience she offers out of her freedom, her independence, and her thoughtful commitment so that her submission is meaningful and glorious, not a passive resignation to her fate.”

    May we all learn from Mary’s example and submit well to those God has placed over us.”

    From: Quote – Glorious Submission

  84. Don Johnson July 5, 2008 at 7:43 pm #

    Mary submitted to God, as we all are to do. She did not check with her engaged hubbie on what was appropos.

  85. Truth Unites... and Divides July 7, 2008 at 12:47 am #

    Tim Bayly offers an opinion on Sue and her egalitarian approach:

    “”Sue” claims to be an expert in Greek after many years of study and she has many citations she uses to bolster her idiosyncratic views. But here is how one New Testament scholar with the Ph.D. from Cambridge University sums up “Sue’s” own scholarship: “From what she has written here, I would not be able to say that “Sue” should be considered a reliable source of information for understanding Greek or for quoting other authors (like myself) fairly and with attention to context.” The evidence support[ing] this statement is insurmountable.

    But then “Sue” added to my tension (and exasperation, really) by telling us that she was an abused wife who bore on her body the inevitable marks of patriarchy.

    Of course, I was not exasperated because “Sue” talked about her abuse publicly; healing requires fellowship and love from brothers and sisters in Christ. Rather, I was exasperated because “Sue” used her abuse as a weapon in her war against the plain meaning of the Word of God and I knew from long experience that her bringing up her victimhood, legitimate though it may be, would be a straitjacket it would be exceedingly difficult to escape in dealing with her deceptions and errors here, publicly.

    So what to do?

    I’m not going to allow “Sue’s” attacks upon the plain meaning of Scripture to permanently stand here on our blog. They dishonor Christ and His Word and David and I have no obligation to provide them a public home. Yes, they’ll still be able to be accessed through Google’s caches, but that’s not something David and I are responsible for.

    Some may disagree saying that it’s unfair to allow someone to post comments spending tons of time on those comments, and then pull them off the blog. I agree that this seems unfair, but I can’t see my way clear to do anything else.

    So, I’m pulling all of the parts of “Sue’s” comments that lead readers astray concerning the Word of God, its translation and meaning. But I’m leaving up those parts of her comments where she reports being abused with the hope that she’ll hear the ministry being offered her by our readers in these other areas.

    If you think I’m wrong in my decision, God bless you. I have no doubt I’ve handled this badly, but I’m responsible for what lives on permanently on this blog, and I cannot reconcile my own conscience to “Sue’s” idosyncratic attacks upon God’s Word to have a permanent home here on the Baylyblog.

    Would you please pray for David and me, that God will give us wisdom and grace in our stewardship of this publication? Would you also please pray for “Sue,” that God will heal her heart and lead her into His Truth concerning sexuality? Thank you.]”

  86. John July 7, 2008 at 1:23 am #

    Slander, insulting, judgmental, mean-spirited…are these attributes a Christian is supposed to possess?

  87. Truth Unites... and Divides July 8, 2008 at 8:24 am #

    Let’s Get Technical: The Meaning of authenteō

    1 Tim. 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”

    “Christina is American by birth, but a member of our General Synod, and chairwoman of Women and the Church (Watch), which struggles to free the Church of England from patriarchal prejudice.

    “I had scrambled peacock eggs for breakfast,” said Christina, over her shoulder, as she stepped inside. “I need all the primal peacock energy I can get, to do battle with the bishops!”

    And within an hour, turbo-charged by egg power, she’d explained the Anglican Communion to me, unravelled all its competing theologies, and made it appear suddenly quite clear that despite his recent nod in the direction of the conservatives, the Archbishop of Canterbury will eventually have to go with the liberal flow, to follow in the wake of America and embrace not just women bishops, but actively gay clergy as well.

    Christina knew better. She picked up a cat from between her sandals, and said: “You want to know what the headlines will be on July 10?” Yes please. “They’ll all say the same thing: ‘C of E votes for women bishops!’ So hooray! It’ll be a wonderful day and a step towards redressing the great mistakes that were made in the first few centuries of the Christian Church.

    What mistakes? Christina looked surprised. “The suppression of women, of course. The early Christians were so keen to separate themselves from Goddess worship that they began to treat women as inferior. It was something Jesus himself never, ever intended.” So Jesus would have wanted women bishops? “Absolutely.” And actively gay bishops like Gene Robinson, would he have minded them? “No, not if they were in a faithful relationship, of course not.

    For Christina Rees and Bishop Jefferts Schori, perhaps for Rowan Williams, the ordination of women into the episcopacy and the ordination of gay priests are connected in a very basic way. At the heart of the matter is the liberal Anglican idea of who God is and what He wants from us.

    “Come on! God is Spirit! So how do we know how He wants to be worshipped? We don’t.”

    It is true that in my part of London, a nice lady priest and her girlfriend run their parish side by side, and in the next-door church, a gay priest and his partner do the same.”

    Excerpted from: Coming very soon… women bishops

    Egalitarian feminists are joyfully celebrating.

    I, Russell Moore, Denny Burk, and Pastor Tommy Nelson will observe from afar and affirm Tommy when he preached: “the egalitarian view must not be considered a viable evangelical option because it is a deadly “cancer” within the church and that egalitarianism is Satan’s new ploy to get into the church.”

  88. John July 8, 2008 at 1:53 pm #

    Weight TUAD’s ridiculous posts hold = 0.0 lbs

  89. Sue July 8, 2008 at 8:27 pm #

    Denny,

    I am going to take this piece by piece.

    Baldwin lists this under Meaning 2a, and writes, “‘to compel, to influence someone something,’ is to seek to exercise authority and/or possibly gain the ability to exercise authority/control.” He cites three “clearly positive examples” [Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Ammonius].

    You previously criticized any use of later evidence. What is this evidence. It is not presented here and its relevance has not been shown.

    He continues, “However, the three remaining examples probably should not be understood to prove a negative meaning for authenteō in and of themselves. That is, they may not indicate ‘coercion’ in its worst sense.

    In its worst sense? Is church leadership coercion?

    In BGU 1208 the influence the writer exercises is based on his authority over his own funds and property. He is seeking to get what he considers an honest payment made to a boatman for services rendered in transferring his sheep across the Nile.

    If the owner of the livestock is seeking honest payment from someone else then his not exercising authority over his own funds.

    In the other two cases, though the results of the act are negative (the fall, the crucifixion), we cannot say more than that the context indicates a negative connotation.

    Yes, these two have a clear negative context.

    There is not sufficient warrant to postulate a new meaning such as ‘tyrannize’ or ‘coerce.’ To the contrary, Chrysostom says that Eve ‘exercised authority wrongly.’ The implication, obviously, is that Chrysostom could not make the negative force felt without the addition of kakōs, and he therefore did not regard the verb authenteō as negative itself.

    When Chrysostom used the word by itself, it was translated into English as “act as a tyrant.” There is no question that Chrysostom could make the negative force felt without a qualifier. He did and we know this.

    Malalas’s use is somewhat different: though the Jews pressured Pilate, influencing his decision, it cannot be said that they usurped his position or coerced his complicity in Jesus’ death, as if Rome were subservient to Jerusalem. But at least we must say that ‘compel’ is the intended meaning, if not something stronger” (Badlwin, “An Important Word” in Women in the Church, 2nd ed. [2005], p. 46).

    All occurrences of the word shown here are negative.

  90. Sue July 8, 2008 at 8:35 pm #

    (2) Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos (2nd cent.)

    Yes, dominate is something that God in his three persons, and the planets or sun and moon, may do.

    (3) Hippolytus, On the End of the World (3rd cent.)

    This is the control of a master over a slave.

    In the final paragraph, it is admitted that authenteo is used in negative contexts. While this does not prove in every case, a negative meaning, the fact remains that we have no occurrences that are neutral for a person over another person, until much later.

    There is no positive context presented here. It must be assumed from the evidence and the discussion that authenteo had a negative meaning. We simply do not have occurrences of authenteo being used in morally positive ways.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes