Comments on: Q&A on Complementarianism

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:17:09 +0000

…

” If you work hard on your job, you could make a living. If you work hard on yourself, you could make a fortune. Your income is primarily determined by your philosophy, not the economy. Success is something you attract by becoming an attractive perso…

By: Greg Anderson

Greg Anderson — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:57:17 +0000

I’m not a Greek scholar nor do I know one character of Biblical Hebrew. I have noticed this though. No matter what English translation I comb through, I cannot find one hint of male hierarchy instituted prior to the fall. Grant it, the folks at CBMW see it that way, but in all honesty this reasonably intelligent idiot (me), cannot in all good conscience arrive at that conclusion. I am of the belief that Paul the apostle refers back to the creation account in his letter to Timothy in order to refute a pagan doctrine that was circulating around Ephesus at the time, and that it was never meant to be a universal prohibition of Godly women teaching orthodox doctrine. In Acts 15:28-29, I am assured by the Holy Spirit himself that there are only four things that I must refrain from in my Christian walk. To say that Paul has added the the universal prohibition of Godly women teaching sound doctrine makes Paul our new Moses and new law-giver. Even more disturbing, it implies that Jesus’ work on the cross is only partially fulfilled for women, and that they are not fully enfranchised in the Body of Christ. No matter how many statements of equal in person hood but separate in each and every case of role and function are issued, the dictates of my conscience will not accept this as doctrinal and binding.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:30:55 +0000

Men are generally more designed, I think, to be critical thinkers

As a woman myself, let me be critical of that remark.

By: Sandi M.

Sandi M. — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:14:41 +0000

‘Gullible’ is usually regarded as a pegoritive term, so it’s pretty hard to speak of women in this way with out sounding anti-woman. But God did design women, it seems to me, to be more innately trusting of others than men. Men are generally more designed, I think, to be critical thinkers in order to protect their families from harm.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:40:19 +0000

The Philodemus quote is a bit difficult, since it is, as I said, a fragment, and the phrase is a quote from an unknown source, so undated, I would presume.

But the phrase is “fighting with powerful(?) lords(?)”

διαμαχοντοι και συν αυθεντ[ου]σιν αν[αξιν]

Since anax is not in BDAG, I am guessing that it is not a Hellenistic term at all.

My guess is that it is a Homeric term, but that is just a guess. But maybe the word isn’t anax, it is reconstructed also.

The entire fragment is not translated but Hubbell gives a precis of sorts. It is all available on the internet, so you can translate this yourself and see if authentein has a positive or negative meaning. But it most certainly is not translated as those in authority, as Kostenberger claims. “Those in authority occurs further down in the piece.

I think that if this quote is being used to shore up the translation “exercise authority” then it should be properly translated, possibly by a secular and non partisan scholar. But I don’t really think that anything new will be revealed from a fragment.

Philodemi Volumina Rhetorica

and

The Rhetorica Philodemus.

Do you have the reference?

My guess is that it is a more or less neutral term referring to the exercise of sheer might in this case, a secular power with no moral right attached to it. That is a concession BTW, it could mean usurpers – who knows?

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:58:49 +0000

Denny,

I think I have found it.

CHAPTER TWELVE
THE CRUX OF THE MATTER:
Paul’s Pastoral Pronouncements
Regarding Women’s Roles
in 1 Timothy 2:9–15*

by Kostenberger.

http://biblicalfoundations.org/pdf/Studies12.pdf

41These two references are: Philodemus (1st cent. BCE): “Ought we not to
consider that men who incur the enmity of those in authority (συν αυθεντουσιν)
are villains, and hated by both gods and men”; and BGU 1208 (27 BCE): “I
exercised authority (Καμου αυθεντηκοτος) over him, and he consented to
provide for Catalytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.” For full
Greek texts and translations, see Baldwin, “Appendix 2” in Women in the
Church, 275–76. (in the PDF page 13)

There are a couple of problems with Baldwin’s study that are not corrected. First, the Philodemus quote is a fragment, reconstructed. And more seriously, “those in authority” is not the translation of authentein at all – it is the translation of another phrase in the sentence. I think authentein is translated as “powerful”. Philodemus is quoting someone else here, so in fact, I don’t think the context for the “powerful” rulers is known.

And in the second quote, “I exercise authority over him.” is not the accepted translation, but is a translation that Werner supplied in order to contribute to Baldwin’s thesis. Most people suggest “compel”.

Maybe you could show me where Kostenberger deals with this evidence more thorougly. However, in this article he does not.

By: Bryan L

Bryan L — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:32:30 +0000

If I’m not mistaken isn’t it Henry Scott Baldwin who does the study on authentein and concludes that there is no certainty on what it means based on lexical studies alone and then passes the torch onto Kostenberger who concludes through his syntactical analysis that it must mean “have authority” in a positive sense. This is because it can’t be a negative and a positive, because of the syntax it can only be 2 negatives or 2 positives and so he goes with 2 positives. I Howard Marshall agrees with Kostenberger on the syntactical analysis but concludes that they are 2 negatives instead of 2 positives.

Blessings,
Bryan L

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:41:16 +0000

Denny,

I allowed myself to get distracted. Could you present evidence from K.’s article that there is a possible positive meaning for authentein at the time of the epistle.

I can’t remember exactly but think that K does not resolve this issue. I don’t believe that most scholars, those that K. cites, have given this enough attention.

Since my central point has been that this evidence does not exist, I wonder if you could present it. I wonder if it does exist, but I just haven’t understood it that way.

I think people should see the evidence and not just take someone else’s word on this, whether Kostenberger’s or yours – or mine. I can’t see any other way of ending this impasse except for dealing with the actual evidence. Is there very much of it?

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:04:55 +0000

An afterthought, – excuse me – but I have read enough of K. to know that his belief in women remaining within the boundaries of the domestic is not consistent with all of scripture, nor with the testimony of church history. He does not account for women missionaries, other than those who preach only to women.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:01:17 +0000

I am not convinced that two people are a consensus.:-) I am also aware that some who do not hold to the inerrancy of scripture also see a kind of misogyny of Paul in this verse. Kostenberger uses this in his defence. I am not convinced that citing those who do not try to reconcile all scripture with other scripture is useful to the discussion.

That is, some of these scholars consider that Kostenberger’s thesis could possibly be right, but they do not agree that the scriptures as a whole teach that women should not teach. SO they don’t try to reconcile one scripture with another.

Others do not hold scriptures sacred at all, and Kostenberger has cited them as support anyway. Dr. Packer and Dr. Watlke would say that one’s view of scripture is foundational to interpretation, so they would not use evidence from liberal theology to support their views in this way. (I don’t mean Keener and Marshall, but others that K. has cited.)

Some of these scholars don’t think Paul wrote the epistle to Timothy at all.

So, the range of belief introduced by Kostenberger is quite wide. Compelementarians have picked up one interpretation and teach it as God’s will. I feel there should be more recognition of the many different ways that people read scripture.

I guess what is happening is that women who are gifted to teach are being told to go elsewhere and maybe this is the best compromise. But, in this case, it must be made clear that this is based on interpretation, and not on judging someone else’s belief as resisting the clear teaching of scripture.

That is, I accept that your view is in some sense traditional and one possible interpretation of scripture, (I don’t think it is, but maybe a call to grace would require this of me) and you would accept that there are those who hold to a different possible interpretation, similar to mine, as represented in “Discovering Biblical Equality” by Pierce, Grouthuis and Fee.

Naturally, on abuse, I remain concerned that women who are not constantly exercising their ability to make decisions, may become more vulnerable to abuse. I will always carry this concern with me.