Scot McKnight’s Question about Headship

Scot McKnight has invited readers to respond to a letter that he received concerning women in leadership. I’m going to post the letter here and then give a brief response. Here’s the letter:

Dr. McKnight,
 
I am in the process of rethinking my views in women in the church, and my wife asked me a question last night that I couldn’t answer. Her sister has been an elder in a church at various times and always struggled with being in a leadership position and believing that her husband was to be the spiritual head of their family.

My wife’s question was, if the husband is to be the spiritual head of the family, doesn’t a wife being in leadership conflict with that? I’m coming to believe that a woman should be allowed to exercise the gifts that God has given her, but I don’t know how to deal with that question. Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
 
Yours in Christ

I think that this is a fair question. There are many evangelical churches in which women take leadership roles over their own husbands, and the inconsistency is obvious. In these cases, there is a disconnect between what headship means in the church and what it means in the home. Many churches still believe that the Bible assigns husbands to be leaders of their families: “The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church” (Ephesians 5:23). And this headship is often understood to be a reflection of Christ’s headship over his bride. Thus these churches would hold that getting headship right is a necessity for healthy marriages.

Yet many of these same churches have drifted from a consistent application of this biblical principle to their respective ministries. Nevertheless, the scriptures teach that the leadership structure in a church derives from the leadership structure that exists in the home—a structure that is a creation ordinance (see Genesis 2; 1 Timothy 2:13). In fact, the apostle Paul says that one of the qualifications of an elder is that he must first be able to “manage his own household well” (1 Timothy 3:4-5). What this means is that male headship in the home is the necessary condition for leadership in the church. The unmistakable implication of this teaching is the norm of an all male eldership (1 Timothy 2:12). Thus it is both logical and biblical to see a connection between headship in the home and headship in a church’s leadership.

Vern Poythress has a really helpful essay on this topic titled “The Church as Family: Why Male Leadership in the Family Requires Male Leadership in the Church,” and he sums up the matter well. He writes:

“Just as husbands and fathers ought to exercise godly leadership in their human families, so wise, mature men ought to be appointed as fatherly leaders in the church (1 Timothy 3:1-7). A particularly important role also belongs to more mature women (1 Timothy 5:9-16; Titus 2:3-5). Likewise mothers of the church, they are to train their spiritual daughters by example and word. But just as in the case of marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33), the respective functions of men and women are not reversible in all respects. Men-and not women-are called on to exercise the decisive fatherly leadership as elders.”

So the anonymous person who asked the question is right to feel the inconsistency of a woman being leader in the church but not at home. Biblically speaking, you can’t have one without the other.

226 Responses to Scot McKnight’s Question about Headship

  1. Don Johnson June 15, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    True. Women are co-leaders in the family and leadership is the church is based on giftedness, not gender, race, wealth, etc. They are connected.

  2. Darius T June 15, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    Over or under: 150 comments on this post… bets starting at $5

    🙂

  3. Brian Krieger June 15, 2009 at 1:09 pm #

    Well, we did get to 1700 on the Ware post. I think that did everyone in (then again, IBC brought it on again….). I’m not a betting man, but I think I’d take the under.

    The responses are pretty much exactly what you would expect (although not many complementarians on beliefnet apparently), but I did get a (slightly guilt-ridden) giggle at one post:

    It has been great reading the comments. As a Christian man, I have never really liked all the religious stuff very much. After reading most of the comments here, I am so glad I don’t have to worry about leading my family in that area. I have always felt that playing golf with my buddies on Sunday mornings was a better spiritual activity for me than going to church with my wife and kids. Now I know that my previous feelings of responsibility were just due to a misreading of Ephesians 5:25ff. My wife will be a better spiritual leader than I will anyway. She will be delighted at her new opportunity to lead. And now I won’t feel as much of a disconnect with the dominant culture in America and all the other men who don’t really like all that religious stuff.

    Thanks!

  4. Todd Burus June 15, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    Denny,
    I totally agree with your reply. What I would like to see now is an explanation of why the following overused comment from the letter automatically means women should be allowed in church leadership: “I’m coming to believe that a woman should be allowed to exercise the gifts that God has given her.” Reading McKnight’s (horrific) book The Blue Parakeet, he seems to use this as the jump off to the whole deal as well, when in reality it seems to be a non-sequitur to me.

  5. Ryan K. June 15, 2009 at 2:40 pm #

    Darius I will take the under. Wait, does Denny allow gambling on his blog?

  6. Brian Krieger June 15, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    Ryan:
    Yes, but you can only bet against another man…….

    PS: I think yours is the first site I’ve ever seen with a comment from mom.

  7. Jessi June 15, 2009 at 3:43 pm #

    This is an amazing sermon on this topic by Voddie Baucham: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=57092323310

  8. Ryan K. June 15, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    Thanks for the link Jessi. Just finished listening to the Baucham sermon and was edified by it.

  9. Dave Dunbar June 15, 2009 at 9:10 pm #

    What an often-misunderstood area this is! It is so sad that many so-called evangelical churches are using the term “pastor(s)” for women. (DTS even had one for chapel a month or so ago.) If we remain faithful to the inerrant text, we can only find one conclusion: there is no such thing as a woman pastor (elder). We can be thankful for the important role that older and mature women play — teaching younger women — but we must not err by giving them roles that God has ordained to be only for men.

  10. Don Johnson June 15, 2009 at 10:14 pm #

    Of course there can be a woman pastor, after all there was a woman apostle.

  11. Ferg June 16, 2009 at 12:12 am #

    Does anyone think ANYONE will change their opinion on women in ministry by reading this?
    It seems to me that every time an article like this is posted everyone gets more defensive about their own beliefs. I would love to talk about stuff we can find common ground on rather than tear down our christian brothers at every opportunity.
    My opinion here is completely irrelevant anyway as all you guys have made up your mind and I’ll probably be thought of as a lesser christian for my point of view.

    Just my two cents.

  12. Kevin Chen June 16, 2009 at 9:06 am #

    my view is changed every time i read a post or article like this.

    it was not a drastic one. but you might think i am changed for the worse 🙁

  13. Terry June 16, 2009 at 9:12 am #

    Pregnant “man” gives birth happened, dosn’t mean it is the way it is supposed to be… there may have been a woman apostle, doesn’t mean that that is the way it is supposed to be…

    Nice to hear from you again Don…

  14. Darius T June 16, 2009 at 9:30 am #

    “My opinion here is completely irrelevant anyway as all you guys have made up your mind and I’ll probably be thought of as a lesser christian for my point of view.”

    No one with that cool of a beard could be a lesser Christian. 🙂 I miss Grizzly Adams…

  15. Brian Krieger June 16, 2009 at 10:35 am #

    Ferg:

    Do I think anyone will change their mind? No. Just as I also don’t think that I can change an atheist’s mind to come to Christ. I can’t do that work. But I can witness to him. I can continue to proclaim the truth of Christ.

    In a similar, yet very different way (in that egalitarianism shouldn’t be a question of a persons salvation.), biblical manhood and womanhood is discussed here. I can’t convince you, perhaps, but I don’t stop speaking against what I view as a damaging error. I do so with gentleness (1 Peter), but I don’t stop because I just don’t feel like it. That is how a lot of doctrinal error propagates. We just get too tired of speaking against error. That said, no one has a perfect theology, I do understand that. But this is one area that appears to me very clear. And biblical complementarity has a deeper reaching impact than does, say wine vs. juice or instruments, etc. I think that Piper and Grudem’s answer the root question of “why would I keep making the argument for biblical complementarity?”

    We are concerned not merely with the behavioral roles of men and women but also with the underlying nature of manhood and womanhood themselves. Biblical truth and clarity in this matter are important because error and confusion over sexual identity leads to:
    1. marriage patterns that do not portray the relationship between Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31-32);
    2. parenting practices that do not train boys to be masculine or girls to be feminine;
    3. homosexual tendencies and increasing attempts to justify homosexual alliances (see question 41);
    4. patterns of unbiblical female leadership in the church that reflect and promote the confusion over the true meaning of manhood and womanhood.

    God’s gift of complementary manhood and womanhood was exhilarating from the beginning (Genesis 2:23). It is precious beyond estimation. But today it is esteemed lightly and is vanishing like the rain forests we need but don’t love. We believe that what is at stake in human sexuality is the very fabric of life as God wills it to be for the holiness of His people and for their saving mission to the world. (See the Rationale section of the Danvers Statement.)

    Emphasis mine.

  16. Ann June 16, 2009 at 10:42 am #

    I have heard all of the arguments for women being pastors and they fall so far short of Scripture. “Why are we limiting women from using their God-given gifts?” A gift is not an office. Even a woman who has the gift of teaching is more than allowed to teach and SHOULD teach as we see in Titus 2. However, she should not be teaching men. “There was a woman apostle and deacon so we should have women pastors,” does not work. A pastor is a very different role than apostle or deacon – AND the one woman who some say was a “deacon” does not follow the Scripture in 1 Timothy 3 where it clearly says that a deacon should not only be a man, but a husband and it describes his wife. A woman can’t have a husband (even today with homosexual marriage – one is still not a ‘husband’).

    Bringing the idea of the fact that the man is to be the head of the home yet the woman being the head of the local congregation as a contradiction is very good. Clearly a woman cannot rule over her husband as he rules over her. It just won’t work.

    I thank God for the clear roles He has put forth for both men and woman. I find great satisfaction in being a woman of God, a wife to a pastor, a mother to my children. I have a wonderful ministry that keeps me very busy using all of the same skills and gifts that I could use as a pastor – yet still working within God’s framework of authority. What a great blessing it is.

  17. Matthew Staton June 16, 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    Ann, I appreciate your service and your heart as a mother and pastor’s wife.

    I would like to push back just a little to a couple statements in your comment.

    First, 1 Timothy 3 where it clearly says that a deacon should not only be a man, but a husband

    1 Tim 3 speaks of the overseer using only masculine pronouns. However, this does not equate to clearly saying “that a deacon should not only be a man, but a husband”. It does not make the statement “he should be a man” – this is an inference drawn but not a statement clearly made. A little different subject, but I would point out that most people do not infer that single men are not allowed to be overseers. The passage here seems to be a general description of a man who is above reproach, not a checklist where one failure or one box left unchecked disqualifies you for life. Also, a pastor with four kids, three go on for the Lord and one rebels – by the letter of the law of 1 Tim 3, that guy is out – but that is not fair to the spirit of the passage.

    Second, A pastor is a very different role than apostle or deacon. I am curious: What passages clarify the difference in role between pastor and deacon?

    Not trying to be rude, just wanted to communicate some thoughts/questions I had reading your comment.

  18. Ryan K. June 16, 2009 at 2:17 pm #

    Uhh just one clarifying comment. Don is off in saying there has been a woman “apostle.”

    The context and majority of scholars say the use of apostle in the context of Junia is closer to the meaning of missionary than anything remotely resembling the 12 apostles that Jesus gathered.

  19. Diane R. June 16, 2009 at 2:40 pm #

    And your view on single women being in leadership is?

  20. David Rogers June 16, 2009 at 2:56 pm #

    Clarifying clarification:

    Junia is among the “apostoloi.” Being a woman she was a woman “apostolos/apostole?”.

    The use of the term has a relatively flexible usage sometimes as a strict reference to the “Twelve” and sometimes in a sense as a kind of sent missionary. I suggest both usages contain some connotation of a titled capacity.

    Phoebe was a woman “diakonos” associated with the church at Cenchrea. Both the masculine gender of the noun and the genitival phrase “of the church the one in Cenchrea” suggest that this was a titled position in the church.

    One more clarification:

    A “majority of scholars” does not settle the case, only the argumentation of the case does. Otherwise, we need to start baptizing infants because the vast majority of Christians now and throughout the centuries of Church history have practiced paedobaptism.

  21. Darius T June 16, 2009 at 3:20 pm #

    Hmm, most translations don’t say that Junia was an apostle but that she was thought highly of by the apostles. Suffice it to say, it’s a rather weak argument if you’re basing it entirely on a text which could very easily be read differently.

  22. Ann June 16, 2009 at 3:57 pm #

    Matthew – No problem. I was running out and trying to get that in. So I don’t think I was as clear as I like to be.

    You are right that a deacon does not need to be a husband, although the passage does say that he’s to run his household well and that would assume that he would be a husband. My point is really that a woman cannot be a husband – and since it clearly speaks of him being the husband of one wife and then gives qualifications regarding his wife, we can’t really substitute “woman” in there. 🙂

    As for my statement that “A pastor is a very different role than apostle or deacon.”, I think we can see in Ephesians 4:11-12 that there is a difference between an apostle and a shepherd. In 1 Timothy 3, we see that bishops or overseers are to be able to teach but that is not a qualification for a deacon. I see that these roles might overlap some of the same qualifications but they are different roles.

    As for Phoebe having a titled position in the church, it still doesn’t fit with the whole counsel of Scripture to say that she was in any authority over men or taught men in the corporate setting. *I* have a titled position but I am not (thank heavens) the pastor of our church. 🙂

  23. David Rogers June 16, 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    What is the source for the “most translations” point? What numbers are we talking about here?

    The issue is not the majority number of translations but on the best understanding of her and Andronicus as being well-known “en tois apostolois” whether it be “to the apostles” or “among the apostles (i.e. as apostles)”. Sure, a majority number should carry some weight, but I hope that we all realize that translation committees are sometimes driven by other agendas to be either traditionally conservative or provocatively liberal rather than by linguistic, syntactic, and semantic rules.

    The ease of reading one way or the other must be measured by carefully disciplined Greek translational understandings more than by collating the numbers of translations.

    I just want an accurate rendering either way.

    We have a few cases of a woman teaching and leading either a man or men in scripture (Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla). The “corporate setting” concept introduced by Ann is not biblical language. The point that a woman taught and led men is. I consider this a separate issue from the woman as pastor/elder/overseer.

  24. David Rogers June 16, 2009 at 5:01 pm #

    Just contributing toward the 150 posts.

    David

  25. Stickler June 16, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    “As for Phoebe having a titled position in the church, it still doesn’t fit with the whole counsel of Scripture to say that she was in any authority over men or taught men in the corporate setting. *I* have a titled position but I am not (thank heavens) the pastor of our church.”

    Are you implying that Phoebe was not allowed to teach men?

  26. Don Johnson June 16, 2009 at 8:16 pm #

    Among the articles on Junia posted on the CBMW site:

    1) David Jones writes that Junia is possibly a woman, among the apostles, but without authority, disputing “apostles”.

    2) Wallace and Burer write that Junia was most likely a woman but not among the apostles, disputing “among”.

    3) Wolters writes that Junia was possibly not a woman, disputing Junian as being a woman.

    In other words, even among non-egals, there is disagreement over the meaning of the text on Junia, each choosing different words for which to deny the primary meaning of the Greek, which is that Junia was prominent among the apostles. They just choose different ways to dispute the primary meaning. I simply ACCEPT the primary meaning of the Greek.

  27. Mike Garner June 16, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    You are correct: If headship is to be understood as authority, and men have the authority in the home, then it must only be men who have the authority over men in a church.

    However, if there is no hierarchy / authority distinction between men and women in a marriage, but rather both are called to mutual submission, then it is fine for both men and women to have positions of authority in the church.

  28. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 12:27 am #

    “If headship is to be understood as authority, and men have the authority in the home, then it must only be men who have the authority over men in a church.”

    Since masters had authority over their slaves, and they had authority over their slaves in the home, then it must have only been masters who had the authority over men (slaves, and free) in a church? Slaves could not serve in leadership positions in the NT?

  29. Ann June 17, 2009 at 12:35 am #

    In response to David Rogers, Deborah was a judge – not a teacher. Huldah was a prophet and finally Priscilla taught Apollos together in an individual setting (they pulled him aside the text tells us). She was not the primary teacher but was co-teaching and it was not in the church.

    The “corporate setting” is a phrase we use – Paul uses “all the churches of the saints” in 1 Corinthians 14

  30. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 2:27 am #

    “Nevertheless, the scriptures teach that the leadership structure in a church derives from the leadership structure that exists in the home—a structure that is a creation ordinance (see Genesis 2; 1 Timothy 2:13). In fact, the apostle Paul says that one of the qualifications of an elder is that he must first be able to “manage his own household well” (1 Timothy 3:4-5). What this means is that male headship in the home is the necessary condition for leadership in the church. The unmistakable implication of this teaching is the norm of an all male eldership (1 Timothy 2:12).”

    Here are the three things that I’m understanding you as saying:

    1. A & B IMPLY C without mistake 2. you assert that C means D
    3. A & B therefore imply D

    (A) Adam was created first then Eve (Gen 2, 1 Tim 2:13)

    (B) “manage his own household well” (1 Timothy 3:4-5),

    (C) “I do not allow a woman to teach a man…” (1 Tim 2:12) which means/translates into (D) “elders are to be men”.

    So the result, which is that “elders are to be men” is founded on things that are perceived to imply the result.

    When no one scholar can prove that Paul (in 1 Tim 2) made a prohibition against women in general, or even that he stopped more than one woman (which can be proven), foundations MUST be made of “implications”?

    In all seriousness, I would not feel comfortable carrying around sand in my hand. I just could NOT do it. So, I’ve got to say, you have a lot of courage!

    Goodnight

  31. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 2:39 am #

    Correction:

    When no one scholar can prove that Paul (in 1 Tim 2) made a prohibition against women in general, or even that he stopped more than one woman (in which case it can be proven that he stopped just 1 woman), foundations MUST be made of “implications”?

  32. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 2:53 am #

    One more thing.

    It’s the strangest thing. I’m sitting here thinking about it all…It’s like you’ve made some kind of soup, Denny. You took a verse (1 Tim 2:13, a fact of creation as read in Genesis 2), then another verse, (1 Tim 3:4-5), and then you put them together in a pot with water. And then the letters in the soup formed something:

    “elders are to be men”

    I’m just – astonished.

  33. Sue June 17, 2009 at 3:23 am #

    I am surprised that 1 Tim. 3:4-5 is used but 1 Tim. 5:14 is excluded.

    The first says,

    τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον,

    managing one’s own house well

    This phrase reminds us of Phoebe who was the prostates of Paul.

    The second phrase is,

    οἰκοδεσποτεῖν

    This is usually translated as “be the head of the house” outside of this particular context. It is only in this context, because it refers to women, that it is not translated this way, but instead is translated “manage the house.”

    However, in both cases the word for household is the same. Just as Lydia managed her household and saw that all were baptized, so should any woman provide for her relatives, and manage her household.

    Regarding Junia, there is no need to wonder about the suitability of translating it “outstanding among the apostles.” We can compare structure and see that the same is used elsewhere,

    ὁ μείζων ἐν ὑμῖν Luke 22:26 (en plus dative)
    the greatest among you

    There are lots of examples where the same structure means “among” – it is not uncommon at all.

  34. Sue June 17, 2009 at 3:46 am #

    Sorry, Phoebe was the prostatis of Paul.

  35. Glenn June 17, 2009 at 4:48 am #

    Another pointless round of people speaking at each other. (I chose ‘at’ carefully)
    All, and I do mean all, of the so called evidences against male headship have been answered more than adequately elsewhere on many occasions. (There are none)

    Nothing has or will be achieved by these pointless exchanges which usually involve some of the same people (in this case ‘Sue’ & ‘Don’)

  36. Ann June 17, 2009 at 9:07 am #

    “When no one scholar can prove that Paul (in 1 Tim 2) made a prohibition against women in general, or even that he stopped more than one woman (which can be proven), foundations MUST be made of “implications”?”

    When then, what about 1 Corinthians 14:33?

  37. Don Johnson June 17, 2009 at 10:02 am #

    1 Cor 14:33 God is not a God of confusion.

    It is true that either the egals are correct or the non-egals are correct, there is no middling area.

  38. Brian Krieger June 17, 2009 at 10:03 am #

    Just out of curiosity, Sue, where else is the second phrase used (comment 33) in the NT? Also, sorry to show my ignorance, but I’m not familiar with your reference to phoebe being the prostratis of Paul (perhaps you are referring to the Greek there, sorry, I don’t understand the reference), perhaps that Phoebe served to the needs of Paul or helper or…?

  39. Sue June 17, 2009 at 10:09 am #

    Sorry Brian,

    In Romans 16:2

    καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴ προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ.

    for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.

    The word in Greek for patron prostatis, is a form of the word proistemei, which is used in 1 Tim. 3:4.

    I don’t think that there is any way to say that the Bible teaches that it is the role of men uniquely to manage their household. There is no word for manage, or lead, or provide, that is used for men but not for women.

  40. Sue June 17, 2009 at 10:21 am #

    About the phrase in 1 Tim. 5:14, it is oikodespotein, and it means to be the master of the house, or head of the house. This is the lexicon meaning in the Liddell, Scott, Jones.

    It is widely used in the gospels as a noun in these verses,

    It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household. Matt. 10:25

    And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” Matt. 13:52

  41. Sue June 17, 2009 at 10:25 am #

    While prostatis has often been translated as helper, the masculine term prostates, is used for governor, and temple leader in the old testament, and means leader in general. But when the word is used for a woman Bible translators do not use the same word, but imply that she served Paul in some way. She was a servant leader, I suppose.

  42. Brian Krieger June 17, 2009 at 10:26 am #

    Stickler,

    First and foremost, remember that rooting 1 Tim 2:12 in Genesis is Paul’s establishment, not Dr. Burk or anyone else’s.

    Second, I would see Dr. Burk’s, et. al argument not as 1 Tim 2 proves 1 Tim 3. I would say that 1 Tim 2, Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Peter 3 and 1 cor 14, God prescribes the order to His creation and church (and is reflective of His essence, the trinity). Titus 1 and 1 Tim 3 reflect that as well.

  43. Brian Krieger June 17, 2009 at 10:38 am #

    She was a servant leader, I suppose
    I giggled (I took that as a little [friendly] jab correctly, right?).

    I’m not as familiar with prostatis, I’ll have to take time to study that (and see below, too), however along that lines, does an example of something contrary to what is biblically prescribed mean that the prescription is nullified?

    The Despot reference as I was familiar, was a reference to the business aspects (in a sense) of running a household (such as the two verses you cite) and not in conflict with a husband leading his family. I’ll have to take a greater look at the references of oikodespotein elsewhere. Of course, words, as has been mentioned many times over here and similar places, can have a broader sense of the root meaning.

    BK

  44. Don Johnson June 17, 2009 at 11:00 am #

    1 Tim 2:12 text is Paul’s. The idea that the verse can be isolated by “1 Tim 2:12” is not Paul’s; he did not write verses, he wrote a letter without verses.

    The meaning of the text in the verse is disputed, as well as surrounding text. The ESV is an admitted masculinst translation, for example, and all translation involves interpretation.

  45. Sue June 17, 2009 at 11:05 am #

    Brian,

    Yes, a friendly jab.

    However, most verses can be translated in a way that is consistent with women not leading the family if you try hard enough.

    But just the same, who was the leader of the family for Phoebe, Lydia, Chloe, Nympha and the many other women who seem to be alone, or widows, but have resources at their disposal?

    Do you think that a single mother who has lead her family well and provided well and kept her children well disciplined would qualify as a leader in church? Do the two really go together? Are widows eligible for church leadership?

  46. Sue June 17, 2009 at 11:08 am #

    Brian,

    I get what you mean about words having a broader meaning. But, the point is, that if you want to proof text, then you have to defend why a word is used in one way for men and in another way for women.

    Remember that the mighty men of the OT and the virtuous woman are from the same Hebrew word. Now if a woman had translated the Bible she might want mighty women and virtuous men!

  47. Don Johnson June 17, 2009 at 11:14 am #

    The Hebrew word is chayil, and Ruth, Boaz and Prov 31 woman are all called that. It is a person of valor and applies to both genders, but some translations mask that.

  48. D.J. Williams June 17, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    Darius,

    I want $20 bucks on the over.

  49. Darius T June 17, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    Done. Now do your part to make it happen, like say something Biblical… 🙂

  50. Brian Krieger June 17, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    I understand, Sue. Not totally sure how we got from one to the other (meaning I don’t know to what proof texting you are referring). Do you mean my list of references (I don’t think so, but…?)? They weren’t singled out verses, as Don points out, they are part of a letter versus verses (ha ha).

  51. Sue June 17, 2009 at 1:28 pm #

    Brian,

    I didn’t mean that you were proof-texting but that Denny’s post appears that way because of the way he has used 1 Tim. 3.

    However, here is what I don’t understand about your comment. Perhaps you could clarify,

    You wrote,

    “The Despot reference as I was familiar, was a reference to the business aspects (in a sense) of running a household (such as the two verses you cite) and not in conflict with a husband leading his family.”

    Why do you say

    1) for the wife it means – running the household

    2) for the husband – leading the family

    The Greek doesn’t support that. Both men and women have responsibilities to provide, care for, and instruct their children and have their children observe respect for elders. There is no difference in assigning these responsibilities to men or women.

    Women also had authority over slaves and whoever was in their household. Single women were sometimes able to support their families through running a business. I just don’t see how “managing the family” is only a male thing.

    While I believe marriage was patriarchal at that time, I don’t think that the verse that Denny cites supports that.

  52. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Brian:
    “First and foremost, remember that rooting 1 Tim 2:12 in Genesis is Paul’s establishment, not Dr. Burk or anyone else’s.”

    Brian, what’s 1 Tim 2:12? I mean what really does it say? Does it say “women”? No. Can you prove Paul meant “women” with the singular? No. So what? If Paul only had one woman at Ephesus in mind and not women in general, he still gave the Adam and Eve model as reason for her not to teach. So what?

    Brian:
    “I would say that 1 Tim 2, Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Peter 3 and 1 cor 14, God prescribes the order to His creation and church (and is reflective of His essence, the trinity). Titus 1 and 1 Tim 3 reflect that as well.”

    Okay. Can you demonstrate and prove for me that 1 Tim 2 is a prohibition against women in general?

    Eph 5 and 1 Peter 3 isn’t even about women in general, but wives and husbands. So, I really don’t know what you are trying to say. All women in church should be married?? ;P Can you tell me something that can actualy be proven? That’s what I want to see provided. Can you simply prove anything that you said above?

  53. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 2:07 pm #

    “When then, what about 1 Corinthians 14:33?”

    What are you asking, Ann?

  54. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    I’ve got a question. Don’t any of you comps here think that God would have left you with proof for your doctrine if it were from him? Just curious what ya’ll think about it if any are willing to reply. It’s a curious thing, indeed. I’m stumped.

  55. Brian Krieger June 17, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    Stickler,

    You’re right, it’s impossible for me to prove it. But there’s an entire line of thinking there that I don’t think you really mean but you indicate. If you mean do I speak Greek? No, you will have to leave that to the folks who write books like Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament.

    That said, Tim was Paul’s instructions for the church (God’s word breathed to the church). If it were toward a single woman (presumably disrupting church services), he would have singled out like Hym. And Alex, don’t you think? It speaks in general terms in the verses leading up and then following, so while I can’t prove it, it would seem odd to stop and single out an unnamed woman here. He roots it in Adam and Eve (the reason I mentioned it was the comment that seemed to indicated it was Dr. Burk’s concoction of sorts). He had established a similar church command in his letter to the Corinthians. 1 Peter 3, Col 3 (and Titus as well) sets forth order to the creation within the home (the two subjects the original letter writer above was connecting). It is an overall theme and order that runs throughout. Later in his letter to Timothy and then again to Titus, he mentions qualifications for elders and deacons. I mention them all in conjunction as it is the flowing unity and, especially with reference to Eph 5, is reflective of His nature.

    Can I prove any of this? Not until I am face to face kneeling before my maker. Until then, well, I suppose nothing more.

    PS: There is proof. The fact that you don’t accept it doesn’t make it false (for a similar argument, see if Jesus is God.). Based on the style of your comments and the (very difficult to tell over electronic media) tone, it seems you are being more quarrelsome for the sake of stirring up than a true question.

  56. Brian Krieger June 17, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    I still think there’s no way 150 is going to get here.

  57. Don Johnson June 17, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    On 1 Tim, we are NOT Timothy. Paul could have written to Timothy in ways that Timothy would understand, yet would be challenging for us to understand. For example, what exactly did Hy and Alex do to get them kicked out?

    Paul might refer to a woman without naming her so that she could be restored to ministry, it would be very minstry limiting to be dinked in a letter by Paul.

    The “For” clause in 1 Tim 2:13 could be because what Paul is saying is a direct contradiction to the false teaching.

    The point is that the non-egal reading is simply ONE possible reading, it is not THE only possible reading, and it makes a lot of assumptions.

  58. Sue June 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    “You’re right, it’s impossible for me to prove it. But there’s an entire line of thinking there that I don’t think you really mean but you indicate. If you mean do I speak Greek? No, you will have to leave that to the folks who write books like Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament.”

    There is as varied an opinion among those who read Greek as among those who don’t.

    For example, Dr. Kostenberger is clear that there is no lexical evidence that authentein means “to have authority,” but he suggests that the context proves it.

    Dan Wallace indicates that 1 Cor. 14:33 etc was in the margin of the original manuscript.

    Wallace is convinced that Junia was a woman and Wolters suggests she wasn’t.

    The problem with male leadership is that it makes your head spin. Better a woman apply to do her moral best using her own conscience which was put there by God.

  59. David Rogers June 17, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    Brian Krieger said,

    “That said, Tim was Paul’s instructions for the church (God’s word breathed to the church).”

    Amended clarification by me with added brackets

    “That said, Tim was Paul’s instructions for the church [at Ephesus, contextualized by Timothy and Paul’s shared stated and unstated understandings] (God’s word breathed to the church [at Ephesus, contextualized by Timothy and Paul’s shared stated and unstated understandings]).”

    This is indisputable.

    Now, what it means for the Church today is another matter. We are now in the realm of hermeneutical philosophy.

    How should the Church today understand and apply what was said then?

    Question:

    Is it God’s current will today that ALL “young” widows marry again
    and if they do not they are defying God’s explicit command in the Scriptures.

    See 1 Timothy 5:14 “Therefore, I want younger widows to get married,”

    Blessings,

    David

  60. Brian Krieger June 17, 2009 at 3:15 pm #

    Well, to be fair, I never said nor indicated that the complementarian reading was the only possible reading. I defended my position. And yes, I understand that my theology and doctrine is not perfect. But contary to what you state, I would say a complementarian reading is more simplistic, taking the words written as they were written rather than trying to invent or assume a situation that is not mentioned or described (again, as is the case with the other two fellows as well as the unnamed, but singled out, teachers trying to take over Paul’s ministry while he was in prison).

    So, only since this conversation went a little different that the letter asks, does everyone agree that the letter above describes and incongruous situation? As in if your egalitarian, it’s both church and home (must be applied the same), right?

  61. Darius T June 17, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    “I still think there’s no way 150 is going to get here.”

    Oh, you of little faith.

  62. Sue June 17, 2009 at 3:23 pm #

    I would say a complementarian reading is more simplistic,

    Amen.

    What about single women who provide for their families and manage them well? Allowed to lead?

    What about the celibate women of old who were abesses and in charge of estates, churches and priests, – allowed to lead?

  63. Brian Krieger June 17, 2009 at 3:46 pm #

    The problem with male leadership is that it makes your head spin. Better a woman apply to do her moral best using her own conscience which was put there by God.
    Agreed that there are varied opinions. I agree with Kostenberger’s external evidence (given there isn’t a direct lexical, uh, proof). But you and I have argued that before (see the DBC threads). You mention something that, to me, is just as much at the heart of the matter as your view that men want to maintain dominance (is to the heart of your matter). It’s the idea that if I must use my gifts in the way I see fit. Conscience is a fickle thing sometimes. Many homosexuals would tell you that they are celebrating a moral thing that God has put on their hearts, but scripture would say otherwise (and the arguments against that scripture are nearly as nuanced and plentiful as teaching.). A woman may say that she left her husband for a God-fearing man and did so using her moral best judgment while again, scripture speaks against divorce (again, arguments are just as plentiful).

  64. Brian Krieger June 17, 2009 at 3:55 pm #

    What about single women who provide for their families and manage them well? Allowed to lead?

    What about the celibate women of old who were abesses and in charge of estates, churches and priests, – allowed to lead?

    I know you’ve stated this before, but I don’t understand why. A husband leads his family. Complementarians don’t say a woman is always to have some man in her life to lead her spiritually in her household.

    And David, yes, I believe that Paul does want them to get married (he states it in his other letters as well, if memory serves me correctly). A desire, contrasted with not permitting.

    OK, Darius, I have faith. We’re to 60 and we haven’t even gotten to the read scripture through the lens of Aristotle yet.

  65. Brian Krieger June 17, 2009 at 5:35 pm #

    Just to tack on something else that’s related, we tend to get focused on one or two things (along the lines of what Ferg said earlier). The unspoken part that goes hand in hand with our discussion came in what I thought was a great quote:

    And then [God] goes over to the man and says, “You’re going to love your wife like Christ loved the church.” And so you start running through it: how does Christ love the church? He rescues her, He saves her, He becomes sin for her, He has His body ripped apart for her, and here’s the kicker and here’s where I want to spend my time tonight, He does it all, not because the bride asked for it, but He initiates on His own. And that’s what I think is so big about this text.

    OK, I’ll be quiet now.

  66. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 5:54 pm #

    Brian,

    “If it were toward a single woman (presumably disrupting church services), he would have singled out like Hym. And Alex, don’t you think?”

    If I do think then why would I make an assumption? There are differences made by Paul regarding Hym, Alex and the woman… Did she teach the same things that Hym and Alex taught?

    “It speaks in general terms in the verses leading up and then following,”

    What general terms do you refer to, exactly? The singular, not general is what’s written. Anyone can see that. It’s that the singular MUST to be perceived of as “general” in order to think that Paul is speaking in general terms. What you are talking about, if I’m understanding you correctly, doesn’t even exist in writing, in the passage.

    “so while I can’t prove it, it would seem odd to stop and single out an unnamed woman here.”

    It is “odd”, but so what does that mean? Because it is odd, it means that Paul couldn’t have been talking about an unnamed woman? That doesn’t make sense. “It’s odd therefore it isn’t.” Huh?

    “He roots it in Adam and Eve (the reason I mentioned it was the comment that seemed to indicated it was Dr. Burk’s concoction of sorts).”

    He roots what in Adam and Eve? And unproven, prohibiton? It does not even matter who came up with it. What matters is if it (a prohibiton against women) is true or not.

    And, btw, I indicated nothing of the sort. What I saw him do was something else…

    “He had established a similar church command in his letter to the Corinthians.”

    First you can’t prove a “Timothy command”, and then you take that theory and then say Paul established a similar church command in his letter to the Corinthians. You keep building on nothing. I don’t get it.

    1 Peter 3, Col 3 (and Titus as well) sets forth order to the creation within the home (the two subjects the original letter writer above was connecting). It is an overall theme and order that runs throughout. Later in his letter to Timothy and then again to Titus, he mentions qualifications for elders and deacons. I mention them all in conjunction as it is the flowing unity and, especially with reference to Eph 5, is reflective of His nature.”

    This is just more theory.

    “PS: There is proof. The fact that you don’t accept it doesn’t make it false (for a similar argument, see if Jesus is God.).”

    Why don’t you explain how “Jesus is God” is a similar argument?

    No, there is no proof for the comp position.

    Btw, I hope you’re not claiming that the Trinity is an unprovable doctrine.

    “Based on the style of your comments and the (very difficult to tell over electronic media) tone, it seems you are being more quarrelsome for the sake of stirring up than a true question.”

    I don’t know how you perceive my comments, but the question is, is comp doctrine TRUE or not? I think it’s an important question, don’t you?

  67. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 6:02 pm #

    “If it were toward a single woman (presumably disrupting church services), he would have singled out like Hym. And Alex, don’t you think?”

    Stickler:
    “If I do think then why would I make an assumption? There are differences made by Paul regarding Hym, Alex and the woman… Did she teach the same things that Hym and Alex taught?”

    Brian, I forgot to ask, what in the passage makes you think she was teaching more than one man (people in the Ephesian church)?

  68. Sue June 17, 2009 at 6:14 pm #

    So a aingle woman can lead and provide for her family as a man can. There is nothing in the design of women that means they can’t lead in church. There is something about the design of men which means they cannot take instruction from a woman.

  69. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 6:16 pm #

    So why would a deceived woman who is teaching one man, need to be booted and named like Hym and Alex who shipwrecked their faith? Especialy since Paul said she would be saved if…

  70. Ann June 17, 2009 at 6:17 pm #

    No one said that a woman does not have the ability to do things – but that God’s design does not allow her to take certain roles in the church.

  71. Sue June 17, 2009 at 6:17 pm #

    Brian,

    Of course, I see the teaching of male over female as self-interest. And the belief in equality for women is also self-ineterest.

    But what is better for the children, that the male always have final say, or that both parents negotiate, that the mother also be a protector and provider. Is the father always the best moral influence, and the safest person to care for the children? No, not always.

    Children are better off with two responsible adult parents, equally responsible.

  72. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 6:30 pm #

    “So a aingle woman can lead and provide for her family as a man can. There is nothing in the design of women that means they can’t lead in church. There is something about the design of men which means they cannot take instruction from a woman.”

    And isn’t it interesting that Eve came out of her deception which is noted when she admits to God that the serpent deceived her? But Adam? He blames and blames again. And what did God tell Eve to expect Adam to do?

    Hmmm…

  73. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 6:32 pm #

    “No one said that a woman does not have the ability to do things – but that God’s design does not allow her to take certain roles in the church.”

    What does “God’s design” mean? I mean, what exactly, do you mean? lol 🙂 (That came out funny)

  74. Ann June 17, 2009 at 6:33 pm #

    Sue – Who says that having a husband as the head of the house means that there’s no negotiation? My husband and I negotiate a lot – I’m his sounding board, he’s mine, we respect and appreciate each other’s different approach to things. My husband loves me completely and always asks for my opinion and takes that into consideration. But in the end, I will allow him to make the final decision because that is what God desires of me. Jesus was submissive to His Father and in the same way, I will be submissive to my husband. But it certainly doesn’t mean I don’t have any say in our lives.

  75. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 6:34 pm #

    Who’s taking bets again for the 150 mark? 🙂

  76. David Rogers June 17, 2009 at 7:08 pm #

    In 1 Cor.7:39-40 Paul believes that it is better that a widow remain unmarried and he thinks that this is a Spirit-derived conclusion.

    39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; [i.e. as a widow] and I think that I also have the Spirit of God [i.e. the Spirit’s guidance in this matter].

    Bracketed comments added by me.

    In 1 Tim. 5:14 he gives a command for “young widows” to definitely get married. Was he misperceiving the Spirit before in 1 Cor. 7:40?

    Contributing toward the 150,

    David

  77. Scott June 17, 2009 at 7:10 pm #

    Sue,

    I’m an egalitarian. To that extent I am “on your side.” However, I find it frustrating & definitely not in the interest of your argument to claim that there’s something in a man that makes him unqualified to hear instruction from a woman.

    The evidence you present to advance your cause is often overshadowed by needless and gross insinuations. I fail to see how building up the woman has to come with simultaneously tearing down the man. This is a sensitive and emotional topic, no doubt.

  78. Ann June 17, 2009 at 7:47 pm #

    “What does “God’s design” mean? I mean, what exactly, do you mean?”

    God’s design is that a woman is to be a helper to her husband. This can be found in the very first book of the Bible.

  79. Darius T June 17, 2009 at 8:02 pm #

    Careful Ann, to an egal, “helper” means equal partner in all things.

  80. Sue June 17, 2009 at 8:04 pm #

    1) God’s design

    If a woman can lead and provide for her family then that is part of her design. She is designed to be both leader and helper (as is God who is both our leader and helper) equally. IF leadership in church is linked to leadership at home, then women are designed to lead both at home and in church.

    If women are not allowed to lead, then they are not allowed to live according to their design.

    2) Scott,

    I meant to pose this as a question inviting a “no” answer,

    How about this?

    If there is nothing about the design of a woman that prevents her from leading in the family and in church,

    is there something about the design of men which means they cannot take instruction from a woman?

    I don’t think so.

  81. Sue June 17, 2009 at 8:06 pm #

    Darius,

    A popular prayer to Christ in Clement of Rome was addressed to Christ out boethos and prostates.

    Of course, boethos is Eve and prostatis is Phoebe. When the prayer to Christ is translated into English then it becomes “champion and defender” but when the same words are used for woman, it “help” and “helper.”

  82. Sue June 17, 2009 at 8:08 pm #

    1 Clement 36:1

    Ιησουν Χρστον, τον αρχιερεα των προσφορων ημων, τον προστατην και βοηθον της ασθενειας ημων.

    Jesus Christ, the high priest of our oblations, the champion and defender of our weakness. tr. Charles Hoole 1885

  83. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 8:10 pm #

    Ann:
    “God’s design is that a woman is to be a helper to her husband. This can be found in the very first book of the Bible.”

    Adam was alone the text (Gen 2) tells us, so then God created woman as a help. And AFTER both are created THEN God directly speaks to both, telling them to rule over the earth and he also gives them both permission on what they can eat. (Gen 1)

    “God’s design is that a woman is to be a helper to her husband. This can be found in the very first book of the Bible.”

    So now, what does THAT mean?

    How do you get from “God’s design is that a woman is to be a helper to her husband” (a marriage) to “but that God’s design does not allow her to take certain roles in the church” (church function for ALL men and women, which would include single males and females)?

  84. Ann June 17, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    Stickler – Because God tells us in His Word. Is not the Scriptures God’s Word to us? Our book of faith and practice?

  85. Sue June 17, 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    Ann,

    I’ll confess that I think I always understand the “God’s design” argument the wrong way. Does it refer to the way that God has designed women, or the way God has designed family and church?

    That is, if a woman can lead a family, then doesn’t this mean that God has designed her this way? God knows that because of life expectancy and other things, half of families will have one parent, so even though he designed the family to have two parents, there is another design that says that apart from breastfeeding and heavy labour, all functions can be done by either parent. Isn’t this part of God’s design also?

    I just need to know where I have lost my way in this argument.

  86. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    Ann:
    “Stickler – Because God tells us in His Word. Is not the Scriptures God’s Word to us? Our book of faith and practice?”

    God tells us WHAT in his word? God HIMSELF said/”told us” that he would make a help for Adam which was after Adam was alone, which was not good.

    But what scripture connects “Eve was created as a help to her husband” to “women are not allowed to serve in the body as leaders” and what scripture even says “women are not allowed to serve in the body as leaders”, to begin with? Scripture is God’s word to us, which is why if “women are not allowed to serve in the body as leaders” is scriptural then it can be provided.

  87. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    “God’s design is that a woman is to be a helper to her husband”

    “but that God’s design does not allow her to take certain roles in the church”

    How does a wife being a help to her husband exclude her from being a leader in the church, even? To be a help means to not be a help?

  88. Don Johnson June 17, 2009 at 10:20 pm #

    When the woman in the garden was to be a helper it was because the man needed help, it was not good for him to be alone. Being a helper/ezer is not automatically a subordinate, God is an ezer to Israel and us.

  89. Stickler June 17, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    “God’s design is that a woman is to be a helper to her husband”

    “but that God’s design does not allow her to take certain roles in the church”

    Ann, I can combine your quotes above into this:

    God’s design being woman was made as a help to her husband, does not allow her to take certain roles in the church.

    Question is, where does scripture speak this?

  90. Jessi June 17, 2009 at 11:59 pm #

    Stickler,

    You may or may not want to take the time to listen to this sermon , but it explains very well Biblical Headship both in a marriage and the church.

  91. Stickler June 18, 2009 at 1:19 am #

    Jessi,

    Maybe you can explain to me MALE headship? Eph 5 talks of the husband being the head of the wife, but where is it said in scripture that single males are “heads”? Maybe you meant to say “husband headship” since “males” cannot be a “head” without a wife?

  92. Stickler June 18, 2009 at 1:23 am #

    “Biblical headship” in marriage and the CHURCH must imply “male headship”.

    So a single male in church is a “head” to? What is he “head” of?

  93. Jessi June 18, 2009 at 1:36 am #

    Stickler,

    If you want to play word games… What I was referring to was male headship within a marriage and male leadership within the church, based on Biblical text.

    I was only suggesting that you check out the sermon. I was not looking for a debate.

  94. Don Johnson June 18, 2009 at 8:07 am #

    The word “headship” is not even found in the Bible. The word used is kephale/head as a metaphor, not headship as an role.

  95. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 9:24 am #

    Don:

    The word servanthood is not in the bible either yet we use it to describe Christian doctrine. Yes, it does describe the order placed before us by God. Is it your interpretation? No.

  96. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 9:25 am #

    David:

    Re: Widows, no, Paul specifically says he doesn’t have a deceiving spirit at the end of that passage. One could be for younger widows, the other for older widows (the likely case given the identification of younger in 1 Tim). To tack on to what I had said earlier, not only do I not have a perfect theology, I also cannot answer every question about the bible (A. I’m simply not smart enough B. I cannot know all the things of God).

  97. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 9:55 am #

    Stickler:

    I grieve that I brought up the Jesus as God claim. I really don’t even like reiterating it. Just go and look up JW’s doctrine and commentaries on it.

    Again, I’ll go back to your original thought. Can I prove anything I believe? No, I can’t. And I have a sneaky suspicion that it will continue to give me tired-head, but, I still hold that this topic holds such an important foundation…. In the Timothy passage, this section of the letter starts by describing guidelines for proper attire and ends with preservation. Looking out further than that little section, it starts with guidelines for prayer, going further past, it takes on guidelines for teachers, overseers and deacons. Hence why I said it speaks in general terms leading up and coming out. To stop in the middle and speak to an individual, unnamed, unidentified situation would not flow with that whole portion of the letter. Hence, I In 1 Cor, I wasn’t saying 1 Tim proves it, I’m saying it’s a similar command. It then flows with the other commands given by multiple authors and can further be compared against the

    Can I prove it? No, but there are very few things in the bible I can prove (either to exist or even to be commands). Can you call it theory? Sure. Then, I suppose, that settles that. I accept them as statements by faith. I accept them as true and part of the truth. I would assume you view egalitarian doctrine the same way. I certainly pray you do. I pray your desire is truly to find God’s spirit driven word, not seeking to salve my personal views as I so often find myself.

  98. Don Johnson June 18, 2009 at 10:01 am #

    The word servant IS in the Bible, the life of a believe is to be the life of a servant. It is NOT used as a metaphor, in fact, Jesus gave us an example to follow.

    It is entirely different with head, which we KNOW is a metaphor.

  99. David Rogers June 18, 2009 at 10:09 am #

    Brian,

    I am not smart enough either to answer all questions and absolutely no sinful human has a “perfect theology”.

    Introducing the possibility of it only applying to “older” widows in the 1 Cor. 7:39-40 passage has no warrant.

    I do not understand why you have transformed Paul’s phrase “I think that I also have the Spirit of God” into “I don’t have a deceiving spirit”. Why can’t it be “I think this is God’s guidance but I’m not going to make an absolute proclamation here given that the Lord has the right to guide his own servants in his own ways in these particular matters.”

    Paul was giving his sincere well-intentioned counsel in 1 Cor. 7:39-40 to fit his perception of the situation there, and he was giving his seasoned guidance to Timothy in 1 Tim. 5:14 for the Ephesian situation. Flattening out the specific contexts to make every scripture literally apply to every society and time is a hermeneutical theory that will inevitably lead to real problems.

    Blessings,

    David

  100. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 10:40 am #

    David,

    You asked why I thought, so I told you. It does have warrant (as before, if you don’t hold to it, OK, but that can’t be used as a proof of falsehood). You are correct in saying that we don’t go the route of hyper-literalism.

    I say he didn’t have a deceiving spirit as all scripture is God-breathed (and profitable, etc.). If you hold to God deceiving him (which I don’t think is what you are implying, correct?), then we are on very different ends of the spectrum. I think what you mean to indicate is that because Paul’s letters are written to churches, they are prescriptive only to that particular church or situation (some or all of the letter, anyway). If that’s the case, I think we’re still far apart as all scripture is profitable for training, etc.

  101. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 10:49 am #

    BTW, (as you would agree, I think)any hermeneutic leads to real problems. One can argue “what if” or “prove it” with any hermeneutic. I think the scriptures do transcend time. Piper and Grudem say it well:

    “In contrast, to show that the specific forms of some commands are limited to one kind of situation or culture, (1) we seek for clues in the context that this is so; (2) we compare other Scriptures relating to the same subject to see if we are dealing with limited application or with an abiding requirement; and (3) we try to show that the cultural specificity of the command is not rooted in the nature of God, the gospel, or the created order.”

  102. David Rogers June 18, 2009 at 11:26 am #

    Brian,

    Thanks for the interaction.

    My claim for no warrant is based in there being no word for “older” in the 1 Corinthians passage.

    1 Corinthians was likely written around 54-55 AD to a congregation of Christians in Corinth. 1 Timothy is usually dated at least ten years later to the individual Timothy in Ephesus. My point is that saying that the Corinthians passage is “likely” to be restricted to “older widows” because the Timothy passage is directed to “younger widows” is unwarranted due to the unlikely possibility that the Corinthians would see the restriction being toward “older widows” only when there is no adjective present.

    We who have the benefit of having a more complete canon of Scripture must be careful about imposing that fuller insight upon understanding those passages which could not be interpreted without that benefit. I’m not denying the principle of an analogy of Scripture hermeneutic but warning that it should not be applied indiscriminately.

    Piper and Grudem’s notation is well taken, however, the key is in the specifics. The reason I hold to the general allowance of a Spirit-gifted woman teaching men is because in my study of individual passages in what they actually say and what they don’t actually say, and study of the whole canon of Scripture on the issue and my firm belief in inerrancy has pushed me toward that conclusion.

    Toward the 150,

    David

  103. David Rogers June 18, 2009 at 11:38 am #

    Brian,

    Also, the issue of deception is not part of the 1 Corinthians passage. Paul is stating his sincerely believed Spiritual opinion. He is noting though that it should only be seen as sincere opinion not definitive conclusion.

    You seem to be imposing a broad theological principle (the Scripture is for the edification of the Church) onto the exegesis of a passage. The exegesis will show us HOW it is edifying for the Church by noting the specifics.

    No, I am not limiting all specific instruction to specific congregations as being irrelevant to the rest of the Church. But I do think that the first principles of proper exegetical analysis and conclusion ask how the passage applied to the original readers before it attempts wholesale application to all Christians in all times and cultures.

    More toward the 150,

    David

  104. Ferg June 18, 2009 at 11:46 am #

    Anyone change their mind yet? Round and round in circles….

    Darius, I can send you some of the pills I take to cultivate this beard. I especially think all comps should grow one. It’s what real men do!!!

  105. David Rogers June 18, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    Ferg,

    I think you are correct in the immediate sense that there is round and round in circles, however in the long term, maybe in years, there may be some benefit.

    I have found that my own views have been shaped by exposure to contrary perspectives that I had been previously unaware of. I have then proceeded to examine the issue anew and eventually have developed, hopefully, a more mature perspective which has been tempered by dealing with awareness of more details.

    By the way, I enjoyed looking at your review of your trip to the U.S. on your site.

    Blessings,

    David

  106. David Rogers June 18, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    Ferg,

    Oh, and please forgive us ignorant Americans for being so obtuse about your heritage (“same island” “potatoes”)

    I, however, do not understand the non-specification of ordering of an egg. Is the ordering of an egg in Ireland usually only done one way?

    Blessings,

    David

  107. David Rogers June 18, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

    Ferg,

    One more comment. I also have a full beard but by no means as full and thick as yours. I don’t know if I, myself, started any trend but more and more pastors in our little Arkansas Baptist Association of Baptist Churches (Caroline Baptist Association) are beginning to grow beards since I went ahead and grew mine out two years ago.

    These last few comments should not count toward the 150 since they are off topic.

    David

  108. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 12:05 pm #

    I have found that my own views have been shaped by exposure to contrary perspectives that I had been previously unaware of. I have then proceeded to examine the issue anew and eventually have developed, hopefully, a more mature perspective which has been tempered by dealing with awareness of more details.

    Amen for me, too!

  109. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 12:24 pm #

    We who have the benefit of having a more complete canon of Scripture must be careful about imposing that fuller insight upon understanding those passages which could not be interpreted without that benefit.

    The danger I see creeping up often (this isn’t towards you specifically or meant to be rebarbative) is that we get sunk into the idea that Paul authored the letter. God was the author. How He handled those 150 or so years worth of hearts and churches is up to Him. When taking a letter that Paul (or Peter, etc.) wrote, it must be held in the full insight we have. God didn’t make a mistake with His word. To tiresomely say again, it doesn’t mean I have full understanding (or perfect theology). I hold that the complementarian view does hold up to the full insight, taking into account a cultural aspect (if necessary) along with a historical view. This isn’t to say that there aren’t opposing views now or through history that see this issue as a cultural aspect or lone case (in the case of 1 Tim), just saying what and why I hold to it.

    No way we make 150.

    BTW (didn’t think it fair to put this in a different post….that would be cheating ;-), Sue, given your passion in other posts, I thought you would see that passion in this essay.

  110. Darius T June 18, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    Ferg, I don’t have the beard growing gene. I can do a decent goatee, but it thins out too much on the sides.

  111. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 12:31 pm #

    Oh, and Ferg, I’ve completely changed my mind. After listening to it, I think that people just need to lay off of David Letterman.

    Hope you enjoyed or are enjoying your tour through the US. And I like the beard though I’m not manly enough to be able to grow something that full.

    I hope this isn’t seen as a cheater’s post.

  112. Sue June 18, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    Yes, I have read Susan Hunt’s article many times. I cannot understand how still today in a large churches guided by the Danvers statement there is no recognition that the highest risk of injury to a woman is within her own home.

    Susan Hunt writes,

    “If it were not for feminists, thousands of women and their children would be living-and dying-in abusive situations at this very moment.”

    So, I have to ask – who would a woman who was rescued by a feminist trust for the rest of her life – a male headship church or the law, which has been informed by feminists, and has given equal human rights to women? It is no secret that these last two or three years has seen a huge growth in books and websites by and about women who have suffered biblical battery. Male headship should be honoured when the last woman crawls out from under the last sinful man.

    When humanity is devoid of sin, then talk about putting woman under man. But for now, it is the fox in charge of the henhouse.

    I have to say that reading that article has retraumatized me. I don’t know if I will ever recover from the years I spent in unfortunate circumstances also in a (soft) fundamentalist complementarian environment. I sometimes wish that a lobotomy were possible. What a tragedy and I know it is shared by so many.

  113. Sue June 18, 2009 at 1:17 pm #

    Often those who teach male headship threaten violence to men who treat women in sinful ways. What they seem to miss is that ALL men treat women in sinful ways.

    This is because all of us, men AND women are sinful. To put one human under the authority of another human, giving one human power over the other, allows for more serious consequences when sin enters the scene.

    I am distressed that many men preach violence to violent men.

  114. Ferg June 18, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

    David,
    Your comment: “I have found that my own views have been shaped by exposure to contrary perspectives that I had been previously unaware of.” makes a lot of sense and I guess if it’s on your heart to let people know the truth of the situation then bless you in it.
    Eggs are eggs to us. White with that horrible yellow yolk in the middle. Sometimes there’s an option to scramble them which is how I like them.
    That’s funny you started a little trend.
    Darius, I was a proud gottee wearer for years until I decided to embrace my ginger that a full beard shows and go full on!
    David Letterman; that whole thing is a joke.

  115. Jessi June 18, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    Sue,

    “Male headship should be honoured when the last woman crawls out from under the last sinful man.”

    Are you suggesting that we ignore God’s commands until everyone obeys? Can you imagine if we applied that to all areas where God calls us to live a certain way?

    God has called us to obey Him (i.e, submit to our husbands.. 1 Peter 3:1,2) even when our husbands may not honor their role. If we honor God, he is faithful to honor that obedience.

  116. David Rogers June 18, 2009 at 1:49 pm #

    Ferg,

    So that I completely understand, if I go to Ireland (which I would love to) and if I just ask for an egg, it would be brought to me hard-boiled?

  117. andy June 18, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    I have been following this discussion and must admit that many of the angles taken are foreign to me, indicating my ignorance on the matter. I wonder, though, if someone on either side of this debate would be willing to change their view, provided Scripture affirmed explicitly that either “men only are to pastor” or “men and women are to pastor.” Or, would we continue to hold our view with a clenched fist in spite of evidence to the contrary? Again, this is simplistic. However, I am inclined to think that we should approach this topic as well as others with humility and conviction, allowing for teaching and correction of our views if need be.

  118. Sue June 18, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    Jessi,

    Have you read all of Susan Hunt’s article? Isn’t she saying that men have failed as protectors of women? And what are women to do in the meantime?

    I do not believe that it is God’s command that women live under male authority. It’s that simple for me.

    When a wife submits to an abusive husband, the abuse is not ameliorated, but it is reinforced. This is a fact.

  119. Ferg June 18, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Sorry, I should have explained better. No, it would come as a fried egg. Always. Unless you ask, like I do, for scrambled.

    When you come to Ireland (yes I did say WHEN) you will get the nicest tastiest breakfast ever in a cafe called Howards Way in my village of Rathgar. My wife won’t eat a full breakfast anywhere else it’s that good!

    That to say, women should be allowed in all aspects of ministry!! :o)

  120. D.J. Williams June 18, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

    Darius,

    Can I double down my $20 on 200?

  121. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 2:39 pm #

    Sue:
    I am distressed that many men preach violence to violent men.
    Who teaches this?

    To take the rabbit trail, Sue, I mentioned this to you during that 1700 comment thread (or one close by), but it is awful that some man abused his Godly-authorized headship and turned a gift from God into his perverted concept. It truly pains my heart to even read that (much less hear it). And these are likely very hallow empty words for you mostly because I didn’t live them. The pain that is felt is yours. The only one (as you know by now) who can take it away is God. No amount of what I say or what you tell youself (or anyone else, for that matters) can do that. It’s a work that transcends all understanding.

  122. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    When a wife submits to an abusive husband, the abuse is not ameliorated, but it is reinforced. This is a fact.

    Among other specific suggestions, Mrs. Hunt says:

    Church members should be taught that injustice is sin and that submission does not mean that a woman must submit to the sin of abuse. Women should understand that it is wrong for a wife to enable a husband to continue sinful practices. She has a responsibility to him to take this to her pastor and to the elders of her church.

    And from thus flows her thought of men failing to protect women (see the earlier examples in her article).

  123. Darius T June 18, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    DJ, only if you increase it to over 175.

  124. David Rogers June 18, 2009 at 3:10 pm #

    Brian said:

    “The danger I see creeping up often (this isn’t towards you specifically or meant to be rebarbative) is that we get sunk into the idea that Paul authored the letter. God was the author. How He handled those 150 or so years worth of hearts and churches is up to Him. When taking a letter that Paul (or Peter, etc.) wrote, it must be held in the full insight we have. God didn’t make a mistake with His word.”

    The discovery of God’s meaning is found in an understanding of what the human authors wrote. The dual authorship of Scripture has been a principle of the Church for centuries. Hyper-emphasis on some murky “divine” meaning separated from the actual human linguistic/semantic nature of language and the historical contexts in which the inspired texts are written can become rather Gnostic and close to anti-incarnational. God chose to primarily communicate the revelation of his will through the medium of the rhetoric of human authors more than through direct dictation (e.g. the Ten Words on Mt. Sinai). We honor God’s chosen means of revelation by honoring his choice of communication through historicized texts. We do not understand his revealed will when we isolate them from the very contexts which were his means of communicating them.

    I used to be what is labeled “complementarian” and now many would label me “egalitarian”. (I don’t like labels since I am still complementarian in many ways and I don’t agree with other egalitarians on some matters.) I moved away from this “complementarian” perspective due to my continuing commitment to inerrancy. I found that taking 1 Tim. as a universal prohibition to all women at all times created what I saw as a theological contradiction to other things taught in scripture. When I examined the relevant texts exegetically rather than through systematic summaries of the so-called definitive conclusions of complementarianism I discovered that the passages did not require the conclusions that I had held as a complementarian.

    I am beginning to work on an analysis of a passage that Wayne Grudem interestingly ignores in his massive attempt at responding to the so-called “Evangelical Feminism” movement and that in my intial cursory examination the CBMW site also appears to neglect significant analysis of its implications. I am coming to believe that if this passage were analyzed with regard to its implications then complementarianism might have a rather interesting conundrum.

    Toward the 150,

    David

  125. Don Johnson June 18, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    The question then become what constitutes abuse. I claim that it is abusive to violate the will of another adult unless there is a risk of imminent harm.

  126. Darius T June 18, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    By your definition, Don, wouldn’t that make God abusive?

  127. Jessi June 18, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    Sue,

    “I do not believe that it is God’s command that women live under male authority. It’s that simple for me.”

    It sounds to me that you have a distorted view of both authority and submission. I understand that there a cases where men take advantage of their position. However, I also know that God is quite clear that the man is the head of the household and the woman is to submit (Eph 5:22,23 and 1 Peter 3:1,2). Neither one is better than the other. They are simply two different roles. Jesus submitted to God’s authority so it must be a holy and wonderful thing.

    “When a wife submits to an abusive husband, the abuse is not ameliorated, but it is reinforced. This is a fact.”

    Abuse is a whole other situation. I would never suggest a woman stay in an abusive relationship. If a man is abusing to reinforce his headship or leadership, than obviously he is a terrible leader. A good leader never has to remind others that he has the authority.

    “Isn’t she saying that men have failed as protectors of women? And what are women to do in the meantime?”

    Many men have failed to fulfill their position as leader. And what are women to do in the meantime?: Follow what God has called them to do. Stop worrying about what everyone else is doing and do what He told you to do (John 14:15, 15:10, 15:14, 1 John 5:3)! I said it in my previous reply. 1 Peter 3:1 is clear that we are to submit even if our husbands are not Christians.

  128. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    Ferg:

    Can I come to Ireland and have some tasty breakfast? I promise not to talk egal/comp.

    Darius,

    I guess the cop was abusive when she gave me that ticket. Oh, and I suppose that the IRS was abusive when they sued me for tax evasion. Oh, and my boss is abusive when he tells me to get to work rather than comment on…..uh……gotta go.

    Don,
    Perhaps I shouldn’t have been that snarky, but part of our departure is that you see authority as sinful. I see it as a reflection of the trinity. Perhaps another area we depart.

  129. Don Johnson June 18, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    God NEVER violates my will or anyone elses!

  130. Don Johnson June 18, 2009 at 3:35 pm #

    I do not see authority as inherently sinful. A parent has authority over a child.

    To think someone has non-mutual authority over their spouse is to treat that spouse as a child.

  131. Sue June 18, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    Many men have failed to fulfill their position as leader. And what are women to do in the meantime?: Follow what God has called them to do.

    Susan Hunt had more to say than that. Women are to act as the defenders of other women. She is explicit.

    As well – get out, totally and truly out. Here is a list of women who write and blog about biblical battery. We have the responsibility to speak out.

    Some fight gun laws, and others of us fight against the inappropriateness of letting the male think that he has authority OVER the female.

  132. Stickler June 18, 2009 at 4:18 pm #

    Jessi:
    “However, I also know that God is quite clear that the man is the head of the household and the woman is to submit (Eph 5:22,23 and 1 Peter 3:1,2).”

    Jessi, you might be interested in reading this post:

    “Prepare to be surprised. Itching Ears crowd: get used to hearing the opposite of what you want to hear. In part 7, I suggested the Bible is speaking of a joint husband/wife rulership over the family. But that may be incorrect. Since the verses telling husbands to rule their houses, are usually interpreted to mean rule the wives, too, I decided to see what “house” means in the directive to each gender. Comparing the I Timothy “rule the house commands” to husband and wife, the wife is specifically told to be the head of, ruler of, the family, while the husband is specifically told to rule the dwelling,…”

    http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/2009_06_16_archive.html

  133. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 4:20 pm #

    Don:

    Yes, God quite often violates my will. Unless you can perfectly tell me the actions in your life, He violates yours as well. Additionally, according to your rationale, the Father must have sinned against the son (your will be done, not mine).

    I understand what you’re trying to say, sort of. I think it’s simply a faulty definition.

    Authority, when given by the God is not sinful. Order as in the trinity as in the creation, is not sinful. God revealed through Paul (Col, 1 Tim, Titus, 1 Cor) and Peter that this was the case. Men and women can sinfully abuse it (see beating a spouse or child, berating an employee or a spouse, Iran, etc.). Even in an egalitarian relationship, authority isn’t mutual. Or, rather, put a different way, it should be done to please the will of God. I don’t have authority over my wife because I want to or because I’m stronger or smarter (definitely not on that last one). Any authority I have comes from above (even governments are like watercourses in His hands). Demanding of your wife would be demeaning. Attempting to take authority would be sinful. God grants it, period. And He specifically states it for husbands, for church, for government, for parents.

  134. Sue June 18, 2009 at 4:20 pm #

    I want to forestall any notion that I think women are better than men. I don’t think women should have authority over men, or vice versa. I also don’t think that physical violence is the only kind of battery.

  135. Darius T June 18, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    God NEVER violates my will or anyone elses!

    Really?? “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.”

    God “violates” our wills all the time, most egregiously by forcing the elect to come to Him in repentance. No one would come to Christ unless he is called by God, and that calling is irresistible. Personally, I’m glad He violates my will, cause I am naturally 100% rebellious.

  136. Sue June 18, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    Demanding of your wife would be demeaning. Attempting to take authority would be sinful. God grants it, period. And He specifically states it for husbands, for church, for government, for parents.

    If male authority were a good thing for a woman, if she was designed for it, then it would be proper to take authority. But this reveals that the writer of this comment perceives perhaps that authority is not necessarily a good thing for a woman, or for the marriage relationship.

  137. Stickler June 18, 2009 at 4:29 pm #

    Jessi:
    “If you want to play word games… What I was referring to was male headship within a marriage and male leadership within the church, based on Biblical text.”

    Well that reads alot different from “biblical headship” in the home and CHURCH. Word games? How offensivley disgusting.

    What concerns me much is presciley what Paul wrote and didn’t write. Therefore, OUR word choices ARE important.

  138. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    Yes, Sue, Susan Hunt said:
    Church members should be taught that injustice is sin and that submission does not mean that a woman must submit to the sin of abuse. Women should understand that it is wrong for a wife to enable a husband to continue sinful practices. She has a responsibility to him to take this to her pastor and to the elders of her church.

    I think you put two words together that don’t belong “biblical battery”.

    Stickler: The author starts off exactly correct. She is definitely writing to tickle one’s ears. I suppose I disagree that complementarians put such emphasis on 1 Tim 3:4 as the foundation of complementarianism. Kind of renders the rest of it pointless.

  139. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

    Sue:

    Not sure why you opted not to use my name in the comment, but I’m even more baffled how you got to your conclusion. I think anything given to me by God is wonderful. It’s good to have a car, but I don’t take it, yet I think having a car is wonderful. I’ll affirm it again, God gives authority, no one else. It cannot be taken. I am granted only that which is in God’s will. He states that will over and again to us.

    Stickler:

    Word games? How offensivley disgusting.
    Uh….wow….

  140. David Rogers June 18, 2009 at 4:46 pm #

    I’m going to suggest that the post count thus far be subtracted by 18 since some of those are too far off topic or are directly related to the idea of arriving at the 150.

  141. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 4:46 pm #

    I stand corrected, Darius. Only 11 to go and someone just referred to another commenter’s words as disgusting. Oh, wait…..10 more, this one counts =)!

  142. Darius T June 18, 2009 at 4:50 pm #

    Brian,

    You’re learning, grasshopper. One can always count on self-righteous feelings to significantly increase the comment tally. Just wait, someone will soon be “totally insulted.”

    David,

    Like those 18 will matter when this thread is done…

  143. Sue June 18, 2009 at 4:51 pm #

    Three articles worth reading.

    1) Susan Hunt – read the whole thing

    2) Submissiontyranny – browse the site

    3) Biblical Battered Wife Syndrome

    When I mentioned those who preach violence to violent men, I mean theologians who offer to “knock the block off a man who hits his wife.”

    Some theologians are terribly angry at violent men because, in my view, violent men demonstrate how non-viable male based authority really is.

    I think the theologians need to simply tell the woman to act as she believes God wants (without suggesting that she submit further), and get the help she needs, and leave, and then the man can get the help he needs, and frankly – no more talk of hitting, please.

  144. Stickler June 18, 2009 at 4:52 pm #

    Brian, I use to study what the JW’s taught. Bringing “Jesus is God” argument has no bearing on what we are discussing – 1 Timothy 2. Paul isn’t arguing whether or not Jesus is God within the passage. So back to Paul’s words…

    “Again, I’ll go back to your original thought. Can I prove anything I believe? No, I can’t.”

    Question, simply do you believe that women are to be limited from teaching men? What I’m bringing to the table is EXTREMLY simple…

    “In the Timothy passage, this section of the letter starts by describing guidelines for proper attire and ends with preservation.”

    “This section” Paul changes subjects from women’s attire to a woman LEARNING. So a NEW section begins based on the subject change for one. Secondaly, the grammar changes to singular. So v11 begins a new section.

    “…going further past, it takes on guidelines for teachers, overseers and deacons. Hence why I said it speaks in general terms leading up and coming out. To stop in the middle and speak to an individual, unnamed, unidentified situation would not flow with that whole portion of the letter.”

    Either Paul switched from intructions for men and women to a woman learning and then to elders and deacons OR he did not, no matter if it seems to you to flow or not.

    “Hence, I In 1 Cor, I wasn’t saying 1 Tim proves it, I’m saying it’s a similar command.”

    In 1 Tim 2 Paul is not talking to the Corinthians. Back to Timothy…

    “It then flows with the other commands given by multiple authors and can further be compared against the”

    Moving on…

    “I accept them as statements by faith. I accept them as true and part of the truth.”

    Again, simply do you believe that women are to be limited from teaching men or not?

    “I would assume you view egalitarian doctrine the same way. I certainly pray you do. I pray your desire is truly to find God’s spirit driven word, not seeking to salve my personal views as I so often find myself.”

    I’m trying to discuss God’s word in the Tim 2 passage. Can we do that?

    Stickler

  145. Sue June 18, 2009 at 4:57 pm #

    Brian,

    I honestly did not mean to offend. I am not sure exactly what you meant by your comment, to tell the truth. Apologies.

    I don’t believe that God gives the husband authority OVER the wife. They are both adult human beings. I don’t think God created women to need male authority. They can function very well without. Male authority over them does not necessarily enhance women’s lives. It might and it might not.

  146. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 4:58 pm #

    David:

    Dangit! Nearly 30 to go still (did you really count ‘em ;-))? Does the disgusting comment count as well since it didn’t really say anything? What about combined responses? I put some together even though they were to different folks (ha ha).

    I agree with you about hyper-emphasis (comment 124). I suppose for me, it then goes back to the generic references in the Timothy letter and that God ordained order and (dread the word) authority is a recurring command. I would also posit that historical interpretation was that way as well (which is not a proof, mind you, simply another, uh, checkoff?). But, I suppose, that is just me.

    Again, just to state it, I don’t have an answer to every question (especially, as we see here, any acceptable answer). I would uphold your idea of commitment to inerrancy. I pray you do well in your research. Thanks for the interaction as well!

  147. Stickler June 18, 2009 at 5:00 pm #

    Brian:
    “Uh….wow….”

    Yes, wow. 🙂

  148. Darius T June 18, 2009 at 5:03 pm #

    Oops, sorry DJ, I misread your double down comment. Yes, doubled down on 200 comments. Looks like you’ll be the big winner…

  149. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    Sue:

    I wasn’t offended, I was perplexed. I thought it was maybe a joke I didn’t understand (that happens often). No need to apologize, but if so, I would forgive you!

    Something I want to be clear on (sorry, I hate danging preps, too!). I don’t believe that a woman is only to do something if she receives instruction from her husband (or as you erroneously expand, some man). I agree with Ann in comment 74. I would venture a guess that actions and working out aren’t tremendously different in many ways between complementarian and egalitarian households.

    Y’all have fun getting the 150 mark.

  150. Brian Krieger June 18, 2009 at 5:06 pm #

    Oh, and I guess I lost the bet, too. What a disappointing comment for #150, huh?

  151. Stickler June 18, 2009 at 5:08 pm #

    Brian this is what was said:

    “If you want to play word games…”

    That is very offensive to me.

    Now, back to Paul’s WORDS. 🙂

  152. Ferg June 18, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    God “violates” our wills all the time, most egregiously by forcing the elect to come to Him in repentance.

    Darius,
    I know this is not the place to get in to it but this comment fascinates me. I’d love to sit down with a beer/coffee with you to chat how God forcing people to himself can be a true representation of His love and also how the opposite of that works for people who will be eternally separated from him. Discussing these things over the internet us usually futile as it’s hard to grasp someone’s heart.
    I was tempted to drive to Kentucky to chat with DJ but it’s a little bit too far!!

  153. Matthew Staton June 18, 2009 at 6:42 pm #

    Darius, excellent powers of prediction. How about predicting that gas will fall to $1.50 per gallon?

  154. David Rogers June 18, 2009 at 9:07 pm #

    My count about subtracting 18 from the total a few comments back, thus needing an actual 168 comments to get to 150, was made by quickly reviewing those comments about the relatively unrelated notations (asking Ferg about eggs and such) and those which were only focused on the 150 count. Otherwise, we could easily get to 150 by dubious means.

    And I can’t believe I’m actually taking the time to type these comments in the little box right now.

    Blessings on all even in the midst of disagreement,

    David

  155. Stickler June 18, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    Brian:“I accept them as statements by faith. I accept them as true and part of the truth.”

    Brian, AHEM, what do Paul’s statements actualy Say, is the point?

  156. Denny Burk June 18, 2009 at 11:33 pm #

    When Darius T. suggested that there might be as many as 150 comments, I didn’t believe it. Darius, I’ll never underestimate your predictive powers again!

  157. Stickler June 19, 2009 at 12:08 am #

    It truly is magical isn’t it?!

  158. D.J. Williams June 19, 2009 at 8:28 am #

    200 is coming up like a flash! Go baby go!

    Ferg – come on, man, you can make a pit stop here. After all, no trip to the USA is complete without a visit to Kentucky (*tries to keep a straight face*).

  159. Darius T June 19, 2009 at 9:17 am #

    Here’s another prediction for ya all: the Big 12 will again own the SEC in college football. Take it to the bank…

  160. Darius T June 19, 2009 at 9:22 am #

    Denny, one can never overestimate the comment power of a swarm of egalitarians (or their complementarian nemeses).

    Now to get this back on track for DJ’s sake… Don, any reply to the idea that God violates our wills? See #135

  161. Ryan K. June 19, 2009 at 10:22 am #

    Darius where do I send you 5 bucks?

    I should have known this would hit 150, they only other topic that gets even more of a reaction is combining the Woman as elders issue with Mark Driscoll.

  162. Don Johnson June 20, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    God has never violated my will. He has invited me to follow, to choose life. Sometimes I fail.

    I do not understand those who believe God violates their will. It may be due to a TULIP understanding, which I do not share.

  163. spotted crow June 21, 2009 at 4:35 pm #

    In all honesty, and after searching the Biblical text, I still cannot see that God has established absolute pink & blue gender-roles which must be adhered to in each and every case, and that under no circumstances can they be crossed.

    The whole ideology of a gender based headship and hierarchy is disturbing for me because it implies that women were never fully enfranchised by Jesus’ work at Golgotha.

    No matter how much special pleading is used to affirm equal person hood, and at the same time a stark line of demarcation for gender roles, I am forced to flatly reject a gender based hierarchy and headship in the Church Universal.

  164. D.J. Williams June 23, 2009 at 8:39 am #

    Did this bottom out over the weekend? Guess I shouldn’t have doubled down. I thought 200 was a sure thing. Blast!

  165. Brian Krieger June 25, 2009 at 11:09 am #

    I may regret this, but Mr./Ms. Crow, it seems your view of Christ’s work was temporal-centric. I believe that is liberation theology at it’s heart.

    Also, I thought Jeff Breeding summed up well a point I tried to make earlier.

  166. Mrs. Webfoot June 26, 2009 at 1:26 am #

    Ann:
    My point is really that a woman cannot be a husband – and since it clearly speaks of him being the husband of one wife and then gives qualifications regarding his wife, we can’t really substitute “woman” in there. >>>>

    I don’t know if I can read through the whole “swarm” of comments, but I noticed this one. Hasn’t anyone set you straight on that one, yet, Ann?

    You see, “aner” doesn’t ALWAYS mean “man”!

    In fact, none of the words you thought you once knew really mean that at all!

    Didn’t you know that?

    (tongue very much in cheek!)

    It’s impossible to talk to the Christian feminists. They are here to proselytize, of course. That’s why they put up links to different websites.

    I doubt that they have read the article in question. They are not very good at quoting people either, I have noticed.

    You see, the male headship teachings are satanic, according the the Egalitarians. If WE can’t be rescued from the comp cult, others who may be getting sucked into compism can be rescued.

    For them, we are like a satanic cult. Male domination came because of sin and is therefore evil and satanic. It is sinful and just plain dangerous to women.

    They are on a high and holy rescue mission, you see. Women are being abused, don’t you know, and that cannot be allowed to continue. You have to stop teaching that husbands are to be leaders of their wives.

    It’s impossible. I’m glad that the guys are not taking this very seriously, even though it is a very serious topic.

    Some are reading, though, who can be reached. It’s hard, though, since feminism is part of this cosmos, this time-frame, the way that our world organizes itself at this point in time.

    Liberal doses of Romans 12:1,2 are in order.

    Mrs. Webfoot

  167. Don Johnson June 26, 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    I do not think non-egals are satanic, just deceived; as they may think I am.

    On aner, the male plural form can include females as it was used when even just 1 male was in a group; this is just the way koine Greek worked and it is found this way

  168. Don Johnson June 26, 2009 at 12:15 pm #

    in the Greek NT.

  169. Mrs. Webfoot June 26, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    Don, I’m glad to hear that. I don’t think that you are satanic, either.

    Here is a quote from a good – and I think, very kind – article written by Ron Rhodes.

    “”Mollenkott argues that “sin enters the human condition in Genesis 3. Only after Adam and Eve have substituted their will for God’s will does the specter of male supremacy and female subordination enter the picture.”[18] Feminist Gilbert Bilezikian thus argues that “it is proper to regard both male dominance and death as being antithetical to God’s original intent in creation. Both are the result of sin, itself instigated by Satan. Their origin is satanic.”[19]”

    http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Feminism.html

    Then, here is a quote from a woman who posted to the Complementarian group at Yahoo.

    “I am becoming increasingly convinced that the attempt to justify misogyny
    through a reading of scripture is not only contrary to the truth of the gospel,
    but it is sinful and diabolical. ”

    I have heard this kind of accusation before. So, to me, that would make those who teach Complementarianism themselves satanic.

    Maybe you would rather say that some Egalitarians think that we are promoting sinful and diabolical, devilish teachings?

    I think that would be a distinction without a difference, myself.

    You must think that Complementarianism is “something” more than just an opposing point of view.

    Have a good evening, Don. Take care.

    Mrs. Webfoot

  170. Mrs. Webfoot June 26, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    Then, as far as “aner” is concerned, here is a summary of the mistranslations of that word in the TNIV.

    I’ll let the quote speak for itself. These are obviously deliberate mistranslations in order to accomodate feminist sensibilities.

    It is not “just the way Koine worked.” It is the way that political correctness applied to Bible translation works.

    http://www.genderneutralbibles.com/category.php

    ——-

    “D. Changes to Avoid the Word “Man”

    “man” or “husband” (aner, singular) changed to “other” (7)
    (The BDAG Lexicon (p. 79) gives as the general definition of aner the meaning, “a male person,” and under that general definition it gives as meaning 2, “equivalent to tis, someone, a person.” All the examples they list under meaning 2 either clearly refer to a male human being (as Luke 19:2, for example, “and there was a man named Zacchaeus”), or the context is not determinative but the meaning “man” makes good sense and the meaning “person” is not required. BDAG at the end of this entry also notes an idiom, katandra, which clearly means “man for man, individually,” and clearly includes women in some instances, but that idiom does not occur in the New Testament. The LSJ Lexicon (p. 138) also notes the idiom katandra, with a similar meaning. The LSJ Lexicon does not give the meaning “person” for aner, but rather, “man, op-posed to women,” “man, opposed to god,” “man, opposed to youth,” “man emphatically, man indeed,” “husband,” and some special usages. For further discussion on the word aner, “man,” see Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2000), p. 101, note 2, and pages 321-333; see also, “Can Greek aner (“man”) sometimes mean “person”?” at http://www.cbmw.org/TNIV/aner.html.)

    Rom. 4:8 (those); 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 (“husband” to “faithful” on both); Jas. 1:12 (those), 20 (our), 23 (people); 2:2 (someone)

    “man” (aner, singular) omitted (2)

    Jas. 1:8; 3:2

    “men” (aner, plural) changed to “people”(10)

    Matt. 12:41; Luke 11:31, 32; Acts 2:22; 3:12; 13:16; 17:22, 34; 19:35; 21:28

    “men” (aner, plural) changed to “other” (4)

    Acts 14:15 (friends); 17:34 (people); 19:25 (friends); 20:30 (some)

    “men” (aner, plural) omitted (2)

    Luke 14:24; Acts 15:22 (Judas Barsabbas & Silas)

    “man” (anthropos, singular) changed to “people” or other plural nouns (9)

    Matt. 12:35 (2x); 18:7; Luke 6:45 (2x); Rom. 1:23; 4:6; Gal. 6:7; 2 Tim. 3:17

    “man” (anthropos, singular) changed to “you/your” (10)

    Matt. 10:36; 15:11, 18, 20; 16:26 (2x); Mark 7:23; 8:36, 37; Luke 9:25

    “man” (anthropos, singular) changed to “human being/human/mere mortal” when referring to a specific historical man (6)

    Acts 10:26 (Peter); Acts 12:22 (Herod); 1 Cor. 15:21 (Jesus); Phil. 2:8 (Jesus); 1 Tim. 2:5 (Jesus); Jas. 5:17 (Elijah)

    “men” (anthropos, plural) changed to “people” when referring to male human beings (1)

    Heb. 5:1 (high priests)

    “men” (anthropos, plural) changed to “other” (8)
    (Neither the meaning “man” nor the meaning “person” is represented in these verses.)

    Matt. 5:13 (underfoot); 10:32 (publicly), 33 (publicly); Luke 12:8 (publicly), 9 (publicly), 36 (servants); John 8:17 (witnesses); 1 Cor. 7:7 (you)

    “men” (anthropos, singular or plural) omitted (8)

    Matt. 10:17; 16:26 (2x) 19:12; Luke 12:8; Acts 4:12 (no other name under heaven); 17:26 (all nations); 1 Tim. 5:24 (sins of some)

    “man” (anthropos, singular) meaning the human race changed to “people/mortals/human” (6)

    Matt. 4:4; Mark 2:27 (2x); Luke 4:4; John 2:25; Heb. 2:6 (mere mortals); 13:6 (human beings)

  171. Sue June 27, 2009 at 3:18 am #

    It turns out that aner could be used for a man, a male, or for a 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.

    Aner has been translated into English as person, someone, anyone, friend, citizen, etc. long before Grudem was born..

    Anyway, I sent an email to the CBMW on this and they passed it on to Grudem, who admitted that he hadn’t looked at these uses of aner in classical Greek literature. Then there is always the crime of calling a man a “human being.”

  172. Don Johnson June 27, 2009 at 2:11 pm #

    I do not think non-egals are satanic, to do that you need to know the truth and oppose it, that is teach known falsehood as the serpent did.

    On aner, the way English used to work is man could refer to a male or a human, but this is not the way today, or at least it is obsolescent to do so. So when an old lexicon said aner meant “man”, in some cases it meant male and in some cases it meant human.

  173. Jessi Bridges June 27, 2009 at 3:51 pm #

    Mrs. Webfoot said:

    ‘“”Mollenkott argues that “sin enters the human condition in Genesis 3. Only after Adam and Eve have substituted their will for God’s will does the specter of male supremacy and female subordination enter the picture.”[18]’

    I would have to disagree with Mollenkott’s premise. Biblical headship is laid out in Genesis 2, before the fall even takes place. This is why Paul refers to the creation of Adam and Eve in 1 Tim 2:13 when he is talking about a woman’s role.

    For example, Genesis 2:18 tells us that the woman was created for the man so that he could accomplish the work which God gave him to do. Adam was created first and then Eve was created. This is a founding principle for the picture of headship.

    Genesis 2:22 says that God brought Eve to Adam. You go to your leader, not vice versa. This shows where the leadership role lies.

    Notice also that in Genesis 2:23 that Adam names Eve. As we see in Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:20, the namer has the authority. In this case, the authority would be Adam’s. For God named day and night, sky, land, seas, etc. He has authority over those things.

  174. Brian Krieger June 27, 2009 at 4:14 pm #

    While I suppose I should resist.

    So what is stated is that “could mean”= “does mean”

    I suppose I could fold my hands across my chest and cry “you can’t prove it”, but that would be silly, I suppose. Instead, I’ll say that I understand the argument, but neither of the response comments address the idea that of the 200+ uses of aner in the NT none are neutral (as the Plato selection is). It would seem that the consistency of the word should shine through. Of course, I hold no degree in Greek, so, there’s that.

  175. Brian Krieger June 27, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    As far as calling someone or something satanic, I think that purposeful use of abrasive language in order to offend is wrong. I believe a good way of thinking of this is theological triage. This is something that can’t be both “yes” and would necessarily split believers (disunity) and deeply impacts other beliefs (see next), hence a 2nd level issue. It doesn’t affect salvation, but I do think it is a vicious attack on the authority of scripture (through putting what we want above what is said simply because we don’t like it), thus, I see egalitarianism as a spiritually dangerous teaching. I wouldn’t be so cavalier or irresolute as to say “you need to know the truth….”. I hold that we do know the truth. I do specifically reject egalitarian teaching. I do hold that there is a truth to this. I also hold that I will have to answer for that, too. I would hope that you hold the same. If not, you are purposefully undermining authority of scripture as well (there is no truth, thus we need not be held to much of anything).

    I do think this is serious and not trivial. I would hope you feel the same.

  176. Sue June 27, 2009 at 5:02 pm #

    Brian,

    What gives you the impression that none of the uses of aner in the Bible are neutral? While I provided an example that makes it explicit that aner is used in a gender nuetral way most uses are not so explicit. That does not mean that they are not gender neutral, it simply means that this is not explicit.

    Here is an example,

    In Acts 1:16, 2:2 and later in the book a crowd of people are addressed as andres or andres adelphoi.

    We know that adelphoi refers to men and women both, we know women were there. Are we actually saying that the speaker was addressing the men only?

    Or in fact, should this expression “andres” be translated as “citizens of Israel” or “people of Israel.” What seems to make the most sense? What is consistent with what we know about the word andres?

  177. Sue June 27, 2009 at 6:27 pm #

    I meant Acts 2:14 and 2:22. Are “all who live in Jerusalem” really only the men. What does the context imply?

  178. Mrs. Webfoot June 27, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    Hi, Sue,
    How are you doing?

    Sue:
    It turns out that aner could be used for a man, a male, or for a citizen, either male or female.>>>>

    Sue, women were never citizens in ancient Greece. How could that usage “a citizen” ever apply to anything but a male person? There was no such thing as a female citizen.

  179. Sue June 27, 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    I am well Mrs. W. Thank you.

    I think you must ask Plato your question.

    However, I note that in translations from the Greek in the early 1900’s is was common enough to assume that aner, especially in the plural, referred to humans in general.

    That is why we see this kind of thing,

    καὶ ἡμιθέων* γένος ἀνδρῶν

    … and the race of men half-divine. Iliad 12:23

    ἐξ οὗ Κενταύροισι καὶ ἀνδράσι νεῖκος ἐτύχθη

    From hence the feud arose between the centaurs and mankind. Odyssey 21:303

    τὴν δ’ ἠμείβετ’ ἔπειτα πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε:

    In answer to her spoke the father of men and gods: Iliad 1.544

    In each of the above, the meaning was “men” meaning humans. This is from 1924 or thereabouts.

    But, in addition to that,

    ANER 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

    ANER 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.

    ANER 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.

    ANER 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.

    *******

    These are just examples of traditional translations of classical works.

    This is why I appeal to Denny every once in a while to ask CBMW to withdraw the statement againt the TNIV. It is a disgrace for Christians to display their lack of knowledge on Greek on the internet in this fashion for everyone to see.

  180. Mrs. Webfoot June 27, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

    Hi, again, Sue,

    Sue:
    In Acts 1:16, 2:2 and later in the book a crowd of people are addressed as andres or andres adelphoi. >>>>>

    Sue, I don’t see that you have shown “andres” to mean anything but “men.”

    “Adelphoi” CAN mean both men and women together, but not necessarily.

    “Andres” still means “men.” Putting it together with “adelphoi” as Peter does here in Acts 1:16 doesn’t modify the meaning of that word as far as I can see. Why would it?

    The possibility that he may mean both “brothers and sisters” is in the word “adelphoi” and not in the word “andres.”

    Thank you for the interaction.

    Have a good evening, Sue,
    Mrs. Webfoot

  181. Sue June 27, 2009 at 11:01 pm #

    I don’t see that you have shown “andres” to mean anything but “men.”

    Or everyone. That’s the obvious option. But if you think the apostles addressed the sermon at the first Pentecost to men only, then I don’t know what else to say.

    Why would Peter send all the women away, and then preach that the Spirit would be poured out on all flesh, including sons and daughters?

    How could the spirit be poured out on women, if women were not there?

    I don’t see how one can say that Peter addressed only men, and still retain the coherence of the narrative?

  182. Mrs. Webfoot June 27, 2009 at 11:08 pm #

    Sue, why are you twisting what I said?

    Please don’t put words in my mouth.

    Here is what I said.:

    “The possibility that he may mean both “brothers and sisters” is in the word “adelphoi” and not in the word “andres.” ”

    You STILL have not shown that the word “andres” means anything but “men”, – and male ones at that, – but you have sent out a red herring.

  183. Sue June 27, 2009 at 11:21 pm #

    Men and brethren Acts 1:16

    Men of Judea Acts and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, Acts 2:14

    — Pentecost sermon —

    Ye men of Israel, Acts 2:22

    These different opening salutations refer to everyone who is addressed, both men and women.

    I suppose one could believe that women are not addressed specifically.

    But, the fact is that given the practice in secular literature of translating aner and andres in gender inclusive terms for over a hundred years, and given that “men as opposed to beasts” is a meaning of aner in the lexicon,

    it seems illogical of CBMW to continue to criticize the TNIV for translating aner and andres as “people.” It brings disrepute on Christianity.

  184. Mrs. Webfoot June 27, 2009 at 11:35 pm #

    Sue, can you show that “aner” loses its male marking in any of the quotes from Classical Greek that you provided?

    I’ll just comment on one of the quotes.:

    “ANER 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.

    How can you say that “aner” means “they”, when “aner” is singular?

    Then, the word “antrhopoi” is also in the quote.

    Of course, “anthropoi” can mean either an all male group, all of humanity, or a group made up of both men and women.

    You provide no footnotes or documentation, so how can anyone respond to these quotes?

    What is “mon’s” anyway? Is that “man’s”? That would be your “aner.”

    Can you say that Aristotle was NOT talking about an individual man – a male one?

    Hey, have a good evening,
    Mrs. Webfoot

  185. Sue June 28, 2009 at 12:04 am #

    Mrs. W,

    The English word “they” is the translation for the Greek word aner,

    ἀνήρ φασιν,

    they say

    This example is from 1934,

    Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 19, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1934. Nichomachean Ethics. line 1145a 25

    The point is that aner and andres have been translated in a gender neutral way in classical literature for a very long time.

    And yet, Grudem wrote,

    “…aner is not a rare word: it is extremely common in Greek. Thousands upon thousands of examples of it are found in Greek from the 8th century BC (Homer) onward. If any meaning “person” existed, scholars would have found many clear examples centuries ago.”

    https://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-2/Are-the-Criticisms-of-the-TNIV-Bible-Really-Justified

    What Grudem sensed is correct. Scholars have known that aner meant person for a very long time. It was only Grudem that didn’t know this.

    (I have documentation for all the quotations if you like.)

  186. Sue June 28, 2009 at 12:31 am #

    Anthropos can also refer to a group of all women – Numbers 31.

  187. Sue June 28, 2009 at 12:35 am #

    aner phasin is an idiom that means “so they say.” Sorry if that isn’t clear.

  188. Mrs. Webfoot June 28, 2009 at 10:18 am #

    Sue, I shouldn’t have to ask for documentation. If you are truly a scholar, you would know that.

    Yes, of course you need to provide documentation. Who are these scholars and what books have they published?

    What is “mon’s”?

  189. Sue June 28, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    “mon” is slang for “man” but it is not a translation of aner in the citation I gave. As I mentioned aner phasin is translated into English as “they say.”

    I don’t think documentation is always necessary in a blog comment since you can email me for it if you like. However ….

    Here is the bibliography from the article I wrote on this topic. Each reference to aner that I used is listed by line and book.

    Some of the articles posted by Wayne Grudem on the CBMW may have changed or been withdrawn, I don’t know.

    Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 19, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1934. Nichomachean Ethics. line 1145a 25

    Euripides. Orestes. 1523 tr. E.P. Coleridge. 1938. (translated in 1898)

    Grudem, Wayne, “Can Greek aner (“man”) sometimes mean “person”? No, says Dr. Wayne Grudem” CBMW website.

    Grudem, Wayne, A Brief Summary of Concerns about the TNIV (2004) http://www.phoenixseminary.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=223 (While I can no longer find this statement posted on the CBMW website, a shorter form of the statement along with the names of those evangelical leaders who signed the statement is still posted.)

    Homer. The Odyssey with an English Translation by A.T. Murray, PH.D. in two volumes. Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1919.

    Homer. The Iliad with an English Translation by A.T. Murray, Ph.D. in two volumes. Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1924.

    Homeric Hymns and Homerica with an English Translation by Hugh G. Evelyn-White. Homeric Hymns. Cambridge, MA.,Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1914.

    Liddell, Henry George. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

    Pindar. Odes. 1990. (accessed in the Perseus Digital Library)

    Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 8 translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1955. (1914) Alcibiades 2. line 143b

    Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 8 translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1955. (1914) Hipparchus. 228b

    Plato. Laws. In Two volumes, tr. By R. G. Bury. Loeb Classical Library. 1926.

    Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 10 & 11 translated by R.G. Bury. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1967 & 1968.

    Poythress, Vern & Wayne Grudem. The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Words. Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 2000.

  190. Sue June 28, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    These scholars were translators of classical Greek plays and books. They translated aner in a gender neutral fashion almost 100 years before the TNIV. To accuse the TNIV of doing something that is not scholarly is nonsense. As each of these translations is the standard translation used by universities, I can only explain Grudem’s lack of awareness in this department as an indication of his complete lack of familiarity of classical Greek.

    If he does not know classical Greek then he has no right to comment on other people’s knowledge of Greek.

    When he made this statement,

    “…aner is not a rare word: it is extremely common in Greek. Thousands upon thousands of examples of it are found in Greek from the 8th century BC (Homer) onward. If any meaning “person” existed, scholars would have found many clear examples centuries ago.”

    he displayed his complete lack of knowledge of the field of classical Greek, since that use has many examples. Of course, he may have labeled them as “not clear” but that is only an opinion. The examples certainly exist and he never offered to discuss them.

  191. Mrs. Webfoot June 28, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    Sue:
    aner phasin is an idiom that means “so they say.”>>>

    Look, Sue, there are two problems that I see with your example of the idiomatic expression translated as “so they say.”

    1. It is improper in English to use a pronoun without an entecedent. “They” has no antecedent. It should be translated something like “it is said.”

    2. The word “aner” in the Greek is a noun and it does mean “a man.” There is no justification for taking this poor English translation of a Greek idiom and trying to force the word “they” back onto the meaning of the word “aner.” “Aner” does NOT mean “they.” It means “man.”

    You don’t have to be a Greek scholar to see the problems with the phrase “so they say” in English. It is improper English and should not have made it past the English editors. One learns in English 101 that it is improper to have a pronoun without an antecedent – unless that rule has been changed, too.

    Sue:
    I can only explain Grudem’s lack of awareness in this department as an indication of his complete lack of familiarity of classical Greek.>>>>

    I think that you are poisoning the well by your outrageous accusations.

    I will ask you once again. Sue, can you show that “aner” loses its male marking in any of the quotes from Classical Greek that you provided?

    English translators may “castrate” the word. However, did “aner” lose its concept of “maleness” in the ancient Greek mind?

    It’s not clear, Sue, that in any of these examples, the male marker is lost or irrelevant in the original language.

    Have a good afternoon, Sue, and take care,
    Mrs. Webfoot

  192. Don Johnson June 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm #

    The forms of the Greek aner MAY mean a man. One looks to lexicons and other usage for what it means in any specific instance.

  193. Sue June 28, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    Mrs. W,

    If you say “it is said” then you have changed the verb from active to passive and you don’t translate aner at all. It this your solution? Just drop occurrences of aner. It might work.

    Actually that is, on occasion, the practice of the ESV.

    Brothers, … Acts 1:16.

    The Greek says,

    Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί,

    Are suggesting that aner should be dropped altogether, as in this example?

    The point is that Grudem said,

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

    But here is an example,

    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

    Quite simply, Grudem appears to be implying that

    the ESV can drop aner or not translate it, and

    scholars of classical Greek literature can drop it or not translate it,

    but no one can translate aner as “person.” But, in fact, this has already been done.

    According to Grudem, the translators of the TNIV cannot do it or CBMW will organize a boycott of their Bible and call their Bible untrustworthhy and go on the radio and in the News and on the internet and say that other Bibles,

    “deviate from what was said in several thousand places in the interests of lucidity or easy readability.”

    The ESV is written in English so it deviates in every word from what was written.

    What is the real reason for the statement against the TNIV? Evidently not as advertised. I have no dout that this disagreement will persuade many people that Christianity is disreputable religion and devoid of scholarly premises.

  194. Sue June 28, 2009 at 5:21 pm #

    What I really mean is that the attack against the TNIV is not truthful.

  195. Sue June 28, 2009 at 5:33 pm #

    “I will ask you once again. Sue, can you show that “aner” loses its male marking in any of the quotes from Classical Greek that you provided?”

    I have already done this with “citizens, both male and female” The Greek is not in any way difficult to understand here.

    ANER is translated by those scholars who translate classical Greek texts for our universities, and supposedly, who have passed English 101, as

    PERSON
    CITIZEN
    THEY
    EVERYONE
    MANKIND
    INDIVIDUAL

    in some cases, as in the ESV, it is dropped altogether.

    I don’t know why you would bring up the notion of castration to refer to this phenomenon.

  196. Mrs. Webfoot June 29, 2009 at 2:53 am #

    Sue, here is the issue that Dr. Grudem is raising about Bible translation especially in relation to TNIV.

    “The issue is whether there is a male meaning in the original Greek text or not.”

    So, in the passages you have presented, is there a male meaning in the original Greek text or not? That is the issue.

    Grudem also said:

    “Is it acceptable to translate only the general idea of a passage and systematically omit male-oriented details of meaning that are present in the original Hebrew or Greek text?”

    I think that it is a question worth raising. Why do you malign Dr. Grudem for raising this issue?

    There are fine scholars on both sides of the gender neutral controversy. I think that it’s a shame how you as a Christian feminist leader and apologist would engage in such shameful attacks against a Christian brother and fellow scholar.

    You really should show some grace to your opponent.

    http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-2/Are-the-Criticisms-of-the-TNIV-Bible-Really-Justified
    ————
    Mrs. Webfoot:
    “I will ask you once again. Sue, can you show that “aner” loses its male marking in any of the quotes from Classical Greek that you provided?”

    Sue:
    I have already done this with “citizens, both male and female” The Greek is not in any way difficult to understand here.

    ANER is translated by those scholars who translate classical Greek texts for our universities, and supposedly, who have passed English 101, as

    PERSON
    CITIZEN
    THEY
    EVERYONE
    MANKIND
    INDIVIDUAL

    in some cases, as in the ESV, it is dropped altogether.

    I don’t know why you would bring up the notion of castration to refer to this phenomenon.>>>>>>

    The question, Sue, has to do with the Greek text, not the English translation. It’s obvious that in English, any “maleness” in “aner” in these cases has been eliminated! Is it justified? I’m not convinced that it is.

    Then, just because secular translators do it, does that mean that Bible translators should?

    I think that’s a good question to ask. Why shouldn’t we ask those kinds of questions of our scholars? What guidelines do they follow in translation?

    Remember, the question I raised, and that Dr. Grudem brought up, is about “aner”, not other words such as “anthropos” or “tis.”

    Then, Sue, “they” is not a translation of “aner.” “Aner” does not mean “they.”

  197. Sue June 29, 2009 at 3:18 am #

    Mrs. W,

    Dr. Grudem’s words were these,

    “…aner is not a rare word: it is extremely common in Greek. Thousands upon thousands of examples of it are found in Greek from the 8th century BC (Homer) onward. If any meaning “person” existed, scholars would have found many clear examples centuries ago.”

    I am simply pointing out that scholars did consider aner to be gender neutral in many cases. Therefore, the translators of the TNIV were not innovating, nor were they necessarily influenced by feminism but were simply translating according to existing scholarship.

    I am protesting the public statement of concern that Dr. Grudem has on the internet, the last time I checked at any rate, against the TNIV. Why does he malign the translators of the TNIV?

    The action of the translator of one bible, publicly telling other biblical scholars that their bible is untrustworthy, is not a right and just action, in my view.

    I feel that something wrong has been done by Dr. Grudem against the TNIV.

    The onus is on him to prove that no scholars have ever found aner used in the gender neutral sense, and he can’t do that. He seems unaware of how it had been used in Greek.

    Certainly, when aner is used for the human race, the meaning is not restricted to males.

    I think Dr. Grudem owes Bruce Waltke and Gordon Fee and many others an apology. I am disappointed in his behaviour as a Christian leader.

  198. Sue June 29, 2009 at 3:24 am #

    Mrs. W,

    This was your statement.

    “I’ll let the quote speak for itself. These are obviously deliberate mistranslations in order to accomodate feminist sensibilities.”

    I have cited examples of the gender neutral translation of aner from 1914 and on. In the Liddell lexicon 1869 it is mentioned as “man as opposed to beast.” That means human beings.

    I don’t see how you can put all this on feminism. How far back do you want to go, the KJV, the Vulgate? At what point will you agree that language is not affected by feminism?

  199. Sue June 29, 2009 at 5:08 am #

    “So, in the passages you have presented, is there a male meaning in the original Greek text or not? That is the issue.

    To answer this directly – no, I don’t think there is and the translators didn’t think so either.

  200. Mrs. Webfoot June 29, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    Mrs. Webfoot:
    “So, in the passages you have presented, is there a male meaning in the original Greek text or not? That is the issue.

    Sue:
    To answer this directly – no, I don’t think there is and the translators didn’t think so either.>>>>

    So, you are saying, in effect, that Classical Greek was a gender neutral language.

    Since it is a gender neutral language, translators in our day can, – in many places and where they deem it necessary, – ignore the gender markers in ancient Greek.

    I think that’s a pretty extreme view, Sue.

  201. Mrs. Webfoot June 29, 2009 at 12:12 pm #

    Sue, if Classical Greek were a gender neutral language, then that would have a profound impact on Christian feminist, wouldn’t it? I mean, since this ancient society was already egalitarian, we should just go back to it. They were already writing in gender neutral ways long before the time the NT was written, even. 😉

    According to you, women were even citizens, equal to the other “aner” people. 😉 I think that Plato would have disagreed with you. Wasn’t he pretty mysoginistic?

    I don’t see how you have refuted Grudem at all, Sue. You do try hard, though.

    Thank you for the documentation and all the references. I may take a closer look later, but I think I have the idea of what you mean and what you are trying to prove.

    It has been very interesting to talk with you.

    Have a good day, Sue.

    God bless,
    Mrs. Webfoot

  202. Mrs. Webfoot June 29, 2009 at 12:23 pm #

    BTW, no, not every case where a gender specific word in Greek is translated into English in a gender neutral way is because of feminism. Often it is because of how the two different languages work. However, to say that there was no gender specificity in the mind of the Greek writers is going way, too far, IMO.

    However, many of the examples of gender neutrality in the TNIV are because of pressure from Christian feminists. Does that invalidate the translation? No, of course not. However, when people – men, women, boys, and girls 🙂 – read it, they need to keep that in mind.

    Sue, you have done a good job in defending your position. I believe that it is the wrong position in many ways, and that you are pretty hard on Dr. Grudem.

    This is a matter of differing opinions among good, sincere, scholarly Christians and Bible translators. Maybe you could keep that in mind?

    Well, I’ve talked enough. Thank you, Sue for your kind patience, – and the blog owners, too.

    God bless,
    Mrs. Webfoot

  203. Don Johnson June 29, 2009 at 12:46 pm #

    It is simply not true that the improved gender ACCURACY of the TNIV over the NIV was due to “pressure from feminists”, rather it was due to Greek experts wanting to be more correct using today’s English.

    I have SOME concerns with the TNIV choices, but I use it, just like I have some concerns with the ESV choices, but I use it.

  204. Sue June 29, 2009 at 12:52 pm #

    Just as an example of how gender neutrality works, here is where the plural of the word for “father” really means “mother and father” so it is translated as “parents” by the ESV.

    Πίστει Μωϋσῆς γεννηθεὶς ἐκρύβη τρίμηνον ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ, διότι εἶδον ἀστεῖον τὸ παιδίον,

    By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents,

    But the Colorado Springs Guidelines still say,

    “Father” (pater, ‘ab) should not be changed to “parent,” or “fathers” to “parents” or “ancestors.”

    Yet, in some sense, here “fathers” has been changed to “parents” so we would not think that Moses had two fathers.

    This is just an example to demonstrate how many words that are masculine originally, are then used in completely gender neutral ways in Greek.

    Thank you for your interest in all these examples, Mrs. W.

  205. Don Johnson June 29, 2009 at 12:55 pm #

    Sue gave an example of a grammatically masculine plural form including females; this is just the way Greek works.

  206. Sue June 29, 2009 at 12:56 pm #

    I think Dr.Grudem has been extraordinarily hard on some of his fellow Christian scholars. I wish that I believed that he would apologize before some of them die of old age, but I think time is running out now.

    This is a great grief to me, that this bitterness that Dr. Grudem has fomented will go with many of the translators of the TNIV to their grave.

    I am astonished at the callousness of Dr. Grudem, CBMW and everyone involved. There is a cruelty belonging to these men that truly astonished me.

  207. Darius T June 29, 2009 at 1:02 pm #

    DJ, where would you like your money sent?

  208. Douglas J. Bender July 19, 2009 at 11:27 pm #

    Sue,

    Since there are men posting and reading here, you should remain silent. Or at least not “teach”. (That should get a reaction. 😉 )

    Anyway, disregarding all of the wonderful Greek analysis and such (and I think the Greek alphabet is really pretty, but I don’t like whatever font is being used here), I Timothy 2:11-14 makes it absolutely clear that women are not to teach or have authority over men (within the Church, which is indicated by the context, especially that which follows those verses). That passage also makes it absolutely clear that that teaching was “universal”, for the entire Church, because the reason given for that teaching is the relationship between Adam and Eve. And ALL people derive from Adam and Eve.

    Furthermore, God says that Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman. If the latter can be reversed, then so can the former. Is that what you would prefer?

  209. Don Johnson July 20, 2009 at 10:53 am #

    Douglas,

    Some translations make it appear that 1 Tim 2 is clear in what you claim, but that is because of the translation choices they made in interpreting the Greek text. When one gets into the possibilities of what the Greek text meant, it is not so clear, as we are not Timothy. That is, a given translation represents A possible interpretation, but it is much more challenging to claim it represents THE interpretation God intended in some cases.

    In any case, one should not dissect verses from their pericope as you seem to wish to do, doing so can lead to mistakes.

    And you are sloppy in your ref. to 1 Cor 11 pericope, misquoting it.

  210. Douglas J. Bender July 20, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    Don Johnson (I loved Miami Vice, by the way),

    Please show me a translation which does NOT indicate, in I Timothy 2:11-14, that the reason for Paul’s teaching regarding women in that passage (irrespective of what that teaching actually is) involves Adam and Eve, and in particular Adam not being deceived while Eve was. Any translation (of reasonable respectability) will do. Thanks.

    Oh, and I wasn’t quoting I Corinthians 11, or even part of it. I was paraphrasing verse 3, which I will now quote for you, with a running explanation of my paraphrase:

    “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ…” [So, Christ is the head of every man; therefore, He is the head of every individual man; thus, “Christ is the head of man” (in the sense of being the head of each man).]

    “…the head of woman is man,…” [Thus, in God’s ideal, the head of woman would be, should be, a man. So, “the head of woman is man” or, in other words, “man is the head of woman”, just like I said (simply placed “man” at the head of the sentence – means the same thing as the quoted verse).]

    “…and the head of Christ is God.” [I didn’t paraphrase this; but I should have, because then I could have asked Sue if it would be appropriate for Christ to be the head of God, which is what her view of the headship of man and woman would implicitly allow, if a woman could be the head of man (as per her view).]

    Now that I’ve cleared that up, I’d like to return the favor of your attempt to point out what you mistakenly perceived to be my misquoting of that verse from I Corinthians 11. Thus, you are sloppy in your use of English, misspelling “periscope”.

  211. Don Johnson July 20, 2009 at 9:16 pm #

    periscope – a tubular optical instrument containing lenses and mirrors by which an observer obtains an otherwise obstructed field of view

    pericope – a teaching unit of some text.

    So you erred in your attempt at correction.

    On 1 Cor 11, your correct quoting is important for the meaning. As “every man” is a masculine plural form of a group, it may include females; that is, it is ambiguous at that point in the text whether females are in the group “every man” or not. I think they are, you might think they are not; both are possible.

    We need to ask in what possible sense can Christ be said to be the kephale/head of everyone/every man? It cannot be that they obey Christ, since many disobey and no one obeys perfectly.

    Also, Paul is not defining a hierarchy as it is not in the order of a hierarchy.

    In what sense can THE man be called the kephale/head of woman?

    In what sense can God be called the head/kephale of Christ?

    For me the ordering is chronological with Christ at Creation being the source of people, THE man referring to Adam, who was the source of the woman, and God being the source of the incarnate Christ.

  212. Douglas J. Bender July 20, 2009 at 9:25 pm #

    Don Johnson,

    “So you erred in your attempt at correction.”

    Didn’t I say I was returning the favor?

  213. Larry S July 20, 2009 at 9:25 pm #

    Don wrote:
    periscope – a tubular optical instrument containing lenses and mirrors by which an observer obtains an otherwise obstructed field of view

    pericope – a teaching unit of some text.

    So you erred in your attempt at correction.

    ————
    thanks for the english lesson, Don.
    it appears that it was VERY necessary.

  214. Douglas J. Bender July 20, 2009 at 9:50 pm #

    Nice theory, but unfortunately not very convincing. In your theory, it would be justifiable to have said “…and the head of Christ is Mary”, since chronologically she was prior to Jesus, and was a “source” for Him (for the formation of His body).

    Also, your theory results in a contradiction, or at least an incredibly awkward and confusing statement. The “headship relation” described last is “the head of Christ is God”, and you take this as indicating God is the “source” of Jesus’ incarnation, His body. But the pattern doesn’t match: God isn’t the “source” of Jesus, since Jesus is God and uncreated; God can only be the “source” of Jesus’ physical body. Thus, “the head of Christ is God” (where “Christ” in this context indicates Jesus’ bodily incarnation, in your theory).

    However, Paul also says that the “head of every man is Christ“, which, if the verse is to be consistent and fit a pattern, would mean, within your theory, that Jesus’ bodily incarnation was the “source” of “every man” (and “every woman”, in your view), and likewise, or therefore, chronologically prior to the creation of Adam and Eve. And this is a blatant contradiction of the truth; therefore, the theory must be wrong.

  215. Douglas J. Bender July 20, 2009 at 9:52 pm #

    Larry S,

    “thanks for the english lesson, Don.
    it appears that it was VERY necessary.”

    I hope you were being facetious, because if not, then both Don AND you would seem to have some difficulty recognizing subtle humor. Good grief, I know what “periscope” means (and how to spell it), and I know Don didn’t mean to use “periscope”.

  216. Douglas J. Bender July 20, 2009 at 10:08 pm #

    ALso, it would have been just as accurate for Paul to have said that God is the head of “every man”. So there are at least two ways in which the descriptions in that verse aren’t “unique” – there are other “heads” which could have been used. Thus, the significance of that verse is lessened.

    On the other hand, there are other verses which clearly indicate that God (the Father) is “greater than” Jesus, and that Jesus is submitted to God the Father. A sort of “hierarchy” within the Trinity. Then “the head of Christ is God” finds a perfect match with this idea; and informs us that I Corinthians 3 is indeed giving us a hierarchal picture of some sort, where the hierarchy looks something like this: woman — man — Christ — God.

    Also, in my “The Interlinear Bible (Hebrew, Greek, English)” [Green], the Greek word which is translated as “man” first in that verse is “andros”, and is masculine and SINGULAR. So your theory that it could include all women seems to fail as well.

  217. Don Johnson July 20, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

    “Every man” is a group. Once you get to a masculine plural (that is, a group), the rules of Greek grammar allow use of the masculine plural to include females.

    Christ = Messiah who was a man, incarnate God, yes but a man.
    God thru the Holy Spirit was the source of Jesus the man, as was Mary.

    One can refer to the preincarnate Christ as Christ also, context determines.

  218. Douglas J. Bender July 20, 2009 at 10:42 pm #

    ” ‘Every man’ is a group. Once you get to a masculine plural (that is, a group), the rules of Greek grammar allow use of the masculine plural to include females.”

    Did you not read where I pointed out that the Greek word translated as “man” in “every man” is masculine singular?

  219. Douglas J. Bender July 20, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

    And why is “every man” a group? Did the Greek not have a phrase equivalent to the English phrase, “all men”, which is quite obviously a “group”? Is not “anthropos” masculine and singular? And “anthropoi” masculine and plural? I find it hard to understand why any plural “group” would be described using a singular, when there is a perfectly good plural form which could be used. Of course, I only had one year of Greek, back when I was a junior in high school, so I’m only a minor expert.

    But even if so, that wouldn’t fit well with the rest of the descriptions. All of the other subjects and “objects” are singular (“Christ” – singular; “woman” – singular; “man” – singular; “God” – singular [in the Greek, of course]). Your theory requires an awkward “outlier” of sorts, or so it seems to me. (Perhaps Greek allows the singular “woman” to function as a “group”, especially when it has no modifiers or articles associated with it. Obviously, though, “Christ” and “God” are singular.)

    Anyway, Paul explicitly described a hierarchical relationship between Jesus and God, with God being “above” or “greater than” Jesus. This fits quite well with Paul’s description that “the head of Christ is God”. And this strongly suggests that I Corinthians 11:3 contains descriptions of hierarchical relationship, as follows: woman — man — Christ — God.

    However, we’re getting side-tracked. You seem to have overlooked my earlier challenge, which I here quote for convenience:

    “Please show me a translation which does NOT indicate, in I Timothy 2:11-14, that the reason for Paul’s teaching regarding women in that passage (irrespective of what that teaching actually is) involves Adam and Eve, and in particular Adam not being deceived while Eve was. Any translation (of reasonable respectability) will do. Thanks.”

  220. Don Johnson July 20, 2009 at 11:09 pm #

    Not in 1 Cor 11, there is no hierarchy as it is not in the form of a hierarchy unless you rearrange the text, which one is not to do. I do agree that as a human, Jesus was less than God.

    On 1 Tim 2 there is a mixture of singular and plural nouns. What the non-egals do is take ONE possible meaning and declare it to the THE meaning, when all it is is one possible meaning.

    It is also possible that one Ephesian woman or a group of Ephesian women are being discussed. And it is possible that 1 Tim 2:13-14 is describing the truth that directly contradicts the false teaching, that is, proto-Gnostic ideas of Eve having extra knowledge and being created first, etc.

  221. Douglas J. Bender July 21, 2009 at 1:02 am #

    Don Johnson,

    “Not in 1 Cor 11, there is no hierarchy as it is not in the form of a hierarchy unless you rearrange the text, which one is not to do.”

    Does a hierarchy need to be “in the form of” a hierarchy in order to be a hierarchy? Are there any instances of a hierarchy not having the standard “form”?

    “I do agree that as a human, Jesus was less than God.”

    That’s not what the Bible says. Jesus, in His resurrected and ascended form, is fully God, yet the Bible indicates that even at this point Jesus will be in submission to God the Father.

    By the way, are you a professor or theologian or pastor somewhere? (I don’t need to know where if you are.)

  222. Douglas J. Bender July 21, 2009 at 1:05 am #

    A hierarchy is in the logical form: A–B–C–D.

    If it is written in the form,

    B–C, A–B, C–D,

    one can still logically infer the hierarchy,

    A–B–C–D.

    So it’s a hierarchy, but described in a different way than “normal”.

  223. Douglas J. Bender July 21, 2009 at 12:23 pm #

    And, in that form,

    B — C, A — B, C — D,

    note that Christ (represented by “C”) is in both the beginning and ending relation. I see God using that particular form to reflect Christ’s being the “alpha and omega, the beginning and the end”. So the fact that it doesn’t follow the “standard” form for a hierarchy need only mean God “tweaked” it a bit in order to represent Christ’s deity, His “alpha-omega” character.

  224. Don Johnson July 21, 2009 at 5:04 pm #

    Douglas,

    The point is that you are CHOOSING to interpret these verses that way, when there are other choices that are less self-serving.

  225. Douglas J. Bender July 21, 2009 at 5:52 pm #

    Don,

    “The point is that you are CHOOSING to interpret these verses that way, when there are other choices that are less self-serving.”

    No, that’s NOT the point. The point, as I have shown, is that YOU are self-servingly choosing to NOT interpret those verses that way. I have shown that your argument that the order not following “standard” hierarchical form means it is not a describing a hierarchy is insubstantial, at best.

    I have shown that that ordering can imply something completely different than what you assume. Thus, the order does not indicate that it is not a hierarchy; particularly, it is far more likely to be a hierarchy than it is to be a relating of a sort of chronological, “source”, ordering.

  226. Douglas J. Bender July 21, 2009 at 6:05 pm #

    Don,

    I had asked,

    “Please show me a translation which does NOT indicate, in I Timothy 2:11-14, that the reason for Paul’s teaching regarding women in that passage (irrespective of what that teaching actually is) involves Adam and Eve, and in particular Adam not being deceived while Eve was. Any translation (of reasonable respectability) will do. Thanks.”

    In apparent (I think) response (though not actually addressing my question directly), you said,

    “….And it is possible that 1 Tim 2:13-14 is describing the truth that directly contradicts the false teaching, that is, proto-Gnostic ideas of Eve having extra knowledge and being created first, etc.”

    You seem to have a great need for the Bible to allow women to teach or have authority over men. Do you not see how desperately weak the above possible explanation you provide is? Besides, if that was Paul’s point, then he needn’t have mentioned that it was Eve who was deceived, and not Adam, because he had already, immediately prior to mentioning their relative deceived/non-deceived state, stated that Adam was formed first, then Eve.

    Plus, the CONTEXT has nothing to do with any sort of polemic against any “proto-Gnostic ideas” – the context is all about women being submissive, learning in silence, and not teaching or having authority over men. Paul’s references to Adam and Eve in that context is to give the REASON for those teachings of his. And as his teaching was for the Church, no “proto-Gnostic ideas” would have any bearing on that reason.

    A Christian could have theoretically had the following conversation with Paul:

    C: “Can women teach or have authority over men in the Church?”

    P: “No, women are to learn in silence, with all submission. And they are not to teach or have authority over men, but to be in silence.”

    C: “That seems rather harsh, Paul. Are you sure you’re not perhaps slightly misogynistic? Anyway, why is that your view?”

    P: “Because Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.”

    C: “That’s a nice polemic against the proto-Gnostic idea that Eve was formed first and had extra knowledge, Paul, but I want to know why you don’t allow women to teach or have authority over men in the Church. And, come to think of it, just because Eve was formed second and was deceived while Adam wasn’t doesn’t mean that Eve couldn’t have had extra knowledge.”

    P: “(Sigh.)”

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes