"1 Timothy 2:12—Once More"
43 comments | PermalinkSome commenters flatly said that the passage was "mistranslated." I suggested that this conclusion was not based on good scholarship, and that the best exegetical-linguistic work in this area showed that the word "authentein" probably means "authority" (in a neutral or positive sense), and that the syntax of the sentence decisively demonstrated this.
The responses questioned how I was in a position to judge what scholarship was "best," suggested that the word study on authentein was inconclusive (to which I agree), and tried to show that their arguments are indeed based on good scholarship--not through argumentation, but rather based on the fact that I. Howard Marshall (a good scholar, no doubt) holds to this view (as cited on an Amazon.com review).
Now Andreas Köstenberger weighs in on the discussion over at his blog with a post entitled
1 Timothy 2:12—Once More.
You’ve heard it said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Well, the same is true with regard to scholarship. Those who are unaware of the best and most recent scholarly work on a given issue will be greatly handicapped in discussions of that issue. This is true, among other things, regarding the proper interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12.
Köstenberger provides an interesting window into the responses of egalitarians to his work:
Since the publication of the first edition of Women in the Church in 1995, both complementarian and egalitarian scholars have reviewed the work, whether in book reviews or commentaries. In the second edition of Women in the Church, which appeared last year (2005), I take up the last decade of scholarship on the syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12 and review all the responses to my syntactical study (see Women in the Church, 2d ed., pp. 74–84).Here is what I find. With the exception of Linda Belleville, even all the egalitarian scholars who reviewed my chapter on the syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12 agree with my conclusion! This includes even those, like Kevin Giles, who are vehemently opposed to the overall message of the passage and its implications as interpreted in the book. Tellingly, Giles, for example, argues that the author of the Pastorals here probably broke the rules of Greek grammar!
Egalitarian scholars such as Alan Padgett, Craig Keener, and, it appears, also William Webb likewise concur with the construal of the syntax of 1 Tim. 2:12 in Women in the Church. Perhaps most remarkably, a German reviewer, Judith Hartenstein, writes,
My theological position is very different from that of Köstenberger. Nevertheless, I often find his analysis of texts and exegetical problems convincing and inspiring, especially if he uses linguistic approaches. . . . . Likewise, I agree with Köstenberger’s reading of 1 Tim 2. Köstenberger shows that the text demands a hierarchy between men and women and is meant as normative teaching. But with a different, far more critical view of the Bible, I need not accept it as God’s word. (It helps that I do not regard 1 Timothy as written by Paul.)
Read the whole thing--especially for Köstenberger's thoughts on I. Howard Marshall's exegetical methodology on these issues.
For those who are interested, the second edition of the book Women in the Church can be found at Amazon.com.
posted by JT at Friday, June 16, 2006
43 Comments:
But with a different, far more critical view of the Bible, I need not accept it as God’s word. (It helps that I do not regard 1 Timothy as written by Paul.)
Judith Hartenstein's honesty is refreshing. This is what the earlier "evangelical feminists" said, back in the 1970s and early 1980s. They were honest even if wrong.
I'm running into this battle at my church. I didn't set out to run a campaign against women in ministry, but preaching exegetically through 1 Timothy brought up the issue and I had to follow the Bible. The biggest response I recieved from many was, "I just disagree with Paul." When I explained that we must have different views of the authority of Scripture, they took offense.
Wasn't it Augustine that said when we pick and choose doctrines, we aren't putting our faith in God, we are putting it in ourselves?
Thanks Justin, this is a great discussion and is very timely for me.
-Tim Schaaf
Any thoughts on this by Simon Manchester on the same issues - Role-ing Forward: Biblical Theology Briefing on 1 Timothy 2
Justin, thanks for another post where you identify some of the main authors on this topic. With so many different views presented, how do you yourself decide which authors to believe? What is your own background in the biblical languages to be able to evaluate all the various claims? Have you taken courses in biblical languages and exegesis?
I have some discussion with egalitarians about this and it does come down to what do they believe about the Bible, its authority, and its truth. If you can say the Bible is not completely true then you can chose which parts you want to believe b/c those parts are not true.
Mathew B. Sims
Soli Deo Gloria
I am nowhere near being a "Bible Scholar" but I do have a connection with The Holy Spirit. - When I first read this as a new Christian I asked God about it.
I felt compelled to read it again.
This time I noticed that Paul, The author, said, "I do not".
The passage does not say, "God does not".
I've taken it to mean that Paul had reasons, most likely due to the politics of the times, to make this statement. It was not an injunction from God.
Prying1,
The problem with that is that Paul gives his reasons for forbidding women to have authority over men. He does not note politics or any other temporary thing. Instead, he appeals to the order of creation, which will never change.
If that doesn't convince you, how about this. If the apostle thought it wise to command this injunction, I find it unwise to speculate about why he gave this command and then overthrow his counsel based on guess work.
Tim Schaaf,
The exact quote you are looking for by Augustine can be found at
Augustine Quote
I'm not very good with HTML code, so I hope that comes out as a "clickable" url....
Sojourner,
At the same time if the Apostle thought it wise to differentiate a word from him and God then I think we need to take that into consideration as well. Obviously he thought then that his command was conditioned by situation in his context. It seems like he was making an application (which isn’t timeless) to the situation in Ephesus based on some scriptural principal going back to God. But his application wasn’t from God it was from him and was his opinion on how to best be faithful to that principal in his situation.
Is Paul really referring to the order of creation to support his command or is he referring more to the Genesis story of the fall? He doesn't just say, "Adam was formed first, then Eve." He also goes on to say "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."
The appeal to the Genesis text seems to be brought up for reasons that have to do with the situation going on in Ephesus and how it’s related to the story of the Fall. Paul urges Timothy to correct the false teachers (1:3) who are involved in "things taught by demons" (4:1), and then goes on to say that some women have "already turned away to follow Satan" (5:15). He talks about young widows going house to house speaking foolish talk and saying things they shouldn't. Taking into account the fact that Eve through her deception causes Adam to fall as well, there just seems to be too many links with the story to believe that Paul is just referring to the order of creation as support for his argument.
Also another time Paul refers to creation or nature to back his argument up he does so in reference to a mans hair being disgraceful to him (11:14. Even though by nature a mans hair will grow long and strictly speaking it's unnatural to cut hair.) Is anyone here going to argue based on what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:14 that men shouldn't have long hair and that if they do they're in sin, based on Paul’s timeless argument from nature (which goes beyond culture or politics)?
All I'm getting at is that Paul doesn't appear to just refer to Adam and Eve because of their creation order. Instead it seems like he has a lot more going on in his mind as a reader of the Genesis text and what he sees going on in Ephesus that is similar.
For those interested, Francis Watson's "Paul and the Hermeneutic of Faith" is a great book that probes how Paul was a close reader of scripture and didn't just site it as proof text. But that instead there was often deeper stuff going on that Paul read in the text (conditioned by many factors including things like Jewish tradition) and transferred to his own setting.
Isn't it amazing how something so clearly laid out can be so willfully misread or twisted to suit.
Or maybe not so amazing.
As scripture does not contradict scripture and it is all under the banner of 'The Word Of God', we do not have the leeway to say that we will pick and choose as we see fit.
God has put Paul's letters into His Holy Word for a reason and part of that reason is give us instruction.
One of those instructions is to do with leadership and who should fulfill that role.
Despite eforts to say otherwise, Paul was showing that the created order (from before the fall and not part of the fall) was a clear indication of Gods intent for men to be leaders and the heads of their families.
Read Kostenbergers book and you will get the clearest possible explanation of all that is involved.
Apart from the deliberate attempts to twist scripture in this case, the saddest thing is that books have to be written to defend something that is so clearly laid out.
Oh yes, one more thing, your time will be more profitably spent reading Kostenbergers book than the one by Francis Watson.
Glennsp,
I swear, nothing is more upsetting then trying to lay out a reasonable argument, making points, spending your time addressing issues and raising questions and then have someone come along ignore all that and respond with rhetoric, completely ditching in effort to discuss the issues. And it's even worse when someone just says "go read this book".
Since you and everyone here seems to know Kosteberger's argument so well then why don't you explain what he says here. Why don't you respond here with the arguments he'd make since you're so sure of them? And then we can discuss them.
BTW what exactly does Francis Watson say that you disagree with? What book of his do you have a problem with? What is his argument in Paul and the Hermeneutic of Faith that you don't like? Watson and Kostenberger aren't exactly doing work in the same fields so I don't know how you could say reading Kostenberger would be more profitable. It depends on what you're trying to study.
Watson's not arguing against 1 Tim in his book at all. He's just showing how Paul reads scripture and why he quotes the scripture he does. Recent studies on the use of the OT in the NT are showing that it's not as simple as we once thought and that there's usually a whole lot more going on than at first seems. I was just suggesting that's the case with Paul in 1 Tim and his reference to the Genesis story of the fall. He doesn't just say man was created first then woman (which may have seemed to support an argument from creation order). He specifically mentions Adam and Eve and then goes on to explain what happened to them, which appears related to the situation going on in Ephesus. This makes it appear like he has more going on in his reference than just making an argument from created order.
Instead of me having to go back and repeat my whole post and the arguments and questions, do me a favor. If you're going to respond to my comments then respond by actually answering my questions and making your own points and actually arguing your case. Don't just respond with rhetoric, that doesn't help advance the discussion at all.
Whether you like it or not this is a letter written to a specific situation in Ephesus. That's undeniable. And to act like it's not at all possible that Paul's instructions and commands were specific to the situation going on is dishonest, or at least a refusal to read the letter. Sometimes it's better to look at how a text fits into the context of the whole book instead of just studying the text by itself. 1 Tim 2:11-15 didn't get written in a vacuum or just write itself. It was written in response to a certain situation going on in Ephesus and we need to ask why and what the implications of that are.
This is from Francis Watson.
The Pauline veil speaks of the
possibility of a male/female relationship based no longer on eros and a corresponding
male-oriented asymmetry, but on an agape expressed and enacted in a
divine–human dialogue mediated by human voices – the voices of both men and
women. The veil signifies the distinction between eros and agape as the basis for
the relationship of men and women within the Christian community.
And this is Köstenberger,
We may therefore conclude that 1 Tim 2:15 may best be rendered in
the following way: “She (i.e., the woman) escapes (or is preserved; gnomic
future) [from Satan] by way of procreation (i.e., having a family).”83 Moreover,
in line with 1 Tim 5:14, one should view procreation as merely the
core of the woman’s responsibility that also entails, not merely the bearing,
but also the raising of children, as well as managing the home (synecdoche;
cf. also Titus 2:4–5).
Watson believes that Paul views women in terms of their participation in the kingdom of God, and Köstenberger believes Paul restricts women to their own natural households.
Only Watson's view allows for the full participation of the single woman, and the associations that Paul had with women such as Pheobe. Köstenberger only presents woman in relation to her own husband and children.
The women who loved Jesus had an agape relationship with him, they did not love him as a extension of their childbearing function. Although I would not deny that women may have a special tenderness in their love that comes from raising children, Jesus also had a tender relationship with some of his male disciples.
I won't ditch my whole comment but I see that I do have a typo for Phoebe. Thanks for providing this forum Justin. Yes, I have read Köstenberger and wrote about him here. I write for all the single women missionaries among my family and friends, and their committment to the kingdom.
Bryan L said...
Sojourner,
At the same time if the Apostle thought it wise to differentiate a word from him and God then I think we need to take that into consideration as well.
On what do you base your supposition that he was indeed making a differentiation, apart from your saying that he is?
Obviously he thought then that his command was conditioned by situation in his context.
Why 'obviously'?
It seems like he was making an application (which isn’t timeless) to the situation in Ephesus based on some scriptural principal going back to God.
On what do you base your statement that it 'isn't timeless'? That is obviously your opinion, but it would help if you could back it up.
But his application wasn’t from God it was from him and was his opinion on how to best be faithful to that principal in his situation.
Again you make a sweeping statement, but supply nothing else to back it up.
Despite efforts to say otherwise, Paul was showing that the created order (from before the fall and not part of the fall) was a clear indication of Gods intent for men to be leaders of the Church and the heads of their families.
You accuse me of rhetoric and yet your own comment is made up of little else.
Also Bryan, if you follow the 'Read The Whole Thing' link at the bottom of the post you will find what Kostenberger thinks in precis.
It is not very long.
Al: I took about six semesters of Greek and about three of Hebrew. I certainly don't have PhD-level competance in these languages, but I don't think one needs to in order to evaluate exegetical arguments.
JT
There seems to be some confusion here. Suzanne's two posts are about 1 Tim. 2:15, but the topic of discussion here is 1 Tim. 2:12. It is, of course, fine to talk about 1 Tim. 2:15 (and it's true that I have written posts on both passages), but let's make sure we know which passage we are talking about.
While we're at it: it's certainly true that Paul wrote 1 Timothy to Ephesus, but in 1 Tim. 3:15 he says, "I write so you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." That doesn't sound like Paul thought his comments were limited to that particular church at that particular time (see also the reference to "everywhere" in 1 Tim. 2:8).
To be sure, the Ephesian church had problems (which church doesn't?), but that doesn't mean Paul's pronouncements are limited to that one church, especially in light of his role as an inspired author of Scripture and as an apostle especially commissioned by the risen Christ (see 1 Tim. 1:1).
And remember, the word used in 1 Tim. 2:12 is didasko, which means "to teach," not heterodidaskalein, "to teach false doctrine" (the word used in 1 Tim. 1:3 and 6:3), So, in light of word meaning and syntax, it is highly probable that Paul did not merely prohibit women from teaching false doctrine (if so, the question arises, did he think it was OK for men to teach false doctrine?), but that he didn't want women to teach men in the church at all (at least in an official setting as elders or pastors), based on both creation order and on the scenario at the Fall.
Also, let's not pit the second reason Paul gives in v. 14 (from the Fall) against the first reason in v. 13 (from creation order). Paul didn't just give the second reason, he also gave the first. And the first reason has nothing to do with error of any kind, but simply with how God chose to create, and the implication Paul deduced from this for the way in which men and women ought to conduct themselves in the Church.
Fair enough?
Dr. Köstenberger,
I am sorry to give the impression that I have confused the two texts. I am simply using your article on 1 Tim. 2:15 to evaluate your writing. First, your full article on this topic, Ascertaining Women's God-Ordained Roles, is some of the best historical research that I have read. Thank you. I am delighted to be able to tell you that.
However, I have written now twice on the BBB here and here about your understanding of synecdoche for τεκνογονια. I simply cannot agree with your interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:15.
You can see Montgomery's translation, Darby's and Luther's. They are all important to consider. The single women must not be constrained by boundaries, but equipped for mission. I write for the cause of the single woman missionary, equipped to teach, translate, lead, and administer.
On διδασκαλω and αυθεντεω, I can only say that I have been taught by Fee and Longenecker, so I rest on their teaching. I feel somehow that for a woman to argue the case of 1 TIm. 2:12 with a man, can only be a dead end, whether she be right or not.
However, I am picking up my Liddell Scott, 1871, given to me by my great aunt who taught Greek at McGill, she must have taught men, surely. She was married later in life to a Brethren preacher who loved her for not remaining within the domestic domain. They did not have children.
Liddell Scott, 1871, αυθεντεω - to have power over.
No, I do not think a woman should have power over man. But if a woman would rather design keyboards than cook, then she should be allowed. If a woman has been given a gift from God, that should be respected, whether it fits within your synecdoche or not.
My sister was a college president and diplomat, and a former student of Grace Irwin, Christian author and ordained minister. There is a long and old tradition of educated Christian women who did not remain within the boundaries of your synecdoche.
With respect, I learned a lot from your paper, but I am not tempted to read more of your writing.
Dr. Köstenberger,
I have written of Hilda of Whitby here. She was held up to me as a model when I was young.
There are so many wonderful examples of spiritual women in scripture and history, Deborah, Huldah, Phoebe, Paula, Hilda, Selina Hastings, Catherine Booth. A woman must take her role in the church as αδελφη. Within the church, we are not ανηρ και γυνη but αδελφοι, you will understand.
Andreas, It appears that while some of 1 Timothy is definitely timeless, there is much of it that isn’t.
Paul never appears to be a one size fits all type of person and I have a hard time believing that he would write 1 Tim intending it to be a church manual for all times (for Ephesus yes, but not for all churches in all places in all times), especially considering how much of the historical situation conditions what is said in the letter.
There is just too much in the letter of 1 Tim that is bound to the historical situation.
On top of that there are things he says in 1 Tim in regards to the widows remarrying that he goes in a different direction with in 1 Cor 7. It appears that there was something going on in 1 Tim that was different than in 1 Cor that merited a change in how he handled the issue. This is one thing that leads me to believe that not all of what he says is intended to be followed the same way everywhere.
Speaking as a youth pastor I know if I read a book on youth ministry, even if it is a manual, it’s understood that you don’t follow it exactly. You always adjust it to fit your context. I can't see know why Paul who dealt with so many different churches in different places wouldn't think the same thing. In fact he does appear to be going different directions at different times. In one instance he forbids circumcision in another instance he has Timothy circumcised. Now I know there are reasonable explanations for this but it still points to the fact that he did things that seemed on the surface contradictory to each other but they had to do instead with the different contexts.
I imagine the way he did things in Ephesus was different from Thessalonica, Philippi, Corinth, Galatia and so on. No model will work in every setting.
Another thing that makes it hard for me to read 1 Tim as a timeless church manual is how Paul in 1 Cor 7 gives his opinion and distinguishes it from what God says. That tells me that it’s possible that he’s doing the same thing here in 1 Tim as well, such as when he says “I do not allow” or I permit not”. In 1 Cor he also makes concessions but makes sure to let them know it’s not a command. Paul seems to recognize that some of what he advises is his opinion of how to best apply his theology in that situation but it’s not something that will necessarily work everywhere else (1 Cor 7:10). Anyway just some thoughts on why it’s hard to imagine this being a church manual for all times and all places although I’m sure there are timeless principals to pull out of 1 Tim. The issue for me is to decide which..
“So, in light of word meaning and syntax, it is highly probable that Paul did not merely prohibit women from teaching false doctrine (if so, the question arises, did he think it was OK for men to teach false doctrine?), but that he didn't want women to teach men in the church at all (at least in an official setting as elders or pastors), based on both creation order and on the scenario at the Fall.”
I’m confused why you think that Paul prohibiting women from teaching false doctrine in 2:12 would make it ok for men to teach false doctrine. I’m not following your argument here. Please elaborate.
Also I would state again that he seems to have a larger purpose for using the Adam and Eve fall narrative than to just refer to the order of creation. He was such a close reader of scripture and I’m convinced didn’t just site scripture as proof texts that it seems like he sees something much bigger in the Adam and Eve fall narrative that’s related to the issues in Ephesus, which explains his reasons for bringing up the passage and not just saying something like “man was created first then woman”.
Anyway that’s just my hunch.
BTW Andreas, 2:15 got brought up because of comments not just because of the post title.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. BTW which scholar do you think has provided the best arguments against your view? Just curious if you'd admit that. Have a good one.
Out of curiosity:
Does Paul's admonition here refer soley to women giving doctrinal or religious instruction within the church, or would it also apply to instruction in any subject (i.e., languages, history, etc.) when those being intructed include men?
Is the determining factor whether or not the instruction takes place within a church or ministerial setting (as opposed to say a school or university)?
I'm complementarian; I'm just seeking to understand the text better and thought maybe one of you could shed some light on it for me. Thanks.
- CR
As a follow up to the last "anonymous" comment from CR, do you, Andreas and/or Justin, understand this verse as teaching that women should not teach at all, or that they should not teach men, or that they should not teach their husbands? In other words, do you consider it OK for women to teach the Word of God in women's meetings? Is ἀνδρός andros here to be understood as an "object" of both δίδασκειν didaskein and αὐθεντεῖν authentein, or only of the latter? And is ἀνήρ anēr to be understood as "husband", as is normal when paired with γυνή gunē "woman", or is a more general understanding "a man, a male human being" required by the syntax here?
I am sorry if these questions are already answered in your book, but unfortunately I don't have that available at the moment. But it is important to have clear answers to them if you really want your understanding of this verse to be put into practice in churches.
Peter:
Women should not teach men in the church, whereby teaching is understood as an authoritative function exercised by elders (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2).
Andros is to be taken with both "teach" and "have authority," as it is in all translations of which I am aware. The context makes clear that Paul is talking here about men and women, not just husbands and wives. (E.g., not just wives should dress modestly, vv. 9-10; reference to Adam and Eve in vv. 13-14 as the first man and woman [note that Eve is called "the woman" in v. 14, etc.). Hope this helps.
All I know is that I've had/seen wimmen teach great stuff and I would have been a fool to A.) Not listen to what they had to say. B.) Ignore what they said because they wuz wimmen.
Years ago I was reading my Bible and came across a passage that was real easy to understand. Yet reading it again it had such a deepness to it that I said, "Lord, Your word is amazing! It can be so simple and yet so deep at the same time."
That still small voice I attribute to God, this time laughing, said, "Keep it simple stupid."
Was that a command for all of us?
I think not. Otherwise I would not have been the only one to hear it.
Dr. Köstenberger,
I hope that I have not lost the chance to ask you these questions about Aristotle. It is rare for me to have the chance to ask a theologian such questions. Do you feel that Aristotle's Politics represent the Christian ethic to a certain extent? And in what ways does it distinguish itself?
He writes,
All possess the various arts of the soul, but possess them in different ways; for the slave has not got the deliberative part at all, and the female has it, but without full authority, while the child has it but in an undeveloped form.
και πασιν ενυπαρχει μεν το μορια της ψυχης, αλλ' ενυπαρχη διαφεροντως. ο μεν γαρ δουλος ολως ουκ εχει το βουλευτικον, το δε θηλυ εχει μεν αλλ' ακυρον, ο δε παις εχει μεν, αλλ' ατελες.
And he continues,
Hence it is manifest that all the persons mentioned have a moral virtue of their own, and that the temperance of a woman and that of a man are not the same, nor their courage and justice, as Socrates thought, but the one is the courage of command, αρχικη ανδρεια and the other of subordination υπηρετικη. Politics I v. 5 - 8
He also writes,
το γαρ αρχειν και αρχεσθαι ου μονον των αναγκαιων αλλα και των συμφεροντων εστι, και ευθυς εκ γενετης ενια διεστηκε τα μεν επι το αρχεσθαι τα δ'επι το αρχειν.
Ruling and being ruled are conditions not only inevitable but also expedient. In some cases things are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or be ruled. Politics I ii 6 - 9
In what way does the teaching of Paul distinguish itself from that of Aristotle?
I assume that there is agreement on the following point.
γυναικι κοσμον η σιγη φερει
Pol. I v. 8 - 11
Knee-jerk post here, forgive me for not having the the specific documentation ready...
F.F. Bruce, in one of the "Hard sayings of..." books (I believe it was hard sayings of Paul), maintains a contextual argument not unlike some of the posts already given. He identifies the problem as a statement Paul is making specifically to this group of women in this community because of a false teaching that has been spread through the young women (4:1, 5:15) So, according to Dr. Bruce there is sufficient evidence (both in context and proximity) to support a claim that Paul isn't making a sweeping statement.
I wanted to post a link to Women in the Church by F. F. Bruce. I am going to try to post this link again but I am not sure hy the link broke before.
For clear, consise answers to F F Bruce's (and others) opinions in this matter I would refer you to http://www.efbt100.com/ Where you will find the complete book by Dr Wayne Grudem called 'Evengelical Feminism & Biblical Truth'.
F F bruce's (and others) reasoning is not as compelling as some seem to think. Having read the whole article I'm surprised it was linked to at all.
He has started with his opinion and then declared that the text can't really be saying what it says and even if it is, well, it can't apply today.
Glenn,
I have read 'Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth'. It is interesting that Grudem does not discuss Hilda. I wonder what he thought about her. He doesn't really go back before 1850 that I can see.
Suzanne,
1) Why does he have to go back beyond 1850? Also what has that got to do with anything?
2) I didn't know there was a Hilda in the Bible!!
Just because someone has done a certain thing and others have allowed them to do it doesn't automatically make it right. (Just look at ECUSA)
Just to repeat myself, what has 'before 1850' and 'Hilda' got to do with Dr Grudems book as a response to F F Bruce?
I believe the problem with this issue lies in the false dichotomy that people have created around it, much like many other issues in theology (i.e. predestination vs. free will). I don't believe it is simply a "black and white" answer that can be derived from one passage - that's just poor hermeneutics. I have read some making an appeal to the counsel of the whole Bible, which I think is wise advice.
Even a philological scouring of one passage will not offer the perspective of Biblical or Systematic theology. I believe my issue is not that the passage offends modern sensibility, but that it seems to contradict some of the Bible's other contents, including some of Paul's own reasoning. Furthermore, while F.F. Bruce and Grudem may question the degree of certainty they are willing to apply to an argument that identifies Paul's statement as an ad hoc restriction, it is clear to me that it is contextually viable.
So, some questions: 1) What about Paul's view that the Kingdom of God is not made up of typical male/female, slave/master, nationality divisions? In an "order of creation argument" would we be saying that Paul is placing a 'natural' observation above his own proclamation of Spiritual insight into God's kingdom? 2) I wouldn't go as far as feminist theologians or egalitarians, but what about the role of prominent women in the redemptive plan of God? I do believe this includes situations where women take on an authoritarian/redemption role, not just over their families, but over all of Israel.
This singular passage puts us in a difficult spot, but I think the rest of Scripture offers insight into the fact that Paul would be logically violating principles we see active in God's work with Israel and with the world - and all of this within the context of Scripture, no modern appeal necessary.
Cor leonis said 'but what about the role of prominent women in the redemptive plan of God? I do believe this includes situations where women take on an authoritarian/redemption role, not just over their families, but over all of Israel.'
What are you talking about?
Thete is nowhere in the Bible where a woman takes on an 'authoritarian/redemption role, not just over their families, but over all of Israel.'
Maybe Cor Leonis is talking about Deborah. I have been thinking about her.
Glenn,
Hilda of Whitby! I saw Grudem's book as being about women in history not only about women in the Bible.
I responded to Grudem's book here
The Feminists of the 1800's
The contradictions of history
The Discovery of Women Preachers: 1641
Thank you Cor, for your encourgaement. You udnerstand me well. I saw how much you love books on your blog. I am writing for children right now and that is why my personal blog is sparse at the moment.
I simply don't want women to be compartmentalized and prodded into Köstenberger's boundaries!
Suzanne, you said; 'Maybe Cor Leonis is talking about Deborah. I have been thinking about her.'
What would Deborah have to do with "an authoritarian/redemption role, not just over their families, but over all of Israel.'
Deborah never held any such position either in regards to her family or Israel.
Suzanne, you said; 'I saw Grudem's book as being about women in history not only about women in the Bible.'
As you have read the book you should be aware that the book is not about women in history and as you well know it was never intended to be.
It is, as you are (in fact) well aware, about refuting 118 fallacious statements made by various egalitarians.
Also you still haven't answered my earlier questions: "...what has 'before 1850' and 'Hilda' got to do with Dr Grudems book as a response to F F Bruce?"
Oh yes Suzanne, I am a little unsure where you get your figure of 1850 as I am aware of references to 1770 (p. 460) & 1667 (p.474) in Dr Grudems book.
You really shouldn't misrepresent the nature of the book (it is not a history of women)or the extent of its contents (there is, as I demonstrate above, at least 2 references prior to 1850)
Glenn,
It does contain a certain content that relates to women in history. I could not possibly want to misrepresent Grudem's intent.
Thanks very much for the two references that you gave me. Excellent!
I only have the electronic copy so I have not read this as thoroughly as you.
Perhaps I spent too long on the TNIV and the GNB.
I will soon be away from the internet for a while, so I will not be back here.
Good talking to you, Glenn.
Suzanne
Suzanne,
I find it informative that you continue to refuse to answer the questions that I raised, but I am not surprised.
glennsp said:
"What would Deborah have to do with "an authoritarian/redemption role, not just over their families, but over all of Israel.'
Deborah never held any such position either in regards to her family or Israel."
I would love to hear what you think the role of the Judges was in the Old Testament, then.
Deborah did not have the same role as others named as Judges.
She gave private judgements sitting under the 'Tree of Deborah'.
She is also the only judge to not have it specified in the text that God or the Holy Spirit called them to it.
She is also the only judge in the Book of Judges who had no military function.
She only went into battle with Barak because of his hesitation. In fact her going was a rebuke on Barak. Also it was Barak who summoned the people of Israel to battle, not Deborah.
See Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth p:131-136 for a much fuller treatment of this.
The book can be found in full at www.EFBT100.com.
I think you may have sidestepped my question, glennsp.
I did not ask you to differentiate between Deborah's seat as a judge and that of others. Certainly, there were criteria or a criterion that made a person a 'Judge' and not just someone acting out of turn, don't you think?
Now, before we get too far into this, you need to know that I do not consider myself a "feminist theologian" or an egalitarian. I have a very traditional view of man/woman roles. However, I am not going to gloss over any issue worthy of consideration. I believe that is called isegesis. Was Deborah a Judge or not? Did that role carry any responsibility for or authority over Israel? I think these questions are too important to the current discussion to be scoffed or pedantically brushed aside.
Cor leonis - I did not 'sidestep' anything. You cannot address the question of Deborah with addressing the issue of her role as compared to other Judges and the fact that she did not fulfill what could be refered to as the 'Full' role of a Judge.
As such your accusation os 'sidestepping' is spurious at best.
In answer to your 'questions'.
"Was Deborah a Judge or not?"
Deborah was a judge rather than a Judge. (see previous comment as to the fact that she did not fulfill the normal full role of Judge)
"Did that role carry any responsibility for or authority over Israel?"
No
"I think these questions are too important to the current discussion to be scoffed or pedantically brushed aside."
I am not sure who you are refering to here as I neither scoffed at nor pedantically refered to anything or anyone.
glennsp said:
“As such your accusation os 'sidestepping' is spurious at best.”
“I am not sure who you are refering to here as I neither scoffed at nor pedantically refered to anything or anyone.”
You have presumed that you can dismiss the role Deborah had in the book of Judges by eliminating what you have declared are key elements in being a ‘Judge’ as opposed to a ‘judge.’ I will presume on my own that you have researched this material yourself and are citing scholarly work. I understand that God used Deborah in a separate capacity, and I believe that it was exactly because she was a woman and a prophetess.
However, my point in bringing her up is to establish that she was used in an authoritative capacity over the affairs of Israel, whether you want to cite her being a ‘judge’, or ‘Judge’, or prophetess - she had authority.
This being the point you sidestepped by trying to immediately discredit the veracity of her being a judge without first identifying what you believe makes a person a Judge in the Old Testament, which was the original unanswered question. Still spurious?
Yep, still spurious.
Deborah was not used in the way you intimate and the points I raised are very germain in regard to your 'question'.
For example; if Deborah wielded "an authoritative capacity over the affairs of Israel" as you keep trying to assert then she would have called the people to battle and not Barak and she would have led them into battle.
She did neither.
Also when the text says that "Deborah....was judging Israel at this time" (Judges 4:4), the Hebrew verb Shaphat, "to judge" in this context does not mean "to rule or govern," but rather has the sense "decide controversy, discriminate between persons in civil, political, domestic and religious questions."
But the text of Scripture does not say that Deborah ruled over Gods people.
Deborah is never said to to have taught the people in any assembled group or congregation. She gave private judgements when people came to her (Judges 4:5).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home