[Handout - In 1 Timothy 2:12, is authenteō Used in a Negative Sense?]

In 1 Timothy 2:12, is authenteō Used in a Negative Sense?

 

THE CLAIM

 

‘Does authentein mean “have authority over”, or “dominate” in an undesirable manner?’¹

 

‘There is disagreement among scholars as to the meaning of the word authentein which occurs only here in the New Testament. Suggested translations are “have authority” in a good sense, or “dominate” in a bad sense.’²

 

‘Other writers continue to maintain the word has a negative meaning. I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (1999), writes: “Ideas such as autocratic or domineering abuses of power and authority appear to be more naturally linked with the verb in view of the cognate nouns authentes and authenteia”.

 

Bruce W. Winter (2003)67 concludes his discussion on authentein: “... it seems that here the term carries not only the connotation of authority but also an inappropriate misuse of it.”68 In view of the authority which Paul elsewhere considers acceptable for sisters such as his fellow workers (1 Corinthian 16:16), it seems reasonable to think that the word authentein bears the meaning of exercising a dominating and therefore undesirable influence or authority.’³

 

THE FACTS

 

English Bible translations over the years have been generally in agreement when rendering the word authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12:

• CEV: ‘tell men what to do’
  
• GNB: ‘have authority over men’
  
• KV: ‘usurp authority over the man’
  
• NASB: ‘exercise authority over a man’
  
• NET: ‘exercise authority over a man’
  
• NIV: ‘have authority over a man’
  
• NLT: ‘have authority over them’
  
• RSV: ‘have authority over men’
  

Given the substantial agreement among these representative translations (from archaic to modern, formal equivalence to paraphrase), the average Bible student would wonder why such a disagreement exists over this word within the scholarly world.

 

In fact, the meaning of the word was not seriously disputed until 1979, when Catherine Kroeger (then a university classics student), asserted the meaning ‘to engage in fertility practices’. Although the claim was rejected by the scholarly consensus, debate over the meaning of the word had been opened, and Christians affirming an egalitarian view of the role of women in the church continued to contest the meaning of the word authenteō.

 

LEXICON ENTRIES

 

Over 30 years of dispute over the meaning of authenteō has had little to no effect on the scholarly consensus. Within the lexical community there is no controversy over the lexical range of this word, and none of the standard lexicons have accepted the novel definitions suggested by egalitarians such as Catherine Kroeger, though the well recognized sense ‘domineer’ has been proposed as appropriate to 1 Timothy 2:12.

 

‘aὐθεντζω strictly, of one who acts on his own authority; hence have control over, domineer, lord it over (1T 2.12).’⁴

 

‘...to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to w. gen. of pers. (Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 14, 10 Boll-B.; Cat. Cod. Astr. VIII/1 p. 177, 7; B-D-F §177) ἀνδρόσ, w. διδάςκειν, 1 Ti 2:12 (practically = ‘tell a man what to do’ [Jerusalem Bible]./.’⁵

 

‘aὐθεντζω authenteō rule (vb.)^* 1 Tim 2:12: women should not rule over men (gen.).’⁶

 

-------

¹ ‘All One’, p. 85 (March 2009).

² Ibid., p. 95.

³ Ibid., pp. 96-97.

⁴ Friberg, Friberg, & Miller ‘Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament’, volume 4, p. 81 (2000).

⁵ Arndt, Danker, & Bauer, ‘A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature’, p. 150 (3^rd ed., 2000).

⁶ Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testamen’, volume 1, p. 178 (1990-c1993).

[Handout - Were New Testament Texts Corrupted by Misogynists?]

SCHOLARLY COMMENTARY

 

It should be pointed out that Witherington is an egalitarian scholar, whose interpretation of these textual alterations is influenced by his own sensitivity to the subject. Comparing Witherington’s statements on the texts with the statements of the United Bible Societies’ Committee edited by Bruce Metzger,⁸ shows that in a number of cases there is a more likely explanation for the text’s alteration than any ‘anti-feminist’ attitude by a particular scribe.

 

Matthew 5:32: Metzger makes the point that the scribal tendency to smooth the text (in this case to create a neat parallel), and to remove material perceived as redundant, is an adequate cause for the alteration, so there is no necessity to attribute to this alteration an ‘anti-feminist’ motivation.

 

Acts 1:14: Metzger notes it is characteristic of the Western text type to alter the text to make it more stylistically ‘interesting’, and in this case Metzger also points out that the scribe altered the text to conform to the grammatical pattern already existing in Acts 21:5, an alteration which the scribe considered to be more likely to be in conformity with the original. This is characteristic of the Western text type, so there is no necessity to attribute this alteration to an ‘anti-feminist’ motivation.

 

Acts 17:4: Both Witherington and Metzger agree that the text here is actually ambiguous in the first place, and could be read either way. This is therefore not clearly a matter of a deliberately ‘anti-feminist’ reading being introduced, but a scribal decision as to which particular interpretation of the text made more sense to them.

 

Acts 17:12: Metzger points out that the reason for Codex Bezae (D), altering the text was to smooth the grammar and render it into better Greek. This is a common feature of the Western text type, especially in Codex Bezae, so the alteration is simply what the scribes of this text type typically did in any case. There is therefore no need to attribute to this alteration an ‘anti-feminist’ motivation.

 

Acts 17:34: There is a case to be made that the alteration is a deliberate attempt to diminish the importance of the women in the text, but Metzger says ‘It is, however, more likely, as A. C. Clark suggests,10 that a line in an ancestor of codex Bezae had been accidentally omitted’,⁹ so there is no necessity to attribute to this alteration an ‘anti-feminist’ motivation.

 

Acts 18: Although it is possible to read the tendency in some of the Western witnesses to place Aquila first or insert Aqulia’s name without including Priscilla as a desire to reduce the prominence of Priscilla, there is also the fact (as Metzger observes), that the general tendency of the Western text type scribes was to ‘change the unusual to the usual’. They altered the text to conform to what they considered to be more likely to be original. The fact that they did this with many other passages having nothing to do with women indicates that there is no necessity to attribute to this alteration an ‘anti-feminist’ motivation, even though in this case it is entirely likely.

 

Colossians 4:15: Metzger notes that the gender of the name was uncertain to start with, giving rise to variations in the text. The difference between the female name Nympha and the male name Nymphas was a matter of accenting the Greek letters one way or another, but the earliest manuscripts did not use any accents at all, meaning that later scribes had to make interpretative decisions at times. There is therefore no need to attribute to this alteration an ‘anti-feminist’ motivation, even though the ambiguity was settled in favour of the male name Nymphas.

(Jonathan Burke, 2009)

-------

⁸ The committee responsible for the UBS Greek New Testament, 4^th edition, the Greek text from which almost all modern English Bible translations are made.

⁹ Metzger, ’A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible

Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition)’, p. 407 (2^nd edition 1994).

 

Handout_alterations.pdf

[Handout - Were New Testament Texts Corrupted by Misogynists?]

Were New Testament Texts Corrupted by Misogynists?

 

THE CLAIM

 

We rely on a large number of handwritten manuscripts in Greek to provide us with our text of the New Testament. Interestingly, it can be observed that alterations were made in the second century in such a way as to downplay the reported involvement and importance of women.

 

Because these changes are not followed in the majority of manuscripts, the original text can easily be identified. But the changes suggest a climate in which some scribes were not happy to see women prominently involved. The changes are slight, but significant in the thinking they betray. They indicate an anti-women swing in at least some circles in the early churches.’¹

 

THE FACTS

 

Readers will note that Ian and Averil describe the changes as slight, and explain that they are not followed in the majority of manuscripts. This is a considerable understatement. It would be far more accurate to say that in the vast majority of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, less than a dozen such alterations have been found. Furthermore, these alterations are limited to a tiny number of texts.

 

Although Ian and Averil say ‘it can be observed that alterations were made in the second century’,² they actually provide no evidence for this (whether they realise it or not). Neither of the two sources they cite actually says this. One source they cite (Ben Witherington), says ‘it appears that there was a concerted effort by some part of the Church, perhaps as early as the late first century or beginning of the second’³.

 

However, when it comes to presenting the actual evidence which can be observed, Witherington does not cite any textual evidence earlier than the 4^th century,⁴ some 200 years after the 2^nd century,⁵ and most of his textual witnesses date to the 5^th century.

 

It is significant that these errors are all found in the Western text type. This text type is most well known not for its ‘anti-feminist’ bias, but for its general tendency to paraphrase and edit the text in a particularly arbitrary manner.⁶

 

It is also significant that almost all of these errors are found in only one manuscript tradition of the Western text (D), with only three errors appearing in any other Western manuscript tradition (G^pm, it^{a, b, d, k}),⁷ as this demonstrates that these are not even systematic changes to one particular manuscript tradition, let alone the entire Western text type.

 

This is one of the reasons why modern textual scholars generally view few (if any), of these alterations as genuinely motivated by a desire to minimize the role of women in the early church.

 

They are so few, so inconsistently found, and some of them are so much more readily attributable to accidental scribal error or the desire to render the text more grammatically, that they contradict the idea that the New Testament was revised studiously by groups of ‘anti-feminist’ scribes as a result of changing attitudes to women in early Christian history.

 

-------

¹ ‘All One’, p. 181 (March 2009).

² ‘All One’, p. 181 (March 2009).

³ Witherington, ‘The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the ‘Western’ Text in Acts’, Journal of Biblical Literature (103.1.83).

⁴ In fact he only cites one text as early as the 4^th century

⁵ Witherington’s most frequently referred to text is the 5^th century text D (Codex Bezae), but the Greek text type (called ‘Western’), which D preserves cannot be dated any earlier than 250 AD, even if quotations from early Christian writers are used (there are no Western type Greek manuscripts or papyri earlier than the 4^th century).

⁶ ‘The chief characteristic of Western readings is fondness for paraphrase. Words, clauses, and even whole sentences are freely changed, omitted, or inserted. Sometimes the motive appears to have been harmonization, while at other times it was the enrichment of the narrative by the inclusion of traditional or apocryphal material. Some readings involve quite trivial alterations for which no special reason can be assigned’, Metzger, ’A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition)’, p. xx (2^nd edition 1994).

⁷ The text referred to as ‘G^pm’ (the ‘pm’ stands for the Latin ‘permulti, meaning ‘very many’, and indicates that many manuscripts of this tradition have this reading), is a 9^th century Greek/Latin interlinear diglot also known as Codex Boernerianus (Gregory-Aland number 012); Witherington (Ibid., p. 84), says ‘D, G pm, et al. [and others]’, but does not say which other manuscripts he is referring to.

 

The text referred to as ‘it^a’ is an African Old Latin copy of an earlier Greek text (the ‘it’ stands for ‘Itala’, meaning Latin, and the other letters stand for various specific copies of this Latin manuscript); this same reading is also found in Greek and Latin manuscripts, according to the 4^th-5^th century Christian writer Augustine.

[Handout - Does adelphoi Mean ‘those who are from the same womb’?]

The source closest to their definition is Thayer. However, the text there is not in the definition of the word, but in the etymological description preceding the definition (Thayer gives ‘A brother’ as the primary meaning of the word⁹ ). Standard lexical entries follow:

 

‘...literally, male sibling with at least one parent in common (JN 1.41)...’¹⁰

 

‘a male from the same womb as the reference pers., brother...’¹¹

 

‘The brother in the narrower, literal sense is the physical brother, which can also include half-brothers (→ 3).’¹²

 

‘brother Gn 4,2...’13

 

‘a male having the same father and mother as the reference person—‘brother.’¹⁴

 

‘A. son of the same mother...’¹⁵

 

‘ἀδελφός , οῦ m brother; fellow believer; fellow countryman, fellowman’¹⁶

 

‘... brother, male sibling...’¹⁷

 

‘1. Physical Brotherhood.’¹⁸

 

‘A brother. Adelphós generally denotes a fellowship of life based on identity of origin, e.g., members of the same family...’¹⁹

 

The only definitions given which refer the word to individuals from the same womb specify males (‘male sibling with at least one parent in common’,²⁰ ‘a male from the same womb’,²¹ ‘a male having the same father and mother as the reference person—‘brother’,²² ‘son of the same mother’²³). Even Vine (which Ian and Averil used elsewhere in their book²⁴), defines the primary meaning as ‘male children of the same parents, Matt, 1:2; 14:3; (2) male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5; (3) male children of the same mother’.²⁵

 

This is the primary meaning of the word adelphos, and the lexicon entries quoted above (including Vine), show that this is also the primary meaning of the plural adelphoi.

 

The plural adelphoi certainly has a secondary meaning with reference to brothers and sisters in Christ, and this is overwhelmingly the meaning in Paul’s writings. However, that meaning is still secondary.

 

Ian and Averil provided no evidence for their definition other than a personal application of the root fallacy, and readers will note

that standard lexicons say otherwise.

(Jonathan Burke, 2009)

-------

⁹ Thayer, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti Translated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, corrected edition’, p. 10 (1886).

¹⁰ Friberg, Friberg, & Miller ‘Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament’, volume 4, p. 34 (2000).

¹¹ Arndt, Danker, & Bauer, ‘A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature’, p. 18 (3^rd ed., 2000).

¹² Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testamen’, volume 1, pp.28-30 (1990-c1993).

¹³ Lust, Eynikel, & Hauspie, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint’ (electronic rev. ed. 2003).

¹⁴ Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’, volume 1, pp. 117-118 (2^nd ed. 1989).

¹⁵ Liddell, Scott, & Jones, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, p.20 (rev. and augm. throughout, electronic ed., 9^th ed. with supplement, 1996).

¹⁶ Newman, ‘Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament’, p. 3 (1993).

¹⁷ Swanson, ‘Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament)’, DBLG 81, #5 (2^nd ed. 2001).

¹⁸ Kittel, Bromiley, & Friedrich, ‘Theological dictionary of the New Testament’, volume 1, pp. 144-146 (1964-c1976).

¹⁹ Zodhiates, ‘The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament’, G80 (electronic ed., 2000).

²⁰ Friberg, Friberg, & Miller ‘Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament’, volume 4, p. 34 (2000).

²¹ Arndt, Danker, & Bauer, ‘A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature’, p. 18 (3rd ed., 2000).

²² Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’, volume 1, p. 117 (2^nd ed. 1989).

²³ Liddell, Scott, & Jones, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, p.20 (rev. and augm. throughout, electronic ed., 9^th ed. with supplement, 1996).

²⁴ Cited in ‘All One’, pp. 57, 95, 102 (March 2009).

²⁵ Vine, Unger, & White, ‘Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words’, volume 2, p. 82 (1996 ed.).

 

Handout_adelphos.pdf

[Handout - Does adelphoi Mean ‘those who are from the same womb’?]

Does adelphoi Mean ‘those who are from the same womb’?

 

THE CLAIM

 

‘If we want the primary meaning we go back to the origin of the word. The word comes from the prefix a (= “connected together”) and from the word delphus which means “womb”. So it means those who are from the same womb.’¹

 

THE FACTS

 

If we want the primary meaning of a word we should look up the word in a standard lexicon.

 

SCHOLARLY COMMENTARY

 

The method Ian and Averil are recommending is a lexical fallacy known as the ‘root fallacy’:

 

'The "root fallacy" involves insisting that a word's true meaning is tied to its root meanings, or the parts of the word. But this is not how language works. If you use the word "butterfly," does it help you understand the meaning by breaking it down into "butter' and "fly;" if you use the word "pineapple," does it help to say this word is a combination of the words pine and apple? No. Some Greek words may actually be made up of parts that are closely related to the word's true meaning, but this is somewhat beside the point. The "root word" fallacy is more likely to lead us down unproductive paths in our word studies.'²

 

'As lexicographers have long noted, the root meaning of a word is not necessarily an accurate guide to the meaning of the word in later literature.'³

 

‘2. The Root Fallacy. This common error assumes that the root of a term and its cognates carries a basic meaning that is reflected in every subordinate use of the word(s).’⁴

 

‘Similarly, it is erroneous to take a compound word, break it into its component parts, and read the resultant meanings in that light. Louw states unequivocally, "It is a basic principle of modern semantic theory that we cannot progress from the form of a word to its meaning"(1982:29).’⁵

 

'Two well-known examples may help: ekklesia and parakletos. The first is often said to mean "the called out" believers, while in reality nowhere in extant Greek literature does ekklesia have this connotation. The other is the major title for the Holy Spirit in John 14-16 and contains the roots para ("beside") and kaleo ("call"). At one time the term did have a meaning similar to its root, "one called alongside to help," and was used in Hellenistic circles for a "helper" or "advocate". However, this is inadequate for John 14:16, 26; 15:26; and 16:7-8, 13 because that sense is never used in this context.'⁶

 

LEXICAL ENTRIES

 

Ian and Averil cite Vine several times.⁷ Here is the entry for adelphos in Vine:

 

‘adelphos (ἀδελφός, 80) denotes “a brother, or near kinsman”; in the plural, “a community based on identity of origin or life.” It is used of:— (1) male children of the same parents, Matt, 1:2; 14:3; (2) male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5; (3) male children of the same mother, Matt. 13:55; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19; (4) people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Rom. 9:3. With “men” (aner, “male”), prefixed, it is used in addresses only, Acts 2:29, 37, etc.; (5) any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matt. 5:22; 7:3; (6) persons united by a common interest, Matt. 5:47; (7) persons united by a common calling, Rev. 22:9; (8) mankind, Matt. 25:40; Heb. 2:17; (9) the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matt. 28:10; John 20:17; (10) believers, apart from sex, Matt. 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom. 1:13; 1 Thess. 1:4; Rev. 19:10 (the word “sisters” is used of believers, only in 1 Tim. 5:2); (11) believers, with aner, “male,” prefixed, and with “or sister” added, 1 Cor. 7:14 (rv), 15; Jas. 2:15, male as distinct from female, Acts 1:16; 15:7, 13, but not 6:3.’⁸

 

-------

¹ ‘Reply 2’, pp. 68-69 (April 2009).

² The Holman Student Bible, p. 4 (2007).

³ Wallace, 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics', p. 363 (1997).

⁴ Osborne, 'The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation', pp. 84-85 (rev. ed. 2006).

⁵ Ibid., p. 85.

⁶ Ibid., p. 85.

⁷ Cited in ‘All One’, pp. 57, 95, 102 (March 2009).

⁸ Vine, Unger, & White, ‘Vine's complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words’, volume 2, p. 82 (1996 ed.).

[Handout - Misleading Arguments]

Despite the appearance their carefully worded statement may give, Ian and Averil are well aware that the scholarly consensus rejects this view completely.¹⁶

 

‘The reference to the law could either be to a Jewish understanding of the Old Testament, or to the Jewish oral law...’¹⁷

 

Readers are not told that the scholarly consensus is that Paul’s reference to ‘the law’ is a clear reference to the Biblical text, either to the Pentateuch or some other part of the Old Testament (such as the Psalms or prophets).¹⁸

 

‘Paul quotes his opponents and then refutes them’¹⁹

 

Readers are not told this argument has been overwhelmingly rejected by scholars, including even a number of egalitarians.²⁰

 

ARTIFICIAL CONTROVERSY

 

Claiming scholars are significantly in dispute, when they are overwhelmingly in agreement.

 

‘A considerable debate on the meaning and translation of “head” (kephale) in Greek has been taking place for several decades in the evangelical world...’²¹

 

Although the meaning of the word kephalē has been debated extensively among evangelical commentators for years, what Ian and Averil do not tell readers are that among professional lexicographers there is no debate whatever.²² No standard lexicon has accepted the egalitarian definition of the word kephalē,²³ although a number of them have been updated recently with additional information derived from new studies or the discovery of new sources.²⁴

 

‘I Suffer Not a Woman – Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence, Richard & Catherine Kroeger (1992).’²⁵

 

‘Their suggested translation of authentein as “claim to be the originator” has received some, but not general, acceptance.’²⁶

 

Readers are told that the Kroger’s suggestion that authentein means ‘claim to be originator’ has ‘received some, but not general, acceptance.’²⁷ In reality, the Kroeger’s work has received acceptance only among some egalitarian commentators,²⁸ and the Kroeger’s definition of authentein has been rejected by professional lexicographers.

 

(Jonathan Burke, 2010)

-------

¹⁶ Readers are not told that the scholarly consensus is overwhelmingly against the idea that Paul’s letter to Timothy had Gnostic groups in mind, especially it is agreed that Gnosticism did not exist at the time of Paul and no Gnostic or proto-Gnostic texts have ever been found dating even close to the time of Paul.

¹⁷ ‘All One’, p. 66 (March 2009).

¹⁸ ‘several writers refer with approval to S. Aalen’s argument that the key word is drawn here by Paul from a rabbinic formula used in the context of biblical texts, especially in the Pentateuch, which express a principle often introduced with ὁ νόμος λέγει, the law indicates.363 BAGD, Moulton-Milligan et al. and Grimm-Thayer provide instances of the verb in the sense of it is permitted (sometimes with the perfect stative sense, there exists permission) in the papyri, Josephus, and other first-century sources.’, Thiselton, ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek text’, p. 1151 (2000).

¹⁹ ‘All One’, p. 64 (March 2009).

²⁰ Thiselton, ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek text’, p. 1151 (2000).

²¹ Ibid., p. 169.

²² Standard professional lexicons do not include the meaning ‘source, origin’ for kephalē as understood by egalitarians, nor do recognized authoritative lexicographers debate whether the word means ‘source, origin’ or ‘chief, ruler’.

²³ An entry in the 1968 edition of LSJ9 has been cited by egalitarians as evidence for their understanding of KEFLAH, but the editor has explained that this was not the intended meaning of the entry (which has been misinterpreted), that the entry was badly worded, and that the meaning ‘source’ for kephalē as asserted by egalitarians does not exist.

²⁴ BDAG, Louw/Nida, LSJ9, and Swanson, for example.

²⁵ ‘All One’, p. 95 (March 2009).

²⁶ Ibid., p. 95.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 95.

²⁸ it has even been rejected by other egalitarian commentators, such as Wilshire, ‘It is no wonder that L. E. Wilshire, even though he shares the egalitarian outlook, says: “This is a breathtaking extension into (pre-) Gnostic content yet an interpretation I do not find supported either by the totality of their own extensive philological study, by the NT context, or by the immediate usages of the word authenteo and its variants.”16’, Baugh, ‘The Apostle among the Amazons’, Westminster Theological Journal (56.157), (Spring 1994).

 

Handout_misleading.pdf

[Handout - Misleading Arguments]

Misleading Arguments

 

FALSE NEUTRALITY

 

Correctly observing that a particular argument is inconclusive due to inadequate or ambiguous evidence, and then appealing to the argument later as if it had been decisively proved.

1. ‘It is not clear whether diakonos [in Romans 16:1] refers to a particular ecclesial office as in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and Philippians 1:1, or whether the word should be translated as “servant” (KJV and NIV).’¹
   
2. ‘Phoebe is called a diakonos, “deacon”.’²
   

First Ian and Averil say it is not clear if diakonos in Romans 16:1 refers to a particular ecclesial office or if it should be translated ‘servant’, yet they later assert definitely that diakonos here means ‘deacon’ as a particular ecclesial office.

1. ‘In whatever manner the term “head” and the comments about headcovering are to be understood,28 the mutual dependency of husband and wife (or man and woman)29 in the new Christian relationship (“in the Lord”) is strongly asserted.’³
   
2. ‘There is no suggestion that because the husband is head of the wife, therefore the wife should not pray or prophesy in the meetings.’⁴
   

First Ian and Averil say that 1 Corinthians 11 could be referring to husband and wife or man and woman, yet they later assert specifically that the passage is speaking of husband and wife.

1. ‘The suggestion here is that some women were disrupting the meeting...’⁵
   
2. 'It is clear that Paul is condemning disorderly speaking earlier in the chapter...’⁶
   

First Ian and Averil offer the idea of women interrupting as a suggestion (‘The suggestion here is’⁷), yet they later assert this specifically as fact; now it is ‘clear that Paul is condemning disorderly speaking’.⁸

1. ‘Alternatively it could mean that she is to refrain from speaking and teaching false proto-Gnostic ideas...’⁹
   
2. ‘Paul says that Adam was formed first, then Eve, because the false teaching in Ephesus, as seen later in Gnosticism, gave priority to Eve.’¹⁰
   

First Ian and Averil propose the idea of Gnostic teaching is a suggestion (‘it could mean’¹¹), yet they later assert this specifically as fact (‘Paul says... because’¹² ).

 

AVOIDING CONSENSUS

 

Failing to represent accurately the established scholarly consensus, or concealing this information from readers.

 

‘There is no suggestion that because the husband is head of the wife, therefore the wife should not pray or prophesy in the meetings.’¹³

 

Ian and Averil assume the man and woman in 1 Corinthians 11 are husband and wife, whereas the scholarly consensus is that these are generic terms for man and woman.¹⁴

 

‘Paul says that Adam was formed first, then Eve, because the false teaching in Ephesus, as seen later in Gnosticism, gave priority to Eve.’¹⁵

 

 

-------

¹ ‘All One’, p. 36 (March 2009).

² Ibid., p. 101.

³ Ibid., p. 53.

⁴ Ibid., p. 53.

⁵ Ibid., p. 68.

⁶ Ibid., p. 71.

⁷ Ibid., p. 68.

⁸ Ibid., p. 71.

⁹ Ibid., pp. 88-89.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 90.

¹¹ Ibid., pp. 88-89.

¹² Ibid., p. 90.

¹³ ‘All One’, p. 53 (March 2009).

¹⁴ 'A few commentators defend husband, but the overwhelming majority of writers convincingly argue that the issue concerns gender relations as a whole, not simply those within the more restricted family circle', Thiselton, ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek text’, p. 822 (2000).

¹⁵ ‘All One’, p. 90 (March 2009).

[Handout - Which are the Implicit Texts?]

• 2 Timothy 2:2:
   
  ‘And entrust what you heard me say in the presence of many others as witnesses to faithful people who will be competent to teach others as well.’⁶
   
  
• 2 Timothy 3:15:
   
  ‘and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.’⁷

INDIRECT EVIDENCE

 

We can also draw inferences from indirect evidence, though this can never be allowed to take precedence over explicit evidence. I agree with Ian and Averil that ‘we should look at practices approved by the inspired writers as well as direct teaching’.⁸

 

Ian and Averil acknowledge that sisters were not explicitly included in aspects of leadership,⁹ were not appointed to all the same positions of leadership and teaching as men,¹⁰ were not appointed as elders,^{11 12 13} and that teaching and praying were performed by brothers to a larger extent than by sisters. These are the practices approved by the inspired writers.

 

(Jonathan Burke, 2010)

-------

⁶ The NET footnote says ‘Grk “faithful men”; but here ἀνθρώποις (anthrōpois) is generic, referring to both men and women.’, which is the translation with the most support, even though standard commentaries are divided on the issue of whether or not the word is generic here (the passage is only implicit for the purpose of the subject under discussion because although it indicates both brothers and sisters are to teach, which is not in dispute, it does not describe who they are to teach or in what circumstances); Towner (egalitarian), writes ‘The command itself, “entrust [parathou] [these things] to reliable people,”9 which comes in the next phrase, picks up and echoes the language of “deposit” and “guarantor” (parathēkē) introduced in 1:12–14 and earlier in 1 Tim 1:18; 6:20 to describe the succession of Paul’s ministry to his follower.’, ‘The Letters to Timothy and Titus’, New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 490 (2006), Kistemaker writes ‘The deposit which was entrusted to Timothy (I Tim. 6:20; II Tim. 1:14) must be deposited with trustworthy men. They must be men, moreover, who will be qualified to teach others (cf. I Tim. 3:2), so that these others as well as their teachers will have been instructed in God’s redemptive truth.’, ‘Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles’, Baker New Testament Commentary, p. 246 (1990), Arichea (egalitarian), & Hatton, write ‘An alternative translation model for this verse is: You have heard me proclaim the teachings (or, Christian doctrine) in front of many other people. You must take these same teachings and give (or, tell) them to other competent people (teachers) who will then tell others about them.’, ‘A Handbook on Paul's letters to Timothy and to Titus’, UBS handbook series, p. 192 (1995), Mounce (complementarian), writes ‘In order to continue the work that Timothy began, it is essential that men of character continue to teach the true gospel, the same gospel Timothy learned from Paul. Timothy is to identify these men and entrust the gospel to them before he leaves, helping to ensure the integrity of the gospel message (Spicq, 2:738). Because teaching is the responsibility of elders (cf. 1 Tim 3:2), the faithful men are probably elders.’, ‘Pastoral Epistles’, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 46, p. 504 (2002), Knight (complementarian), writes ‘Paul combines with the need for personal spiritual strength (v. 1) the need to handle rightly and communicate faithfully the apostolic message (cf. 1:6–8, 13–14; 1 Tim. 4:6–16, especially v. 16, where this combination is succinctly stated). Timothy is to “entrust” to “faithful men” what he has “heard” from Paul, ἃ ἤκουσας παρʼ ἐμοῦ (cf. 1:13).’, ‘The Pastoral Epistles’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 389 (1992), Moss (complementarian), writes ‘It should be noted that the word “men” (ἄνθρωποι, anthrōpoi) primarily indicates not “male persons” but “human beings” or “people.” Knight argues that the word is here to be understood as adult males in contrast to women, primarily on the basis of Paul’s prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 (cf. 1 Cor 14:34). He suggests that Timothy would have understood Paul’s admonition as directed toward the instruction of elders/overseers.3 While Knight’s argument needs to be considered, he has pressed his conclusions further than the data allows. Paul’s real concern here is that Timothy seek out “faithful” people who are able to share the gospel with others.4 The setting here is not the public assembly. Paul would himself argue that older women need to be able teachers of the gospel and its implications for younger women (Titus 2:4–5). Priscilla had a part in the teaching of Apollos (Acts 18:24–26).’, ‘1 , 2 Timothy & Titus’, College Press NIV Commentary (1994), Fee (egalitarian), writes ‘Those to whom he entrusts those teachings are to be reliable or trustworthy people (cf. 1 Tim. 1:12).’, ‘1 and 2 Timothy, Titus’, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 240 (1988)

⁷ This verse shows that Timothy had received instruction in the Scriptures from a young age, and since his father was a Greek and his mother was a Jew (Acts 16:1), it is likely that he was instructed by his mother; Arichea (egalitarian), & Hatton write ‘What the statement wants to emphasize is that at a very early age Timothy was introduced to the Scriptures, although we cannot be sure as to how old Timothy was when this started. However, there is information to the effect that at the age of five a Jewish boy received instruction in the Torah and memorized from it. This practice may be reflected in this verse, and if so, then Timothy was taught the Scriptures by his mother, since his father was not a Jew.’’, ‘A Handbook on Paul's letters to Timothy and to Titus’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 234 (1995), Fee (egalitarian), writes ‘There are two reasons for Timothy to stay by what he has learned: First, you know those from whom you learned it. This curious plural, changed to the singular in the majority of later manuscripts, may reflect the plural of 2:2 (“through many witnesses”). More likely it refers both to Paul (vv. 10–11) and to Timothy’s mother and grandmother (1:5), who had taught him from infancy … the Holy Scriptures.’, ‘1 and 2 Timothy, Titus’, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 278 (1988).

⁸ ‘All One’, p. 6 (March 2009).

⁹ ‘Reply 1’, p. 20 (February 2008).

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 27.

¹¹ ‘All One’, p. 100 (March 2009).

¹² Ibid., pp. 102-103.

¹³ Ibid., p. 115.

 

Handout_implicit.pdf

[Handout - Which are the Implicit Texts?]

Which Are the Implicit Texts?

 

IDENTIFYING IMPLICIT TEXTS

 

‘iv. Passages on which a teaching is based should not be incidental - i.e. passages that are non-essential to the main teaching of a book or that do not constitute a teaching statement.

 

For example, Romans, the one book of the N.T. that systematically explains how sin and death entered the world, what sin is and how the life, sacrifice and resurrection of Christ overcome sin and death, contains only one reference to Satan at the end of 16 chapters of detailed exposition.

 

This one incidental reference cannot be used to alter the Apostle’s argument in the rest of the book by suggesting that a fallen-angel Satan had a role to play in how sin entered the world, what causes sin etc.’¹

 

‘We must avoid basing doctrine on passages that only infer e.g.Thomas' statement 'My Lord and my God' to a believer in the Trinity, teaches that Jesus is part of a triune Godhead but this view of the statement is based on inference. It is not a statement on the nature of the Godhead but an outburst from a now undoubting Thomas.

 

The expression ‘my Lord’ is used in the same chapter by Mary Magdalene in a context that proves she did not believe that Jesus was God while ‘God’ is a term used in the O.T. to describe the coming Messiah without any notion that Messiah would be God. In the risen Jesus, Thomas now saw the final proof of Jesus’ Messianic claims.’²

 

Implicit texts are those which speak indirectly about a particular topic. Such texts may present teaching or an example to follow, which indicates what we should think and do with regard to a topic.

 

However, it is wrong to draw inferred arguments from passages which do not speak directly to the subject, and then use these to interpret passages which do speak directly and explicitly.³

 

IMPLICIT TEXTS

 

The following are implicit New Testament texts speaking of women and their teaching role indirectly. Commentary on each passage is provided from complementarians, egalitarians, and unaligned sources.

 

• Acts 2:4-15:
   
  ‘But Peter stood up with the eleven, raised his voice, and addressed them: “You men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, know this and listen carefully to what I say. In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning.’⁴
   
  
• Acts 18:26:
   
  ‘He began to speak out fearlessly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately.’⁵

 

-------

¹ Byrnes, ‘God Christ Man Woman’, p. 12 (2010).

² Ibid., pp. 11-12.

³ Ian and Averil acknowledge they actually do this; commenting on a number of texts they use to argue their case, they acknowledge ‘We don’t claim that these “passages … contain explicit teaching on the role of women in the ecclesia, as far as leadership and teaching is concerned”. They do, however, present explicit information about Jesus and his attitudes to women and form the background to the explicit teaching in the rest of the New Testament.’, ‘Reply 2’, pp. 112-113 (April 2009).

⁴ Peter’s phrase ‘these men’ (Greek outoi, nominative masculine plural, referring to males), indicates that he is referring only to ‘the eleven’, the other apostes who are with him; this is acknowledged by Bruce (egalitarian) ,’The Book of the Acts’, New International Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 59-60 (1988), Kistemaker writes ‘Then Peter stood up with the eleven… For these men are not drunk’, ‘Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles’, Baker New Testament Commentary, p. 88 (1990), Newman & Nida write ‘These men may be either the eleven (Peter does not seem to include himself among those who are thought to be drunk) or the larger group of the one hundred and twenty.’, ‘A Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 42 (1993), Gaertner, ‘Acts’, College Press NIV Commentary (1993), Williams,’Acts’, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 55 (1990), Mare writes ‘These men are not drunk. The masculine form is used for the word ‘these’’’, ‘New Testament Background Commentary: A New Dictionary of Words, Phrases and Situations in Bible Order’, p. 149 (2004).

⁵ This verse describes Priscilla participating with her husband Aquila in the instruction of Apollos; Bruce (egalitarian), writes ‘how much better it is to give such private help to a teacher whose understanding of his subject is deficient than to correct or denounce him publicly!’, ’The Book of the Acts’, New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 360 (1988), Kistemaker writes ‘Next, Apollos demonstrated remarkable restraint when he consented to come to the home of a tentmaker and his wife and to receive instruction not only from a humble craftsman but also from a woman.’, ‘Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles’, Baker New Testament Commentary, pp. 668-669 (1990), Newman & Nida write ‘Took him home (so many translations: NAB, Twentieth Century, Goodspeed, Moffatt) is a meaning well supported by the use of this verb elsewhere in the New Testament (see 28:2; Romans 14:1; 15:7a). However it may mean simply “take aside” (Phps).’, ‘A Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 358 (1993), Gaertner writes ‘At any rate, Priscilla and Aquila came into contact with Apollos and “invited him to their home” (προσλaμbάνομaι, proslambanomai). The Greek term means “to take someone to oneself,” and thus is interpreted by the NIV to mean a private meeting in the home (and justly so). Evidently the fact that Priscilla was a woman did not prohibit her from being involved in this instruction of Apollos.’, ‘Acts’, College Press NIV Commentary (1993), Williams writes ‘Afterwards they took him home and made good what was lacking in his instruction.’,’Acts’, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 325 (1990), Mare writes ‘Priscilla and Aquila invited Apollos to their home for further training’, ‘New Testament Background Commentary: A New Dictionary of Words, Phrases and Situations in Bible Order’, p. 202 (2004).

[Handout - Which are the Explicit Texts?]

• Ephesians 5:22-24, ‘Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.’^{12 13 14}
   
  
• 1 Timothy 2:11-12, ‘A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.’^{15 16 17 18 19}
   
  
• Titus 2:4-5, ‘In this way they will train the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, pure, fulfilling their duties at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the message of God may not be discredited.’^{20 21 22}
   
  
• 1 Peter 3:1, ‘In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live,’^{23 24 25}

(Jonathan Burke, 2010)

-------

¹² ‘In translation the verb must be supplied from the participle of “to submit” in the preceding verse. This verb is used in military contexts of a subordinate’s relationship to his superior in the army hierarchy. It is used of a wife’s relation to her husband in Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1; of servants to masters in Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:12; of people to state authorities in Romans 13:1. It means “to be subject to, obey, be ruled by.” It carries the implication of subordination, reflecting the standards of the time, which no amount of special pleading can disguise. Phps “learn to adapt yourselves” is an unfortunate attempt to make the command more palatable in a different age.’, Bratcher & Nida, ‘A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 139 (1993).

¹³ ‘It should also be noted that the parallel in Col 3:18ff. does not mention mutual submission; it begins with a straightforward imperative command.’, Boles, ‘Galatians & Ephesians’, College Press NIV Commentary (1993)

¹⁴ 'The exhortation to wives to be subject to their husbands is often understood as a request for voluntary subordination. However, the strength of the analogy with Christ and the church undercuts the "voluntary" quality of the exhortation.'; Tanzer (egalitarian), 'Eph 5:22-33 Wives (and Husbands) Exhorted', in Meyers, Craven, & Kraemer, 'Women in Scripture: a dictionary of named and unnamed women in the Hebrew Bible, the apocrhyphal/deuterocanonical books, and the New Testament', p. 482 (2001).

¹⁵ ‘This perhaps means that the women should submit to the authority of the men as teachers and should accept with humility and obedience what is taught to them. The logical offshoot of this is that women should not teach men or have authority over them.’, Arichea (egalitarian), & Hatton, ‘A handbook on Paul's letters to Timothy and to Titus’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 58 (1995).

¹⁶ 'Although women were not prohibited from teaching altogether, their relationship with men was clearly to remain a subservient one.', Brown (egalitarian), '2 Timothy 2:9-15 Women Who Profess Reverence for God', in Meyers, Craven, & Kraemer, 'Women in Scripture: a dictionary of named and unnamed women in the Hebrew Bible, the apocrhyphal/deuterocanonical books, and the New Testament', p. 489 (2001).

¹⁷ 'That Paul was influenced by circumstances and framed his words to meet specific situations, however, is not to deny that in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, the house rules of Colossians and Ephesians, and, particularly, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, there are statements that assert the subordination of women, exhort women to submission, and command women to be silent in the churches.', Longnecker (egalitarian), ‘New Testament social ethics for today’, p. 87 (1984).

¹⁸ 'In this text women are asked to subordinate themselves to men and not presume to exercise leadership roles over them.', Evans, ‘From prophecy to testament: the function of the Old Testament in the New’, p. 233 (2004).

¹⁹ 'The author of 1 Timothy excluded women from this role in any case. He says: " I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" (2:12). On the other hand, the Letter to Titus, probably written by the same author, does give a teaching role to older women.', Sullivan, 'From apostles to bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church', p. 74 (2001).

²⁰ ‘Finally, the instructions invoke the most fundamental element of the household ethic concerning wives: younger wives must “be subject to their husbands.”’, Towner (egalitarian), ‘ The Letters to Timothy and Titus’, New International Commentary on the New Testament, p.728 (2006).

²¹ ‘Submissive derives from a verb that includes the elements of recognition of authority (“accept the authority of someone”), subordination, and obedience. This means that these younger women should willingly subject themselves to their husbands, whether they are believers or not. This idea of wives submitting to husbands is found in other parts of the New Testament (see, for example, 1 Peter 3:1; Col 3:18; and Eph 5:22).’, Arichea (egalitarian), & Hatton, ‘A handbook on Paul's letters to Timothy and to Titus.’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 284 (1992).

²² ‘Finally, he urges that they also be subject to their husbands cf. 1 Tim. 2:11; Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:21–23; 1 Pet. 3:1).’, Fee (egalitarian), ‘New International Biblical commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus’, p. 188 (1988).

²³ ‘Wives are to express their submission “to every human creature” by their submission to their own husbands.’, Davids (egalitarian), ‘The First Epistle of Peter’, New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 115 (1990).

²⁴ ‘The sense of the verse then would be that since Christians are expected to “be submissive,” it is likewise expected that wives should submit to their husbands.’, Arichea (egalitarian), & Nida, ‘A Handbook on the first letter from Peter’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 88 (1994).

²⁵ ‘“In the same way” probably refers back to 2:13 and 18. As all Christians should submit to the governing authorities (2:13) and slaves should submit to their masters (2:18), “in the same way” wives should submit to their husbands.’, Black & Black, ‘1 & 2 Peter’, The College Press NIV Commentary (1998).

 

Handout_explicit.pdf

[Handout - Which are the Explicit Texts?]

Which are the Explicit Texts?

IDENTIFYING EXPLICIT TEXTS

Key texts guiding our understanding of a topic are those which provide instruction, teaching, commandments, or guidance with regard to a particular topic. Such texts are identified by means of the kind of criteria described in the rules for interpretation written by brother James Foreman and brother Colin Byrnes.¹

Brother Foreman wrote:

‘Fifth. The truth in relation to any doctrine must be established by those passages which speak of it in positive and unequivocal language, and those texts belonging to the same subject but which only admit of inferential testimony, no inference should be drawn from them at variance with the truths already established by positive texts.’²

Brother Byrnes wrote:

‘We must avoid basing doctrine on passages that only infer e.g. Thomas' statement ' My Lord and my God' to a believer in the Trinity, teaches that Jesus is part of a triune Godhead but this view of the statement is based on inference. It is not a statement on the nature of the Godhead but an outburst from a now undoubting Thomas.’³

‘Passages on which doctrine is based should not be incidental i.e. passages that are non-essential to the main teaching of a book or that do not constitute a teaching statement.’⁴

EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT TEXTS

The following are explicit New Testament texts speaking of the relationship of men and women in marriage and in the ecclesia and the teaching role of women in positive and unequivocal language. Quotations are provided from complementarian, egalitarian, and unaligned commentaries, in order to demonstrate that these texts are widely recognized as speaking explicitly about of the relationship of men and women in marriage and in the ecclesia and the teaching role of women, even though commentators may disagree on their interpretation.

• 1 Corinthians 11:3, ‘But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.’^{5 6 7}
• 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, ‘As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.’^{8 9}
• Colossians 3:18, ‘Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.’^{10 11}

-------
¹ ‘We consider the methods printed by Dr Thomas and from your own website (see below) to be sound, and we reckon we have followed them.’, ‘Reply 1’, p. 64 (February 7, 2008)
² From brother Foreman’s principles of interpretation, printed by brother Thomas in ‘Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come’, pp.179-180 (1859).
³ Byrnes, ‘God Christ Man Woman’, p. 11 (2010).
⁴ Ibid., p.12.
⁵ ‘What does κεφaλή ‘head’ imply? 1. It implies a hierarchical meaning of authority of one over another [AB, Alf, BAGD, Ed, EGT, Gdt, Herm, Ho, ICC, Lns, MNTC, My, NIC, NTC, TG, TNTC, Vn]:’, Trail, ‘An Exegetical Summary of 1 Corinthians 10-16’, p. 58 (2^nd ed. 2008); the seventeen references cited shows agreement from a range of standard Bible commentaries and lexicons.
⁶ ‘Even if by “head” Paul means “more prominent/preeminent partner” or “one through whom the other exists,” his language and the flow of the argument seem to reflect an assumed hierarchy through which glory and shame flow upward from those with lower status to those above them (see Thiselton 2000: 812–22; Watson 2000: 43–44n3; Loader 2004: 100).’, Beale & Carson, ‘Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament’, p. 731 (2007).
⁷ ‘(Some interpreters have tried to explain away the hierarchical implications of v.3 by arguing that kephalē means "source" rather than "ruler." This is a possible meaning of the word, and it fits nicely with v. 8, in which Paul alludes to the Genesis story that describes the creation of woman out of man; however, in view of the whole shape of the argument, the patriarchal implications of v. 3 are undeniable. Even if Paul is thinking here primarily of man as the source of women rather than authority over woman, this still serves as the warrant for a claim about his ontological preeminence over her, as vv. 7-9 show.)', Hays (egalitarian), ‘First Corinthians’, Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, p. 184 (1997).
⁸ ‘Should be subordinate: TEV replaces RSV’s positive expression by a negative one: “they must not be in charge.” One may also say “they must not hold positions of leadership.”’, Ellingworth, et al, ‘A handbook on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 326 (1995).
⁹ ‘One may or may not agree with Paul’s teaching about the submission of women and his views about Genesis, but it seems to be blatant special pleading to attempt to discredit or to diminish the point of 14:34 by claiming it is unpauline, either in its view toward women or in its method of appropriation of Scriptural themes from the Old Testament.’, Oster (complementarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, College Press NIV Commentary (1995).
¹⁰ ‘The call for wives to be subject (ὑποτάσσομaι, “subject oneself, be subordinate to”) is unequivocal, not even lightened by the prefixed call “Be subject to one another,” or the addition “as the church is subject to Christ” (as in Eph. 5:21, 24).16 The exhortation should not be weakened in translation in deference to modern sensibilities (cf. again 1 Cor. 14:34; so rightly Martin, Colossians and Philemon 119). But neither should its significance be exaggerated; “subjection” means “subordination,” not “subjugation” (Schrage, Ethics 253; so also Aletti, Épître aux Colossiens 251–52).’, Dunn, ‘The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A commentary on the Greek text’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 247 (1996).
¹¹ ‘Paul believed that there was a hierarchical order in creation, and that in this order the man was the “head” of the woman (1 Cor. 11:3).179’, Bruce (egalitarian), ‘The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians’, New International Commentary on the Greek new Testament, p. 164 (1984).

[Handout - Was the Role of Sisters in 1st Century Ecclesias Revolutionary or Restricted?]

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS

 

Contrary to the claims made by Ian and Averil, 1^st century ecclesial organization and roles were neither revolutionary nor restricted by social attitudes. Ecclesias developed and operated in the same way as the contemporary Roman ‘voluntary associations’.^{25 26 27 28} Even the very language of ecclesial fellowship is borrowed from these groups,²⁹ within which social norms could be transgressed without penalty³⁰ (though acknowledging the norms³¹ ). Slave and free mingled together,³² and slaves could even be leaders.³³ Men and women fraternized without the restraints of social convention,^{34 35} and ethnic and family loyalties were set aside.³⁶ The ecclesias therefore could have appointed women as leaders and elders or provided them with authoritative speaking roles without fear of social reprisal. The culture of the day empowered them, rather than restricting them.³⁷

 

WHERE IS THE CONTROVERSY?

 

Where is the evidence that the ecclesial roles of 1st century sisters were restricted or opposed by Jewish, Greek, or Roman attitudes? Why is no such controversy mentioned in the entire New Testament?

Jonathan Burke (2010)

-------

²⁵ Sometimes called ‘private associations’, known in Latin as sodalitates, or collegia.

²⁶ 'It is in this larger cultural context that the early Christian associations emerge. The cultural readiness and modeling of individuals gathering voluntarily to explore new identities and a sense of belonging within a religious frame allowed the early Christian groups to form. The larger context of voluntary associations provided a cultural pattern in which nascent early Christian community could come into being.’, Nerney, Nerrny, & Taussig, 'Re-imaging life together in America: a new gospel of community', p. 13 (2002).

²⁷ ‘In other words the notion of a diverse group coming together for the sake of a special sense and spirit of belonging was already going on in many different ways. That early Christians did this fits the larger social momentum of the day.', p. 13.

²⁸ ‘'Early Christian communities need to be seen then as a kind of voluntary association. Their quick and strong development rides on the momentum of the larger Hellenistic momentum of the associations. Their interest in social experimentation is in keeping with the way the associations developed.', p. 13.

²⁹ 'When the Greek literature of this time refers to a wide variety of voluntary associations, the terms often used are, in fact, koinoinia, or koine, meaning "community," "that which is held in common,", "friendship," or "fellowship".’, ibid., p. 12.

³⁰ 'Transgressive commensality, according to Donahue, is characterized by temporal, porous group boundaries in which there is “a relationship of exchange between parties of a different social or economic status” (2005:106).' Ascough, Forms of Commensality in Greco-Roman Associations: draft paper for the SBL Greco-Roman Meals Consultation, p. 7 (2008).

³¹ 'According to Grignon (2001:30) transgressive commensality “plays upon oppositions between social groups and the borders which separate them.” Such borders, while recognized, are “temporarily and symbolically transgressed” and thus establish, in the context of a meal, a relation of exchange. Nevertheless, “it is by transgressing them that it contributes to recognizing and maintaining” social distinctions (2001:31).', ibid., p. 19.

³² ‘The mix of slaves and free in this protected environment was frequent.’, Nerney, Nerrny, & Taussig, 'Re-imaging life together in America: a new gospel of community', p. 12 (2002).

³³ ‘Slaves could be leaders in such groups.’, ibid., p. 12.

³⁴ ‘Similarly men and women associated in these settings far more than in public.’, ibid., p. 12.

³⁵ ‘Both the joy and stress around this new mix of people and traditions evident in the Hellenistic literature indicates that the voluntary associations were places of social experimentation.’, ibid., p. 12.

³⁶ ‘the general family and ethnic loyalties of former times were breached in the associations' acceptance of many different individuals.’ ibid., p. 12.

³⁷ ‘Whereas in the larger outside world, both Roman control and residual customs mitigated against mixing men and women, slave and free, foreign and religious practice; in the voluntary associations there was a lively atmosphere in which these mixes could be tried out and experienced without threat of larger social catastrophe or consequences', ibid., p. 12.

 

Handout_ecclesias.pdf

[Handout - Was the Role of Sisters in 1st Century Ecclesias Revolutionary or Restricted?]

Was the Role of Sisters in 1st Century Ecclesias Revolutionary or Restricted?

 

THE CLAIM

 

‘That women were actively involved, and to a considerable extent, is shown repeatedly in the New Testament. To us in the twenty-first century this does not seem surprising, but within the context of the ancient world it was a new and important development which followed on from the example of Jesus himself.’¹

 

‘In view of the general male leadership which existed in society in the first century, and in view of the problems in Crete which Paul was aiming to tackle, it is not surprising if the elders there were all male, for believers had to conduct themselves in a manner which was, as far as possible, beyond reproach in the opinion of pagan society.’²

 

THE FACTS

 

Stoicism was widespread,³ and even had an egalitarian influence on Roman law.⁴

 

The Stoics were the most egalitarian of the 1^st century Roman philosophical groups.^{5 6 7 8 9} Musonius Rufus is one 1^st century example.¹⁰ Unlike Paul, Musonius Rufus did not make any call for women to be subject, opposed explicitly a range of misogynist prejudices, and challenged the view of any form of gendered division of tasks,¹⁴ with a statement which has no Biblical parallel.¹⁵ Egalitarian views were also present in 1st century Jewish society; women enjoyed active religious participation,^{16 17} and some even held leadership positions.^{18 19 20} Among 1^st century Jewish religious communities, the Essenes,^{21 22} and the Therapeutae^{23 24} are considered groups with egalitarian values and practices.

 

-------

¹ ‘All One’, p. 30 (March 2009).

² Ibid., p. 104.

³ Not merely restricted to the elite classes.

⁴ ‘The overall development of Roman equity law was influenced by the Stoic natural law principle of the equality of the sexes’, Hill, ‘The First Wave of Feminism: Were the Stoics Feminists?’, History of Political Thought, (22.1), p. 20 (2001).

⁵ 'Perhaps they are better understood as failed proto-liberal feminists', Hill, ‘The First Wave of Feminism: Were the Stoics Feminists?’, History of Political Thought, (22.1), p. 40 (2001).

⁶ ‘when compared with the attitudes toward women that prevailed in the days in which these arguments were put forward, the arguments are, occasionally, downright astounding.’, Engel, ‘Women's Role in the Home and the State: Stoic Theory Reconsidered’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, (101), p. 273 (2003).

⁷ ‘Stoicism is the only ancient philosophy that provides a sufficiently egalitarian concept of human beings to suit a liberal ideology.’, Long, ‘Stoic Communitarianism And Normative Citizenship’, Social Philosophy & Policy Foundation, p. 242 (2007).

⁸ ‘That Stoicism is fundamentally egalitarian and universalistic is well established.’, Hill, ‘The First Wave of Feminism: Were the Stoics Feminists?’, History of Political Thought, (22.1), p. 15 (2001).

⁹ 'The Stoics condemned discrimination against people based on class, gender, ethnicity or any other contingent facts about them.', ibid., p. 17.

¹⁰ ‘Musonius is probably the most enlightened Stoic in his attitude to women, sex and marriage.', ibid., p. 27.

¹¹ 'Musonius tells us that husbands who commit adultery are just as culpable as wives, and it is extremely objectionable for them to have sexual relations with their slave-girls.', ibid., p. 28.

¹² ‘There is no demand on his part for subordination of the woman', ibid., p. 28.

¹³ ‘C. Musonius Rufus challenged Roman prejudices about women head on.', ibid., p. 32.

¹⁴ ‘Musonius now questions the reasonableness of a gender-based division of labour in the first place, noting that, apart from the relatively insignificant differences in physical strength and personal bent, no other rationale stands up to close scrutiny as a relevant basis for discrimination’, ibid., p. 33.

¹⁵ ‘[A]ll human tasks’, he says, ‘are a common obligation and are common for men and women, and none is necessarily appointed for either one exclusively.’, ibid., p. 33.

¹⁶ Hove, ‘Equality in Christ? Galatians 3:28 and the Gender Dispute’, p. 91 (1999).

¹⁷ ‘Jewish women in Rome were active participants in the religious life of their communities, both at home and in the public religious life of the synagogue.', Kraemer, 'Jewish Women in Rome and Egypt', in Juschka, ‘Feminism in the study of religion: a reader’, p. 227 (2001).

¹⁸ 'Other women more clearly singled out for their roles as leaders in the synagogues, include Sara Oura, called presbutis, or elder... Gaudentia is called hierisa, the feminine equivalent of the Greek word for priest.', ibid., p. 227.

¹⁹ ‘The women called πρεσbύτερa appear to have been members of a synagogue council of elders.27’, Crawford, ‘Mothers, Sisters, and Elders: Titles for Women in Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian Communities’, The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001, p.184 (2003).

²⁰ 'Bernadette J. Brooten argues that ’the inscriptional evidence for Jewish women leaders means that one cannot declare it to be a departure from Judaism that early Christian women held leadership positions.’’, Hove, ‘Equality in Christ? Galatians 3:28 and the Gender Dispute’, p. 92 (1999).

²¹ ‘the Essenes and the Therapeutai show evidence of influence by Hellenistic utopian thinking (including the egalitarian aspects of such thought)’, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion (23.2), p. 46 (2007).

²² Evans, ‘Ancient texts for New Testament studies: a guide to the background literature’, p. 86 (2005).

²³ ‘No barriers can be placed around the women Therapeutae that would exclude them from any functions in the community.’, Taylor, ‘The Women “Priests” of Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa; Reconstructing the Therapeutae‘, in ‘On the Cutting Edge: The Study of Women in Biblical Worlds: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza’, p.118 (2003).

²⁴ ‘the division of labor between elders and juniors is emphatically not along gender lines’, ‘membership of this community was gender-inclusive, since women participated as both seniors and (implicitly) juniors’, Taylor & Davis, ‘The So-Called Therapeutae of "De Vita Contemplativa": Identity and Character’, The Harvard Theological Review (91.1), pp. 23, 24 (1998).

[Handout - Does the New Testament Make Any Gendered Distinctions in Authority or Role?]

New Testament texts affirming gendered distinctions in authority:

 

• 1 Corinthians 11:3: ‘the man is the head of a woman’^{18 19 20 21}
  
• 1 Corinthians 14:34: ‘Rather, let them [the women] be in submission, as in fact the law says. If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home’^{22 23}
  
• Ephesians 5:22-24: ‘Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.’^{24 25 26}
  
• Colossians 3:18: ‘Wives, submit to your husbands’^{27 28}
  
• 1 Timothy 2:12: ‘But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.’^{29 30}
  
• Titus 2:5: ‘being subject to their own husbands’^{31 32}
  
• 1 Peter 3:1: ‘In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands.’^{33 34}
  

(Jonathan Burke, 2010)

-------

¹⁸ ‘What does κεφαλή ‘head’ imply? 1. It implies a hierarchical meaning of authority of one over another [AB, Alf, BAGD, Ed, EGT, Gdt, Herm, Ho, ICC, Lns, MNTC, My, NIC, NTC, TG, TNTC, Vn]:’, Trail, ‘An Exegetical Summary of 1 Corinthians 10-16’, p. 58 (2^nd ed. 2008); the 17 references cited show agreement from a range of standard Bible commentaries and lexicons.

¹⁹ ‘Even if by “head” Paul means “more prominent/preeminent partner” or “one through whom the other exists,” his language and the flow of the argument seem to reflect an assumed hierarchy through which glory and shame flow upward from those with lower status to those above them (see Thiselton 2000: 812–22; Watson 2000: 43–44n3; Loader 2004: 100).’, Beale & Carson, ‘Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament’, p. 731 (2007).

²⁰ ‘(Some interpreters have tried to explain away the hierarchical implications of v.3 by arguing that kephalē means "source" rather than "ruler." This is a possible meaning of the word, and it fits nicely with v. 8, in which Paul alludes to the Genesis story that describes the creation of woman out of man; however, in view of the whole shape of the argument, the patriarchal implications of v. 3 are undeniable. Even if Paul is thinking here primarily of man as the source of women rather than authority over woman, this still serves as the warrant for a claim about his ontological preeminence over her, as vv. 7-9 show.)', Hays (egalitarian), ‘First Corinthians’, Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, p. 184 (1997).

²¹ ‘But Paul reinforces the convention with the claim that the husband is the woman’s head, which in 1 Cor. 11 is based in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve. ‘Head’ means master (see on 1:22); contrary to widespread claims, the word never meant ‘source’ in biblical Greek.’ , Carson et al, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21st century edition’ (4^th rev. ed. 1994).

²² ‘The New Testament also instructs women to be silent and not to raise questions within congregational gatherings.19 Should they have any questions, they are to ask their husbands at home. In short, women are to be silent, and the text assumes a gender perspective: the male/husband is the repository of biblical knowledge.’, Webb (egalitarian), ‘A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic; The Slavery Analogy’, in Pierce & Groothius (eds.), ‘Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy’, p. 396 (2^nd ed. 2005).

²³ ‘Three points need to be noted in seeking to understand the passage, (i) Wives prayed and prophesied in Christian gatherings (see 11:5). This was a common practice in all the apostolic churches (33b). The context is crucial viz. the evaluation of prophecy (v 35). (ii) The law requires the acknowledgement of the distinctive roles of men and women (34), a reference to Gn. 2:20–24 or 3:16. Paul has already cited the former in 11:8–9. (iii) The wife is to seek the elucidation of points at home, which could well mean that it is her husband who has given the prophecy (35).’ , Carson et al, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21^st century edition’ (4^th rev. ed. 1994).

²⁴ ‘Women, children, and slaves are instructed to be submissive, the husbands, fathers, and masters are urged to be loving and just in their actions towards those under their care.’, Horrell (egalitarian), ‘Leadership Patterns and the Development of Ideology in Early Christianity’, Sociology of Religion, p. 334 (58.4.97).

²⁵ 'The irony of the household code is that, whereas the early chapters of Ephesians describe a new kind of equality, through Christ, of Jew and Gentile and the breaking down of the dividing walls, these exhortations are clearly not about equals but about hierarchy; they do not break down dividing walls, but rather establish them and teach one to live within hierarchical bounds in the name of Christian unity.', Tanzer (egalitarian), 'Eph 5:22-33 Wives (and Husbands) Exhorted', in Meyers, Craven, & Kraemer, 'Women in Scripture: a dictionary of named and unnamed women in the Hebrew Bible, the apocrhyphal/deuterocanonical books, and the New Testament', p. 482 (2001).

²⁶ ‘The call for the wife to obey her husband (and that is roughly what the verb ‘submit’ means in this context; cf. 1 Pet. 3:5–6) was virtually a universal convention of Paul’s world.’ , Carson et al, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21^st century edition’ (4^th rev. ed. 1994).

²⁷ ‘The submission of wives to husbands. In Paul’s “household codes” he instructs women to “submit to” their husbands (Eph 5:22; Col 3:18). Some Christian interpreters water down the idea of submission in an attempt to make it more palatable today.’, Webb (egalitarian), ‘A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic; The Slavery Analogy’, in Pierce & Groothius (eds.), ‘Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy’, p. 397 (2nd ed. 2005).

²⁸ ‘The wives, as free and responsible agents, are asked voluntarily to submit themselves to their husbands since this is entirely proper (fitting has a Stoic ring to it but the motivation is entirely Christian).’, Carson et al, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21^st century edition’ (4^th rev. ed. 1994).

²⁹ The corollary of these requirements is the instructions in the Pastorals that women and slaves must be submissive and appropriately obedient. Women are forbidden to teach or be in authority over men; they must learn in silent submission (1 Tim 2: 11-15).’, Fee (egalitarian), ‘1 and 2 Timothy, Titus’, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 335(1988).

³⁰ ‘But then, third, Paul goes further and states that he does not allow a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over a man.’, Marshall (egalitarian), ‘Women in Ministry’, in Husbands & Larsen,’Women, ministry and the Gospel: Exploring new paradigms’, p. 59 (2007).

³¹ ‘Finally, he urges that they also be subject to their husbands cf. 1 Tim. 2:11; Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:21–23; 1 Pet. 3:1).’, Fee (egalitarian), ‘New International Biblical commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus’, p. 188 (1988).

³² ‘As elsewhere Paul assumes that the Christian wife should be submissive to her husband.’, Carson et al, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21^st century edition’ (4^th rev. ed. 1994)

³³ ‘What relationship is indicated by ὁμοίως ‘likewise’? 1. It refers back to the general theme of submission began in 2:13 [Alf, BNTC, IVP, NCBC, NIC, NTC, Sel, TNTC]. 2. It indicates a comparison with the command for slaves to submit to their masters in 2:18 [iCC, TG, TNTC]. The comparison of a wife’s submission to a slave’s submission is not extended in every way that the slave would be subject to a master, but is similar in terms of doing it reverently for the Lord’s sake, whether the husband is bad or good [TNTC].’, Abernathy, ‘An Exegetical Summary of 1 Peter’, p. 110 (2^nd ed. 2008).

³⁴ ‘The sense of the verse then would be that since Christians are expected to “be submissive,” it is likewise expected that wives should submit to their husbands.’, Arichea (egalitarian), & Nida, ‘A Handbook on the first letter from Peter’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 88 (1994).

 

Handout_distinctions.pdf

[Handout - Does the New Testament Make Any Gendered Distinctions in Authority or Role?]

Does the New Testament Make Any Gendered Distinctions in Authority or Role?

 

GENDERED DISTINCTIONS

 

The following are texts widely agreed on by both egalitarian and complementarian scholars as either denying or affirming gendered distinctions in role or authority.¹

 

New Testament texts affirming gendered distinctions in role:

• 1 Corinthians 11:4-5: ‘Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head’^{2 3 4 5 6 7}
  
• 1 Corinthians 14:33, 34: ‘the women should be silent in the churches… it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church’⁸
  
• 1 Timothy 2:11: ‘A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness.’⁹
  
• 1 Timothy 2:12: ‘But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.’^{10 11 12}
  
• 1 Timothy 3:2, 4: ‘The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife… He must manage his own household well’^{13 14 15 16 17}
  

 

 

-------

¹ Texts which are only recognized as such by complementarians on the one hand or egalitarians on the other are not listed, such as Galatians 3:28, since although there are egalitarians who believe it denies gendered distinctions in role there are many egalitarians who agree with complementarians that it does not make any such denial; likewise 1 Timothy 3:11 is omitted, since although there are complementarians who believe it affirms gendered distinctions in role, there are many complementarians who agree with egalitarians that it does not

² 'In the absence of any indicators to the contrary, it is preferable to understand Paul's directives here as applying to everyone in the community, married or unmarried: women should have covered heads in worship; men should not.', Hays (egalitarian), ‘First Corinthians’, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, p. 185 (1997).

³ ‘He did not forbid the Corinthian women to prophesy, but he demanded that they cover their heads when they prayed in public, and in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 he added a statement — "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" — that uses Genesis, a sacred text, to define women as subordinate to men.’, Murphy (egalitarian), ‘The Word According to Eve: Women and the Bible in Ancient Times and Our Own’, p. 225 (1999).

⁴ 'Yet there also he insists on distinct headdress for men and women in worship, which symbolized traditional gender boundaries and had hierarchical implications.', Gundry-Volf (egalitarian), ‘Putting the Moral Vision of the New Testament into Focus: A Review’, Bulletin for Biblical Research (9.278), (1999).

⁵ ‘Sexual distinctions are not erased (as implied in Paul's statements about marriage, sex, and gender-specific headdress).', ibid., p. 281.

⁶ ‘It is broadly conceded within the contemporary church that Paul’s urging women to have some sort of head covering in worship (1 Cor 11) reflects a cultural component of life in Corinth.’, Webb (egalitarian), ‘A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic; The Slavery Analogy’, in Pierce & Groothius (eds.), ‘Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy’, p. 396 (2nd ed. 2005).

⁷ ‘While affirming the delicate interdependence of man and woman under God (vv. 11–12), Paul also upholds the distinctiveness of the two sexes by reasoning from the relational dynamics within the Godhead (v. 3) and from human origins (vv. 7b–9; cf. Gen. 2:18–25). For a woman, therefore, to venture into male behaviour violates the transcendent ordering of relationships.’, Ortlund, ‘Man and Woman’, in Alexander & Rosner, ‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ (electronic ed. 2001).

⁸ ‘Later, in 1 Corinthians 14, he employed a reprise of the same argument to single out women and insist that they should keep silent in church.', Murphy (egalitarian), ‘The Word According to Eve: Women and the Bible in Ancient Times and Our Own’, p. 225 (1999).

⁹ ‘A woman is to learn in quietness and full submission.’, Fee (egalitarian), ‘1 and 2 Timothy, Titus’, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 72 (1988).

¹⁰ The corollary of these requirements is the instructions in the Pastorals that women and slaves must be submissive and appropriately obedient. Women are forbidden to teach or be in authority over men; they must learn in silent submission (1 Tim 2: 11-15).’, ibid., p. 335.

¹¹ ‘But then, third, Paul goes further and states that he does not allow a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over a man.’, Marshall (egalitarian), ‘Women in Ministry’, in Husbands & Larsen,’Women, ministry and the Gospel: Exploring new paradigms’, p. 59 (2007).

¹² ‘Moreover, a woman is to ‘learn in silence with full submission’ (v. 11). Then Paul explains more fully what this silence with full submission entails: ‘I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man’ (v. 12).’, Ortlund, ‘Man and Woman’, in Alexander & Rosner, ‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ (electronic ed. 2001).

¹³ ‘The domestic assumptions of the code, which may respond to a heretical tendency (4:3), present the overseer as a husband and father.’, Towner (egalitarian), ‘The Letters to Timothy and Titus’, New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 251 (2006).

¹⁴ ‘The first specific characteristic in the 1 Timothy list is μιᾶς γυνaικὸς ἄνδρa, literally “a man of one woman,” or “a husband of one wife.”’, Knight (complementarian), ‘The Pastoral Epistles: A commentary on the Greek text’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 157 (1992).

¹⁵ ‘In languages where rhetorical questions are not normally used in this way, this rhetorical question will need to be changed into a statement, as for example “A man who does not know how to manage his own family will surely not know how to take care of the church of God.”’, Arichea (egalitarian), & Hatton, ‘A handbook on Paul's letters to Timothy and to Titus’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 69 (1995).

¹⁶ ‘The man who is a failure at one (family) is thereby disqualified for the other (church).’, Fee (egalitarian), ‘New International Biblical commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus’, p. 82 (1988).

¹⁷ ‘…he seeks to ensure that positions of leadership are filled by those of an appropriate social standing – male heads of households.’, Horrell (egalitarian), ‘Leadership Patterns and the Development of Ideology in Early Christianity’, Sociology of Religion, p. 331 (58.4.97).

[Handout - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Disorderly or Chattering Women?]

The typical argument (that the Greek word for ‘speak’ here is a word which actually means ‘chatter’), is rejected by lexical and textual commentators.^{7 8}

 

Egalitarian Marion Soards likewise rejects it:

 

‘Some suggest that he opposes only idle chatter or gossip. However, the verb to speak (Gk. lalein) is not, as some commentators suggest, equivalent with “to chatter.” The verb does not name an activity that is distinct from other sensible speech or prayer or prophecy. Through the rest of chapter 14 “to speak” clearly and consistently refers to inspired speech (see vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 39). The vocabulary employed in these verses does not distinguish this reference from all other mentions of speaking in this and other chapters.’⁹

 

Egalitarian Gordon Fee also rejects the claim that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a prohibition only on one kind of speech, such as disorderly speaking:

 

'The first reason for the rule comes in the form of a prohibition: "They are not permitted to speak." What kind of speaking is intended depends on one's view, both of authorship and, if authentic, of its place in the present argument. The only internal suggestion is that of v. 35, that they should ask questions at home if they wish to learn.

 

If authentic, this unqualified use of the verb seems to tell against the probability that only a single form of speech is prohibited.

 

Elsewhere Paul has said "speak in tongues" when that is in view, and when he means "discern" he says "discern," not "speak".

 

Again, as with the opening "rule," the plain sense of the sentence is an absolute prohibition of all speaking in the assembly.'¹⁰

 

The fanciful idea that men and women were separated in 1^st century synagogues¹¹ has long been refuted by archaeological evidence demonstrating that no such seating arrangements were made:

 

‘Nor did we find any evidence of a women’s gallery. By now it is widely accepted among scholars that synagogues from the early centuries of the Common Era did not have a separate women’s section.’¹²

 

Egalitarian Craig Keener is one of a number of egalitarians who points this out:

 

‘Others have suggested that the church services were segregated by gender like the synagogues, thus rendering any communication between the sexes disruptive; but this view is refuted both by the architecture of synagogues in this period (Brooten) and that of homes like that in which the Corinthian church met.’¹³

 

(Jonathan Burke, 2010)

-------

⁷ It is worth noting that Ian and Averil do not appeal to the definition of this word in support of the argument; nevertheless, they still reach the same conclusion (though they do not explain exactly how, nor do they provide any lexical or historical evidence for their view).

⁸ ‘The widespread notion that whereas 11:2–16 speaks of prophetic speech, the use of λαλεῖν refers to chatter in these verses ignores first-century lexicographical evidence and the context of discussion in 14:27–40. Deluz writes: “Paul, then, is not forbidding women to undertake ‘ministry of the word’; he is forbidding them to indulge in feminine chatter which was becoming a considerable nuisance.”384 Moffatt asserts, “Keep quiet means even more than a prohibition of chattering. Worship is not to be turned into discussion groups.…”385 This view seems to have gained currency from Heinrici, who, together with Héring, cannot imagine Paul’s silencing “inspired” or “liturgical” speech, but can see him as calling to order “ordinary members of the congregation.”386 C. and R. Kroeger argue that Paul forbids either “chatter” or, at the other end of the spectrum, “frenzied shouting.”387 C. K. Barrett, however, soundly dismisses the faulty lexicography to which such interpretations of λαλεῖν often appeal. The meaning to chatter does occur in classical Greek of the earlier centuries, “but in the NT and in Paul the verb normally does not have this meaning, and it is used throughout chapter 14 (vv. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 39) in the sense of inspired speech.”388 Fiorenza’s argument that 11:2–16 refers to women as such, but 14:33b–36 refers only to married women is also possible (especially since γυναῖκες may mean married women, or wives, as well as women) but remains speculative and not perhaps the most obvious explanation if no contradiction between 11:2–16 and 14:33b–36 arises from a contextual exegesis.389’, Thiselton (complementarian), ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek text’, p. 1157 (2000).

⁹ Soards, ‘1 Corinthians’, New International Bible Commentary, pp. 305-306 (1999).

¹⁰ Fee (egalitarian), 'The First Epistle to the Corinthians', pp. 706-707 (1987).

¹¹ ‘The comment “as even the law says” would fit well with the possibility that former members of the synagogue wish to return to the type of meeting where only the men speak, where women sit apart from the men, and where any learning by the women would be at home.’, ‘All One’, p. 66 (March 2009)

¹² Weiss, ‘The Sepphoris Synagogue Mosaic’, Biblical Archaeology Review (26.05), (2000).

¹³ Keener, ‘Man and Woman’, in Hawthorne, Martin, & Reid, ‘Dictionary of Paul and his letters’, p. 590 (1993).

 

Handout_disruptive.pdf

[Handout - 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Disorderly or Chattering Women?]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Disorderly or Chattering Women?

 

THE CLAIM

 

‘Thirdly he enjoins silence (sigan, the same verb) on “the women” – not on those who are speaking acceptably as outlined above (one at a time) but on the women whose speaking is adding to the confused uproar which Paul is trying to stop. There are three clues to the fact that it is disorderly speaking to which Paul refers: “... they... should be subordinate, as even the law says” (verse 34); “If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home”; “... it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”’¹

 

‘Perhaps they were taking part in weighing up what the prophets said (verse 29) but in a disruptive and arrogant manner.’²

 

‘The women are not to call out questions or to chatter to one another during the meeting. The suggestion here is that some women were disrupting the meeting by calling out to their husbands with questions or by talking to each other. Hence “If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.”’³

 

‘We suggest in this book that similarly we should all decide by context that it should only be taken as a ban on disorderly speaking.’⁴

 

THE FACTS

 

Ian and Averil do not inform readers that this suggestion is rejected strongly even by some egalitarian scholars:

 

'The most commonly held view is that which sees the problem as some form of disruptive speech.9 Support is found in v. 35, that if the women wish to team anything, they should ask their own husbands at home.

 

Various scenarios are proposed: that the setting was something like the Jewish synagogue, with women on one side and men on the other and the women shouting out disruptive questions about what was being said in a prophecy or tongue; or that they were asking questions of men other than their own husbands; or that they were simply "chattering"10 so loudly that it had a disruptive effect.

 

The biggest difficulty with this view is that it assumes a "church service" of a more "orderly" sort than the rest of this argument presupposes.

 

If the basic problem is with their "all speaking in tongues" in some way one may assume on the basis of 11:5 that this also included the women; furthermore, in such disarray how can mere "chatter" have a disruptive effect?

 

The suggestion that the early house churches assumed a synagogue practice is pure speculation; it seems remote at best.'⁵

 

Egalitarian Richard Hays likewise rejects it:

 

'First, some interpreters have proposed that Paul is not really prohibiting women from praying and prophesying in the assembly. Rather, he is addressing a specific local problem at Corinth and restricting certain kinds of disruptive speech, such as chattering and asking questions (v. 35a).

 

(A variant on this explanation is Ben Witherington's suggestion that the women thought of Christian prophets on the analogy of the Delphic Oracle, which prophesied in response to particular questions about the personal life of the seeker [Witherington, 287].)

 

The difficulty with this explanation is that it fails to reckon with the categorical declaration that it is "shameful" for women to speak in church at all (v. 35b) and with the clear statement that this rule is for "the churches" at large, not just for a particular problem at Corinth.’⁶

 

-------

¹ ‘All One’, p. 63 (March 2009).

² Ibid., p. 63.

³ Ibid., p. 68.

⁴ Ibid., p. 71.

⁵ Fee (egalitarian), 'The First Epistle to the Corinthians', p. 703 (1987).

⁶ Hays, ‘First Corinthians’, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, p. 247 (1997).

[Handout - Does adelphoi Ever Refer to Brothers in Christ Not Brothers & Sisters in Christ?]

• Acts 6:3: ‘from among you, brothers’⁷
  
• Acts 7:2: ‘Brothers and fathers’
  
• Acts 7:37: ‘from among your brothers’
  
• Acts 9:30: ‘the brothers found out’
  
• Acts 10:23: ‘some of the brothers’
  
• Acts 11:1: ‘the brothers’
  
• Acts 11:12: ‘These six brothers’
  
• Acts 11:29: ‘the brothers living in Judea’
  
• Acts 12:17: ‘James and the brothers’
  
• Acts 13:15, 26: ‘Brothers’
  
• Acts 13:28: ‘brothers’
  
• Acts 14:2: ‘the brothers’
  
• Acts 15:1, 3: ‘the brothers’
  
• Acts 15:7: ‘Brothers’
  
• Acts 15:22: ‘leaders among the brothers’
  
• Acts 15:32, 36: ‘the brothers’
  
• Acts 15:36: ‘the brothers in every town’
  
• Acts 16:2, 40: ‘The brothers’
  
• Acts 17:6, 10, 14: ‘the brothers’
  
• Acts 18:18, 27: ‘the brothers’
  
• Acts 21:7, 17: ‘the brothers’
  
• Acts 22:1: ‘Brothers and fathers’
  
• Acts 22:5: ‘the brothers’
  
• Acts 23:1: ‘Brothers’
  
• Acts 23:5: ‘brothers’
  
• Acts 23:6: ‘Brothers’
  
• Acts 28:14: ‘brothers’
  
• Acts 28:15: ‘The brothers’
  
• Acts 28:17: ‘Brothers’
  
• Acts 28:21: ‘the brothers’
  

 

PAUL’S USE OF adelphoi

 

Many times in Paul's letters the reference is to brothers and sisters, as determined from the context (typically a greeting or farewell which is addressed explicitly to a congregation).

 

But Paul also uses the word adelphoi (nominative masculine plural), and its declensions adelphous (accusative masculine plural), or pseudadelphois, 'false brothers' (dative masculine plural), to refer specifically to 'brothers in Christ' as opposed to 'brothers and sisters in Christ' in the following places:

 

• 2 Corinthians 8:23: adelphoi, referring to the messengers of the ecclesia, the context indicating that this refers to three men. One is 'Titus' (verse 16), one is 'the brother who is praised by all the ecclesias (verse 18), also referred to as 'this brother '(verse 19), and the third is 'our brother' whom 'we are sending with them (verse 22)
   
  
• 2 Corinthians 9:3: adelphous, referring to the same messengers of the ecclesia already identified in the previous chapter as three men (see above)
   
  
• 2 Corinthians 9:5: adelphous, referring to the same messengers of the ecclesia as verse 3
   
  
• 2 Corinthians 11:9: adelphoi, referring to the 'brothers’ from Macedonia
   
  
• 2 Corinthians 11:26: pseudadelphois, referring to ‘false brothers’ in Paul's list of dangers he has encountered
   
  
• Galatians 1:2: adelphoi, referring to the brothers who are with Paul at the time of his writing the epistle
   
  
• Galatians 2:4: pseudadelphous, referring to ‘false brothers’ who were brought in secretly to spy on Paul
   
  
• Philippians 4:21: adelphoi, referring to the brothers who are with Paul at the time of his writing the epistle
   
  
• 1 Timothy 5:1: adelphous, referring to 'the younger men'
   
  
• 1 Timothy 6:2: adelphoi, referring to Christian masters
   
  
• Hebrews 2:12: adelphous, quoting Psalm 22:22 which refers to males
  

The New English Translation (a standard modern translation which is inclusive of non-gendered terms), translates adelphoi as 'brothers' in each of the verses cited above, even though the NET also recognizes that adelphoi can mean 'brothers and sisters’ and translates it as such overwhelmingly in Paul's letters.

 

(Jonathan Burke, 2009)

-------

⁷ The footnote reads ‘It is not clear from a historical standpoint (but it is unlikely) that women would have been involved in the selection process too. For this reason the translation “brothers” has been retained, rather than “brothers and sisters” (used in contexts where both male and female believers are clearly addressed).’, The NET Bible First Edition, footnote on Acts 6:3 (Biblical Studies Press, 2006).

 

Handout_adelphoi.pdf

[Handout - Does adelphoi Ever Refer to Brothers in Christ Not Brothers & Sisters in Christ?]

Does adelphoi Ever Refer to Brothers in Christ Not Brothers & Sisters in Christ?

 

THE CLAIM

 

‘Show where and why, when Paul uses the term “adelphoi” (“brothers”), he means “Brothers in Christ” not “Brothers and sisters in Christ”.’¹

 

THE FACTS

 

The primary meaning of adelphos is 'brothers' as a reference to males who are the sons of one mother. A secondary meaning is 'brothers'

as males who share a non-literal 'brotherhood' on a legal, tribal, spiritual, or other figurative basis, or a male who is being referred to with affection (perhaps with a suggestion of filial intimacy), as used in the apocryphal work Tobit 10:12.² This usage is established by context.

 

The broader use of the term as a referent to 'brothers and sisters' on a legal, tribal, spiritual, or other figurative basis is likewise established by context. When the word adelphoi appears in a text, the natural reading is 'brothers' as a reference to males unless the context indicates otherwise, and for this reason it is typically translated 'brothers'.

 

For example, the word adelphoi in the following phrases is typically not translated 'brothers and sisters':³

• 'Jeconiah and his brothers', Matthew 1:11
  
• 'Judah and his brothers', Matthew 1:21
  
• 'Jesus' mother and his brothers' and 'his brothers', Mark 3:31-2
  
• 'five brothers', Luke 16:28
  
• 'his mother and his brothers', John 2:12
  
• 'Jesus' brothers', John 7:3
  
• 'his own brothers', John 7:5
  
• 'his brothers', John 7:10
  
• 'his brothers', Acts 1:14
  
• 'the Lord's brothers', 1 Corinthians 9:5
  

It is significant that the passages using adelphoi to refer to Christ's siblings are not typically translated as a reference to his brothers and sisters, even though in none of these cases is there any qualification in the verse indicating explicitly that the adelphoi here are males, and even though we know full well that Jesus had sisters (Mark 6:3).

 

It is also significant that adelphoi is not translated as 'brothers and sisters' in 1 Corinthians 9:5, despite the fact that the context is a letter to the congregation of brothers and sisters. Even though the letter was written to the Corinthian congregation, this part of the letter is understood as only referring to Christ’s literal brothers. That a letter is addressed to the entire congregation does not necessarily mean that adelphoi must be translated 'brothers and sisters' throughout.

 

No qualification is necessary, since 'brothers' (as a reference to males), is the primary meaning of the word. Qualification is necessary where a secondary or tertiary meaning is intended, not a primary meaning.

 

THE USE OF adelphoi IN ACTS

 

It should be understood that this usage of adelphoi as a specific reference to ‘brothers in Christ’ and not ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’ is not unusual in the New Testament. It is used many times in Acts with this meaning, including in direct address:⁴

• Acts 1:16: ‘Brothers’⁵
  
• Acts 2:29: ‘Brothers’⁶
  
• Acts 2:37: ‘What should we do, brothers’
  

-------

¹ ‘Reply 1’, p. 70 (February 2008).

² Though an uninspired work, it still shows how the word was used and understood in common speech.

³ The NET Bible First Edition (Biblical Studies Press, 2006).

⁴ The NET Bible First Edition (Biblical Studies Press, 2006).

⁵ The footnote reads ‘In light of the compound phrase ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί (andre" adelfoi, “Men brothers”) Peter’s words are best understood as directly addressed to the males present, possibly referring specifically to the twelve (really ten at this point – eleven minus the speaker, Peter) mentioned by name in v. 13.’, The NET Bible First Edition, footnote on Acts 1:16 (Biblical Studies Press, 2006).

⁶ The footnote reads ‘Since this represents a continuation of the address beginning in v.14 and continued in v. 22, “brothers” has been used here rather than a generic expression like “brothers and sisters.”’, The NET Bible First Edition, footnote on Acts 2:29 (Biblical Studies Press, 2006).

[Handout - Paul’s Consistent Teaching on Sisters]

Teaching supported from other passages of Scripture ⁸

 

 

• 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, ‘For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for man.’
  
• 1 Corinthians 14:34, ‘Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.’
  
• 1 Timothy 2:13-14, ‘For Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.’
  
• 1 Peter 3:5-6, ‘For in the same way the holy women who hoped in God long ago adorned themselves by being subject to their husbands, like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so.’
  

From the relevant socio-historical background, we know that private associations were free to decide on their own codes of conduct even if these breached social norms, and that 1st century Christian women (whether Jews or Gentiles), would have had reasonable expectations of participating in the congregational worship as a result of their previous religious experiences. This being the case, Paul would have been aware of how his commandments concerning women sounded, and accordingly sought to soften the message.⁹ Egalitarian scholars have noted this particular feature of Paul's commandments, in the seven passages in which he gives commandments concerning the relationship of men and women in the ecclesia and the family using a formulated style.

 

‘In 11:11–12, however, he backtracks lest the Corinthians become confused and think that he implies that women are inferior to men. He is not attempting to establish a gender hierarchy that places women in a subordinate role. Since he argues from hierarchy to make his case about head coverings, he needs to caution against any misapplication of what he says. Women and men are interdependent in the Lord.’¹⁰

 

Walker provides a detailed analysis of these passages using the following formula.¹¹

 

‘a. General Statement, Assertion, or Command (vv 8–12) I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

 

b. Reason or Justification (vv 13–14) For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

 

c. Mitigation, Softening of the Blow, or Saving Phrase (v 15) Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."¹²

 

(Jonathan Burke, 2010)

-------

⁸ ‘The second point to be considered is that at least four of the passages in question appeal to the OT, and particularly to the book of Genesis, to support their views regarding women. 1 Cor 11:7–9 cites the creation of Adam and Eve, 1 Tim 2:13–14 the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve, 1 Pet 3:6 the story of Sarah and Abraham, and 1 Cor 14:34 simply “the law.”11 This, too, suggests a common origin or source, or at least a common tradition, underlying the various passages in question.’ , ibid., pp. 104-105.

⁹ ‘a “mitigation,” “softening of the blow,” or “saving phrase” to make the statement, assertion, or command less offensive to women.’, ibid., p. 106.

¹⁰ Garland (egalitarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 508-509 (2003)

¹¹ ‘In some passages, the pattern becomes more complex, and, at times, it is not clear whether element “c” is present at all. Thus, the pattern of 1 Pet 3:1–6 is ‘a’ (v 1a), ‘b’ (vv 1b–2), ‘a’ (vv 3–4a), ‘b’ (vv 4b–6a), with v 6b either a continuation of ‘b’ or perhaps a very subtle form of ‘c.’ The pattern of 1 Cor 14:34–35 is ‘a’ (v 34a), ‘b’ (v 34b), ‘a’ (v 34c), ‘b’ (v 34d), ‘a’ or possibly a subtle form of ‘c’ (v 35a),16 ‘b’ (v 35b). In Titus 2:4–5, the pattern is a simple ‘a’ (vv 4–5a), ‘b’ (v 5b), with ‘c’ absent altogether. Three of the passages introduce a somewhat modified form of element ‘c’ with a command to husbands that they love their wives. Thus, Col 3:18–19 follows the simple pattern, ‘a’ (v 18a), ‘b’ (v 18b), ‘c’ (v 19), while Eph 5:22–33 has the more complex pattern, ‘a’ (v 22), ‘b’ (v 23), ‘a’ (v 24), ‘c’ (vv 25–33a), ‘a’ (v 33b); and 1 Pet 3:1–7 has the pattern, ‘a’ (v 1a), ‘b’ (vv 1b–2), ‘a’ (vv 3–4a), ‘b’ (vv 4b–6 or perhaps 4b–6a with 6b a very very subtle form of ‘c’), ‘c’ (v 7). The analysis of 1 Cor 11:3–16 is again complicated by the question of the unity of the passage.17 If it is a single unit, then the pattern is apparently ‘a’ (vv 3–6), ‘b’ (vv 7–10), ‘c’ (vv 11–12), ‘b’ (vv 13–16), although the distinctions are not as clear here as they are elsewhere. If, however, the passage is divided into three pericopes, as has been suggested, then the following patterns emerge: “Pericope A” follows the pattern, ‘a’ (v 3), ‘b’ (vv 8–9), ‘c’ (vv 11–12); “Pericope B” the pattern, ‘a’ (vv 4–6), ‘b’ (vv 7,10,13,16), with no ‘c’; and “Pericope C” consists almost entirely of element ‘b,’ with ‘a’ only implied and ‘c’ absent altogether.18’, ibid., p. 107.

¹² Walker, (egalitarian) ‘The “Theology of Woman’s Place” And the “Paulinist” Tradition’, Semeia (28.107), (1983).

 

Handout_consistent.pdf

[Handout - Paul’s Consistent Teaching on Sisters]

Paul’s Consistent Teaching on Sisters

 

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

 

‘We would suggest there are indicators in the text itself, contextual markers, that are not there by accident but to guide us toward an objective meaning. An objective meaning is thus mediated by the text itself. The text’s indicators limit the possibilities so that the number of meanings available to the reader is not infinite.’¹

 

CONSISTENT TEACHING

 

Using specific rules of interpretation,² seven passages have been identified as containing explicit teaching on the subject of the roles and relationship with men, of women in the ecclesia and the family. These passages are widely accepted among complementarians, egalitarians, and unaligned commentators as passages containing such explicit teaching, and all seven passages share a common theme.^{3 4} Specific content is found repeated consistently within these passages.⁵ This is not a matter of one or two verses, nor an isolated text of Scripture.⁶

 

Headship

 

• 1 Corinthians 11:3, ‘the man is the head of a woman’
  
• Ephesians 5:23, ‘the husband is the head of the wife
  

Submission

 

• 1 Corinthians 14:34: ‘let them be in submission’
  
• Ephesians 5:22: ‘Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord’⁷
  
• Colossians 3:18: ‘Wives, submit to your husbands’
  
• 1 Timothy 211: ‘A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness’
  
• Titus 2:5: ‘being subject to their own husbands’
  
• 1 Peter 3:1, ‘wives, be subject to your own husbands.’
  

Silence & quietness

 

• 1 Corinthians 14:3: ‘women should be silent in the churches’
  
• Ephesians 5:24: ‘wives should submit to their husbands in everything’
  
• 1 Timothy 2:12: ‘She must remain quiet’
  

Not permitted

 

• 1 Corinthians 14:34: ‘they are not permitted to speak’
  
• 1 Corinthians 14:35: ‘it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church’
  
• 1 Timothy 2:12: ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man’
  

-------

¹ Dockery, ‘Biblical interpretation then and now: Contemporary hermeneutics in the light of the early church’, p. (1992)

²‘We consider the methods printed by Dr Thomas and from your own website (see below) to be sound, and we reckon we have followed them.’, ‘Reply 1’, p. 64 (February 7, 2008)

³ Walker (egalitarian), ‘The “Theology of Woman’s Place” And the “Paulinist” Tradition’, Semeia (28.101), (1983).

⁴ ‘It is well known that certain passages in the New Testament deal with the status, role, attire, and/or general demeanor of women in such a manner as to support the principle of male dominance and female subordination, both in the home and in the church (and by implication in society as well). These passages are seven in number: 1 Cor 11:3–16; 1 Cor 14:34–35; Col 3:18–19; Eph 5:22–33; 1 Tim 2:8–15; Titus 2:4–5; and 1 Pet 3:1–7.1.’, ibid., p.106; Walker claims Paul did not write any of these passages.

⁵ ‘Even more striking, however, is the complete command that wives be “submissive to their (own) husbands,” which occurs with essentially the same wording in Col 3:18; Eph 5:21–22; Titus 2:5; and 1 Pet 3:1,5.9 Other parallels include references to “learning” (1 Cor 14:35; 1 Tim 2:11), “silence” or “silent” (1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:11,12; 1 Pet 3:4), “not permitting” (1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:12), “pure” or “holy” (Titus 2:5; 1 Pet 3:2), “adornment,” “adorned,” or “adorning” (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3,5), “clothing” (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3), “gold” (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3), “braided” or “braiding” (1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:3), “head” (1 Cor 11:3,4,5,7,10; Eph 5:23), and “disgrace” or “disgraceful” (1 Cor 11:4,5,6,14; 1 Cor 14:35).’, ibid., p. 104.

⁶ ‘This brief survey of 1 Corinthians has shown that there are not only two passages at issue when talking about the role and status of women in this letter (11:2–16; 14:34–35) but five (5:1–5; 7:1–40; 16:19; see also 1:11) or even six (15:5–8), and some references to women in other Pauline letters need to be included as well.’, Crocker (egalitarian), ’Reading 1 Corinthians in the twenty-first century’, p. 156 (2004); see also chapter one, ‘Identifying Key Texts’.

⁷ The verb ‘submit’ is not in the Greek text in this verse, but is implied and therefore supplied in standard modern translations (it appears in the Greek text in verse 24); Bruce (egalitarian), writes ‘No verb is expressed in v. 22, the imperative “be subject” (a participle in the Greek text) being understood from v. 21.’, ‘The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians’, New International Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 383-384 (1984), Kistemaker writes, ‘The verb is undoubtedly to be supplied from the preceding verse’, ‘Exposition of Ephesians’, Baker New Testament Commentary, volume 7, p. 247 (1990), Bratcher & Nida write, ‘In translation the verb must be supplied from the participle of “to submit” in the preceding verse.’, ‘A Handbook on Paul's letter to the Ephesians’, UBS Handbook series, p. 139 (1993), Boles writes ‘The word “submit” is drawn from v. 21’, ‘Galatians & Ephesians’, College Press NIV commentary (1993).

[Handout - How Paul Standardized Practices Throughout the Ecclesias]

• 1 Corinthians 14:33, ‘As in all the churches of the saints’: correction of the speaking of women in the congregation^{13 14 15 16 17}
   
  
• 1 Timothy 3:14-15, ‘I am writing these instructions to you in case I am delayed, to let you know how people ought to conduct themselves in the household of God’: directing Timothy to understand how all ecclesias should be organized, a summary of the purpose of this entire letter^{18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25}
  

Paul describes his corrections of local situations, in universal terms of the Scripturally 'right way' of doing things. He does not say that his corrections are temporary emergency measures applied merely to local circumstances.

 

Paul’s aim is to standardize practices throughout all the ecclesias. His response to local errors is to correct them by ensuring they conform to universal practices.^{26 27 28}

 

(Jonathan Burke, 2010)

-------

¹³ ‘33–36 deals with an aspect of the role of wives in the church. Some commentators get round the problem by stating that this section is a later addition and not by Paul. But every manuscript includes this passage. Three points need to be noted in seeking to understand the passage, (i) Wives prayed and prophesied in Christian gatherings (see 11:5). This was a common practice in all the apostolic churches (33b). The context is crucial viz. the evaluation of prophecy (v 35). (ii) The law requires the acknowledgement of the distinctive roles of men and women (34), a reference to Gn. 2:20–24 or 3:16. Paul has already cited the former in 11:8–9. (iii) The wife is to seek the elucidation of points at home, which could well mean that it is her husband who has given the prophecy (35). While there is no absolute certainty, the present writer takes the view that wives, in this public gathering, are not to engage in the public weighing of prophecy which involved the interrogation of its content.’, Carson, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21st century edition’ (4th rev. ed. 1994).

¹⁴ ‘The phrase does seem to fit less awkwardly with verse 34, so that one finds a reference to church custom and then an example of it in the mention of women’s silence.’, Soards (egalitarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 305 (1999).

¹⁵ ‘If As in all the congregations of the saints (cf. 4:17) goes with this verse, Paul is calling on the Corinthians to conform to accepted Christian practice.’, Morris, ‘1 Corinthians: An introduction and commentary’, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, volume 7, p. 192 (1985).

¹⁶ ‘However, the expression churches reflects nuances: the first occurrence (“As in all the churches of the saints”) alludes to churches in general and the second (“let the women keep silent in the churches”) to worship services. Conversely, verse 33b is not the only place in his epistles where Paul exhibits a lack of exemplary style. We assume that he is concerned not about elegance but rather about providing the churches with rules to bolster unity and harmony (compare 4:17; 7:17; 11:16)—concerns that he has emphasized throughout the epistle.’, Kistemaker, ‘Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians’, Baker New Testament Commentary, volume 18, p. 511 (1993).

¹⁷ ‘It seems preferable, then, to link 33b with 33a. In this case, verse 33b will form the conclusion, not only of verses 32–33a, but also of the whole paragraph, and should be translated as a separate sentence. One may say, for example, “This is what happens in all the churches of God’s people.”’, Ellingworth, Hatton, & Ellingworth, ‘A Handbook on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 324 (1995).

¹⁸ ‘With these two images, family and temple, Paul expresses the two urgencies of this letter: his concern over proper behavior among believers vis-à-vis the false teachers, and the church as the people entrusted to uphold and proclaim the truth of the gospel.’, Fee (egalitarian), ‘1 and 2 Timothy, Titus’, New International Biblical Commentary’, p. 92 (rev ed. 1988)

¹⁹ ‘Timothy must know how to supervise worship and the election of officers.’, Hendriksen, ‘Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles’, Baker New Testament Commentary, volume 4, p. 136 (1957).

²⁰ ‘These instructions is literally “these things,” which can be taken in a general sense as referring to the whole letter (as in TEV “as I write this letter”), or in a specific sense as referring to the instructions regarding the appointment of church leaders described in this chapter, which is what RSV seems to suggest. The first interpretation seems to be the more likely one and is recommended by this Handbook.’, Arichea (egalitarian), & Hatton, ‘A Handbook on Paul’s letters to Timothy and to Titus’, USB Handbook Series, p. 79 (1995).

²¹ Paul’s prior admonitions to Timothy, especially in 3:1–13, thus serve a function analogous to the household codes of many ancient writers: providing a specific framework of wisdom for administrating the family unit and society.’, Keener (egalitarian), ‘The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament’ (1993).

²² ‘ The ἵνα clause then introduces the reason for Paul’s writing: so that Timothy and the church may know what is proper conduct for God’s household—with the implicit understanding that such knowledge will result in that kind of conduct.’, Knight (complementarian), ‘The Pastoral Epistles’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 179 (1992).

²³ ‘In emphasizing how important it is that people conduct themselves properly in the household of God, Paul has already pointed out that the church is the house of God, understood as God’s temple and his household.’, Mounce (complementarian), ‘Pastoral Epistles’, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 46, p. 221 (2002).

²⁴ ‘Here Paul breaks off his direct instructions to describe the nature of the church, putting his teaching into perspective. It is highly likely that Paul had already given the gist of these instructions to Timothy, but he wrote them down so as to give Timothy support during his absence. The use of the household metaphor to describe the church echoes v 5 and explains why Paul is concerned that an official should govern his family well.’, Carson, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21^st century edition’ (4^th rev. ed. 1994).

²⁵ ‘Paul authorizes Timothy to instruct the Ephesian church on ‘how one ought to behave in the household of God’ (1 Tim. 3:15). Included in his instructions are guidelines for men and women in church (ch. 2). Men are to pray without anger or argument (v. 8), and women are to adorn themselves with good works rather than with extravagant dress (vv. 9–10). Moreover, a woman is to ‘learn in silence with full submission’ (v. 11). Then Paul explains more fully what this silence with full submission entails: ‘I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man’ (v. 12).’, Ortlund, ‘Man and Woman’, in Alexander & Rosner, ‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ (electronic ed. 2001).

²⁶ 1 Corinthians 11:

16 If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

²⁷ 1 Corinthians 14:

37 If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command.

38 If someone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

²⁸ 1 Corinthians 14:

34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.

 

Handout_correction.pdf

[Handout - How Paul Standardized Practices Throughout the Ecclesias]

How Paul Standardized Practices Throughout the Ecclesias

 

CORRECTING ERROR

 

When correcting errors, answering questions, or providing instructions, Paul consistently appeals to universal practice in order to ensure ecclesias become aligned with the practice which is mandatory for all ecclesias everywhere.¹

 

• 1 Corinthians 7:1, 17, ‘Now with regard to the issues you wrote about… I give this sort of direction in all the churches.’: answering questions from the ecclesia^{2 3 4 5}
   
  
• 1 Corinthians 11:16, ‘we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God’: correction of the Corinthian lack of head coverings^{6 7 8 9 10 11 12}

 

-------

¹ Some interpreters understand Paul’s instructions to be intended for their original Ephesian context only, for the correction of abuses specific to that church. The weakness of this view is that Paul grounds his teaching not in the local situation, as he sometimes does (Titus 1:10–13), but in two primal human events: the creation of the man first, and then the woman (1 Tim. 2:13; cf. Gen. 2); and the deceiving of the woman, not the man (1 Tim. 2:14; cf. Gen. 3:1–7). His first rationale, analogous to his reasoning in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9, draws upon the divine intention that the woman would be a suitable helper for the man (Gen. 2:18), which implies that she has a supportive role.’, Ortlund, ‘Man and Woman’, in Alexander & Rosner, ‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ (electronic ed. 2001).

² ‘Moreover, Paul assures the Corinthians that they are not alone in this endeavor, for all the churches are called and directed in this same manner, even as Paul himself lives this way.’, Soards (egalitarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 154 (1999).

³ ‘c. “And I am laying down this rule in all the churches.” The rule for believers is to stay where the Lord has placed them and to live worthily in their calling. Paul repeats himself to bring the point home (vv. 20, 24). He makes this rule on the strength of his apostolic authority and applies it in all the churches (see 4:17; 14:34; 16:1).’, Kistemaker, ‘Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians’, Baker New Testament Commentary, volume 18, p. 230 (1993).

⁴ ‘This is my rule… : the Greek is literally “and this in all the churches I commanded” (TEV “teach”). This same verb is used in 11.34 where it is translated “give directions” (TEV “settle”). It may mean “set in order” but more probably has the meaning “command” or “lay down.” The context shows clearly that churches means “local Christian communities”; NEB (not REB) and Brc have “congregations.” In some languages it may be more natural to translate “This is the rule that I teach in all the other churches as well as yours.”, Ellingworth, Hatton, & Ellingworth, ‘A Handbook on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 158 (rev. ed. 1995).

⁵ ‘ It may be taken as an encouragement: I am not simply saying this to you at Corinth; I say it widely wherever I preach and teach. Or it may (more probably) be understood as a reminder that this (possible) lack of realism or “eschatological perfectionism” is peculiar to this idiosyncratic interpretation of the gospel. Or (pace Wire and Castelli) to mean that Paul is not being personally authoritarian, but reflecting the “ordered” realism (τάσσω) of the wider church and its varied congregations.’, Thiselton (complementarian), ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 550 (2000).

⁶ ‘Paul concludes that if any want to contend this apostolic tradition, they need to take note that neither Paul nor the churches of God have any other practice.’, Carson, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21^st century edition’ (4^th rev. ed. 1994)

⁷ ‘In the end, the issues under discussion in this vivid section of the letter may elude resolution, although one should not fail to see that in verse 16 Paul himself recognizes the potential denial of his argument. Thus, he finishes his remarks on a weighty note: Should someone object to Paul’s arguments, teaching, or reasoning; then that person must realize that Paul’s position is a universal norm, for it is the practice … [of] the churches of God, and according to the practices of those churches, what was happening in Corinth was inappropriate.’, Soards (egalitarian), ‘1 Corinthians’, New International Biblical Commentary, p. 227 (1999).

⁸ ‘But Paul has no intention of arguing the matter with anyone given to wordy battles (contentious, philoneikos, means someone who loves strife). Such people are capable of prolonging an argument indefinitely. In the face of such an attitude Paul points to universal Christian custom; Christians have no other practice. Exactly who he means by we is not clear; it may mean Paul himself, or the apostles generally, or those with him when he wrote the letter. But the nor do the churches of God shows that what he has outlined is the common practice throughout the churches.’, Morris, ‘1 Corinthians: An introduction and commentary’, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, volume 7, p. 153 (1985).

⁹ ‘b. “We do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.” Paul refuses to be challenged on his teachings that are based on the Old Testament Scriptures. He knows that the rest of the apostles support him, and therefore he confidently writes the personal pronoun we. This is not the so-called editorial we, but an inclusive pronoun that embraces other leaders in the churches.’, Kistemaker, ‘Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians’, Baker New Testament Commentary, volume 18, p. 383 (1993).

¹⁰ ‘If Paul is including a Christian community in the meaning of we, the end of the verse must be translated “the other churches of God.” ItCL has followed this interpretation, “the other communities,” but this is not in the Greek text. REB gives a similar meaning without adding the word “other”: “…or in any of the congregations of God’s people.” Phps has “we and the churches of God generally…,” meaning “most churches.” This last is the most likely solution, since Paul speaks of himself, using the first person singular, in verse 17 of this chapter, and there is no suggestion anywhere else in the letter that Sosthenes played any significant part in its writing. In any case, “we” is exclusive, since Paul does not include the people in Corinth. A good sample translation is: “neither I nor the churches of God generally….”’, Ellington, Hatton, & Ellington, ‘A Handbook on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians’, UBS Handbook Series, p. 252 (1995).

¹¹ ‘Paul reserves one final argument for those unpersuaded by his former points. One philosophical group called the Skeptics rejected all arguments except an almost universally accepted one: the argument from custom—”that’s just not the way it’s done.”’, Keener (egalitarian), ‘The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament’ (1993).

¹² ‘It seems self-evident that the custom (συνήθειaν) to which Paul alludes concerns gender distinctions in public worship, which, as Murphy-O’Connor urged, are addressed both to men and to women equally. The custom is the acceptance of an equality of status in accordance with which woman may lead in public prayer or preaching (see below on prophecy) side by side with a recognition that gender differences must not be blurred but appreciated, valued, and expressed in appropriate ways in response to God’s unrevoked decree.’, Thiselton (complementarian), ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians’, New International Greek Testament Commentary, p. 847 (2000).

[The Sister’s Role – The Bible’s Large Picture]

Principles of interpretation
Brother Byrnes: ‘Arguments from silence are invalid except when there are strong reasons to expectthat ordinarily the silence would be broken.’

 

In the case of the New Testament, the authors make an argument from silence regarding the appointment of elders and overseers. They argue that since there is no New Testament mention of elders and overseers in Corinth or Rome, this is evidence that not all ecclesias were run the same way, and that not every ecclesia had elders and overseers (emphasis added):

 

‘It is not clear what kind of leadership existed when ecclesias were first started.

There is no New Testament mention of elders or overseers in Corinth or Rome

.’ ‘All One – NT’, page 85

 

Claiming that no New Testament mention of elders or overseers in Corinth or Rome’ is evidence that not all ecclesias were run in the same way constitutes an argument from silence. The fact is that there is abundant evidence for only one ecclesial model in the New Testament, and that is the model which involves male elders and overseers.

 

The argument that this is how the apostolic ecclesias were typically organised has considerable support in the form of negative and positive evidence. There is negative evidence since there is no evidence to the contrary, and there is positive evidence that this was standard practice:

 

Acts 11:

30 “They did so, sending their financial aid to

the elders

[of ‘the brothers living in Judea’] by Barnabas and Saul.”

 

Acts 14:

23 “When they had

appointed elders for them in the various churches

, with prayer and fasting, they entrusted them to the protection of the Lord in whom they had believed.”

 

Acts 15:

4 “When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles

and the elders

, and they reported all the things God had done with them.”

6 “Both the apostles

and the elders

met together to deliberate about this matter.”

23 “They sent this letter with them: From the apostles and

elders

, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greetings!”

 

Acts 20:

17 From Miletus he sent a message to Ephesus, telling

the elders of the church

to come to him.

 

1 Timothy 3:

1 “This saying is trustworthy: “If someone aspires to

the office of overseer

, he desires a good work. “

 

1 Timothy 5:

17

Elders who provide effective leadership

must be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching.

 

Titus 1:

7

For the overseer

must be blameless as one entrusted with God’s work, not arrogant, not prone to anger, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy for gain.

 

James 5:

14 Is anyone among you ill? He should summon

the elders of the church

, and they should pray for him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.

 

1 Peter 5:

1

So as your fellow elder

and a witness of Christ’s sufferings and as one who shares in the glory that will be revealed, I urge the

elders among you

:

 

2 John 1:

1

From the elder

, to an elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth (and not I alone, but also all those who know the truth),

There is no support for the claim that the ecclesias were organised in any other way, or that women were appointed to the positions of elder or overseer.

 

The Sister\'s Role - booklet1.pdf

[The Sister’s Role – The Bible’s Large Picture]

Principles of interpretation

Brother Byrnes: ‘To establish a doctrine we must argue from the rule to the exception and not from the exception to the rule. The rule establishes the doctrine and the exception proves the rule e.g. Christ’s resurrection to immortality is the exception which proves the rule that, apart from Divine intervention at the return of Christ on behalf of the faithful, human beings die and remain that way.’

 

The authors recognise many such cases but then draw conclusions which argue against the principle.

 

• ‘Leadership by women was the exception rather than the rule’, page 135
   
  
• ‘Leadership by women is less common than leadership by men’, page 137
   
  
• ‘In general, the judges were men’, page 139
   
  
• ‘Male leadership was often the outcome of society, and was approved by God for that time’, page 145)
   
  ‘All One – OT’ (bold emphasis added)
   
  
• ‘We suggest reasons why sisters were not explicitly included in aspects of leadership, but we also show ways in which there is good reason to think that some leadership was practised by women: e.g. Priscilla (1 Corinthians 16:19), Nympha (Colossians 4:15)’ (page 20)
   
  
• (page 55) ‘We do not claim that women were appointed to all the same positions of leadership and teaching as the men – but there is enough evidence that they did teach and did appear to exercise some authority’ (page 27)
   
  
• ‘That does not mean that every brother does every job, nor every sister every job’ (page 47)
   
  ‘All One – NT’ (bold emphasis added)