Resource Manager

« Oui, mais… » Le lecteur attentif, tout en reconnaissant la force du témoignage biblique déjà cité, pourrait bien se demander s’il n’existe pas des passages dans la Bible qui semblent soutenir la thèse de l’immortalité de l’âme. Il faut dire tout de suite qu’il y a un nombre très restreint de passages ayant cette apparence, et nous allons maintenant examiner deux des mieux connus, deux cas dont se servent le plus souvent ceux qui veulent avancer les preuves de leur thèse. Avant de les examiner en détail, nous ferons bien de nous rappeler l’enseignement de la Bible déjà parcouru sur la mortalité fondamentale et complète de l’homme, enseignement que nous ne pourrons pas évidemment mettre de côté sans des raisons très importantes. Nous devons nous garder aussi de jamais lire des textes sans étudier leur contexte ; et veiller à ne lire les termes bibliques que dans le sens biblique. Ce ne sont là que des précautions raisonnables qui nous aideront à éviter des erreurs. Le lecteur sera peut-être un peu surpris de découvrir que, une fois soumis à un tel examen, les textes choisis par les adhérents de la théorie de l’âme immortelle n’appuient pas du tout cette thèse. Le cas du Larron crucifié à côté de Jésus est probablement le plus célèbre. On connaît les détails, selon Luc 23.39 43. Sentant la mort proche, le larron se tourna vers Jésus pour lui dire : « Souviens-toi de moi quand tu viendras dans ton règne. Jésus lui répondit : Je te le dis en vérité, aujourd’hui tu seras avec moi dans le paradis ». Pour ceux qui veulent croire à l’âme immortelle, toute la valeur de ce passage dépend du temps de l’accomplissement de la promesse faite par Jésus au malfaiteur. Mais on n’a qu’à réfléchir un instant pour s’apercevoir que les difficultés ne manquent pas. D’abord, ce passage semble soutenir une idée qui est tout à fait contraire à l’enseignement général de la Bible d’après les nombreux passages déjà cités. Ensuite, où était Jésus après sa mort ce jour-là ? Au ciel ? Permettons que la Bible nous le dise : « Car, de même que Jonas fut trois jours et trois nuits dans le ventre d’un grand poisson, de même le Fils de l’homme sera trois jours et trois nuits dans le sein de la terre » (Matthieu 12.40), idiotisme hébraïque qui signifie « dans la tombe ». On objecte d’habitude que cette affirmation ne s’appliquait qu’au corps de Jésus, et que son âme était ailleurs. Mais il faut absolument reconnaître, d’abord, que ce mot « âme », selon les passages déjà cités, ne signifie que « la vie » et ne comporte nullement l’idée d’immortalité ; ensuite, que « l’âme », ou la vie, ou la personne, de Jésus était justement dans la tombe pendant ces trois jours, et non pas ailleurs : Actes 2.27 : « Car tu n’abandonneras pas mon âme dans le séjour des morts et tu ne permettras pas que ton Saint voie la corruption ». Pierre, qui cite ici un psaume prophétique, explique (verset 31) que David parlait dans ce psaume de la résurrection du Christ, « en disant qu’il ne serait pas abandonna dans le séjour des morts », ou, plus correctement selon le texte grec, que « son âme ne serait pas abandonnée… ». On ne peut plus douter que, après sa mort, l’âme de Jésus était dans la tombe, d’où elle a été sauvée au moment de sa résurrection. Le mot « paradis » a aussi pour les lecteurs modernes un sens bien différent de son usage biblique. Ce sens moderne, comportant l’idée d’une demeure où les morts jouissent d’une félicité éternelle, est en fait un sens très ancien, puisqu’il eut son origine dans les religions païennes de l’antiquité. Ainsi dans l’Ancien Testament le mot paradis est d’origine persane, mais signifie tout simplement en hébreu « verger » ou « jardin » : « Je me fis des jardins et des vergers (pardès) » (Ecclésiaste 2.5) ; « Tes jets forment un jardin (pardès) » (Cantique 4.13). Quelquefois les prophètes se servent de cette même idée d’un jardin pour parler de l’avenir ; par exemple, chez Ézéchiel nous lisons : « Et l’on dira : cette terre dévastée est devenue comme un jardin d’Éden » (Ézéchiel 36.35) ; et dans la prophétie d’Ésaïe (51.3) : « Ainsi l’Éternel a pitié de Sion. Il a pitié de toutes ses ruines ; il rendra son désert semblable à un Éden, et sa terre aride à un jardin de l’Éternel ». Il est question ici de l’époque de l’établissement du royaume de Dieu, époque où la Palestine ressemblera dans sa fertilité à un jardin, un paradis. Cela compris, la réponse de Jésus au larron devient plus claire. Le larron dit : « Souviens-toi de moi, quand tu viendras dans ton règne » (Luc 23.42). Il est à noter que le larron ne s’attendait pas à partir de la terre pour rejoindre Jésus quelque part ailleurs ; il s’attendait à ce que Jésus vienne régner ; autrement dit, il connaissait l’enseignement des prophètes sur l’établissement du royaume de Dieu sur la terre. Jésus l’assura que son désir serait accompli : « Tu seras avec moi dans le paradis ». ce qui équivalait à dire : « dans mon règne, mon royaume ». Mais ce mot « aujourd’hui » ? Ici il faut se rendre compte du fait que la ponctuation dans les versions et les manuscrits bibliques est un phénomène assez moderne ; il n’y en avait pas avant le IXe siècle de notre ère. Le manuscrit grec porte les mots écrits de cette façon : « JETELEDISENVERITEAUJOURDHUITUSERASAVECMOIDANSLEPARADIS ». Le lecteur français aurait de la peine à décider s’il devrait lire : « Je te le dis en vérité, aujourd’hui tu seras… » ou « Je te le dis en vérité aujourd’hui, tu seras… ». Mais il est évident que placer la virgule avant ou après le mot « aujourd’hui », c’est changer tout à fait le sens du passage. Or, dans le texte grec, le cas est même plus favorable à la deuxième de ces versions (« Je te le dis en vérité aujourd’hui, tu seras… ») qu’il ne l’est en français. Il ne manque pas dans le Nouveau Testament d’expressions analogues où le traducteur n’a pas hésité à joindre l’adverbe aujourd’hui au verbe précédent et non pas au verbe suivant ; par exemple, Actes 26.29 : « …plaise à Dieu que non seulement toi, mais encore tous ceux qui m’écoutent aujourd’hui, vous deveniez tels que je suis… ». Le style de cette expression ressemble tout à fait à celui du passage que nous sommes en train d’examiner. Enfin, il n’est pas sans importance de constater que Jésus se servait dans ces paroles d’une expression hébraïque, Je te le dis aujourd’hui, dont plus de quarante exemples se rencontrent dans le seul livre de Deutéronome. C’était une affirmation solennelle. A tout prendre, le sens du passage est assez clair. Le larron pria Jésus de lui accorder une entrée dans le royaume qu’il établirait sur la terre. Jésus lui affirma de façon solennelle que son vœu serait réalisé. Pris ainsi le passage concorde admirablement avec l’enseignement de la Bible, et les difficultés disparaissent. Nous examinerons maintenant la parabole du Mauvais Riche et du pauvre Lazare, dont le lecteur trouvera le récit dans Luc 16.19 31. D’abord, avons-nous affaire à une parabole ou à une histoire véritable ? Au premier verset du même chapitre nous lisons : « Jésus dit aussi à ses disciples : un homme riche avait un économe… », et de toute évidence ce qui suit est une parabole. Et au verset 19 c’est toujours Jésus qui parle à ses disciples : « Il y avait un homme riche… ». Certains détails de ce récit, pris au pied de la lettre, auraient l’air tout à fait invraisemblables. Peut-on vraiment croire que les justes et les injustes aillent après leur mort à deux endroits différents, situés en même temps si proches l’un de l’autre qu’ils puissent s’entretenir ? Et que les justes contemplent sans s’émouvoir le spectacle des injustes en proie aux tourments de la flamme cruelle ? Et qu’un fidèle comme Lazare soit dans le sein d’Abraham ? On n’a qu’à dresser la liste de telles discordances pour comprendre qu’on a ici affaire à une parabole. En plus, c’est une parabole dont Jésus n’a pas inventé les détails. Les Juifs, rentrés en Palestine au VIe et au Ve siècles avant Jésus-Christ après leur exil de Babylone, rapportèrent avec eux de nouvelles croyances, puisées non pas dans leurs Saintes Écritures mais dans la religion païenne de leurs vainqueurs babyloniens. Flave Josèphe écrivit au premier siècle de notre ère une histoire israélite ou se trouve entre autres un exposé assez détaillé des croyances juives contemporaines. Selon celles-ci, les âmes des justes et des injustes étaient détenues dans Hadès, mot grec qui signifie les Enfers, où elles étaient placées à la charge des anges ; les justes étaient portés dans le sein d’Abraham, les injustes dans un lieu de tourments, ce qui n’empêchait pas qu’ils puissent se parler les uns avec les autres. On n’a qu’à considérer de telles idées pour s’apercevoir de l’étonnante ressemblance qui existe entre elles et les détails de la parabole prononcée par Jésus. Il devient donc clair que Jésus, en racontant cette parabole, se servait des idées des Pharisiens eux-mêmes. Faut-il en conclure que ces idées soient forcément vraies ? Évidemment non ; car Jésus prononçait des paraboles non pas pour enseigner comme vérités les détails dont elles étaient composées, mais pour faire ressortir chaque fois une leçon fondamentale. Il en est ainsi dans ce passage, qui, au dernier verset, lançait aux Juifs l’avertissement le plus solennel : « S’ils n’écoutent pas Moïse et les prophètes, ils ne se laisseront pas persuader même si quelqu’un des morts ressuscitait » (Luc 16.31). Jésus, qui condamnait souvent les traditions des Pharisiens, se servait dans cette parabole de leurs propres croyances pour les confondre. Qu’on ne s’étonne pas de cette méthode. Après avoir prononcé la parabole du semeur, Jésus dit à ses disciples (Luc 8.10) : « Il vous a été donné de connaître les mystères du royaume de Dieu ; mais pour les autres, cela leur est dit en paraboles, afin qu’en voyant ils ne voient pas et qu’en entendant ils ne comprennent point ». A ceux qui tenaient absolument à défendre leurs fausses idées, il était permis de rester en erreur ; c’était le cas des Pharisiens. Les sincères chercheraient à comprendre les paroles de Jésus ; à eux, il leur serait donné de connaître les mystères du royaume de Dieu. Il faut donc avouer que ce passage non plus, une fois examiné et compris, ne soutient pas la thèse de l’immortalité de l’âme. Il en est de même des autres versets cités de temps en temps par les défenseurs de cette thèse ; un examen attentif révèle toujours qu’il n’en est rien ; c’est un dogme que la Bible n’enseigne point.

La résurrection des morts S’il n’y avait pour le serviteur de Dieu aucune autre perspective que le sommeil éternel de la tombe, il y aurait vraiment de quoi se désespérer. Mais le passage déjà cité de Daniel (12.1) laisse percevoir de la façon la plus claire la possibilité d’une vie nouvelle : « Plusieurs de ceux qui dorment dans la poussière de la terre se réveilleront, les uns pour la vie éternelle et les autres pour l’opprobre, pour la honte éternelle » (Daniel 12.1). C’est l’enseignement, bien connu de l’étudiant du Nouveau Testament, de la résurrection des morts, et du jugement. Ce n’était pas d’ailleurs un enseignement étranger aux fidèles des anciens temps. Abraham, sommé d’offrir son fils, s’apprêta à obéir. « Il pensait que Dieu est puissant, même pour ressusciter les morts » (Hébreux 11.19). Le psalmiste s’exclame : « Ô Dieu, qui est semblable à toi ?… Tu nous redonneras la vie. Tu nous feras remonter des abîmes de la terre » (Psaume 71.19 20). « Les abîmes de la terre » c’est un hébraïsme pour la tombe ; le psalmiste croyait donc à la résurrection des morts. Jésus s’est servi d’un langage bien semblable à celui de Daniel 12.1 : « L’heure vient où tous ceux qui sont dans les sépulcres entendront sa voix (celle du Fils de l’Homme — verset 25) et en sortiront. Ceux qui auront fait le bien ressusciteront pour la vie, mais ceux qui auront fait le mal ressusciteront pour le jugement » (Jean 5.28). Il ne s’agira pas de faire descendre les justes du ciel, mais de les ressusciter là où ils se trouveront, dans les sépulcres, (« dans la poussière de la terre » (Daniel 12.1)), pour qu’ils reçoivent la grande récompense de la vie éternelle. Tout lecteur attentif du Nouveau Testament sait que le dogme de la résurrection des morts joue un rôle important dans les épîtres de l’apôtre Paul : « Le Seigneur lui-même, à un signal donné, à la voix d’un archange, et au son de la trompette de Dieu, descendra du ciel et les morts en Christ ressusciteront premièrement » (1 Thessaloniciens 4.16). Dans sa première épître aux Corinthiens l’apôtre a consacré tout un chapitre, le célèbre chapitre 15, à combattre la thèse de certains qu’il n’y aurait pas de résurrection, et à insister sur le caractère littéral qu’aurait cet événement saisissant. Une fois de plus nous pouvons apprécier la logique de la Bible : puisque l’homme ne vit que par la respiration, quand Dieu retire son souffle, il meurt et dort dans la tombe s’il doit reprendre la vie, ce ne sera, évidemment, qu’en se réveillant, en ressuscitant. Mais si « l’âme immortelle » jouit déjà de la félicité céleste, à quoi bon la résurrection du corps ? Une âme pure et spirituelle devra-t-elle descendre de sa « demeure glorieuse » pour s’unir avec les restes pourris d’un corps charnel ? Il suffit d’avancer une telle idée pour en apprécier le ridicule. Par contre, l’enseignement biblique est raisonnable et concorde admirablement avec l’expérience humaine. On sent toute la force du jugement divin : « Mais tu ne mangeras pas de l’arbre de la connaissance du bien et du mal, car le jour où tu en mangeras, tu mourras certainement » (Genèse 1.17), « C’est à la sueur de ton visage que tu mangeras du pain, jusqu’à ce que tu retournes dans la terre, d’où tu as été pris ; car tu es poussière et tu retourneras dans la poussière » (Genèse 3.19). On comprend aussi pourquoi, après la transgression d’Adam et d’Ève, les anges ont empêché les coupables « d’avancer la main, de prendre de l’arbre de vie, d’en manger et de vivre éternellement » (Genèse 3.22). Si nous croyons que cette mort prononcée sur Adam et sur Ève ne l’était qu’en apparence, en vertu de leur « âme immortelle », n’inculpons-nous pas Dieu de fraude et de mensonge ? Conclusion inconcevable ! Puisque l’homme n’est qu’un souffle, faible de corps et d’esprit, on apprécie l’urgence de l’exhortation divine, souvent répétée, à choisir le bien et à rejeter le mal. Moïse dit aux Israélites : « J’ai mis devant toi la vie et la mort, la bénédiction et la malédiction. Choisis la vie… » (Deutéronome 30.19). Jésus dit : « Allez par tout le monde, et prêchez la bonne nouvelle à toute la création. Celui qui croira et qui sera baptisé sera sauvé : mais celui qui ne croira pas sera condamné » (Marc 16.15 16). C’est le choix angoissant qui se pose à tout homme qui connaît la Parole de Dieu ; c’est la conviction de sa déchéance et de sa nature corruptible, et en même temps une sommation d’obéir à son Créateur pour pouvoir hériter enfin d’une vie éternelle.

Les morts sans connaissance La Bible est logique avant tout. Puisque l’homme cesse totalement de vivre au moment de sa mort, il ne peut plus penser, ni sentir, ni réagir d’aucune façon ; il est sans connaissance. C’est ce que nous dit l’Ecclésiaste : « Aussi le cœur des fils de l’homme est-il plein de méchanceté, et la folie est dans leur cœur pendant leur vie ; après quoi ils vont chez les morts. Car qui est excepté ? Pour tous ceux qui vivent il y a de l’espérance : et même un chien vivant vaut mieux qu’un lion mort. Les vivants, en effet, savent qu’ils mourront, mais les morts ne savent rien, et il n’y a pour eux plus de salaire, puisque leur mémoire est oubliée. Et leur amour, et leur haine, et leur envie ont déjà péri : et ils n’auront plus jamais aucune part à tout ce qui se fait sous le soleil » (Ecclésiaste 9.3 6). Si une âme immortelle continuait d’exister après la mort, ne devrait-on pas croire que ce serait la partie la plus vitale de l’homme ? Comment donc affirmer que la personne morte n’a plus d’amour ni de haine ? Ne croit-on point communément que le mort est plus apte à servir Dieu après son décès qu’il ne l’était avant ? Comment donc le psalmiste a-t-il pu écrire : « Reviens, Éternel ! délivre mon âme (= ma vie) ; sauve-moi à cause de ta miséricorde. Car celui qui meurt n’a plus ton souvenir ; qui te louera dans le séjour des morts ? (c’est-à-dire dans la tombe) » (Psaume 6.5). Le roi Ézéchias, qui était sur le point de mourir, reçut de Dieu cette parole par le prophète Ésaïe : « Tu vas mourir et tu ne vivras plus. » Ézéchias se montre-t-il joyeux dans l’attente d’aller au ciel pour y servir mieux son Dieu ? Tout au contraire : « Je ne verrai plus l’Éternel, L’Éternel, sur la terre des vivants ; je ne verrai plus aucun homme parmi les habitants du monde !… Je sens le fil de mes jours coupé comme par un tisserand » (Ésaïe 38.1, 11 12). Après que Dieu lui eut accordé un prolongement de vie, Ézéchias s’exclama : « Tu as pris plaisir à retirer mon âme (= ma vie) de la fosse de la destruction (= la tombe)… Ce n’est pas le séjour des morts qui te loue ; ce n’est pas la mort qui te célèbre ; ceux qui sont descendus dans la fosse n’espèrent plus en ta fidélité. Le vivant, le vivant, c’est celui-là qui te loue, comme moi aujourd’hui » (Ésaïe 38.17 19). Le témoignage de ces passages n’admet point de doute : les morts ne sont plus en état de savoir quoi que ce soit. Il est donc tout à fait naturel de dire que les morts « dorment », selon l’expression biblique. Dans le chapitre 12 de Daniel se trouve un des passages les plus catégoriques de toute la Bible. Le prophète prédit pour la fin des temps « une époque de détresse, telle qu’il n’y en a point eu de semblable depuis que les nations existent jusqu’à cette époque ». Et le prophète ajoute, en parlant toujours de la même époque : « Plusieurs de ceux qui dorment dans la poussière de la terre se réveilleront. les uns pour la vie éternelle, et les autres pour l’opprobre, pour la honte éternelle » (Daniel 12.1 2). Comme il est clair, ce passage ! Les morts demeurent dans la poussière de la terre ; puisqu’ils sont sans connaissance, ils dorment jusqu’à un moment donné. C’est une expression figurée qu’on relève souvent dans le Nouveau Testament. « Lazare, notre ami, dort », dit Jésus à ses disciples. « Jésus avait parlé de sa mort », ajoute l’évangéliste (Jean 11.11, 13). Étienne, martyrisé par les Juifs, « s’endormit » (Actes 7.60). Paul écrit aux Thessaloniciens : « Nous ne voulons pas, frères, que vous soyez dans l’ignorance au sujet de ceux qui sont décédés » (Note de la version Segond : « ceux qui dorment ou ceux qui sont morts ») (1 Thessaloniciens 4.13). Dans d’autres passages semblables la version Segond ne traduit pas toujours de façon exacte l’original grec, mettant « sont morts ». Nous citerons donc ici la version de l’abbé Crampon, qui a traduit plus fidèlement le mot grec, car il s’agit toujours de l’idée de s’endormir. « Car si nous croyons que Jésus est mort et qu’il est ressuscité, croyons aussi que Dieu ramènera par Jésus ceux qui se sont endormis en lui » (c’est-à-dire, il ressuscitera de la tombe ses fidèles serviteurs endormis) (1 Thessaloniciens 4.14). « Nous les vivants, restés pour l’avènement du Seigneur, nous ne devancerons pas ceux qui se sont endormis » (c’est-à-dire, les vivants ne recevront pas leur récompense avant les morts. L’apôtre ne croyait évidemment pas que les morts eussent déjà reçu leur récompense au ciel !) (1 Thessaloniciens 4.15). « Jésus est apparu à plus de cinq cents frères à la fois, dont la plupart sont encore vivants et dont quelques-uns se sont endormis » (1 Corinthiens 15.6). « Si Christ n’est pas ressuscité, votre foi est vaine, vous êtes encore dans vos péchés, et par conséquent aussi ceux qui se sont endormis en Christ sont perdus » (verset 18). (Quel passage bouleversant ! Si Christ n’est pas ressuscité, même ceux qui ont cru en lui sont perdus !) « Mais Christ est ressuscité, il est les prémices de ceux qui se sont endormis » (verset 20). Ce témoignage impressionnant ne laisse plus de doute. Les morts, étant sans connaissance, dorment dans la poussière de la terre, oublieux de tout ce qui se fait sur la terre ou au ciel.

L’origine de la nature humaine Puisque c’est la nature exacte de l’homme que nous voulons préciser, il paraît bien logique de nous reporter tout de suite au passage de la Genèse où il est question de la création : « L’Éternel Dieu forma l’homme de la poussière de la terre, il souffla dans ses narines un souffle de vie et l’homme devint une âme vivante » (Genèse 2.7). Voici une origine bien humble : l’homme fut fait de poussière pour qu’il sache clairement qu’il appartenait par sa nature à la terre. Mais quel était ce souffle de vie que Dieu a soufflé dans ses narines ? et qu’est-ce qu’une « âme vivante » ? Or, l’hébreu nephesh, traduit dans ce verset par le mot « âme », porte le sens élémentaire de souffle, respiration, et s’applique à un être, animal ou homme, qui vit par le souffle, par la respiration. C’est ainsi que ce terme se trouve plusieurs fois dans le premier chapitre de la Genèse traduit par le mot « animaux » : « Dieu dit : Que les eaux produisent en abondance des animaux (nephesh) vivants… Dieu dit : Que la terre produise des animaux (nephesh) vivants selon leur espèce… Et à tout animal de la terre, à tout oiseau du ciel, et à tout ce qui se meut sur la terre, ayant en soi un souffle de vie (nephesh chaiyah = ‘âme vivante’) je donne toute herbe verte pour nourriture… » (Genèse 1.20, 21, 24, 30). De l’étude de ce passage il ressort évidemment que l’homme tout autant que les animaux est une « âme vivante », une créature vivant de sa respiration, ayant comme eux un « souffle de vie ». Et puisque Dieu donna aussi ce souffle de vie aux animaux, il s’ensuit que cela ne signifie d’aucune façon leur donner l’immortalité, mais tout simplement leur donner cette vie physique et naturelle dont jouissent également hommes et bêtes. Les hommes et les bêtes se ressemblent Plusieurs passages bibliques soulignent cet enseignement d’importance capitale, que l’homme ressemble par sa nature aux bêtes. Dans l’époque qui précéda le Déluge « la méchanceté des hommes était grande sur la terre, et toutes les pensées de leur cœur se portaient chaque jour uniquement vers le mal… La terre était corrompue devant Dieu, la terre était pleine de violence… car toute chair avait corrompu sa voie sur la terre » (Genèse 6.5, 11 12) ; à tel point qu’il ne restait pas d’autre remède que celui de détruire presque toute la race humaine. D’où les paroles de Dieu à Noé : « Je vais faire venir le déluge d’eaux sur la terre pour détruire toute chair ayant souffle de vie sous le ciel ; tout ce qui est sur la terre périra » (Genèse 6.17). « J’exterminerai de la face de la terre tous les êtres que j’ai faits » [/i] (Genèse 7.4). Ainsi, « Tout ce qui se mouvait sur la terre périt, tant les oiseaux que le bétail et les animaux, tout ce qui rampait sur la terre, et tous les hommes. Tout ce qui avait respiration, souffle de vie dans ses narines… mourut. Tous les êtres qui étaient sur la face de la terre furent exterminés, depuis l’homme jusqu’au bétail, aux reptiles et aux oiseaux du ciel : ils furent exterminés de la terre » (Genèse 7.21 23). Le sens de ce langage catégorique n’est pas douteux : c’est que les hommes et les animaux ont un sort identique : ils périssent, ayant une même nature. L’idée que les hommes survivent de quelque façon en vertu de leur « âme immortelle » ne se trouve nulle part dans ce récit. L’Ecclésiaste a un passage également catégorique : « J’ai dit en mon cœur, au sujet des fils de l’homme, que Dieu les éprouverait, et qu’eux-mêmes verraient qu’ils ne sont que des bêtes. Car le sort des fils de l’homme et celui de la bête est pour eux un même sort ; comme meurt l’un, ainsi meurt l’autre, ils ont tous un même souffle, et la supériorité de l’homme sur la bête est nulle ; car tout est vanité. Tout va dans un même lieu ; tout a été fait de poussière, et tout retourne à la poussière… » (Ecclésiaste 3.18 20). Impossible de parler plus clairement ; aucune idée ici de survivance à la mort. Pareillement, le psalmiste raconte au Psaume 104 combien la création animale et humaine dépend de la bonté de Dieu pour sa vie même : « …tous les animaux des forêts sont en mouvement ; les lionceaux rugissent après la proie, et demandent à Dieu leur nourriture… L’homme sort pour se rendre à son ouvrage… Tous ces animaux espèrent en toi… Tu leur retires le souffle : ils expirent, et retournent dans leur poussière… ». Et le psalmiste, comprenant que ce sort attendait l’homme autant que les animaux, de s’écrier : « Je chanterai l’Éternel tant que je vivrai, je célébrerai mon Dieu tant que j’existerai » (Psaume 104.20 21, 23, 27, 29, 33). De même le Psaume 49 : « L’insensé et le stupide périssent également… Ils s’imaginent que leurs maisons seront éternelles… mais l’homme qui est en honneur n’a point de durée. Il est semblable aux bêtes que l’on égorge » (Psaume 49.11 13). Au dernier verset de ce même psaume se trouve une petite parenthèse très significative : « L’homme qui est en honneur et qui n’a pas d’intelligence, est semblable aux bêtes que l’on égorge » (verset 21). Pour être supérieur alors aux bêtes, ce qu’il faut à l’homme c’est « l’intelligence » ; ce qui ne veut pas dire simplement avoir la capacité de la raison, mais avoir la compréhension des choses spirituelles. Voici donc l’explication de Genèse 1.26 : « Dieu dit : Faisons l’homme à notre image ». L’homme ne fut pas dès son origine doué d’une « âme immortelle », mais plutôt de la capacité de comprendre les valeurs morales, ce dont les bêtes sont incapables. Il faut donc conclure que la nature physique de l’homme et celle de la bête sont identiques ; qu’ils vivent tous les deux par la respiration et qu’après la mort « ils retournent à leur poussière » ; mais que l’homme peut atteindre à une « intelligence » qui pourra le rendre supérieur aux animaux.

Après la mort… ? « Si l’homme une fois mort pouvait revivre… » Pour les hommes la mort est un ennemi, un sujet de crainte et de souffrance. Ils ont toujours essayé d’éviter cette réalité pénible en se réconfortant de l’idée que l’homme a une âme immortelle capable de survivre à la mort. Les religions païennes de l’antiquité témoignent de la ténacité de ces croyances : en mettant le mort dans son sarcophage, les Égyptiens y mettaient quelquefois aussi non seulement ses armes (dont il était censé avoir besoin au cours de son voyage d’outre-tombe) mais aussi sa femme et ses serviteurs ; les religions nordiques enseignaient qu’il y avait pour les guerriers vaillants, tombés dans la lutte, un Walhalla où tout n’était que gloire et fête ; les musulmans croyaient que tuer des infidèles, c’était le moyen infaillible d’atteindre le paradis, où l’on pourrait prendre autant de femmes que l’on voudrait. Et c’est une croyance presque universelle parmi les « chrétiens » qu’après la mort on va au ciel. Deux observations semblent bien s’imposer : d’abord, la croyance à l’immortalité de l’âme, d’une façon ou d’une autre, a été très répandue parmi les hommes, ce qui s’explique assez facilement du fait qu’elle répond évidemment à un impérieux désir du cœur humain ; ensuite, cette croyance n’a rien qui soit nécessairement et uniquement chrétien, puisqu’elle s’est répandue dans toutes les religions et parmi tous les peuples. Mais qu’est-ce qui arrive donc après la mort ? Où allons-nous chercher une réponse véridique à cette question angoissante ? Dans les philosophies humaines ? Mais à quoi bon interroger l’homme sur sa propre destinée ? Comment peut-il en savoir la vérité ? Et d’ailleurs les philosophes se contredisent ! N’est-il pas évident que, s’il existe une réponse définitive à cette question, cette réponse doit provenir d’une source surhumaine, et qu’autrement elle n’aurait aucune valeur ? Mais cette source, où allons-nous la trouver ? La Bible seule est capable de répondre à ce besoin fondamental : livre extraordinaire, voire unique dans la littérature du monde, puisqu’il prétend expliquer d’une façon définitive tant de problèmes d’une importance capitale pour tous les hommes : l’origine du monde et de la race humaine, la souffrance et la mort, et le plan divin pour notre salut. Les auteurs bibliques ne se sont jamais arrogé la gloire d’avoir pu écrire selon leurs propres connaissances, car ils se sont tous appelés les serviteurs du Dieu qui parlait par eux. Voici donc cette source surhumaine dont nous avons besoin. Si la Bible a quelque chose à nous dire sur la destinée de l’homme après la mort, il importe bien de le connaître. Mais tout d’abord il y a une erreur bien grave à éviter : celle d’essayer de comprendre la Bible en prêtant à ses termes un sens qui n’est pas du tout biblique. Par exemple, pour la plupart des gens le mot âme signifie quelque chose d’immortel dans la personnalité humaine qui survit à la mort, de sorte qu’au moment de la mort l’homme ne meurt pas vraiment, mais continue à vivre dans un « monde meilleur au-delà des cieux ». Il est indispensable cependant de comprendre le vrai sens des mots hébraïques et grecs qu’on a traduits par le mot âme dans la Bible française. Agir autrement, ce serait se laisser inévitablement induire en erreur. Heureusement pour nous, préciser le vrai sens de ces mots si importants n’est pas une tâche très difficile. En somme, ce qu’il faut faire, c’est permettre à la Bible de s’expliquer elle-même, sans essayer d’imposer aucun sens de notre choix.

‘37.21 αὐθεντζω: to control in a domineering manner—‘to control, to domineer.’ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρζπω … αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρόσ ‘I do not allow women … to dominate men’ 1 Tm 2.12.’7 ‘authent-eô , A. to have full power or authority over, tinos I Ep.Ti.2.12...’8 ‘αὐθεντζω domineer, have authority over.’9 ‘883 αὐθεντέω (authenteō): vb.; ≡ Str 831—LN 37.21 control, have authority over (1Ti 2:12+).’10 ‘... one acting by his own authority or power. Governing a gen., to use or exercise authority or power over as an autocrat, to domineer (1 Tim. 2:12).’11 PAPYRI Two early papyri using the word authenteō, Papyrus BGU 1208 (c.27 BC), and Papyrus Tebtunis 15 (c.100AD), are significant not only because they are close in time to Paul’s own usage of authenteō, but also because they both use authenteō with a sense which is in agreement with recent studies by Baldwin,12 and Wolters.13 The Tebtunis papyrus in particular indicates a usage which cannot mean ‘usurp authority’, ‘domineer’, or any negative connotation, as it refers to bookkeepers having authority over their accounts, and it makes no sense to speak of them ‘dominating’ accounting records. CONTEXTUAL SYNTAX STUDY The lexical data was later supplemented by a large scale contextual syntax study of the passage by Andreas Köstenberger in 1995,14 who argued that the neither/nor construction used in ouk didaskein oude authentein (‘neither teach nor have/exercise authority’), requires that both didaskein and authentein have a positive or negative sense. Köstenberger concluded that like the verbs in Luke 12:24 (‘neither sow nor harvest’), and Acts 4:18 (‘neither speak nor teach’), teaching has a positive meaning in such passages as 1 Timothy 4:11; 6:2, and 2 Timothy 2:2.15 This would therefore mean that authenteo has a positive meaning, and does not refer to domineering but the positive exercise of authority. The majority of both complementarian and egalitarian scholars agreed with Köstenberger’s study. Many consider that the contextual meaning of authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12 has been decided conclusively by Köstenberger. Among the egalitarians supporting Köstenberger ‘s study, Kevin Giles ‘finds himself in essential agreement with the present syntactical analysis of 1 Tim 2:12’.16 Craig Blomberg, ‘Decisively supporting the more positive sense of assuming appropriate authority is Andreas Köstenberger’s study’.17 Esther Ng, ‘However, since a negative connotation of didaskein is unlikely in this verse (see below), the neutral meaning for authentein (to have authority over) seems to fit the oude construction better’.18 Judith Hartenstein, ‘Köstenberger shows through a syntactical study that 1 Tim 2:12 forbids women to teach and to have authority over men, not only to abuse authority’.19 (Jonathan Burke, 2009) ------- 7 Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’, volume 1, p. 473 (2nd ed. 1989). 8 Liddell, Scott, & Jones, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, p.275 (rev. and augm. throughout, electronic ed., 9th ed. with supplement, 1996); note reference to the meaning ‘murder’, which was obsolete by the 1st century AD. 9 Newman, ‘Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament’, p. 28 (1993). 10 Swanson, ‘Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament)’, DBLG 883 (2nd ed. 2001). 11 Zodhiates, ‘The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament’, G831 (electronic ed., 2000). 12 Köstenberger, Schreiner, and Baldwin, eds., ‘Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15’, (1995). 13 Wolters, ‘A Semantic Study of αυθεντηξ and its Derivatives’, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (11.1.54), 2006; originally published in Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism (1.145-175), 2000. 14 Köstenberger, ‘Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15’, (1995). 15 Ibid., p. 315. 16 Ibid., pp. 48-49; Giles suggests however that Paul may have broken this grammatical rule in 1 Timothy 2:12. 17 Ibid., p. 49. 18 Ibid., p. 49. 19 Ibid., p. 49. Handout_authenteo negative.pdf

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 (3rd ed., 2000). 6 Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testamen’, volume 1, p. 178 (1990-c1993).

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, 4th 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 (2nd edition 1994). Handout_alterations.pdf

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 4th century,4 some 200 years after the 2nd century,5 and most of his textual witnesses date to the 5th 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 (Gpm, ita, 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 4th century 5 Witherington’s most frequently referred to text is the 5th 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 4th 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 (2nd edition 1994). 7 The text referred to as ‘Gpm’ (the ‘pm’ stands for the Latin ‘permulti, meaning ‘very many’, and indicates that many manuscripts of this tradition have this reading), is a 9th 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 ‘ita’ 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 4th-5th century Christian writer Augustine.

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 (3rd 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 (2nd ed. 1989). 15 Liddell, Scott, & Jones, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, p.20 (rev. and augm. throughout, electronic ed., 9th 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 (2nd 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 (2nd ed. 1989). 23 Liddell, Scott, & Jones, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’, p.20 (rev. and augm. throughout, electronic ed., 9th 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

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.).

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

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. ‘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 ‘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. ‘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 ‘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. ‘The suggestion here is that some women were disrupting the meeting...’5 '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 ‘Alternatively it could mean that she is to refrain from speaking and teaching false proto-Gnostic ideas...’9 ‘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).

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

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).

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

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 71 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 9Colossians 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 (2nd 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).

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS Contrary to the claims made by Ian and Averil, 1st 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

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 1st century Roman philosophical groups.5 6 7 8 9 Musonius Rufus is one 1st 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 1st century Jewish religious communities, the Essenes,21 22 and the Therapeutae23 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).

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 (2nd 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’ (4th 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 (2nd 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: 21st century edition’ (4th 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: 21st century edition’ (4th 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: 21st century edition’ (4th 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: 21st century edition’ (4th 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 (2nd 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

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).

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 1st 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

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).

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

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).