I am pleased to announce the my blog has moved to a new home on our ministry web site.   You can find the new blog home here:

https://www.mmoutreach.org/wim/

I have moved over all the posts as well as all of the comments.  I will leave my blog at strivetoenter.com/wim as an archive, but all new posts will go onto the new blog site so please change your book marks.  I plan to post again in the New Year at the new site, so see you there!

Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? will soon by available online!

I am working on a new video project at the moment, but I am also working to convert each of the 4 DVDs of Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? to a lower quality online downloadable product. We are working hard so that those with computers around the world may also have access to the DVDs.  The entire set will be available for purchase online or each DVD in the 4 DVD set will be available individually as a video download.  We have upgraded the security on our web site and are presently working through all of the logistics to make this all possible.  it is a huge step forward for our ministry.  If all goes well, we will start offering the downloadable version this fall (2012).  Please watch this blog for further information for the launch of the downloadable version.

The DVDs also include audio bytes from those who disagree with women in ministry and we break down the arguments and compare the arguments to the Scriptures.

The 4 DVDs are broken up into scriptural passages as follows:

#1 DVD

Introduction, Part 1: Genesis 1-3 The Designer Knows Best (Deals with the creation account)  Part 2: Genesis 3 Who is to Blame? (Deals with the fall of man and the implications on God’s original creation)  Total length 46 minutes

#2 DVD

Part 3: 1 Corinthians 11 Head Coverings and Authority (Deals with the issue of “head”, authority and all the difficult part of 1 Corinthians 11 including the length of one’s hair, the phrase “because of the angels” and the spiritual meaning of the head covering during prayer and spiritual service)  Total length 43 minutes

#3 DVD

Part 4: 1 Timothy 2 Women, Deception and the first Created (deals with Paul’s prohibition, the reasons given by Paul for his restriction and the expected outcome from 1 Timothy 2:15 that sums up Paul’s complete argument.) Total length 58 minutes broken up into 2 parts of approx 30 min each

#4 DVD

Part 5: 1 Corinthians 14, The Elusive Law (deals with the “law” that is appealed to in 1 Corinthians 14 and the connection with this restrictive “law” to the context of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.) Part 6: 1 Timothy 3 Follow the Leader (This part deals with the issue of trustworthy servants of God and their qualifications); Part 7: Galatians 3:28 Equal to Serve (this part deals with Galatians 3 & 4 where Paul lays down his argument on equality and full sonship.)  The DVD concludes with an appeal to the church to allow women to minister in the gifts that the Holy Spirit has given them.

To purchase the high quality  4 DVD set, it is available now from Amazon.com here or from our web site here.

For those who have seen the DVDs and would like to recommend them to others or if you would like to comment about the impact the DVDs had on you or others you know, please feel free to comment.

In 2006 my DVD Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free came out and since that time I have seen my share of scarecrows who are intent on destroying the message of women in ministry. One such scarecrow refuses to go away and it is time to create a blog post where others who have been hurt by the issue of women in ministry can share their pain.  If you are a woman in ministry or a woman teacher and you have been hurt, abused or silenced and you would like to share a short story, this is the post for you to share with us. I will moderate the comments so that any scarecrow/troll who would like to sound off against women in ministry will either have their comments moderated or removed.  This is a safe place where others who are like minded can encourage you as there are many who come to this community of loving Christians who value the worth and ministry of women.

The reason I named this post Stubble, Straw and Scarecrows is because those who are vehemently opposed to women’s gifts used for the common good are planting chaff and their words are nothing more than stubble and straw. Stubble, straw and scarecrows are not God’s tools nor are they things to be afraid of. We are to fear God and allow Him to decide what gifts we receive for the fact is that the gift we receive from God comes with His permission to use His gift for God’s glory and the common good (1 Peter 4:11). No man can give us spiritual gifts and no man may kill God’s gifts within us. We are accountable to God and we must be faithful with what God has given us rather than holding back because of the fear of man.

I will start with my story. In 2008, I had the opportunity to respond to accusations against women in ministry made by CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry).  Through this contact, I was eventually subjected to months of name calling by Diane Sellner who is the vice president of CARM and she is CARM’s head discussion board moderator who is a strong opponent against women in ministry. In 2008 Diane launched a concerted attack against me personally saying that God would shut down my ministry. What was my crime? My crime was my support of women’s rights to use God’s gifts for the common good, and for creating  a DVD on this subject which was seen as persuasive and having influenced people on the CARM discussion boards.

There are some that visit my blog who were on the CARM boards at that time and they were witnesses to the attacks against me.  Through Diane and her role as moderator of the CARM discussion board, I was accused of being despicable, a weak Christian, unstable, a heretic, evil, a danger to the body of Christ, poison, I “stink”, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a pathological liar, a hypocrite, brainwashed, a classic heretic nut case, dangerous, an imposter and a deceiver, no ounce of character, my doctrine on women in ministry is said to be from the pit of hell, and that God will remove me from the web. On top of the name calling, Diane Sellner purchased my name three times as an internet domain name in an effort to try to prejudice people who would google my name. Diane linked the purchases of my name as domain names to a blog that she created where she identified me as a narcissist and she encouraged people not to listen to me. Diane was outed in August 2008 as the one who purchased my name, by the admission of her own boss at CARM.  I have all of this well documented. Diane had purchased my name as a domain name with the help of a private registration which shielded her name from the public view, but with her boss at CARM admitting that he knew she had purchased my name three times in an effort to destroy my ministry, Diane no longer had the cloak of secrecy to hide. In a fizzled attempt to remove my ability to influence people for women in ministry, one year later, in 2009, Diane let her purchases of my name as domain names expire, although she has not stopped trying to harass as she continues to keep her blog targeted against me online with her own brand of name calling. What a sad example it is of her character.

This is an example of stubble, straw and a scare crow, of just one such name of someone who has tried hard to stop my ministry, but God had other plans.  That was in 2008 and it is now 2012.  Since that time my DVD set has gone around the world and I regularly get emails from people who have been touched with the strong message that they have seen from the Scriptures that the DVDs present in context.  The 4 DVD set Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? has helped many men and women to understand their prejudice against women in ministry and the strength of my argument has been the very passages that are used to hold women back. When the hard passages of Scripture on women in ministry are looked at carefully in their context, these passages no longer hold women back, but women have experienced a release to serve the Lord with all that He has given them and in every avenue that He has called them.  Praise the Lord!

But there is something that makes me sad. What makes me sad is the amount of people who are still being hurt by people like Diane Sellner. She has not yet repented. Through the years I have heard from those who are terribly hurt by Diane’s tactics and an internet search of her name shows some of the extent of the problem. I have flourished even though Diane has been focused on destroying me. But there are others who are not as strong who have been hurt and I believe that these people can use some love and support too. If you are on this blog post because of Diane Sellner and you need encouragement or a listening ear, email me. My contact info is listed at the top on the tab marked email. I don’t want to read bad stuff about Diane on my blog. If you need help, email me.

This post is especially for those who have been marginalized and hurt because of the issue of women in ministry. You are safe to share you story here and you will find love and support. I want to encourage you that you can obey God and suffer persecution and survive it with integrity. Just as nothing has deterred me from the ministry that God has called me to, so the opposition against women in ministry can be seen for what it is. It is dead, dry and about as scary as a scarecrow. With God’s gifting and calling, you are attached to God’s power source and no weapon formed against you by the enemy will prosper unless you bend and give your back to the scarecrow. Don’t be afraid of man and don’t turn and run. Just go on with your ministry and ignore those who want to bring you down. Fear God and serve Him and let things fall as they may. In the end, I believe that you too will see that the attacks against you are nothing but stubble, straw and scarecrows and none of that can harm you in the least.  Be encouraged!

This is part 2 of What God intended at creation and it is inspired by a recent lecture given by John Piper where he states that God’s intention for Christianity is for it to have a “masculine feel“.  After discussing John Piper’s Masculine Christianity, I will give my critique of his masculine arguments. Part 1 is here.

Here is John Piper’s summary of his belief in God’s intention of a masculine Christianity:

God has revealed himself to us in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen, and as Father, not Mother. The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son. The Father and the Son created man and woman in his image, and gave them together the name of the man, Adam (Genesis 5:2). God appoints all the priests in Israel to be men. The Son of God comes into the world as a man, not a woman. He chooses twelve men to be his apostles. The apostles tell the churches that all the overseers—the pastor/elders who teach and have authority (1 Timothy 2:12)—should be men; and that in the home, the head who bears special responsibility to lead, protect, and provide should be the husband (Ephesians 5:22–33).

God has revealed himself to us in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen, and as Father, not Mother. (JP)

Is God male?  Absolutely not, but God can refer to Himself in male terms if He wants to and He can refer to Himself in female terms too:

Isaiah 46:3 (NASB95)

³“Listen to Me, O house of Jacob, And all the remnant of the house of Israel, You who have been borne by Me from birth And have been carried from the womb;

God has no problem in using female terminology and comparing Himself to a mother. God also had no problem making an analogy to feathers (when He covers us) or a womb (when He carries us) so why should we use the male terms He uses to say that God prefers men?

The Father and the Son created man and woman in his image, and gave them together the name of the man, Adam (Genesis 5:2). (JP)

The first term for man was not male.  It was a united term that was given to both male and female. (Genesis 5:2)

The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son. (JP)

The Word of God came as a man, not because men are more important in God’s eyes, but because of the sin of Adam – his rebellion that was brought into this world. The world was in need of a last Adam, not a last Eve.

The apostles tell the churches that all the overseers—the pastor/elders who teach and have authority (1 Timothy 2:12)—should be men (JP)

Elders and overseers are those who give up of themselves and serve the body, not those who take authority over the body.

The head who bears special responsibility to lead, protect, and provide should be the husband (Ephesians 5:22–33)  (JP)

There is quite a bit on this blog even in the recent posts about Ephesians 5, that I won’t try to condense it here. I will say that my post here, provides a link to one of the very best sermons I have ever heard taught on this passage.  The sermon is part of a series of sermons, that I intend, God-willing, to comment on and link to in the future.

John Piper also states that women’s joy is to be in masculine Christianity, “He did not create women to languish, or be frustrated, or in any way to suffer or fall short of full and lasting joy, in a masculine Christianity.”  Why did God create Christianity to have a “masculine feel”?  Piper states that it is in part “for the sake of the glory of women”.

Apparently masculine Christianity just feels right to John Piper as he states how God inclines both men and women to fall in line with masculine Christianity.  “It’s the feel of a great, majestic God, who by his redeeming work in Jesus Christ, inclines men to take humble, Christ-exalting initiative, and inclines women to come alongside the men with joyful support, intelligent helpfulness, and fruitful partnership in the work.”

In my last post I listed the first two arguments that complementarians use to “prove” that God intended, from creation, that the male would rule over the female.  In this post I will deal with the third complementarian argument, and then I will go through John Piper’s 8 traits of a masculine ministry from his lecture on masculine Christianity.

3. The male rules for the benefit of God because the male was the only gender that was picked to be as leaders for Israel and among Jesus’ disciples.

The claim is that God only raised male leaders and so God’s actions in the OT and Jesus’ actions with His disciples in the NT, define God’s will for godly leaders.  It is said that the precedent is set by God as an exclusively male leadership except when God did not have any other choice but to appoint a female because no male was available.  It is also said that God picked a woman as a leader because He was judging Israel by giving what was seen by them as a judgment against them.

Response:

This is a common argument, but it is an inaccurate argument.  The claim that God had to chose a female because there were no godly men available is an easy point to disprove.

Elijah thought that he alone was left as a prophet of God because he was the only one left serving God yet God corrected him by saying that he had seven thousand others who have not bowed the knee to Baal.

Romans 11:3 “Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE.”
Romans 11:4 But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.”

God has always had a remnant who followed him and thus God has never been without a man to serve him.

Let’s look at another example. Huldah was used by the Lord to bring a message to King Josiah yet God also had men available for His use. The prophet Jeremiah had been prophesying in Judah since the 13th year of the reign of King Josiah (see Jeremiah 1:2) and it was the 18th year of the reign of King Josiah (see 2 Kings 22:3) when Huldah was consulted as a Prophet of God to bring a message to King Josiah. So a woman, Huldah, was used by God even though Jeremiah was available and Jeremiah had already been prophesying in the land for five years. Even though Jeremiah was available, God chose to use Huldah to speak His words to the king.

What about the claim that women were only picked by God as leaders when He wanted to judge apostate Israel?  Here is one of those claims:

The root problem in Deborah’s day was spiritual apostasy. When God’s people turn away from Him, He renders the men powerless against their enemies and removes wisdom from their hearts. It is a judgment upon apostate people.

Deborah was a Judge sent by God, but she was not sent to judge against Israel but to deliver them and this task was accomplished.

But what about Barak?  Was he weak-willed and cowardly because he needed a woman to go into battle with him? See this complementarian example of the claim that Barak was a coward.

The men in Deborah’s day were very weak and cowardly. This is seen in the fact that Barak, the captain of the armies of Israel, refused to go into battle unless Deborah went with him. What a brave man! What a hero!

The woman had to remind him that God had said it is time to fight; the woman had to encourage and challenge him to go; the woman had to go with him!

Was Barak a cowardly man or was he a man of faith?  The bible tells us that Barak was a man of faith and he is listed in the hall of faith in Hebrews 11:32 right alongside David.  How was Barak’s faith in God shown?  His faith was shown because he refused to go into battle without God’s provision for the battle.  Deborah was God’s provision.

The Judges were all sent to deliver Israel from their enemies.  This means that it was impossible for Deborah to be a judgment against Israel when she was sent to deliver Israel.

What about Jesus?  Why did Jesus pick only men as His disciples?  He didn’t.  He had women disciples right along with the men.  But it is true that Jesus only had men in the category of the twelve. Is this a precedent that Jesus was setting up by implying that only men could be the top leaders of the church?  If so, then He was also setting up a precedent that only Jews could be the top leaders of the church since all of the twelve were Jews.  Jesus’ picking of the twelve, cannot be used as a law for leadership unless Jesus Himself stated such a law and based this law on His choice of the twelve.  Jesus did not state such a law and for men today to go beyond what is written in this area, it proves to be a serious question of their own understanding of the Scriptures and hints of a prideful attitude.  When an argument needs to be bolstered by inaccurate claims, we need to ask why are so many striving so hard after a rulership on this earth and over the Church that was never  given to them? 

For further reading on this topic, see my previous posts here:

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/10/03/women-leaders-to-judge-sinful-men/ and

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/07/laying-a-false-argument-to-rest/

Now onto John Piper’s list of 8 traits of a masculine ministry that he observed from the life of J. C. Ryle.   Below are the 8 traits with a shortened sentence or two from John Piper that describes the trait.

1. A masculine ministry believes that it is more fitting that men take the lash of criticism that must come in a public ministry, than to unnecessarily expose women to this assault.

…a masculine ministry puts men at the head of the troop with the flag in hand and the trumpets in their mouths, so that they, and not the women, take the first bullets.

This sounds so valiant – let the men take the bullet for women disciples in Christ, but in essence, these men are not taking the “bullet for women”. In fact for so many women who are gifted and called by the Lord Jesus, the bullet has been fired by our brothers in Christ and the gun has been aimed to inflict damage to their own sisters in Christ.  The lash of criticism for women in ministry does not come from the world, but from Christian brothers who claim an exclusive right for males to fulfill their call to leadership. When the shooters themselves claim to be the protectors of women, may the Lord help us all.

2. A masculine ministry seizes on full-orbed, biblical doctrine with a view to teaching it to the church and pressing it with courage into the lives of the people.

The point is that when the foundations of the church are crumbling, the men should not stand still and wait for women to seize the tools and brick and mortar. And women should expect their men to be at the forefront of rebuilding the ruins.

This point makes biblical doctrine as a male-only possession.  It also sounds valiant that men should not stand still and wait for women to seize the tools and brick and mortar, but the fact is that these men have done everything they can to remove the tools and to remove the brick and mortar from the hands of women.  John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary for example does not allow women to enroll. The tools that of biblical languages training and other tools of biblical training are not allowed to be placed in the hands of a woman in TMS.

While point 2 of John Piper’s 8 traits of masculine ministry sounds like it is men shouldering the heavy work to help women, in essence, it is used to remove women’s ability to learn, their ability to fulfill their calling in Christ, and their ability to be placed in the body of Christ as the Spirit wills.  When Paul said that women were allowed to learn, it is apparent that many men are not listening.

3. A masculine ministry brings out the more rugged aspects of the Christian life and presses them on the conscience of the church with a demeanor that accords with their proportion in Scripture.

He that would understand the nature of true holiness must know that the Christian is “a man of war.”

It is true that Christians are soldiers in a spiritual battle but this is a battle that we are all called to fight.  There are no “rugged aspects of the Christian life” that are kept away from God’s female soldiers. We are all called to fight the good fight.  We are all called to finish the course.  We are all called to keep the faith.

4. A masculine ministry takes up heavy and painful realities in the Bible, and puts them forward to those who may not want to hear them.

It is a godly and loving and manly responsibility of the leaders of the church not to distort or minimize the weight and horror of hell.

What does this mean?  That a woman is allowed to distort or minimize the weight and horror of hell just because she is a woman?  There is no precedent from the Scriptures that allow anyone to distort or minimize the gospel.  To say that hell is a painful reality would be true, but to say that only males are to “take up” and “put forward” these biblical truths, would be going beyond what is written.

5. A masculine ministry heralds the truth of Scripture, with urgency and forcefulness and penetrating conviction, to the world and in the regular worship services of the church.

…no matter what a preacher’s personality or preferred tone, this preaching necessarily involves urgency and forcefulness and a penetrating conviction which aims to come with divine thrust into the minds and hearts of the listeners. And therefore, this is a manly task.

When I read the Scriptures, I see that it is the Holy Spirit that provides conviction, not men.  The divine thrust that brings a message into the hearts of the listeners, is not the human vessel, but the very work of the Spirit.  It is not a manly task.  It is the Spirit’s task!  I am surprised that John Piper doesn’t get that. What did Paul say?

1 Corinthians 2:1–5 (NASB95)
1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

I think John Piper just totally misread the Apostle Paul!  Apparently Paul was not manly enough for the task if we measure him by John Piper’s standards.

6. A masculine ministry welcomes the challenges and costs of strong, courageous leadership without complaint or self-pity with a view to putting in place principles and structures and plans and people to carry a whole church into joyful fruitfulness.

…what is required again and again is a decisive strength that does not weaken in the face of resistance.

What John Piper seems to be saying here is that women are weak in the face of resistance, while men are not.  It is apparently only a real masculine man who is able to carry a church and be a servant to the church that belongs to Christ.  A church is not meant to be carried by one person.  We are a body, not a business.  We are an organism with many members, not an autocrat-lead organization.  Those who lock other people out because they believe they are called to carry a whole church on their shoulders are often the ones who are abusers who really believe their strong leadership style does not need help.  Paul said that the eye cannot say to the hand “I do not need you”.  The one who needs the most help is often the one who thinks he needs no help at all.

7. A masculine ministry publicly and privately advocates for the vital and manifold ministries of women in the life and mission of the church.

The aim of a masculine ministry is the fullest engagement of every member of the church in joyful, fruitful ministry. The aim of leadership is not to be the ministry, but to free the ministry, according to God’s word, by the power of God’s Spirit, for the glory of God’s name.

Is this John Piper saying that only a masculine ministry is able to provide public and private help to women’s ministries?  In many complementarian churches, the male leadership is stymied about what women can or cannot do in the church.  Can they be a usher?  Can they pass the communion elements front to back?  The aim of this kind of leadership is not to free women in ministry, but to make sure that women don’t overstep their bounds against an invisible list of thou shalt nots.  While we love our brothers in Christ, to think that a man is the best person to head a woman’s ministry, is just plain short sighted.

8. A masculine ministry models for the church the protection, nourishing, and cherishing of a wife and children as part of the high calling of leadership.

The year after he  came to Liverpool as bishop, Ryle published a book of eight messages for children. It’s called Boys and Girls Playing based on Zechariah 8:5. It reveals the rare mixture of concern for children along with a very masculine feel.

John Piper’s point 8 of his 8 traits of a masculine ministry seems to suggest that only a married man is called to the high calling of leadership.  It also suggests that a concern for children along with a feminine feel, is inferior for children’s development.  While we agree with the balanced use of all of our gifting, both male and female serving in their calling and both needed, it seems graceless to say that only a male can best model protection, nourishing and cherishing for women and children.

Has God given the Church a masculine feel?  It seems obvious to me that those who push women out the door by denying them the freedom to use their gifts for the common good, may have a better chance to give the church a more masculine feel, but I do not see this as God’s work.  But in order to help John Piper out and give him more ideas on how to make the church have a more masculine feel, I present a post that I did on the problem of the feminization of the church and a modern-day fix.  I am sure that John Piper can get a few helpful ideas from it as long as no one tells him it was written by a woman.

What did God intend at creation?

It seems that everywhere we look these days, complementarian men are quoting the act of creation as God’s intention to put the women underneath the rule of the man.  They are also quick to note that there are two different kinds of rulership of the male. The first kind of male rule is that of an autocrat, tyrant or despot who rules in spite of the woman’s own will or intention.  This kind of rule, they say, is not what is taught by Christian men. The second kind of rulership is described by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as headship and this is defined as “two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.” (pg 95 Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood a Response to Evangelical Feminism edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem).  The difference between the two rulerships is that one allows the man to rule the woman for his own benefit and the other rulership has the man ruling the woman for the benefit of God as a God-ordained spiritual leader.

Let’s unpack this down to the presuppositions that are required to form the foundation of the God-ordained male rule. This post will consider the first two claims of male-only rule:

1. The male rules for the benefit of God because the male is somehow more like God than the female is.

The claim is that God is male and that only the male was made directly in God’s image. The implication is that because God is a “male” and because He rules the universe, males are more like God and have been given a God-ordained rule within their male nature. At the same time, these God-ordained male rulers believe that God withholds from women the ability to be “like” Him in rulership, because of their God-ordained nature as a “helper”, thus the male alone rules for God and the female alone submits.

Response:

First of all, it is important to note that God is not male. God has no male sexual organs and He has no testosterone. God also does not have a body, so it is impossible for Him to be structurally or hormonally male. In His essence, God is neither male nor female and because He is neither, God is free to describe Himself in female terms just as He is free to describe Himself in male terms.  God describes himself as a nursing mother in Numbers 11:12 and Isaiah 49:15, yet we know that God as pure Spirit has no sexual parts that could make God female. Those who claim that God is female are just as wrong as those who claim that He is male for God is neither.

Secondly, within the expression of God, we find Him as a Divine ruler and a Divine helper so being like God would involve both ruling and functioning as a helper.  If a Christian man refuses to be a helper because he believes this is a woman’s “role”, then he is failing to live out the image of God. God is Himself called our helper in Scripture.

In Genesis 1, God laid out the function of His image-bearers here on earth. Both of God’s image bearers were to rule the earth and the animals. God gave no indication that the male is anymore “like” God in His image than the female is “like” God for God has chosen to give His image to male and female alike.

2. The male rules for the benefit of God because the male was created first.

God created the man first (2:7) and stationed him in the Garden of Eden to develop it and to guard it (2:15) (pg 100 Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood)

Response:

God did not say that He would create Adam first so that the male alone would have a unique right to rule the earth. To claim that being created first is a Divine stamp of approval over and against the second one who was created is an arrogant stand against God’s own testimony from Genesis 1:26, 27.  God initiated His plan by His own spoken Word and He brought the plan into existence by creating both the man and the woman in His image. Both had His stamp and both had the mandate to rule.

While ancient culture gave priority to the first born male child, God deliberately by-passed that cultural priority at times by choosing His servants from outside the rank of the first born. On the other hand,  it is important to note that Adam and Eve were not in a competition of “first born” son’s rights since they were not created as siblings, but created to be united as husband and wife.

The last point is that Adam’s privileges given to him before Eve was created from his body, cannot be a sign of male supremacy unless it can be proven that Adam was given something that was withheld from Eve because she was a female.  No such God-ordained withholding of privileges is present in the Scriptures, so complementarians are left with a “beginning of creation” male supremacy through sheer wishful thinking alone.

In my last post I presented one of the best sermons that I have ever heard on Ephesians 5, regarding the evidence of Spirit-filled lives for both men and women.  This post is on the opposite of the Spirit-filled life which is an influx of worldly infection through male-centered pride. The outgrowth of this infection is the teaching that encourages men to focus their efforts on taking the “lead” over women, putting them under their authority and control. They are taught that women were made to be led and when men don’t take leadership over women’s lives, women will not be able to fulfill their “role” in Christ.  Recently I heard a teaching where young Christian men were rebuked for taking the authority over their girlfriend’s by deciding for them what university courses they would register for. The speaker chastised the young men and told them that they were “not yet” responsible for making their girlfriend’s decisions. They needed to wait until they actually became their husbands and then they had this authority. It is no wonder that many women are surprised with an entirely different man on their wedding day than who they thought they were marrying. The teaching that men are responsible for the entire home including their wife and her spirituality has caused many young men to subjugate their women in order to fulfill their calling and for the wife’s “own good”. The spiritual harm that has resulted from the teaching that the man has the mandate to rule his wife for God, has caused untold pain and suffering and a stifling of the woman’s ability to seek after God for her own life. She is no longer in control of the exercise of her own gifts and calling – he is.

This alternate “Christian” worldview results in man-centered pride and arrogance which breeds dominance and spiritual abuse rather than Christ-centered living through the filling of the Holy Spirit. Wade Burleson has written an excellent article where he identifies several organizations that are guilty of promoting unethical, unbiblical, and godless treatment of women. I have listed three movements below and made my own comments on their historical push for male rule.

1. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

No organization has worked harder to spread the message of male only leadership in the home and church than CBMW has.  Be Strong and Show Yourself a Man was the theme for their 2005 Conference at Denton Bible Church.  To CBMW, manhood is connected to the Kingdom of God and the Bible gives us a mandate to raise “masculine” sons and “feminine” daughters.

2.  Together for the Gospel.

T4G has spearheaded a view of complementarianism that has gone so far as to include their view of male leadership in the gospel so that not having a clear view of complementarianism is said to damage a Christian’s witness to the gospel.  Their Article XVI reads:

We affirm that the Scripture reveals a pattern of complementary order between men and women, and that this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel, even as it is the gift of our Creator and Redeemer. We also affirm that all Christians are called to service within the body of Christ, and that God has given to both men and women important and strategic roles within the home, the Church, and the society. We further affirm that the teaching office of the Church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings and that men are to lead in their homes as husbands and fathers who fear and love God.

We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical distinction of roles excludes women from meaningful ministry in Christ’s kingdom. We further deny that any Church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.

3. The resurgence movement and Mark Driscoll.

Mark Driscoll has influenced a lot of younger Christians to accept limitations on the “roles” of women.  Mark has adopted Bruce Ware’s view that a person’s view of gender roles will reveal their view of God, the Bible as God’s Word, and how the Bible is to be interpreted. Mark’s view is that complementarianism, or male rule in the home and church, is vital for the well-being of God’s people, and his job, as well as other New Calvinist’s job, is to present fresh ways of saying this “old truth”.

Wade Burleson concludes that complementarianism leads to power-hungry men seeking positions of authority and control, and an almost cultish like god complex. “I am in the image of God. My word is Law. You submit to what I say, and don’t dare try to tell me what I should do.” He gives three examples of where complementarianism has hurt women.

1. A Pastor moved his family to a more expensive home against his wife’s will.  Wade writes:

Before the move the pastor’s wife insisted that the family should not move. She had several very good and valid reasons. However, the pastor informed his wife, that as the man in the home–”the one with authority”–he would make the decision to move and overrule any objections he heard. He said moving was “the right thing” to do, and submission to his authority was “the right thing” for her to do.  So the pastor’s family moved. I have withheld names, but I do hope the pastor reads this blog and realizes the dysfunctional nature of the argument he had with his wife. Multiply this by hundreds of times in conservative, evangelical homes and you get a picture of the problems created when Christian men have a warped view of their authority.

2. A long-time member of a baptist church was not allowed to have her funeral in the church since her son wanted two women to read Scriptures at his mother’s funeral.

3.  There is a commentary on the Bible just for women. Wade’s blog gives his whole rant about how culture is bringing in “bizarre and unbiblical views of women that are being taught by our seminary Presidents, their wives, and other ‘leaders’ in the SBC.”

The complementarian movement has been one of the causes of division in the Church today that has caused godly, gifted women to leave many evangelical churches in order to be faithful to use their gifts in ministry. Please pray with us that God will bring wide spread repentance to those who have used their authority and control to hold back God’s female “sons”. May there come a time that we will all be in unity with no more men seeking after position, power, authority and control.  Jesus said it is to be “not so among you”.

Luke 22:25–27 (NKJV)
25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’
26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.
27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

This post is the essence of the sermon Spirit-Filled Living part 1 by Pastor Darrell Johnson of First Baptist Church, Vancouver, BC, Canada.  If you would like to listen to the entire sermon, you can listen to the sermon here.

Spirit-Filled Living Part 1

The revolutionary and alternate understanding of human relationships in Ephesians 5 & 6 is contrary to deeply engrained patterns of behavior. Even after 2,000 years the Church has yet to work out the implications.

In Ephesians 5:18 we find the imperative (command) to “be filled with the Spirit”. We are to be filled with the very life of God and everything else flows out of that filling. Following that filling is a series of consequences or results. Notice that these results are all participles. They are not commands as some translation have made them out to be. They are participles – the result of the one command – “be filled”.

Ephesians 5:21 “be subject” is also not a command (imperative), but a participle in a series of participles. Ephesians 5:21 is also not a new sentence as many translations have it, nor is it a new paragraph, for “being subject” is a result of being filled.

There are a serious of relationships in which this “being subject” is worked out. Wives and husbands, fathers and children, masters and servants.

Verse 21 sets up the subjection as reciprocal, “one to another”, so that all of the subjection in Ephesians 5 & 6 is governed by the reciprocal nature that flows from “being filled”. Wives are being subject to husbands and husbands being subject to wives; children being subject to fathers and fathers  (or parents) being subject to children; servants being subject to masters and masters being subject to servants.

Radical and revolutionary

“Being filled” goes to the root of relational dynamics and turns things upside down so that things can be right side up again. Because of sin, human relationships are twisted and distorted.  Jesus Christ comes into the world and through His Spirit, things become untwisted and untangled and He restores those relationships to God’s original intention.

Household codes

In the first century all of society had codes of conduct. These household codes listed the three sets of relationships that Paul also listed in Ephesians 5:22, 6:1, 2, 4. In most cases the husband, father and master of the household codes turn out to be the same person.

In the first century the home was often the place of work where all being lived under one roof. However,when the Holy Spirit comes and fills human beings with God’s life, the dynamics of these relationships change.  There is a new household code and there has to be. Why? It is because women, children and servants, were treated as mere objects to used by their masters for their own needs.  Some men did recognize the image of God in women, children and slaves, but the norm was that these three groups were mere pawns on a grand chess board controlled by fathers, husbands and masters.

Only one who was human

In the household codes, the husband/father/master/patriarch is the only one who is considered truly human.  Aristotle did not think women had the same rational capacity as men and therefore needed to be ruled by their men. He said that there were by nature, the classes of rulers and those ruled. The free rule the slave, the male rules the female and the man rules the child.

The Jews carried the same kind of household code. Jewish man every morning gave thanks that God had not made him a Gentile, slave or woman.  There were no legal rights for women.  The husband could do with her as he willed.

The code

In the human code, wives were subjugated to husbands, children were subjugated to fathers and servants were subjugated to masters.  Then Jesus Christ comes into the world; then the Spirit comes to fill the people in that world and the Spirit turns everything upside down.

Christ’s way

Paul says that Christ’s way for us is to be filled with the Spirit, being subject to one another in the fear of Christ.  This is a participle not a command. In fact in verse 22 the participle is not even there in the original text. It is found in verse 21. To make verse 22 a command or a new sentence or a new paragraph is to distort what Paul is saying. This inadvertently communicates something that was never there in the text.

Being subject

The Spirit fills us with His life. We are to speak differently, speaking with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks to God in the name of Jesus.

Grumbling and complaining are to give way to gratitude because we realize that God is in all we face, in order to further shape us into the image of Jesus. We find ourselves changing in the way we relate to each other especially in the household where we live and work. This result is not a command, but a consequence and result of being filled. Without the filling it is impossible for a human being to be subject to another human being. The Spirit comes and works this revolution in the human heart and we live out a new household code.

Being subject in the fear of Christ

The fear of Christ is not to be afraid of Christ.  It is an awe or reverence or respect for Christ.

Being subject to one another out of a deep respect for Christ for who He is, for how He lives, for a very different way He has of being Lord.  Being subject means standing under. We are to stand under Jesus Christ and stand under one another.

Why is “standing under” so radical?

In Ephesians 5:21, 22, wives “standing under” husbands and husbands “standing under wives”. This is radical not the world’s way and it is under not over.

Paul is working out the consequences of Jesus’ teaching given in Mark 10:42-45.

Mark 10:42–45 (NASB)
42 Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them.
43 “But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant;
44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.
45 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Jesus said that the worldly rulers, the worldly way, is to lord it over. Yet this is not Christ’s way. It is “not so among you”.  The human way is over.  This is the instinct of un-kingdomized humanity – to rule over others. Un-spiritfilled humanity has overlords. If one wants to see this instinct in action, go and see the move “The Help”. It is always over others.

Not so in my kingdom

The kingdom that Jesus brings in is “not so”, not like the world’s way, for whoever wishes to be great…shall be your servant. To be first is to be the slave of all.  In His Kingdom and among you, it is not over but under, not ruler, but servant.

The reality of the old man is over, climbing over others, because they are without the Spirit.

The new humanity with the new man is all about standing under one another.  It is only with the power of the Holy Spirit that one can purpose to stand under another human.

We cannot fully understand another human being until we stand under them. We cannot fully understand Jesus Christ until we stand under Him.

Even the Son of Man

Mark 10:45 (NASB)
45 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Jesus said “even the Son of Man”.  The Son of Man is the term Jesus took for Himself and it is the Messianic term from the book of Daniel, a term for the ultimate ruler. Jesus said that not even the ultimate ruler came to be served but to serve.

When the Spirit of the Son of Man comes and fills us, we find ourselves moved from over to under.

Spirit-filled wives will be moved to standing under their husbands and Spirit-filled husbands will find themselves moved to standing under their wives. Spirit-filled children will find themselves moved to standing under their fathers (parents) and Spirit-filled fathers (parents) will be moved to standing under their children. Spirit-filled slaves will find themselves moved to standing under their masters and Spirit-filled masters will find themselves moved to standing under their slaves.

In the kingdom of God, when the Spirit of the King comes, the revolution takes place and we live in mutual submission. We all have equal dignity, equal value, all equal before Christ, in submission to Christ and to each other.

Jesus’ example

The night before Jesus goes to the cross and He is gathered with His disciples in the upper room, Jesus rises from the table, lays aside His outer garments and grabs a basin and a towel and goes down on his knees and begins to wash their feet.  When He has washed their feet, He puts His garments back on and He takes His place at the table and asks them if they understand what He has done.

John 13:13–14 (NASB)
13 “You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am.
14 “If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.

Instead of Jesus saying that He has washed their feet, so they should wash His feet, He states that they should wash one another’s feet. Washing each other’s feet is washing Jesus’ feet. This subverts and replaces all normal patterns of authority. The disciples are to be servants of one another. This is not about rights. This is a different kind of egalitarianism which is based on the fact that the only one who is truly Master has proved Himself to be slave to all equally. He has laid aside His life for us.

The debt that we owe to Jesus is to be discharged by our subjection to our neighbor in loving service. Our neighbor is the appointed agent to receive what we owe to the Master. That is what Paul is getting at in the text.

Wives, your husband is the appointed agent authorized to receive the love you want to pour on Jesus.  Husbands, your wives are the appointed agent to receive the love you want to pour on Jesus.

This is why we need the filling of the Holy Spirit. The alternate reading of reality is so revolutionary that only the Spirit of Jesus, the true servant Lord can possibly make it happen.

MM Outreach News & Views #98 features our story of adversity through God’s grace.  This will help many of you to understand why I am not always fast in answering or posting here on the Women in Ministry blog.  I do want to go back to regular posting articles here through 2012, the Lord willing.

Interested in reading more about our story?  The current magazine is now available online or through the printed version and snail mail.  Listed below are ordering information for US, Canada and Overseas for both the print and online editions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For USA customers, click the “buy now” button below to purchase the current edition online for $2.00 USD

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

USA customers may purchase a 1 year subscription (produces 4x a year) paper edition for $11.00 USD (includes the current edition)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

USA customers may purchase a 1 year subscription online edition for $7.00 USD (includes the current edition)

A very Merry Christmas to all who visit my blog!

Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs has struck up some heat on a post that he titles “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of the Discernment Divas”.  In this post and in his subsequent comments he makes his position plain that women are not allowed to publicly point out error of a “duly ordained pastor”.  Phil classifies many “housewives and homeschool moms” as bad discerners who are discernment divas.   These “divas” believe that God has called them into a ministry of discernment but their abilities are not in rational understanding of doctrinal truth but an ability “to use a really sharp tongue” which Phil says is counter productive and embarrassing.  Phil doesn’t seem to mind that this may offend a lot of women as he tells Friel that he is a descendent of the John Knox clan. It was John Knox who offended more than a few when he wrote the book The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women in 1558.  In this book, Knox wrote that women compared to men were blind, weak, sick, impotent, mad, frenetic and their counsel is foolish. Knox also quotes Augustine favorably as saying: “How can woman be the image of God, seeing (says he) she is subject to man, and has none authority, neither to teach, neither to be witness, neither to judge, much less to rule or bear empire?”  When such harsh things are said about women even questioning whether women can be the image of God, would it be wrong for me to say that looking back on this kind of classification of women that Phil Johnson has associated himself with by aligning with John Knox’s Monstrous Regiment book, sounds sharp, counter productive and embarrassing and may have been a bad discernment decision for Phil?

In the audio file that accompanies Phil Johnson’s blog post, we can hear Todd Friel saying “There are two kinds of discernments that are a kind of discerner that are on the table right now. You have the monstrous regiment, and you have valid legitimate people who are concerned about theology.  That’s us.”

Who are the “valid legitimate people who are concerned about theology” who are allowed to present public criticism of Christian leaders and their bad doctrine?  They are males.  In his blog post Phil gives an answer to Denise who had written “Certainly God didn’t gift believers with the Holy Spirit and with spiritual gifts according to their gender.”  Phil responds:

Of course He did. He gave us gifts that are in accord with our calling and office. Certain offices in the church are closed to women

No matter how broadly you want to interpret 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, one of the clear implications of that text is that it’s not fitting for a woman who has no teaching authority in the church to raise a public objection against a teaching elder whose office is recognized by the church. That’s not to say the pastor is infallible or above critique, and there is (of course) a proper venue for a lay woman to share her concerns or ask her questions, but a blog on the Internet is not that venue.

If any woman fancies herself a gift to the church as a guardian of sound doctrine because she thinks she has a special “gift of discernment” that entitles her to go online and write insulting epithets against a duly ordained and divinely-called pastor, She is seriously mistaken and grossly out of line–and she is an embarrassment to propriety and feminine modesty.

How are we to compare this kind of discernment with the Scripture?

1.  It is the Holy Spirit who decides who gets His gifts.

1 Corinthians 12:11

But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

Men have not been given the right or responsibility to decide who will receive the Holy Spirit’s gifts.

2.  The gifts of the Holy Spirit are for the common good.

1 Corinthians 12:6, 7

There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.

But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

No man has been given the right to withhold the gifts of the Holy Spirit for the benefit of all.

3.  We are all told to seek the gifts for the purpose of the edification of the church.

1 Corinthians 14:1

¹Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

1 Corinthians 14:12

12 So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.

No man has been given the right to tell a member of the body of Christ that he or she cannot be zealous for the spiritual gifts.

4.  Those who have been gifted by the Holy Spirit are told to use their gifts as a go-between (the term employ) bringing the gifts of God to the benefit of the church as a good steward.

1 Peter 4:10–11

As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

No man has been given the right to demand that a servant of the Lord not be a good steward by using their gift publicly.

5.   We are told not to quench the spirit

1 Thessalonians 5:19
19 Do not quench the Spirit;

The gifts are not delegated by pastors, but by God Himself.  When we quench what God has given for the edification of the Church, we are guilty of quenching God’s Holy Spirit.

6. We are to be faithful to God with what He has given us because we must stand accountable to Him in the end.  We are not to judge one another unjustly nor are we to put a stumbling block in another Christian’s way.

Romans 14:12–13
12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way.

I would like to ask my brothers and sisters in Christ to judge from the Scriptures.  Where does the Scripture give men permission to silence the gifts of the Holy Spirit that are given for the common good?  If we are to fear God and love the body of Christ, we need to respect the Holy Spirit and His gifts.  If He chooses to gift a woman, who dares to silence her gift for the use of the body of Christ?

This post is the second part of an expansion on the reasons why I believe that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is about one specific woman and why a general reference to women does not line up with the grammar within the surrounding context.  The first points 1 – 4 are discussed here. This post will deal with points 5 – 8 and an additional question about why the particular woman might not have been lumped together with the other false teachers in chapter 1.

5.  Paul creates an outline or pattern of Eve  in verse in 1 Timothy 2: 13 that fits the situation of a one specific deceived woman referred to in 1 Timothy 2:14 as the woman.

When Paul named Eve as the reason for the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, Eve’s deception became the pattern that could be traced onto a specific situation at Ephesus.  Paul had already set up the usage  of a pattern in 1 Timothy 1:13 – 16 as he documented his own sin done in ignorance and unbelief as a prototype for God’s work in others.

1 Timothy 1:13–16 (NASB)
13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;
14 and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.
15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

The Greek word translated as example in the NASB is hypotyposin and it means:

a pattern, as a model prototype 1 Ti 1:16 (as prime recipient of extraordinary mercy in view of his infamous past, Paul serves as a model for the certainty of availability of mercy to others).

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (pg 1042).

We can see that Paul set himself up as the prototype or example of God’s mercy that was available to others.  In the same way that Paul is used as a model prototype in 1 Timothy 1:16, Eve is used as a model prototype in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14 and Eve’s deception which was followed by Eve being a recipient of God’s extraordinary mercy when God prophesied that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent deceiver was itself the prototype for the promise of the Ephesian woman’s salvation found in 1 Timothy 2:15. In fact the prototype set up by Paul is so strong that in 1 Timothy 2:14 it is almost impossible not to see Eve and her deception even though the grammar surrounding “the woman” cannot be made to fit a dead Eve.

1 Timothy 2:14 (NASB)
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

The definite noun (the woman) who had come into transgression has the verb in the perfect tense which means:

a completed action that occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result that exists in the present (in relation to the writer). The emphasis of the perfect is not the past action so much as it is as such but the present “state of affairs” resulting from the past action.

Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology.

For a discussion of why the grammar cannot be interpreted as a historical perfect, see part 1 of this discussion here.

So, the woman’s transgression that happened because she was deceived, was a past action, but the continuing results of the transgression are a present “state of affairs” at the time of Paul’s writing.  The grammar must fit a living woman, not a dead one.  This is the exact situation as found in verse 15 where she cannot refer to a dead woman. Eve, then, has to be a pattern, outline or prototype for deception which preceded God’s mercy in chapter 2 just as Paul is a pattern or prototype for ignorance and unbelief and then God’s mercy in chapter 1.

In 1 Timothy 2:13 Paul brings in Adam and Eve to explain the reasoning for the prohibition and from that introduction, Paul then draws an outline of Eve and replaces her with the specific woman.  He does this in such an effective way that Timothy as well as all of us can see the outline of Eve in the word deceived. Yet even with the strong outline of Eve, Paul fills in the details with another woman.  While Paul starts with the name Eve, he switches to the term the woman (vs 14) and the pronoun she (vs 15).

6.  Timothy receives an assurance about a particular “she” whose salvation would still be in the future at the time of Paul’s writing.

The grammar for both the woman (vs 14) and she (vs 15) requires a living woman who can be in a present state following her transgression and who can follow a new path that will bring about her salvation. The prototype of Eve must give way to a living woman who falls within the outline of Eve because of her circumstance. The prototype of Eve that is replicated with the woman in Ephesus shows the certainty of the availability of God’s mercy even to the one who is fully and completely deceived.

Will the deceived woman in Ephesus receive the same mercy as Eve did after her sin?  Paul is sure that she will be saved if her eyes are opened by being taught the truth (vs 11) and then continuing in that truth with help (vs 15). Verse 15 naturally connects the singular pronoun she to the specific and definite woman from verse 14 who is still in the ongoing consequence of her transgression. While verse 14 has the grammar showing ongoing consequences, the grammar of verse 15 shows Paul’s hope for her salvation in the future.  When Paul wrote that “she will be saved…if”, the only consistent and faithful application of a conditional salvation, would be Paul’s confidence about one specific deceived woman since a promise regarding all women’s salvation would have been a false promise no matter which way you look at it.  If we make the assumption that Paul wrote the truth about the  outcome of her salvation, then placing all women into a generic singular she would have made Paul to be a liar or a deluded man.  There is simply no way to include all women into Paul’s conditional promise.

7. Paul uses both the singular and plural in verse 15 and proper grammar disallows referencing both “she” and “they” in the same sentence as being the same thing.  The grammar supports a single woman along with at least one other person in order to make a plural “they”.

There is no biblical precedence for naming a singular generic noun as a plural generic pronoun in the same sentence.  The Bible follows grammar rules that reference a single generic woman as a singular pronoun she and no passage ever switches from she to they or from he to they in referring to the same antecedent.  We can either accept that the Scripture unlawfully breaks grammar rules in 1 Timothy 2:15 or else we can accept that she is not the exact same thing as they, and we can chose to trace back the pronoun to find out who she refers to and who they refers to.  The nearest noun that fits the she is the woman from verse 14, along with the anarthrous woman from verses 11, 12.  The plural they would have to refer back to the anarthrous man and woman from verse 12.  I see no other way around the grammar, and if I am wrong about this, then I am willing to be corrected by the inspired text and the inspired grammar.  Until then, I can only accept and believe what I see clearly from the text that aligns with an inspired text without grammar errors.

8. Eve cannot be a pattern for all women since not all women are deceived.  Eve can be a pattern for another deceived woman.

It is Eve’s deception and consequently the mercy shown her that is the prototype/pattern.  It is impossible for all women to fit this prototype since not all women are deceived. Paul’s example of Eve must correlate to deception or Paul’s words become meaningless.

I believe that it is time that we set aside our man-made tradition that has caused us to see Paul’s writings as contradictory to his practice of commending women who worked in ministry alongside him.  Paul’s practice was to commend them, and never did he silence them or set their gifts aside. Tradition has made Paul into a misogynist, but a proper exegesis of the text that pays close attention to the inspired words and the inspired grammar, vindicates both Paul and God who inspired Paul’s words.

~~~~

One other question that was posed to me was about why Paul did not lump the deceived woman in with the other deceived teachers in 1 Timothy 1.  I believe that the answer to this question revolves around two things.  The first consideration is that the situation of one particular woman with a Christian husband who was silent about her error, made correcting her to be a more difficult situation because the culture of that day made speaking correction to a married woman in contradiction to her husband’s own actions, to be a very tricky situation.  I believe that Paul set this one example aside by itself because Timothy needed encouragement to act outside of his comfort zone.

The second consideration is that the problem of one deceived woman in Ephesus was a perfect example to highlight God’s mercy through a woman.  Many in that day disregarded women and saw them as being outside of God’s mercy merely because of their gender.  By setting up the problem of this one woman and comparing her to the very first deceived woman, Paul set up a perfect parallel to Eve’s deception and the amazing mercy that came through the first one who was formerly deceived would encourage all to rethink gender biases.  By comparing the woman in Ephesus to the first woman, Paul was able to give a second witness to the mercy of God.  Paul listed himself as a prototype for mercy in chapter 1 and in chapter 2 Paul lists Eve as the second prototype for mercy. Through Eve, Paul gives  a living example of God’s mercy that Paul sees will happen in the future.  So by leaving the deceived woman teacher for chapter 2, Paul has given us the required two witnesses as prototypes of God’s mercy that should bring us to glory and praise God who is able to save the very worst and the most deceived.

I hope that my two posts that have brought out an expansion on my understanding have been helpful to you.  The other post that will be helpful in this area is my post on the anaphoric reference in 1 Timothy 2 found here.

In July 2011, I was privileged to be a special speaker at the IMF MORE conference in Lakeville, MN.  It has been an extremely busy time for me as we are still in construction of our new office and video studio, but God blessed the time we took away from our project to serve at the conference.  The General Secretary of IMF saw that my work in the DVDs was unique and he had the DVD set critiqued by two seminary professors.  Below is the recommendation sent to me from Pastor Frank Masserano:

It was a blessing to have you present “Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?” at IMF’s recent MORE Conference. I reviewed the four DVDs carefully prior to the conference and had two New Testament and Biblical Language professors at two separate ATS accredited seminaries review your research.

While both differed a bit on some textual issues, they both overwhelmingly recognize the excellence of your research and the general conclusions you reached.

Many of our people (men and women) were greatly blessed by your presentations and the humble and Christ-like spirit you and Richard exhibited in our midst.

Thank you again and congratulations on your excellent research and well prepared presentation on DVDs. I would recommend the set to any pastor for presentation to his or her church leadership, congregation or women’s groups.

In Christ,
Pastor Frank Masserano
General Secretary IMF

This post will be an expansion on the reasons why I believe that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is about one specific woman and why a general reference to women does not line up with the grammar within the surrounding context.  I will also consider the challenge to my view from the new verbal aspect theory.  To start I will summarize my reasons from the text for believing that Paul had a specific woman in mind.  After that I will expand on each point trying hard to bring it down to a general level of understanding.

1.  There is a grammar change along with a topic change starting with 1 Timothy 2 verses 11 and 12 that points to a single woman rather than a group.

2.  There is an anaphoric reference in verse 12 (the anarthrous noun “woman”) that has as its referent the definite noun (the woman) in verse 14 as an antecedent.  This clarifies the non-specific noun (woman) in verse 12 as a specific woman rather than generic woman.

3.  The woman in verse 14 is in the perfect tense as she is existing in a present state and therefore the woman cannot be made to fit a dead person such as Eve.  The challenge of the new verbal aspect theory will also be dealt with under this point.

4.  The she in verse 15 is in the future tense and cannot be made to fit a dead person such as Eve who cannot do anything in the future concerning her salvation.

5.  Paul creates an outline or pattern of Eve  in verse 13 that fits the situation of a one specific deceived woman referred to in 1 Timothy 2:14 as the woman.

6.  Timothy receives an assurance about a particular “she” whose salvation would still be in the future at the time of Paul’s writing.

7. Paul uses both the singular and plural in verse 15 and proper grammar disallows referencing both “she” and “they” in the same sentence as being the same thing.  The grammar supports a single woman along with at least one other person in order to make a plural “they”.

8. Eve cannot be a pattern for all women since not all women are deceived.  Eve can be a pattern for another deceived woman.

Expansion on the first four points (the expansion on the next four points will come with the next post in this series)

1. There is an unusual grammar change in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 that is unnecessary and very irregular if Paul was writing about women in general.  However the grammar change is a natural change if Paul is switching gears and changing subjects.

A logical continuation of the general topic of women should have kept Paul using the term “women” in verses 11 and 12.  This would have been straightforward and understandable if Paul was not changing the subject and if he was referring to the same group.  Paul could have easily said “I am not allowing women to teach or authentein men.”  This is indeed what complementarians are saying that Paul meant, but if that is what Paul meant to write, he did not write what was natural in that continued flow of  discussion.  Rather than continuing with the plural form, Paul abruptly switches to the singular woman in verses 11 and 12.  It is an abrupt change in grammar and we need to ask why?  Was the Holy Spirit trying to confuse us through this difficult passage penned by Paul?  Or is this one of the passages that we need to pay especially close attention to each point of grammar in order to rightfully divide the Word of Truth?  I would like to suggest that we have speculated far too long on what Paul meant and by speculating we have dismissed the grammar as if it has no real relevance.  Dismissing the grammar has caused us to veer off course and has caused much confusion in the church.

Paying close attention to the grammar allows 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to be one continuous text that is presented in a logical and compelling order. It is also in contrast with the previous verses.  For example in 1 Timothy 2:9, 10 Paul is talking about godly women who have good works. These godly women are to be given instruction by Timothy on how to model godliness by dressing modestly without placing undue emphasis on their attire.  Then comes the shift.  The prohibition in verse 12 shows that these verses are not talking about godly women nor about good works but about a sinner and about bad works.  There is a shift in the grammar (from plural to singular) and from good and godly things to bad and ungodly things which are markedly similar to Paul’s own ignorance, unbelief and violent aggression (1 Timothy 1:13) that he displayed before he found God’s mercy.  Paul himself said that he was set up as a pattern for those who were going to believe on Jesus.

1 Timothy 1:16 (NKJV) However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

Paul was set up as a pattern as one who was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor (1 Timothy 1:13) yet Paul found mercy. The Greek noun that is translated a violent aggressor means:

an act which invades the sphere of another to his hurt, a “trespass,” a “transgression” of the true norm in violation of divine and human right. Arrogance of disposition is often implied

Vol. 8: Theological dictionary of the New Testament.  (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.)

A similar kind of word is used in 1 Timothy 2:12 as the extremely rare Greek word authentein also has a violent root even at times being equated with murder by one’s own hand.  Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament defines this unusual word as:

one who with his own hand kills either others or himself.

Zodhiates The complete word study dictionary writes this about authentein:

murderer, absolute master, which is from autos (846), himself, and entea (n.f.) arms, armor. A self–appointed killer with one’s own hand, one acting by his own authority or power.

So while Paul in his pre-Christian state thought he was working for God, his ungodly acts were violent aggression against both God and man. In chapter 2 Paul takes the pattern of his example and lays it as a pattern over the case of a woman who is unwittingly doing evil, but who is also eligible to receive God’s mercy.  Paul links her to the deception of Eve and in her deception she is to be stopped from teaching and committing the act of autentein towards a man. A deceived person who is teaching their deception is a bad work and deception veers one onto the path of ungodliness.  It is important to note that Paul never ever stops the teaching of true doctrine.   Even those who teach the truth yet with an ungodly motive are not stopped from teaching.  In Philippians 1:15-18 Paul brings this out very clearly.

Philippians 1:15–18 (NASB95)

¹⁵Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will;

¹⁶the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel;

¹⁷the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment.

¹⁸What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,

So we can see that starting in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 there is a grammar change from plural to singular and a topic change from godly women to the bad works of one who is deceived.  We can know for sure that the topic has changed because true teaching is never stopped by the Apostle Paul even with those who display an ungodly, bad motive.  Paul’s pattern was always to stop false doctrine, but never did he stop the preaching of the truth.  To summarize, the transitional words to signal the change in topic are the change from plural to singular and from the topic of godly to the topic of deception.  We would expect that Timothy completely understood the topic change because he knew the specific situation in Ephesus.  We would certainly not expect Timothy to connect instructions for godly women on their appearance to instructions for one who is under deception.  Ignoring the topic and grammar change has caused many to lump godly women into the category of the deceived.  We must change this faulty tradition so that the church can go forward in unity and in the strength and the inter-connective nature of each member and each God-given gift.

Note:  Those who are disagreeing with me, need to provide reason for the irregular and unusual grammar change if they believe that Paul continues to write about women in general.  Also those who believe that Paul was stopping godly teaching need to provide proof that Paul ever stopped the teaching of the truth of the gospel. Please document additional places where such an unusual grammar change happened in the Scriptures where there is no change of subject and please provide proof that Paul ever practiced silencing the truth of the gospel.  If you cannot, then please consider that Paul has changed the subject from godly to ungodly and the application from general to a specific case.

2. There is an anaphoric reference in verse 12 that links the anarthrous noun “woman” to the antecedent reference “the woman” in verse 14.

Anarthrous means “used without the article”.  An anarthrous noun does not mean that it is indefinite just  because it does not have the definite article.  It can properly be attached to a repetition of the noun and the repetition does provide the definite article.  Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries defines it this way:

Normally when an anaphoric use is in view, the preceding use of the noun will lack the article. It will not be articled. And if you read Greek then you will know that in James 2:14 when it says that a person says they have faith (ean pistin lege) pistin does not have an article, so this is a classic example where you have a noun, then you have the repetition of the noun later with an article, that article is pointing us back to the preceding use of the noun. This is called the anaphoric use of the article.

You can hear the audio clip on this topic here James White on Anaphoric reference.

So we have “woman” in 1 Timothy 2:12 that lacks the article and a repetition of the singular “woman” in verse 14 that has the article.  The repetition of the noun with the article will point us back to the preceding use of the noun and identifies a specific woman is in view.

Since Timothy knew the problems in Ephesus that Paul was alluding to, we can know for certain that Timothy was not confused by Paul using the general term “woman” and then adding the specific term that defines a specific woman when Paul links her to the very first deceived woman.  Timothy was not confused.

Note:  For those who do not agree that Paul used an anaphoric reference in verse 12 attached to the repetition of the noun with the article, then please show me why such a use of the reference cannot fit the reason why Paul changed from the plural “women” in verse 10 to the singular “woman” in verses 11 and 12.

3.  The woman in verse 14 is in the perfect tense as she is existing in a present state of affairs and therefore the woman from verse 14 grammatically cannot be made to fit a dead person such as Eve.

The perfect tense in Greek is defined this way:

perfect — The verb tense used by the writer to describe a completed verbal action that occurred in the past but which produced a state of being or a result that exists in the present (in relation to the writer). The emphasis of the perfect is not the past action so much as it is as such but the present “state of affairs” resulting from the past action.
– Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology.

There are those who claim that the new verbal aspect theory allows them to change the perfect tense in 1 Timothy 2:14 to a dramatic or historical perfect.  Unfortunately this cannot be done in this passage.

In my work as a apologist I have seen the same claim about the present tense where some have tried to deny the Deity of the Lord Jesus by claiming that Jesus’ words in John 8:58 “I am” is not to be seen as a present tense but a historical (or dramatic) present.

John 8:58 (NASB95)

⁵⁸Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

Jesus was saying that before Abraham came into being, Jesus as the Word of God already existed. He was contrasting the existence initiated by birth with Himself as an absolute existence, the same existence claimed by God in Exodus 3:14.

Exodus 3:14 (NASB95)

¹⁴God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

Instead of taking this as an eternal present, Jehovah’s Witnesses have claimed that it is to be taken as a historical present.  Daniel B. Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics on page 526, he writes this about the historical present:

1. Definition

The historical present is used fairly frequently in narrative literature to describe a past event.

2. Amplification/Semantics

a. Reason for Use: Vivid Portrayal

The reason for the use of the historical present is normally to portray an event vividly, as though the reader were in the midst of the scene as it unfolds…The present tense may be used to describe a past event, either for the sake of vividness or to highlight some aspect of the narrative….

The problem for those who deny the Deity of Jesus, is that Jesus’ wording using the present tense is not in a narrative.  It does not qualify as a historical present.  A narrative passage would be one which is telling a story:

Matthew 1:19–20 (NKJV)

¹⁹Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.

²⁰But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was not telling a story but was giving a testimony to His enduring existence.

But what of those who claim that the perfect tense in 1 Timothy 2:14 can also take the route of being a historical perfect?  There are two things that remove 1 Timothy 2:14 as having the possibility of being a historical or dramatic perfect.  The first thing is that the perfect tense needs to be aorist not  indicative as the perfect tense is in 1 Timothy 2:14.  The second important point is that it has to be in a narrative context which 1 Timothy 2 is not.

Here is the definition of the perfect tense according to Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics pg 573

Definition

The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker.) Or as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for “indicating not the past action as such but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action.

BDF suggest that the perfect tense “combines in itself, so to speak, the present and the aorist in that it denotes the continuance of completed action…”

Here is how Dr. Wallace defines the boundaries around the historical perfect tense on page 578 of his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:

C. Aoristic Perfect (a.k.a. Dramatic or Historical Perfect)

1. Definition

The perfect indicative is rarely used in a rhetorical manner to describe an event in a highly vivid way. The aorist/dramatic perfect is “used as a simple past tense without concern for present consequences…”

In this respect, it shares a kinship with the historical present. There are but a handful of examples of this in the NT, occurring only in narrative contexts. Thus this use is informed by contextual intrusions (narrative). The key to detecting a dramatic perfect is the absence of any notion of existing results.19  (19 footnote – Cf. Burton, Moods and Tenses, 80, 88. Burton doubts that any genuine examples actually occur in the NT.)

The perfect tense of 1 Timothy 2:14 is not in the aorist tense but in the indicative which is said to be rarely ever used this way.  It is also not found within a narrative context.  Lastly the perfect tense in 1 Timothy 2:14 is not identified only with the act and not the consequences.  In fact verse 15 goes on to describe how “she” will come out of the consequences of being in the transgression (perfect tense) that is found in verse 14.  Thus 1 Timothy 2:14 is not a historical perfect.

One other set of quotes are found in the book Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek by Constantine R. Campbell.  In this book he admits that verbal aspect “represents a controversial area of research” and he does deal with the historical perfect that does not deviate from Wallace’s work.  Campbell writes:

Historical Perfect

The perfect tense-form is often used in nonpresent contexts, most often past-referring. These are best translated like aorists, though are not the same as aorists in meaning. There are two basic types of historical perfects: those that introduce discourse and those that employ lexemes of propulsion. In this way, the historical perfect parallels the historical present almost exactly; the same functions are observed with the same group of lexemes…As with the historical present, such lexemes may also be used to refer to the present rather than the past. The point is, rather, that these lexemes may refer to the past when found in past contexts.

Campbell also writes:

Perfect tense-forms sometimes end up depicting a process or action in progress. This usage of the perfect tense-form is not widely acknowledged, though is a natural expression of imperfective aspect…As long as this progressive sense is not overruled by context, the Aktionsart may be progressive.

A word of caution: sometimes it is difficult to decide whether a perfect is progressive or historical when the context would allow either. Care must be exercised here, as the outcome can be quite different either way.

It is no wonder that some have tried to claim that the perfect tense in 1 Timothy 2:14 should be seen as a dramatic or historical perfect because leaving the perfect tense as is would disqualify “the woman” from referring to Eve and this is a problem for them.  Instead of paying attention to the inspired grammar, some want to see it as a simple past tense by claiming the historical perfect.  Unfortunately the boundaries around the historical perfect completely take 1 Timothy 2:14 outside the possibility that it qualifies as a historical perfect.

While Campbell warns people to be cautious in deciding that a perfect tense is a historical perfect, Wallace’s three points of  determining the difference between the two remains solid. And the pivotal point still remains: The key to detecting a dramatic perfect is the absence of any notion of existing results. 1 Timothy 2:14 does not qualify in any sense of the word, to be a historical or dramatic perfect for verse 14 is attached to verse 15 which gives the expected final outcome from the existing condition.

Note:  Those who take a contrary position will have to explain how a perfect tense can take the form of a historical perfect without any of the qualifying markers present in the passage.

4.  The she who “will be saved” in verse 15 is in the future tense and cannot be made to fit a dead person such as Eve who cannot do anything in the future concerning her salvation.

Paul uses sozo (saved) in the future tense and he attaches it to a conditional conjunction – “if”.  The “she” who has to do something to be in the place of salvation is connected to “the woman” from verse 14 who is in the present state of affairs of resulting consequences from her transgression.  The perfect tense, the future tense and the conditions for future salvation all point to “the woman” as a single woman in Ephesus.

Paul wrote 1 Timothy to Timothy about specific problems in the Ephesian church.  We can know that of anyone who would certainly understand what Paul was writing in this passage, it would be Timothy.  Timothy was not confused.  While Paul wrote Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2:13, he wrote Adam and “the woman” in verse 14.  There is no such reference to Adam and “the woman” in the Old Testament.  Where Adam’s name is connected to “woman”, it is listed as Adam and his wife.  Thus the personal pronoun “his” is always attached to woman which makes it a definite woman through possession.  In 1 Timothy 2:14 no such pronoun is attached to “the woman” to make her Adam’s woman.  And when Paul continues to speak about her salvation, Timothy cannot help to know that this particular woman who has her salvation yet in the future, is not the first deceived woman attached to Adam, but one like her that Timothy is dealing with at the time of the letter.  Timothy is certainly not confused about Paul’s grammar thinking that “the woman” is Eve who has salvation yet to come.  The connection between Eve and “the woman” would be clear to Timothy because he knew “the woman”. Timothy would not be confused that this deceived woman was Eve.

I believe the key to verses 13-15 of 1 Timothy 2 is the continuing effects and the future tense because of deception.  I do not think that Paul’s point is to identify the deception but the seriousness of deception in regards to one’s salvation.  Timothy knew the problems and Timothy surely knew any conversations that he had participated in with Paul about why he was left behind in Ephesus.  Timothy did not need to be told what the deception was because he knew all about the problems.  Timothy needed to be encouraged to take action because the situation was serious.  Paul’s connecting the present situation to the first deception in the garden is brilliant.  It was a picture set up for Timothy to relate to that emphasized the seriousness of the current situation.

Adam’s neglect to enter into the conversation with the serpent as a savior towards one who was being deceived and then his participating in the act of sin with his eyes wide open to the deception and the consequences, should propel Timothy on to understand that deception is not to be ignored but to encourage the watchman on the wall to enter in to the situation.  Out of the two people listed in 1 Timothy 2:12 “a man” and “a woman”, only the “woman” is said to have her salvation questioned according to verse 15. The one who is not deceived must not be silent but help the one who is deceived.  The repetition of the garden deception was not be repeated.  Timothy’s instruction and the instruction for the non-deceived man was that he was needed to get involved in her learning and in her need to stay away from deception.  Whether he had been dominated by her to stay quiet or not, the fact was that he had not been encouraging to her to stop her deception and he had not been involved in her learning the truth.  Timothy could step in and get involved by helping them both.  The man needed to be encouraged to walk alongside his wife in truth and the woman needed to be encouraged to learn and to stay away from error.  Thus verse 15 says that “she will be saved…if they….”

Note: Those who disagree with me about “the woman” being a deceived woman in Ephesus, need to explain why Paul called Eve “the woman” rather than “his (Adam’s) wife”.  Why does the Scriptures always resort to the possessive pronoun when referring to Eve and Paul did not use the possessive?  It would have been normal for Paul to say either Adam and Eve or Adam and his wife.  But never is there a reference to Adam and the woman.  Why did Paul write this way? Also why would Paul speak about Eve as if her salvation is still future?

The last 4 points will be in the next post.

My original 2010 post crashed because there were too many comments for my blog to handle, so I am putting up this post again so that people can read the article which is no longer available because of the crash.  Thanks to one of my readers who asked me to repost.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday I received two polar opposite views of Ephesians 5:22 by email.  One was from “NN” who has responded here in the past.  He  is a complementarian who has commented on authority in marriage, one of a handful of complementarians who have been willing to give their views on women on this blog in a respectful manner.  In NN’s email he sent me a link to his view on submission in marriage which he says is not to be mutual.  In the other email my son Ryan gave me his conclusions after a time of researching on his own the issue of authority and submission in marriage in order to present a biblical answer to his pastor.  I am going to refer to both views in this article for us to consider.

NN suggested that my blog readers might be interested in his views that he has recently posted on his blog. NN wrote to me about the time period since he last corresponded on my blog back in December 2009:

Since then I have meant to write up a brief logical clearly addressing the question of hierarchy in the instructions of the apostles on the marital relationship.  Unfortunately it took until now for me to actually find the time.  Nonetheless – I thought you might be interested (and possibly even your readership given the torrent of comments in that last discussion).

NN’s premise is that submission in marriage is not mutual but my son’s conclusion is the polar opposite.  First of all here is Ryan’s finding.  His article starts with the thought that the understanding of “source” for the Greek word for head (kephale) in 1 Corinthians 11 can also fit in with Ephesians 5:22-25 when you consider the context.  Ryan’s main concern in his research is whether submission is mutual or relegated to wives alone.

Ryan’s research:

I think source fits well with the description in Eph 5:22-25 also.  As I was studying this, I noticed that the NASB showed “submit” as in “Wives, submit…” in italics, which means it wasn’t in the original.  I looked at the NET (New English Translation) notes and they highlighted that 3 MSS (manuscripts) don’t have “submit” after wives in v22.  These MSS are earlier than the others and are significant manuscripts, so this is likely the original reading.  Knowing that Paul tends to write run-on sentences (not to mention there were no ‘periods’ in the Greek), I wondered if the sentence might have been intended as an extension to v21.  Check this out:

“…(v21) and be subject to one another in awe of Christ, (v22) wives to your own husbands as to the Lord, (v23) for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself the Saviour of the body.”

Doesn’t that make more sense?  Look how Paul is describing mutual submission to one another and then continuing to elaborate on how that should look in the marital relationship as a corrective to the cultural norms of the day.  We need to remember that the Epistles are often correcting specific things that are happening which sometimes we can only understand from the historical context — and this can make interpreting passages like this that much more involved.

We know that the culture was already quite pre-disposed to subduing the wife in marital relationships.  Women were meant to propagate the husbands name and were treated more like property than equals.  What is the likely outcome of such subjection of the wife is a slave-master-like obedience.  Paul seems to actually be saying here that instead of obeying like a slave, the wife should submit to her husband in a more biblical manner, thus calling her out of her ‘pit’ so to speak.  The most revolutionary part of Paul’s words would be the fact that he says all are to submit to one another, and that most definitely includes husbands submitting to their wives!

And again, as we saw in 1 Cor 11, Paul elaborates the basis for the marital relationship, this time for the Ephesians as well: “for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself the saviour of the body.”  In other words, because the husband is the source of the wife (just like Christ is the source of the church) and therefore she his equal, they should be mutually submitting to one another in love.  (The church is also treated as the equal of Christ in the sense that the new person will have a new body and will no longer sin).  This description is a refutation of the idea that the wife is a lower-class partner to the husband, or that there are more important people in the body than others (ie. jewish believers vs. gentile believers).  It is a proclamation of the equality of all! The source relationship is a powerful foundation for equality, not hierarchy!

Continuing… “[For] as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives [ought to be] to their husbands in everything” (v24).  The NASB has “But”, though this reads as a continuation of substantiation for Paul’s earlier statements.  Interestingly, the NASB adds “ought to be” (italics) which actually makes it sound like Paul is commanding the wives to submit and is not in line with how what he says is actually freeing them from cultural slave-master relationship.  In other words, in everything the wives should be willingly submissive out of love and not as a slave to a master!  Why would Paul be supporting what was already culturally in vogue?

And finally, v25: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her…”  Does this mean that women don’t need to be sacrificial in their love for their husbands?  Of course not!  In fact, they are the ones sacrificing everything in first century culture.  Even in our culture, the women usually have to manage the home as well as work and make meals, etc.  This is a corrective for the men who don’t participate in loving submission to their wives and families!

The conclusion is most certainly an equality in loving submission one to another in the whole body, and especially in marital relationships.  It is a corrective to the master-slave marital relationships which were typical in the first century.  The ‘new man’ should be one who treats his wife as his own flesh, as his equal, not as his inferior.

~End of article submitted by Ryan Schatz

NN’s views are opposite of Ryan’s in that NN believes that the submission of wives is the same as the master-slave relationship.  NN writes on his blog:

The Egalitarian argument runs along the lines of: “Eph 5:21 tells christians to ‘and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.’ But this is the same word used when it tells wives to “be subject” to their husbands. Since “be subject to one another” means that the husband is also “subject” to the wife, Paul’s later instruction specifically to the wives cannot indicate any sort of hierarchy in the marital relationship.” However, as discussed previously, the instruction here given is the same as that given to servants toward their masters and citizens toward the ruling authorities – it is quite clear that this instruction does imply submission to authority.

There are several problems with NN’s view.  The first is that he fails to document that the earliest manuscripts do not have the verb “submit” in verse 22. Instead the submission for wives must refer back to verse 21 which lists Christian submission as mutual.  In fact that grammar in verse 21 (one another) is reciprocal.

reciprocal — A pronoun that denotes reciprocity; that is, it indicates an interchange between two or more groups. (Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology)

The next thing that NN misses is that Paul’s reference to submission is at the end of a list of things that are the practical outworking of being filled with the Spirit which is the topic from Ephesians 5:18 and on.  Submission then is a work of the Spirit in our lives and the application is to one another.  NN continues:

But now we move on to the instruction which Paul gives to wives and husbands and note that the apostle makes a distinction in the command given. Specifically Paul tells the wife to “be subject to the husband” but does not tell the husband to “be subject to the wife.”

Paul doesn’t need to list the second half of mutual submission because verse 21 specifically and with reciprocity lists submission as a one another practice that follows the outworking of the Holy Spirit’s filling.  Husbands are expected to see that as Spirit-filled Christians they are to live a life of submission to one another just as surely as any other member of the body of Christ must live out their faith. Husbands are never listed as exempted from the Spirit-filled life that is to be lived out through submission.

So why is it important for Paul to list women who are part of the culturally disadvantaged class included as a special note for submission?  NN sees this as a clear sign that wives are under their husband’s authority.  In his second recent article NN writes:

Paul gives instruction that wives are to “hupotassoe” their husbands in Eph 5:22, Col 3:18 & Titus 2:5. Just after this last passage, in Titus 3:1, Paul again instructs his audience to “hupatassoe” the governing authorities. Similarly, just before his instruction to wives, Peter uses this same term to describe the relationship of believers to “ordinances of men” and of servants toward their masters.

There is a huge problem with NN’s reasoning. While it can be documented that the cultural system of that day mandated autocratic and all-inclusive authority to the husband over every area of his wife’s life, there is no mandate ever given by God for the husband to exercise such an authority over his wife.  Remember that in the beginning God made both the man and the woman as rulers of this world. He did not give either of them the right to take authority over and subdue each other. So while the worldly system has gone off on a tangent of lordship-authority as a male right, there is no God-given authority for the husband to subdue his wife nor is there a God-given extension of authority that has listed in the Scripture the husband’s extent of power, rights or lordship over the personhood of his wife.  If such an authority is culturally mandated and not God-given then she too is a free man as a son of God, free indeed from the worldly system that dominates and subdues humans.

So what NN fails to list is that there is a turn-about regarding the worldly system when believers are transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.  While the early Christians used to be bound under a system of authority that took away their freedom of choice as the earthly rulers subdued them, took dominion over them and subjected them underneath their authority, in Christ they had become true free men who were no longer bound by forced subjugation.  This freedom extended to slaves and women who were by virtue of their position in Christ now equal as God’s sons and thus fully free.  Paul refers to this when he writes to his fellow Christian Philemon who is a slave owner of a runaway slave named Onesimus.  Paul pleads with Philemon to embrace Onesimus no longer as a slave, but as a brother in Christ.

Philemon 15–16 (NASB)

15 For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever,

16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

NN writes:

The relevant definition of this English word “submit: to yield oneself to the power or authority of another.” This word appears throughout the New Testament and is common in other writings of the time. While several arguments are advanced in egalitarian thought as to how we should understand this word, we are discussing its specific use in the Epistles of Paul & Peter, and we can quite directly observe their use of this word in other circumstances which make immediately apparent what they mean in the use of this word.

This cannot be the meaning of submission in the Epistles since Paul specifically defined submission as reciprocal. If submission in Ephesians 5:21 were to mean to yield oneself to the power or authority of another then each one would have a power or authority over everyone else. The thought of you submitting to my authority and me submitting to your authority becomes nonsense in the passage.

Let’s look at Ephesians 5 one more time in context:

Ephesians 5:1–2 (NASB)

1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children;

2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.

Habakkuk 1:7 (NASB)…Their justice and authority originate with themselves.

Some egalitarians suggest that the object “a man” in 1 Timothy 2:12 should rightfully be connected to only one verb “authentein” and that the infinitive form of the verb “to teach” was not meant to be connected to the object “man”.

Let me first state that I am an egalitarian and I appreciate men who passionately contend for women in ministry.  At the same time I am more interested in knowing what God intended in the text rather than hold to a particular party line so I am free to disagree if I believe that a view is not correct.  In this post I would like to examine the view that  denies that two verbs are connected to the same object in 1 Timothy 2:12.  The view that I will be examining is presented by Philip B. Payne in his book Man and Woman, One in Christ An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.

Payne’s view presupposes the view that Paul is not giving out two prohibitions, but one.  I have blogged on my disagreement with that view here.  On pages 354 and 355 Payne gives 5 reasons why “a man” cannot be the object of “to teach”.  Payne uses a comparison to Acts 8:21 as the basis for his reasoning.

1.  In point #1, Philip Payne writes that unlike Acts 8:21, the phrase I am not permitting a woman to teach does not require an object as it:

…makes sense without any addition and indeed corresponds with conventional wisdom at that time. So a typical reader would feel no need to look for a personal object for “to teach”.

In the footnote on page 354 Payne writes:

Within first-century culture, it was commonplace to prohibit women from teaching and even from being educated…Consequently, “I am not permitting a woman to teach” in its cultural milieu does not invite the addition of any qualifier, such as “a man”.

While this may be true regarding the human traditions of that day, it was not true about God’s Word. There is no such precedent in the Scriptures where God forbids women from teaching. Since this is the first time that these words are ever found in the Scripture, a reader would naturally want to know what is it about teaching (or who the teaching is to) that is forbidden.  Payne points out that nowhere else in Timothy does “to teach” have a personal object, but that isn’t a relevant argument.  The examples that Payne gives from 1 Timothy where additional instances of “to teach” are found, show that there are two verbs that share the same object.  While Payne points out that other instances the object is not a personal object (i.e. the object of teaching is a what not a who), this means relatively little since the Scripture gives many examples of what to teach and almost no reference is made to who one is to teach, so a unique prohibition would not follow the norm.  Just because the object in 1 Timothy 2:14 is a who (a man) does not  disqualify the verb to teach from sharing the object.

My view is that a prohibition that is completely opposite to the freedom that we have in Christ to use our gifts would need to be qualified so that the prohibition can be understood.  If a woman is forbidden to teach, the object of her teaching is important to know in order to make sense of the passage.

2.  Philip Payne contends that two infinite verbs do not need to share the same object unless the two verbs are synonyms and they convey one idea.  Payne gives no reference for his claim.

3.   Payne contents that the verb to teach and the object a man are at opposite ends of the clause and that this reduces the likelihood of the transfer of the object to the first infinitive verb.  But what Payne fails to relate is that in the Greek, words at the beginning of a sentence or clause have more prominence than words at the end so separating one of the the verbs from the object has an affect of making the verb more prominent rather than making it less likely to share the object with the second verb.

4.  Payne states that the grammatical form for a man is genitive and that this is the wrong case to be attached to the infinitive verb to teach.  He states that to assume that the two go together would be to assume that a genitive can be understood as an accusative and that this is disallowed in the Greek.  What Payne fails to document is that in the grammatical case of a verb that shares a common object with another verb, the nearer verb is the one that will demand the case of the object.  See page 364 paragraph 1634 of Greek Grammar for Colleges by Herbert Weir Smyth

5.  Payne says that if we add a man to the prohibition for a woman to teach, then it is in conflict with the rest of the Bible.  This is true but Payne doesn’t go far enough.  If the prohibition is a universal against teaching, it is also in conflict with the rest of the Bible with or without the object.  But on the other hand, if the prohibition is not universal but is specific to a specific person, the object gives more information about what is prohibited just as the following verses give the reason why there is a prohibition for the woman and lastly the expected outcome of her learning and remaining in the faith.

In the next post I will go through each part of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to show why I have come to the conclusion that Paul’s concern is for a specific woman and a specific man and that the grammar is so specific that Paul leaves us with only one conclusion that is consistent with the grammar and the inspired words.  I strongly believe that the object “a man” is to be attached to the prohibition “to teach” as the situation was not a public teaching but a private instruction by one deceived teacher.