The most common understanding of both Complementarianism and Egalitarianism goes something like this:
Complementarians: Do not let women be pastors over men.
Egalitarians: Do let women be pastors over men.
or…
Complementarians: The husband is the leader of the family.
Egalitarians: The husband and wife co-lead the family, with no priority.
or…
Complementarians: Wives submit to your husbands.
Egalitarians: Husbands and wives are to practice mutual submission.
While I think that these are characteristics of both groups, they are not foundational characteristics that define each group. In other words, I don’t think that they are helpful in defining what it means to be a complementarian or egalitarian and they serve to cause a great deal of misunderstanding that leads to emotional bias that is very difficult to overcome once set.
In fact, I am going to say something very radical here and then explain. Here it goes:
It is possible to be a complementarian and believe that a women can serve in the position of head pastor over men.
Did you get that? Reread it. Reread it again…
Complementarianism is not first defined by it view of the roles of men and women in the church, family, or society.
Here is what Complementarianism is:
Complementarianism is the belief that men and women have God given differences that are essential to their person. Men and women are ontologically (in their essential nature) equal, but often, functionally, take subordinate roles (like the Trinity). These differences complete or “complement” each other. Due to these differences, there will be some things that women are predisposed and purposed to do more than men. As well, there will be some things that men are predisposed and purposed to do more than women. Therefore, there are ideal roles for both men and women that should be celebrated, exemplified, typified, and promoted in the church, family, and society. To deny these differences is to deny the design of God and thwart his purpose.
Here is what Egalitarianism is:
The belief that God has created men and women equal in all things. Men and women are ontologically and functionally equal. The way the sexes function in the church, society, and the family is determined by individual giftedness, not role distinctions according to the sexes. Therefore, each person should be judged individually when being placed in a particular position. We should exemplify this reality by overcoming the stereotypical placement that has traditionally been a part of societies in human history, thereby giving freedom to individuals to follow the path that God has uniquely created them for, whatever that may be. In doing so, we should no longer educate or indoctrinate according to any of the former stereotypes, including those of basic masculinity and femininity.
These, in my opinion, are the foundational tenants of each position without giving examples on how this plays out in the family, the church, or society.
The case I am making here is that in order to be a consistent egalitarian, one must deny virtually all differences that typify men as men and women as women. It is not just about getting women behind the pulpit or the concept of mutual submission in the family. It is much more complex and, in my estimation, more difficult to defend with sensibility.
I had a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who was an Egalitarian (he left because of this—I won’t mention his name). I loved this guy. Still do. Great teacher, thinker, and Christian. In fact, I had him come speak to our pastoral staff at Stonebriar to challenge us on why he became egalitarian and to defend his position. I wanted the staff to understand the “other side” from a very able defender. During his presentation, he painted himself into this very typical corner that I find most all egalitarians end up.
He was advocating a foundational principle of egalitarianism: there are no essential differences between men and women other than reproductive stuff. We were all quite taken aback. Every example we brought up, he shot down by giving a counter-example in the form of an exception. His basic argument turned on finding exceptions to everything. Whether it was that men were less emotional, more aggressive, more one tracked in their thinking, less tender, more competitive, unable to nurture as well as women, or even liked the color blue more, he brought up exceptions that he believed neutralized the “pattern”. Finally, I thought I had him. I said “What about physicality? Men are stronger than women.” He would have none of that. He then brought up examples of German women who were stronger than men! We could not stump the guy!
The problem is that in order to defend egalitarianism consistently, he had to deny all of the common sense distinctions that people have made about men and women since the dawn of time. I won’t get into the science or psychology of this issue as there are many very good resources that do this. To me, it is rather bizarre that one would actually be inclined to produce evidence to prove that men and women are different!
I am of the opinion that many egalitarians would have been appalled by Peter who said that women are the weaker of the sexes (1 Pet. 3:7) siting every exception to this rule and bemoaning this stereotype until Peter cried “uncle.”
Complementarianism says that men and women are different by design. We are different and God did it. It is that simple.
However, most people would not be willing to go as far as my former professor. They realize that sustaining a proposition that men and women have no essential differences is a battle that cannot really be sustained in real life (only theoretical ideology). Men and women are different. Even most egalitarians that I know would give me this. Hear this again. Most egalitarians that I know would admit, when push comes to shove, that there are some essential differences between men and women. Most would even say that there are essential differences that go beyond reproduction and physicality. But I would argue that these people are not really egalitarians, at least in the way I have defined it. They would be complementarians because they would have given up what I believe to be a central driving tenant of egalitarianism and embraced the central tenant of complementarianism: men and women are different by design and their differences complement each other.
Now, having said this, I believe that it is theoretically possible to be a complementarian and yet not take a traditional complementarian stand on the issue of women in ministry. In other words, someone could believe that men and women are different by design yet not think that these differences have any bearing on women in leadership in the church. They may be convinced that the Bible does not really teach that women should not teach men, and yet be complementarian in other issues and, broadly, in their theology of the sexes.
I am interested and committed to complementarianism for more than just the women in ministry issue. This is just one application. But (and here is where I get in trouble with fellow complementarians), I don’t think that it is the most important issue in this debate. Neither do I think that it is the most “damaging” issue.
You see, when people are truly committed and consistent egalitarians, they have to defend their denial of essential differences. In doing so, they will advocate a education system in the home, church, and society which neutralizes any assumption of differences between the sexes. In doing so, men will not be trained to be “men” since there is really no such thing. Women will not be encouraged to be “women” since there is no such thing. The assumption of differences becomes a way to oppress society and marginalize, in their estimation, one sex for the benefit of the other. Once we neutralize these differences, we will have neutered society and the family due to a denial of God’s design in favor of some misguided attempt to promote a form of equality that is neither possible nor beneficial to either sex.
We will have troubled men and women groping to find their way and feeling pressured to repress their instincts and giftedness. We will no longer be able to train up men and women in the “way” they should go since there is no “way” they should go. Women can act masculine and men can be feminine. Men can retreat in the face of responsibility because, in truth, they don’t have any “responsibility” other than the one that they choose. This is to say nothing of the implications this has on the issues of homosexuality and gay marriage.
But in a complementarian worldview (even one that allows women to teach men in the church), men are taught to be men and women are taught to be women. They both have defining characteristics. Masculinity and femininity find their place and are exemplified and celebrated. Men protect women from physical danger and take their positions of leadership seriously, without trepidation or fear that they will be seen as power mongers. And women support this. Women take up their positions of nurturing and supporting the emotional well-being of the world. And men support it. No role distinction is seen as inferior because in a complementarian worldview both are seen as essential and of equal importance. Only in complementarianism do we not define the rule by the exceptions and bow to the least common denominator. Only in the complementarian worldview, in my opinion, can freedom to be who we are supposed to be find meaning.
The true spirit of complementarianism is that God has intentionally created men and women with differences and we are to celebrate this in every way. The true spirit of complementarianism is never domineering (that is a sinful corruption). The true spirit of complementarianism provides no shame only freedom. The true spirit of complementarianism speaks to God in appreciation.
When we attempt to neuter this design, we have lost much more than authority in the pulpit.
Complementarians, while I believe that the Bible teaches the ideal that women should not have authority over men in the church, let us promote the true spirit of complementarianism then simply defending its particular applications.
637 replies to "What Complementarianism is Really all About"
Eric, I agree. I think that every issue does not turn on some sort of preset idea of role. I don’t believe characteristics must give way to roles. I do believe that equality must be a part of the complemenarian worldview. I would simply say that there are certain things that we must instill within the sexes, preparing them to capitalize on these differences. Once this happens, the true spirit of complementarianism is affirmed and celebrated.
Then, when it comes to those things that we think the Bible speaks to concerning this, we follow the Bible. The debate will continue here, but at least if we are on the same page on the foundational issues, there will be less problems and less hurt feelings and, most importantly, fewer abuses.
Both sides, when abused, are terribly ugly. One neuterizes the culture, the other oppresses individuals.
Someone (I think) earlier accused my post of being too black and white. I don’t see how this can be as I have qualified things so much.
Nevertheless, let me repost this which shows the spectrum of belief on this issue:
Just to be clear, there is no “official” spokes-person for either complementarians or egalitarians. They come in all breeds and I am trying to be fair here.
Across the spectrum, from the most radical to the most radical on both sides:
-matriarchalism
-hard egalitarianism
-soft egalitarianism
-complegalitarianism (how’s that?—I do think there is such a position!)
-soft complementarianism
-hard complementarianism
-patriachalism
Most Evangelical complementarians that I know of are soft-comps. I do know that there are many of a more radical variety. I also know that men have the tendency to take liberties and misinterpret this as if all men, no matter what, are in priority over all women (more like a Muslim society). I also know that many husbands abuse their authority and “rule over” their wives (after all, this is part of the curse—the “rule over” in the curse carries very negative connotation). But abuses of good principles never nullifies the principles any more than the abuse of the office of a pastor (by men or women) nullifies the office.
Michael T.,
That’s another one of the problems I see with the complementarian paradigm – it leaves out the people born with some of both male and female reproductive organs, along with our disabled, elderly or ill brothers in Christ or our sisters who have no natural nurturing inclination or those unable to bear children. Are they faulty by design? What are the implications of that?
Spam comments (rapidly posting one post after another) are now automatically going to the cyber-space spam blackhole. Be careful here folks.
So many comments, no matter what their persuasion, are going into spam.
I do not see Deborah as an accomodation. I see her as God’s annointed in a very patriarchal society that allowed polygamy. Furthermore, she was a judge prophet, in the company of Moses and Samuel. Israel had peace for many years, which is the summary evaluation. She was married, but there is no evidence at all that her husband ruled over her, as a judge, she would rule over him in making decisions.
And God does not make exceptions to his rules. If you think God make exceptions, you have understood the rule wrong.
Kay, again, these types of things are difficult for every Christian, not simply complementarians of egalitarians.
Please, let’s not go in that direction.
CMP, I have already said I believe the genders are complementary, I just do not believe in gender hierarchy.
This is one reason I see it as functionally useful to have the eldership having both genders represented. And there are some counseling things that are better done same gender.
Don, what is the difference between an accommodation and an exception?
For example, God is against slavery, yet he allowed for it in Israel. This is an exception to his rule based on the culture (i.e. he does not overturn culture immediately, but accommodates within it). Even the greatest egalitarian out there William Webb will go with us here.
In the end though, it is certainly not worth arguing about the nuances of accommodation/exception. Just realize that in our complementarian arguments, we are using them the same way.
Don, you are a closet complementarian? 😉 You only need to take the next logical step.
OK, I am out for a while.
Keep it safe. Read the rules. There is a link right above this under “Leave a Reply.”
Some people are getting blacklisted who should not be. Just follow the rules…
“But abuses of good principles never nullifies the principles any more than the abuse of the office of a pastor (by men or women) nullifies the office.”
Agreed.
However, what many of us here are saying we often see the abuses in authority by both genders becoming the rule, instead of the proper interpretation of the scripture itself being equally applied.
I give you for instance the insecure male who is always beating his chest about his wife needing to submit to him, versus the more Christlike example of him attempting to actually serve as a Godly husband. I also see too many Christian women who privately think all male authority is abuse, and to submit to any of it is weakness. Neither one is biblical, and but there certainly seems to be an over concentration nowadays in the church on each sex reading each other’s scriptural mail, so to speak.
What is essential is our mutual submission to the Lord in ALL things pertaining to us. Therefore, if I’m concentrating on what I should be doing in my own life rather telling you what you should be doing in yours instead, then I’m going to be the one in the Lord’s will no matter which gender I represent.
CMP, I try to use the word complementary as the dictionary defines it.
From m-w.com
1 : relating to or constituting one of a pair of contrasting colors that produce a neutral color when combined in suitable proportions
2 : serving to fill out or complete
3 : mutually supplying each other’s lack
4 : being complements of each other
5 : characterized by the capacity for precise pairing of purine and pyrimidine bases between strands of DNA and sometimes RNA such that the structure of one strand determines the other
I use 2 or 3 with people.
There is NO HINT of roles or hierarchy in the term.
“Man has no “headship” that word is not found in the Bible. What IS found are metaphors, using head and body. What the metaphors mean can be discussed, but assuming it means “headship” without discussion is a FAIL.”
Well, of course, I haven’t assumed it. I’ve studied this issue for the past 18 years. I just haven’t argued for it here. The woman is never said to be the body of the man. He is said to be her head, and that is with all likelihood a connection to rosh, which is used as the leader of a clan/group in the OT.
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.””
What you cannot tell from this translation is that there is no direct object for “teach” so it is unrestricted in scope.”
Actually, the oude connects the indirect object of the infinitive “over a man,” so it is limited by the object of the preposition.
“Also, quiet/hesuchia is the attitude of a student in specifics and a believer generally, it is peacefullness. That is, hesuchia forms a inclusio which tightly ties together 1 Tim 2:11-12.”
Nice spin here, but Paul is telling this to women, not the believer in general. It means to be quiet in relation to teaching over men. The overall attitude of the woman in the passage then is to be silent and learn when it comes to teaching men. Of course, the inclusio is there. It just supports the comp interpretation all the more, as it shows that the emphasis is on her being silent when it comes to these functions.
“I also know that many husbands abuse their authority and “rule over” their wives (after all, this is part of the curse—the “rule over” in the curse carries very negative connotation). But abuses of good principles never nullifies the principles any more than the abuse of the office of a pastor (by men or women) nullifies the office.”
“My point was that “rule over” is negative and part of the curse. You really read that I want to keep women under it? Really?
If so, let me just say that I don’t want anyone acting sinfully according to the curse. In Christ, husbands should not “rule over” or “dominate” their wife. In Christ, the proper model of biblical servant-leadership should be restored.”
c michael,
It appears to me that you say the “authority” is both a “good principle” and is also a negative part of the curse.
So, to answer: yes, it reads as though you want to keep women under. Really.
Maybe you can clarify.
“Also, the verb in 11 is imperative, but in English does not sound much like a command, while the verb in 12 is indicative, but in English translations often sounds like a command, where is is valid to translate it as “not now permitting” for a point in time.
1. The verb is aspectual, so it doesn’t translate into a present progressive by itself.
2. If Paul wanted to say “now” he could have used nun, but didn’t.
3. The indicative is an imperative by implication: I do not allow this, i.e. you are not to allow this.
It is also the way one can express a command. See Rom 12:1-2; 15:30; 16:17; 2 Cor 2:8; Eph 3:13; 4:1; etc.: present indicative with infinitive in order to convey a command.
Don, was that a theological dictionary you just used? (This is a theology blog!) Try looking up anthropology and you will find that it mentions nothing about a study of the fall either. 🙂
My definition on the orginal post will do better than that dictionary for our purposes here.
“I do not see Deborah as an accomodation. I see her as God’s annointed in a very patriarchal society that allowed polygamy.”
Whether I was comp or egal, I would have to say that this is wrong. Deborah is actually a signal of the low quality men that are in the culture in the Book of Judges. To ignore this is to ignore the argument of that book. Samson, Gideon, Jephthah, etc. are bottom of the barrel, and thus, showing the need for a noble king instead of “every man doing what was right in his own eyes.” The story of Deborah actually turns on this because she herself is not a judge. She is a prophet. We think that the actual judge will be Barak. Instead, it ends up being Jael. So the women end up being God’s chosen as a curse due to the low character of the men. This would have been understood in Israelite culture (Isa 3:12), though it is lost on us.
ESV Jdg 4:4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.
There is no requirement to read an indicative verb as a requirement for all time.
oude only chains direct objects if it is one thing being discussed (in a hendiadys), not 2 things. The point is there are various valid ways to understand 1 Tim 2:12, only some of which restrict women. It is perfectly fine to read it as restricting one woman at Ephesus while she is being taught, this is how I read it.
Paul was writing to Timothy about a specific problem, false teachers at Ephesus. He was not writing a letter giving church order or other things, all that he did say, he was saying to counteract the false teachers and give encouragement to Timothy. That is, it was an occasional letter, not a sermon.
Hodge wrote #115:
3. The indicative is an imperative by implication: I do not allow this, i.e. you are not to allow this.
It is also the way one can express a command. See Rom 12:1-2; 15:30; 16:17; 2 Cor 2:8; Eph 3:13; 4:1; etc.: present indicative with infinitive in order to convey a command.
2 objections:
The verbs used in these verses have the nature of being a command or request (I exhort, I request), whereas epitrepô (I permit) does not seem to as much (though it can, of course).
The verbs in these verses are directed to the readers, e.g., “I exhort YOU….” whereas in 1 Tim 2:12 Paul is telling the men and women readers/hearers what he does (or, rather, does not), not directly telling THEM what to do or not do. Thus, I don’t think these verses/examples are syntactical or grammatical equivalents of 2:12, whether or not 2:12 is a way of expressing a command.
It is false to say that Deborah was a curse, she was a blessing to Israel.
And there is no hint in the text about Deborah that God looks for a man but could not find him, so he settled on Deborah. That claim is a crock.
Non-egals want to spin Deborah something fierce, but God denies their claims.
Don, please be more respectful on this blog. You may not agree with things, but you can respect others opinion and engage the arguements without using words such as “crock.”
Again, you may not like the rules, but the are to be followed. This goes for people who argree or disagree with me. This is a safe place to have discussion without conversation stoppers or emotional outburst, no matter how small they may seem to you.
“Kay, again, these types of things are difficult for every Christian, not simply complementarians of egalitarians.
Please, let’s not go in that direction.”
c michael,
That’s the point. Are you refusing to acknowledge the problems it creates for the complementarian position?
Kay, not at all. As I said, it is a problem for everyone, not just complementarians. Egalitarians don’t have an easy solution to it either, unless you are a non-Christian egalitarian.
Again, no reason to go there. Please respect this as I attempt to keep this important topic on a very particular track. It is too valuable to get off on such tangential issue that, while important to the broader issue, are not relevant here.
CMP, sorry, I got carried away.
ESV Jdg 2:16 Then the LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them.
Jdg 2:18 Whenever the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them.
“It is too valuable to get off on such tangential issue that, while important to the broader issue, are not relevant here.”
c michael,
I’m sorry, but it hardly seems like tangential issue when it alienates disabled men, or anyone, who doesn’t fit the complementarian design protocal for fending off robbers and physically protecting your wife – as though that physical “design” protocal was part and parcel of what gives one authority to preach in a “head pastors” position. I’m sorry you don’t see that.
CMP,
I am a complementarian. I have always thought that to mean that Calling comes before Compentency (logically in God’s mind, not chronologically in our lives). God’s Teleos for His glory (esp. as to be displayed in marriage) comes before and gives purpose to our Ontos. I do believe that men and women are equal yet different by God’s wise design. The question I have for you is… could it be that the reason why every man is ontologically designed to lead his wife is because it fits God’s structure for marriage which came logically, not chronologically before the creation of male and female?
Jason, you bet! I think that God’s purpose is the ultimate cause for all characteristics, roles, and expressions. Good clarification that may not be present so explicitly in the original post.
Kay, the problems with the situations you describe so so much deeper than the surface issues you have described and cause us to get way off track. Please respect what I have said there. Even as an egalitarian you can understand that I am directing the course of the conversation 🙂
Wow, Michael. You sure know how to kick up a windstorm. It seems to me that the central issue comes down to one of hermeneutics. It does not come down to “Are there really differences between the sexes?” It is both obvious to all but the willfully blind, and, it seems to me, irrelevant. The point is not “why” God said this or that, but “that” God said what he did. And it seems to me that since Paul bases his argument for women not teaching men in Timothy on the order of creation (a pre-fall situation), male leadership is neither the result of the curse nor a localized situation having localized, temporary application. Therefore, in Paul’s mind, role distinctions are part of the original, good creation, and not a result of sin. Furthermore, it seems to me that Ephesians 5:22 is redemption of Genesis 3, not a continuation thereof. Husbands loving their wives and wives submitting is Paul’s attempt to teach God’s original design rather than Paul repeating cultural biases. And 1 Corinthians 14 seems to me to be speaking specifically of the public use of the gift of tongues by women (since that’s the context). Of course its possible that I could be wrong about all of this. But all of these things come down to hermeneutical rather than physical, emotional, intellectual, or spiritual distinctions. The question we have to answer is: “What did Paul mean when he said…” When we look honestly at the evidence, it overwhelmingly favors the complementarian position. People may not like that or think that it makes them uncomfortable with what the Bible teaches. But isn’t at least part of the point of the Bible to cut cross-grain with our natural or cultural assumptions? Why should we in the West assume that our cultural presuppositions (about what biblical equality means, for example) will never be opposed by the biblical text?
Hi C Michael – I’m late to the part y and to your blog, but your post intrigues me. I have not read all 125 comments to this point so I may be treading covered ground. I will say this, then, from a personal perspective.
I agree with your general premise in many respects. But I think your definition of Egalitarians is quite narrow. You seem to be saying that all true egalitarians must be feminist “sameness” adherants and that anyone who isn’t, can’t call themself an egalitarian. That is simply untrue. (me being a case in point)
I don’t want to derail the discussion any further, although I am having a hard time trying to figure out what exactly is the “very particular track” that you are trying to maintain. I’ll read a little more and try to catch up.
Joe Horn wrote:
And it seems to me that since Paul bases his argument for women not teaching men in Timothy on the order of creation (a pre-fall situation), male leadership is neither the result of the curse nor a localized situation having localized, temporary application.
Actually, Paul seems to base his argument on BOTH the order of creation (the man being formed first) AND the fall and result of the curse (the woman being deceived and having come to be – perfect tense – in transgression).
When we look honestly at the evidence, it overwhelmingly favors the complementarian position.
Maybe when you look honestly at the evidence. It’s not so clear when I honestly (yes, honestly) look at the evidence. 🙂
Jason – please provide your evidence for the claim that “every man is ontologically designed to lead his wife”. What in the masculine design makes him unequivically a good leader of women and his wife unequivically a bad leader of men? Do you have scripture or biology to support this? Do you believe this ontological difference is in effect in every leadeship scenario in life or only in certain ones?
Joe,
Just a thought. I agree with you l00% that Paul’s whole statement goes back to creation. However, that statement also says that it was also because Eve was deceived, so I don’t know we can get around the fact that it also has something to do with the fall–if not indeed the curse itself.
And my whole argument above regarding the curse was in no way meant to say that I didn’t believe Paul’s statement didn’t go way back to creation. Just clarifying for anyone who may have gotten that idea.
Both sides believe that when all the evidence is examined, what they themselves believe is correct.
I am egal because I believe that is what the Bible teaches for new covenant believers, and going further, that Jesus, Paul, etc. were egals. I study both sides and try to learn from both.
“Please respect what I have said there. Even as an egalitarian you can understand that I am directing the course of the conversation”
c michael,
Certainly, I will. What is the direction of the course of the conversation? I will be glad to go there – but apparently it alludes me. If it’s not a physical quality, but it only belongs to males and is somehow a spiritual quality…hmm ???
“ESV Jdg 4:4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.”
My point was that she is not the judge in the end. Jael is. The reader would be shocked that she was the judge, only to be relieved that it was Barack, only to be shocked again that it was Jael. It is clear that choosing of Deborah as judge is a slap to the men and a commentary on their low character and “non-Israelite” beliefs. That’s the argument of the book.
“There is no requirement to read an indicative verb as a requirement for all time.”
I didn’t say there was. I said you can’t tell what the time period of the indicative is from the verb. So your translation is bogus if it is coming from the aspect of the verb.
“oude only chains direct objects if it is one thing being discussed (in a hendiadys), not 2 things. The point is there are various valid ways to understand 1 Tim 2:12, only some of which restrict women. It is perfectly fine to read it as restricting one woman at Ephesus while she is being taught, this is how I read it.”
oude only chains direct objects? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Of course that is not true. oude can chain the two infinitives, otherwise there is no active verb for the second infinitive. Paul doesn’t repeat epitrepo. If you assume the verb, then you are assuming the link made by oude (i.e., ouk epitrepo INFINITIVE oude INFINITIVE andros). If this referred to one particular woman, then the article, a name, and an example that did not appeal to the role of women in general would exist here, and it doesn’t.
“Paul was writing to Timothy about a specific problem, false teachers at Ephesus. He was not writing a letter giving church order or other things.”
Of course, this begs the question on two fronts: the question is whether it is general or specific (“in every place” sounds general to me) and whether a specific based in the order of creation is not to be universally applied.
Eric,
“The verbs used in these verses have the nature of being a command or request (I exhort, I request), whereas epitrepô (I permit) does not seem to as much (though it can, of course).
The verbs in these verses are directed to the readers, e.g., “I exhort YOU….” whereas in 1 Tim 2:12 Paul is telling the men and women readers/hearers what he does (or, rather, does not), not directly telling THEM what to do or not do. Thus, I don’t think these verses/examples are syntactical or grammatical equivalents of 2:12, whether or not 2:12 is a way of expressing a command.”
My first statement goes with the second. Paul tells his recipients, and Timothy here, to follow his instruction. He states that he is an apostle (v. 7) who has been appointed to teach faith and truth. To follow him is to follow the teaching of Christ.
The second is that commands don’t have to be imperatives. They can be indicatives with infinitives “I do X you to do Y.” Here Paul is talking to Timothy about, not what he allows Timothy to do, but what he allows a third party to do (i.e., women). So it takes upon the “I do not X to do Y.” The command/exhortation is softer without the second person direct object, but in this way it emphasizes the instruction as being primarily for women. He does not allow them to do X. Therefore, they are not allowed to do X. Therefore, Timothy ought not, by implication, allow them to do X.
“ESV Jdg 2:16 Then the LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them.
Jdg 2:18 Whenever the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them.”
Don, I think you’re reading me superficially, as you have the Book of Judges here. I said nothing that Deborah wasn’t a blessing. I said her appointment is a rejection of the men. It says something about their lack of qualification to lead. We see this play out in their constant syncretism with Canaanite culture, whether it is discerning through omens, intermingling with Canaanite women, or sacrificing children. If you want to use the Book of Judges to support your egalitarian claims, just know that you’ll have to bring along the rest with you. Judges is not normative. It is a condemnation of Israelite leadership. Hence, a king is needed.
So her appointment is a type of curse/condmenation of the men.
Kay, this isn’t really a forum, so it is not dependant upon conversations here. However, if you have a comment about the post, anything is fine. I just don’t want there to be “debates” that are tangental to the post. Yours was. But you are welcome to discuss about anything about the post. I will let you know if it is off or has a potential to lead things in a wrong direction. I have been at this for a long time so I know how to discern what directions are going to be profitable and on track and what will get us off track.
It is great to have you posting and reading BTW!
“Just a thought. I agree with you l00% that Paul’s whole statement goes back to creation. However, that statement also says that it was also because Eve was deceived, so I don’t know we can get around the fact that it also has something to do with the fall–if not indeed the curse itself.”
A few people have said this, but it misses something major: Eve being deceived does not have to do with the curse or the Fall. Her deception is prelapsarian. So Paul’s argument is that the messing up of the roles in the pre-Fall state led to the Fall, not vice versa.
Hodge,
Obviously, technically her deception preceded the fall. However, it was certainly very much related to the fall and the fall would not have occured, in this context at least, without it.
I’m not sure I understand how you draw the conclusion that Paul’s argument is the messing up of roles that caused the fall and that is what he is talking about here?
“Even as an egalitarian you can understand that I am directing the course of the conversation”
c michael,
“Even as an egalitarian” I can see when someone is being condescending. Something I was not expecting from you. I apologize if anything I’ve asked you or commented seemed condescending toward you or deserving of that – it was truly never my intention.
Cherylu,
His argument is in this order:
1. God created Adam and Eve in order. Adam was created first.
2. Eve was deceived, but the man was not. However, the man sinned anyway by following the woman (I realize I’m supplying some of that from Gen 3, but I think that is Paul’s context).
3. After the Fall, the woman will find her way back to redemption through childbirth, i.e., her role.
Only one of these is postlapsarian. The others are pre-. Number 2 led to the Fall. So Paul’s argument actually doesn’t have anything to do with the Fall, except that 2 caused it and 3 is the way back from it. He’s not saying anything like the roles exist because of the Fall. That’s not there in his argument.
Thanks for clarifying, Hodge. It seems to me there is maybe some eisegesis there in pt # 2 that I am not so sure about. But you may be correct. At least I understand what you meant.
I have never understood the part about her being redeemed through childbirth. There is certainly more to her role in life from the time of creation on then child bearing, after all. That is a statement that makes no sence to me at all. Not all women are even able to have children and no one is saved by something that they do–like have a baby.
Hodge:
You apparently missed my point, which was that your examples are not grammatical or syntactical equivalents of 1 Tim 2:12, so I don’t think they are good examples for comparison. Your ultimate point may be correct – i.e., that epitrepô can be treated as a 2nd-person command even though its surface structure is an indicative with a complementary infinitive, like the examples you gave. But I think those are poor examples for the reasons I gave – i.e., the nature of the verbs in those other examples compared to epitrepô, as well as the fact that in your examples the verbs are indeed directed to a second person (“you”), whereas in 1 Tim 2:12 epitrepô is syntactically directed at/to a third person (“a woman”).
Hodge wrote:
So Paul’s argument actually doesn’t have anything to do with the Fall, except that 2 caused it and 3 is the way back from it.
Except that it appears that part of Paul’s argument for why he isn’t permitting a woman to teach or assume authority over a man is that woman as woman has come to be in transgression (εν παραβασει γεγονεν) – a resultant state of the Fall.
Thus I think his argument indeed has something to do with the Fall.
cherylu:
Many argue that dia tês teknogonias in 2:15 means “through the birth of a/the child” – i.e., a reference to the birth of Christ, not simply the act of bearing children.
EricW,
Thanks. At least that would make some sense if it is the correct interpretation. I have never seen any sense at all in what Paul said with the other understanding.
My reading is that there were men and women at Ephesus involved in the false teaching. 2 men were kicked out of church, some men were fighting and some women were showing off. The 2 men were sinning deliberately, they knew what they were doing, satan will teach them. A woman or women were deceived and the process is difflerent for her/them, they are to be taught the truth with a goal of restoration. As Paul is acting long distance, he tells Timothy that they cannot teach while they are being taught. Timothy would know that once they know the truth, they can teach truth, so it is temporary. And the saving is from a special childbirth, Jesus. Paul uses this strange phrasing as it is similar to the false pagan teaching in Ephesus, with fetility goddess Artemis promising saving in childbrith.
And the “for” clause in v. 13-14 is a direct counter-teaching to the part of the false teaching that claimed Eve came before Adam and was not deceived, but had special knowledge, ala Gnostic or pre-Gnostic teaching.
147.Don on 18 Feb 2010 at 6:41 pm #
In other words, a “plain reading/meaning of the text” by an uninformed 21st-century English reader may lead to some erroneous understandings, because a lot of background cultural and language information is assumed by Paul but not conveyed/stated/explained in the letter.
Comment from the peanut gallery,
I love watching the back and forth between Sue, Hodge and others about the syntax and grammatical issues. Both sides essentially see the other side as giving false information or just flat out being wrong in their understanding of the language. To someone who doesn’t know Greek this is quite amusing and makes me wonder slightly as to how much we can really know about what the Bible is really saying if two people can’t even agree about the meaning of a single verb.