Galatians 3:28 and Feminism

Galatians 3:28 reads as follows (ESV):

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The Greek reads as follows:

οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ελλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ: πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

Egalitarians point to this verse constantly as a foundational principle for how the Bible treats male/female relations. This trumps Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11, etc. However, this interpretation of Galatians 3:28 as erasing role distinctions between men and women is completely unwarranted, since this reading of the verse has been completely divorced from its context. Galatians 3 is about many things. Among those things are the question of sanctification (verse 3), justification by faith alone (verses 10-14), covenant theology (verses 15-22), and our position in regard to the law and in regard to faith. Verse 26 is crucial to our understanding of verse 28. Only sons inherited estates in the days in which Paul was writing. Certainly, we can say that Paul was thus dignifying women in an amazing way by saying that “you are all sons.” In other words, all Christians inherit. This happens by faith (verse 26). But as is completely clear, the idea here is all about our standing before God with regard to our sin, and what Jesus Christ has accomplished. It has nothing to do with proper roles for husbands and wives, or men in general and women in general. In other words, if Paul’s context had been one of delineating the roles of men and women in the church and in the home, egalitarians would have a fair argument. However, that is plainly not the case here. Everything has to do with our standing before God. Therefore, this passage cannot be used to “trump” the other passages, where the context clearly is the role of men and women in the church and in the home (see the three passages cited above).

About these ads

117 Comments

  1. Andrew Compton said,

    November 3, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    If anyone is interested in a monograph dealing with this verse, check out Richard Hove’s book, “Equality in Christ?: Galatians 3:28 and the Gender Dispute.” It’s published by Crossway (1999) and originated as a Masters’ Thesis under D.A. Carson, Grant Osborne, and Wayne Grudem at TEDS. He makes an excellent case that this verse does not destroy gender distinctions as the egalitarians claim. Enjoy!

  2. Sue said,

    November 3, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    I didn’t think I was referring to this verse. What I was trying to say was that man and woman were since creation formed to be equal in quality although fully complementary in every way. This would mean that true leadership is male and female, true nurturing is male and female, true wisdom is male and female.

    So throughout scripture from the Hebrew scriptures to the Christian scriptures, women have strength and wisdom, and men have tenderness and nurturing. There is no created difference of male for this and female for that. But each one fills out the lack in the other to make wisdom and strength and care for others complete as God intended. There is no male and female in Christ because the spiritual gifts of gentleness, strength and wisdom given by the Spirit within us, erases these differences, but that will not be complete until the resurrection. So yes in our standing before God there is no difference between male and female. Until then we need to be careful to acknowledge fully both male and female in expression and leadership.

    However, the patriarchal teaching is that men can fill every function in the church, and women can do only a subset of these things. Then that is given the name of complementarianism. Ultimately this leads to the abandonment of language as a vehicle of meaningful expression. This is one of the greatest chasms between egalitarians and patriarchalist, that language is used in a way that is opaque.

  3. OpheliaNeaththeWindow said,

    November 3, 2007 at 1:46 pm

    I don’t think egalitarians would claim that there are no distinctions between genders, in the sense that men and women have no differences. But they do claim that these differences do not necessitate differences in roles. For example, an egalitarian would not automatically reject the statement that “women tend to be more observant of the feelings of others than men” because the statement claims that there are differences between men and women. An egalitarian would, however, reject any argument that says that because men and women differ in areas x and y, therefore women’s roles should be limited to a, b, and c, and men’s to d, e, and f. For example, an egalitarian would reject the argument that “because women are more concerned with people’s feelings, they are less concerned with enforcing rules and hence should not be leaders in the church, as they would be reluctant to administer discipline when necessary.”

  4. greenbaggins said,

    November 3, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    Jenny, I can agree with your point. I wouldn’t argue that because of some “instrinsic characteristics” in personality, that therefore the roles should be differentiated. That isn’t how Paul argued in 1 Timothy 2. I wasn’t claiming that egalitarians were erasing *distinctions* between genders based on Galatians 3:28, however. I was claiming that egalitarians want to erase *role* distinctions based on Galatians 3:28. There is ample evidence for this in the egalitarian camp, as I trust you would agree. Do you agree with this interpretation of Galatians 3:28 as referring not to roles but to our status before God in salvation?

  5. Sue said,

    November 3, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    If the role distinction is based purely on 1 Tim. 2, then

    1. a – men are to lift up their hands in prayer, (but women should not do this)

    1. b – men are not to be angry and dispute, (but women may?)

    2. a Women are not to teach and dominate (but men are?)

    2. b Women are to learn in full submission (and men aren’t ?)

    And women are preserved through child-bearing/rearing, which can mean any one of 7 established interpretations. I think women are comfroted by most of these except the one whereby this can be replaced by submssion to male headship by women who do not have children. That is there are some who say that if a woman cannot be saved bu childbearing because she has no children, she can be saved by submission to the male instead.

    Maybe this passage is about the fact that the men were so busy arguing with each other that a woman came in to take over. I can see that happening. But Paul wants eveyything back in order. Men need to stop fighting and women are to learn in submission like everyone else does.

  6. R. F. White said,

    November 3, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    Agreeably, not all differences between women and men necessitate distinctions of role for women and men. Yet some differences do necessitate distinctions of role, don’t they? For example, a man, as capable and gifted as he may be, can never function as a mother in a human family; a woman, as capable and gifted as she may be, can never function as a father in a human family. As we interact with our fellow members in God’s household, we are obligated to take into account whether they are women or men (as well as whether they are young or old) (1 Tim 5:1-2). Treating women and men as interchangeable is not necessarily a virtue.

  7. Ed Barrett said,

    November 3, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    I think we can all agree that Galatians 3:28 deals with the worth of an individual before God. But, the waters start to get muddy when we get to the other passages about role distinctions. There is a tendency for both genders to throw in their own bias into the interpretations of those passages. In some cases Gal. 3:28 gets thrown in to “trump” the other passages, as you have stated. But, in other cases, Gal. 3:28 gets thrown out because of human pride and fear.

  8. greenbaggins said,

    November 3, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    I agree with you also, Dr. White. I guess I was assuming that the differences in role that were under discussion were ones that were theoretically possible for women to do (such as being head of household and being in church office). These are the particular issues under discussion with regard to egalitarianism in the church. So, your statement is a necessary qualification to make the distinction between those things that are differentiated by necessity (as in women bearing children), and things that are differentiated by other criteria.

  9. R. F. White said,

    November 3, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Lane, I was actually responding to ‘Ophelia’ in #3, but I see it applies to your opening comments too!

    Ed Barrett raises a good point in #7. When commenting on the debate between cessationists and noncessationists, Richard Gaffin made a comment similar to the general one that Ed has made and the specific one that I made in #6. Paraphrasing Gaffin, we could say this:

    In the give-and-take that characterizes all biblical interpretation, exegesis is inevitably and decisively influenced by existing commitments and larger frameworks of understanding. Trying to identify and address these controlling factors is an equally necessary and potentially more profitable way to work at resolving the issues in dispute among us.

    Gal 3:28 illustrates Gaffin’s point, I think.

  10. greenbaggins said,

    November 3, 2007 at 4:23 pm

    Sue, welcome to this blog. Sue is a regular commenter over on Faith and Gender, which is presided over by Fr. Bill.

    BOQ However, the patriarchal teaching is that men can fill every function in the church, and women can do only a subset of these things. Then that is given the name of complementarianism. EOQ

    This is a caricature of the complementarian position. First point: men cannot be mothers. Secondly, it is not a question of whether women *can* do all the things in the church. It is a question of whether they *may* do all things within the church.

    With regard to 1 Timothy 2, the issues you raised are irrelevant as to the question of whether women may be elders in the church. The issues you raised are important questions in the exegesis of the passage. But the direction you are going with your concerns seems to be that the passage is irrelevant to the point at hand. I would beg to differ. I have a paper on this, available here:

    http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2006/11/18/women-in-the-church-1-timothy-28-15/

    http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/women-in-the-church-1-timothy-28-15-part-2/

    http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/women-in-the-church-1-timothy-28-15-part-3/

  11. R. F. White said,

    November 3, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    By urging that sameness in virtue erases differences in gender function, Sue has helped us identify one of the ‘existing commitments and larger frameworks of understanding’ that is a ‘controlling factor’ for egalitarians in the interpretation of the text.

  12. Sue said,

    November 3, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    Thank you, Green Baggins. I just found Bill’s blog last week so I don’t think “regular” is quite right, but thanks anyway for the intro.

    Next, women do not bear children in the church. Jesus was explicit that it is not the womb which bears him which is blessed but the one who follows his command. Paul is clear that married women think of how to please their husbands and single women think of how to please God. So we must put aside childbearing as an activity in the church.

    So now, the question is whether it is honest to call complementary the arrangement whereby men may fill any function in the church and women only some. I don’t have any intention of caricaturing your position but only seek clarity.

    You imply that whether or not women can do certain things it is a question of whether they may.

    So now I understand complementarianism as a belief that a man may fill any function in the church that he is qualified for and a woman may not, whether she is qualified or not.

    So once again, how is this complementary? It sounds like patriarchy, hierarchy based on gender and not on qualification, gifting, or the spirit, which is given to men and women alike.

    Thank you, Mr. White for your kind words. Yes, I do find that the virtues are the same virtues for men and women, but I believe that gender function in the church should be fully complementary, that leadership should be both male and female, that service should be both male and female, that the full expression of both male and female best answers the description of complementary roles, male and female at all levels.

    To simply base it all on a list of restrictions for women does not do justice to the term complementary.

  13. Sue said,

    November 3, 2007 at 10:20 pm

    I am sorry Green Baggins, I don’t know how to address you better.

    I have just read two of your posts on 1 Tim. 2. I will only deal with one point at the moment – the meaning of authentew. Here are the four pieces of evidence for its meaning.

    1. Scholia Graeca in Aeschylus, Eumenides 42a (first century B.C.): “The murderer, who had just committed an act of violence [authenteō ],” where authenteō (perfect participle) means “to commit violence” or “to murder.”

    2. BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): “I had my way with him [authenteō ] and he agreed to provide Calatytis the boatman with the full payment within the hour.”

    3. Philodemus, Rhetorica II Fragmenta Libri [V] fr IV line 14 (first century BC): “These orators … even fight with powerful ( authenteō ) lords.” (This is a hypothetical reconstruction of a fragmentary text.)

    4. Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos III.13 [#157] (second century A.D.): “Therefore, if Saturn alone takes planetary control of the soul and dominates (authenteō ) Mercury and the moon …”20

    Now, my comments.

    1. irrelevant – it is a quote in a 10th century manuscript.

    2. relevant – authentew means to “compel” or “have your way with” someone

    3. irrelevant – this is the one which is most frequently quoted as meaning “those in authority”. However, that was an error on the part of Baldwin and quoted by Grudem, Schreiner and Kostenberger, possibly without checking. I don’t know. However. the fragment was destroyed at the turn of the last century I believe. It no longer exists and when it did it was a reconstructed fragment with half the words missing.

    4. relevant

    So, there are two possible meanings of authentew – either compel, or dominate.

    Any study that does not acknowledge this is not worth publishing. That is the state of the research on authentew.

    I honestly regret that although many complementarian scholars are now aware of these facts they refuse to acknowledge them widely and so they leave those who quote their studies open to misquoting evidence.

    If you are interested in finding out more about the Philodemus fragment, I do have images, etc which I can share. Let me know how to email you.

  14. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 12:25 am

    Sue, I agree that virtue is virtue, whether it is found in women or men. That said, lest I express further agreement or disagreement before I understand, it would help me to hear why you believe sameness in virtue erases difference in function. That is, as you express it in #2, why do you believe that equality of virtue necessitates full complementarity in every other way?

  15. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 1:42 am

    In Greek philosophy a person, animal, or thing exhibits its arete, its virtue or excellence, when it is performing its function properly. Google Nicomachean Ethics.

    This is the origin of the notion that a human has an excellence in order to do something, to fill a function. For example,

    The excellence (arete) of something resides in its proper function.

    4. The proper function of human beings, and therefore their moral excellence (arete), resides in the “active life of the rational element”.

    5. Therefore, the good for human beings “is an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence or virtue, and if there are several virtues, in conformity with the best and most complete”

    So, if men and women have equal rationality and equal leadership, then their proper function is to function as equals, in conformity with their excellence. There is no such thing as equal in being (excellence) and unequal in function in Greek thought. Most Greeks thought women were unequal in excellence and function.

  16. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 1:51 am

    Greek philosophy taught that the proper function of something was when it functioned in conformity with its excellence or arete. That is the origin of the idea of a human having a function. It must be in conformity with its excellence or virtue or it is not proper function. For the Greeks most of them did not think of women as equal so it was not a problem. But they could not conceive of something having an excellence but not functioning in conformtiy with that excellence.

    So sameness in virtue or excellence and sameness in function. However, this is not to deny the sexes. The mother and the father both nurture and discipline but each within their maleness and femaleness. Leaders are the shepherds, providers and nurturers. Men and women are both of these, but a church functions best when males and female together lead and fill the functions of the virtues they are given with their male and female natures. Otherwise, God has created in the female something that is not to be used. He has created gifts that have no proper function.

  17. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 1:53 am

    Oops. I thought my first comment was eaten. There you have it. My speech the first time it was given and the second time. ;-) Sorry to bore you all.

  18. Robert K. said,

    November 4, 2007 at 3:06 am

    In Derek Wilson’s recent biography of Charlemagne there is a striking passage on Celtic Christianity’s immensely big historical role in evangelizing the various European pagan tribes. He contrasts the Celtic and Roman Catholic approach and influence. Celtic Christianity at the time, Wilson states (and not in any context of gender issues) was very different from Rome; in one way in the role women played in leadership. I just state this in passing to suggest there may be some evidence here that in the history of redemption God has favored the Sue side of the ledger (referring of course to Sue’s comments above).

    Also, I’ve often stated: feminine men in church leadership roles can be as much of a disaster as any actual woman. I use to add the caveat that women capable of being on-the-mark in such a role are rare and more rare than men, but nowadays I’m not so sure. Men – liberal, feminized, politically-correct, etc., etc. – in great numbers seem to be a numbers disaster for orthodoxy and practice in the various churches…

  19. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 3:33 am

    Thanks Robert,

    That makes me think of Hilda of Whitby who taught 5 bishops. It was not long after that the Dream of the Rood was composed and it is as masculine an epic as one could have. I think true female leadership allows men to be men. Afterall, then men don’t have to fill in for both sexes.

  20. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    Sue, thanks for your comments in ##15-16 and references to the Ethics.

    Let me see if I’ve read you correctly: would you say that difference of function implies inequality of function? In other words, what, if any, is the justification for a differentiation of function? To concretize the point, what, if any, is the justification for a differentiation of the one image of God into maleness and femaleness?

  21. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    1. Not at all. Difference in function does not imply inequality. If so, then a man’s role in reproduction must be considered inferior. However, if we talk about women in the church, then restricting the roles of women to a subset of the roles of men, is to give women an inferior function. In addition, if this restriction excludes women from the higher levels of leadership, it is a lower or unequal function. So, complementarian have declared women both different in function and unequal in function. I believe women areequal in function intellectually and spiritually, and this means that they function in the same roles as men, since roles do not have a necessity of masculinity to fulfill them. There were women leaders in the Bible, there are women leaders today. Displaying the person of God in one’s physical body is not the role of leadership. That is only the role of Christ, the one and only high priest.

    2. Justification for differentiation of function might be a) natural ability, that is the excellence of women in her intellectual gifts, or b) difference in the gifts of the spirit, what gifts does God give men that he does not give women, and c) training and qualifiation.

    How does woman fail at any of these? She is described as equally wise and strong, Prov 31; she is equally gifted by the Spirit; and she is now equally trained.

  22. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    PS Complegalitarian isn’t my website. The one I have linked to here is. I just mentioned the compegal site to another women elsewhere who was asking for a site that discusses these issues in a joint forum.

  23. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    Sue, thanks for bearing with my questions. As I have said, I want to learn more about your thinking before expressing further agreement or disagreement. I know some or all of what I ask may seem rudimentary.

    I am interested in your comment that God gives gifts to one gender that He does not give to the other.

    Could you give an example(s)?

    Also, can you help me understand why, in your view, it is okay to say that God gives a gift to one gender that He does not give to the other, but it is not okay to say that God gives a role to one gender that He does not give to the other?

  24. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    Can you show me where I said “God gives gifts to one gender that He does not give to the other.” It doesn’t sound like a quote. I did say,

    “2. Justification for differentiation of function might be a) natural ability, that is the excellence of women in her intellectual gifts, or b) difference in the gifts of the spirit, what gifts does God give men that he does not give women, and c) training and qualifiation.”

    Here is where I am trying to put together what I see might be a justification for difference in function. I am asking the question.

    By attributing something to me without accurately quoting it you have demonstrated that you are not interested in dialogue.

  25. greenbaggins said,

    November 4, 2007 at 4:17 pm

    Sue, a couple of thoughts here. Firstly, the range of authenteo is by no means limited to negative “domineering.” That is one possibility, but by no means the only possibility. Even Baldwin, in his monumental, exhaustive study of the word did not conlude that domineer is an impossibility. See pages 49-51 of the second edition of _Women in the Church_. Simple, positively viewed “having authority” is a genuinely attested usage. Add to that Kostenberger’s unshaken (and basically unchallenged) study of the syntax of “neither this nor that” such that both activities are viewed either positively or both negatively (and it is quite apparent that teaching is viewed positively, since negative teaching has another word for it), then authenteo is viewed positively as simply having authority. That is then negatived such that women are not to have authority over men in the church.

  26. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    Green Baggins,

    I thought that this was a serious place to talk. I did not ever mention the word “domineering”. Your lack of courtesy is remarkable.

    You write,

    “Simple, positively viewed “having authority” is a genuinely attested usage”

    Unfortunately it is not. Even Kostenberger quotes the Philodemus fragment as support for this usage without acknowledging that it does not exist.

    I can see that dialogue is closed here. I have given the references to ancient literature and you counter Andreas Kostenberger.

  27. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    I regret that I sound so frustrated. Can you suggest a strategy to improve the communication?

  28. greenbaggins said,

    November 4, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    Sue, I’m not sure where you are coming up with “lack of courtesy” (my name is Rev. Lane Keister, by the way, just to give you a more personal name). I did not intend such, and I can vouch for Dr. White that he did not either. Yes, we are both complementarians, but that does not mean that we are intending to be uncivil. We are not attacking you. I sincerely hope that argumentation and debate can be here differentiated from “altercation,” or there won’t be any possibility of communication.

    Under meaning 4, you mentioned “dominate.” Is that very different from “domineer?” I suppose that the former can have a broader semantic range than the latter. If you prefer, I can switch and say that “dominate” does not exhaust the possibilities of the semantic range. I assure you I meant no discourtesy.

    In the second edition of Women in the Church, pg. 203, Baldwin gives not only an extensive analysis of the Philodemus quotation, but even fills in the context. Where is your information about its non-existence coming from? Even if the Philodemus BGU 1208 fragment were problematic, there is the crystal clear instance of the verb in Philodemus, Rhetorica, 133.14: “Ought we not to consider that men who incur the enmity of the ones in authority (authentousin) are villains, and hated by both gods and men?” I’m not sure where you get your translation from, but the ones in power are the good guys, not the bad guys. The reference is to Hubbell, “The rhetorica of Philodemus,” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 23 (1920): 306.

    Besides all this, you still still need to consider Kostenberger’s argument. In the second edition, he deals with all the responses to his argument and concludes that the argument still stands (pg. 84).

    The problem with the meaning “murder” is that it is *not* Eumenides in the first century, but a scholiast *commenting* on the word in the 9th century (see WIC, pg. 198-199, fn27, based on Huttar’s work). Huttar even concludes that the meaning “murder” is unattested. I’m not sure that is a legitimate conclusion. However, the meaning falls well outside the dates needed for such a study of 1 Timothy.

    Besides this, there is the meaning “be responsible for,” attested in 1st century BC-1st century AD by Aristonicus (De signis Iliadis 9.694). This meaning is very close to “exercise authority,” and is viewed positively.

  29. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    Here is Kostenberger on Marshall,

    A case in point is I. H. Marshall. In his 1999 ICC commentary on the Pastorals, Marshall at the outset indicates his acceptance of the findings of my study by noting that it has “argued convincingly on the basis of a wide range of Gk. usage that the construction employed in this verse is one in which the writer expresses the same attitude (whether positive or negative) to both of the items joined together by oude.”

    Yet Marshall proceeds to opt for a negative connotation of both terms “teach” and “have authority,” because he says false teaching is implied in the reference to Adam and Eve in verse 14. This, however, is hardly the case. More likely, Paul’s concern was with women being the victims of false teaching, not its perpetrators (see esp. 1 Tim. 5:14–15). Also, Marshall fails to adequately consider the above-mentioned point, that teaching is virtually always construed as a positive activity in the Pastorals and that it should therefore be construed positively also in 1 Timothy 2:12

    Given that Kostenberger starts from a false premise, that authentein means “have authority” Marshall is just as likely to be accurate as Kostenberger. And so I suggest that this deadlock will not be broken. It certainly cannot be resolved until Kostenberger admits that he quotes evidence that does not exist. We are at a standstill until that happens.

    And women are all holding their collective breath waiting for certain men to admit that they have misrepresented the evidence. What kind of male leadership is this? Not one that serves women.

  30. greenbaggins said,

    November 4, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    Sue, how do you know that this evidence does not exist?

  31. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 5:37 pm

    Thank you, Lane. I perceived that I was being misquoted because you had already decided ahead of time what I was saying and were not listening to what I am saying.

    Grudem argues for an enormous difference between “dominate” and “domineer”. It is important to his exegesis, I am not fure that it is relevant here, but I did not want to be misunderstood.

    Here are the images of the Philodemus Fragment.

    Recently a very respected but less well-known complementarian scholar told me that he had investigated this fragment in detail. He requested that I not quote him. Apparently it was destroyed some time ago, and all that remains is the pencil drawn facsimile. It was published in the book – which I got the images out of – in a reconstructed form. As you can see the word authentaisin is reconstructed itself.

    But the real catch is that in the translation below, it is evident that authent[ai]sin or authent[ou]sin, is translated as “powerful lords” . However, even that is a gross overstatement, because what is provided is not a translation at all, but a summary. It is evident in any case that authentaisin is near the beginning of the fragment and not near the end in the place where one might expect “those in authority.”

    I do not think that there is any use at all in referring to this fragment and I am greatly disappointed in kostenberger because it undermines his credilbility enormously to maintain that this fragment is useful.

    I would say that even if authentew were to refer to an amoral use of power, which I don’t believe it is, but if we did, we have to ask what Christ teaches about the use of power. Does Christ teach that men should “authentein” women? I don’t think so. And likewise for women, don’t “authetein” men. Its a bd thing altogether.

    Could you tell me how he word authentein appears in Aristonicus, as a noun or verb?

  32. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    The non-existance of the fragment is commented on in footnote 65 of this article on the CBMW website.

    65 See S. Sudhaus (ed.), Philodemi Volumina Rhetorica (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1896), II, p. 133, lines 12-15. The Herculaneum papyrus fragments in question (now known as P.Herc. 220) are no longer extant, although a hand-drawn copy was published in the nineteenth century. For an extensive bibliography on P.Herc. 220, see M. Gigante, Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1979), pp. 107-108. It is usually assigned to Book V of Philodemus’s Rhetorica, which is being prepared for publication by Matilde Ferrario of Milan; see her ‘Per una nuova edizione del quinto libro della “Retorica” di Filodemo’, in Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Papyrology, Athens, 25–31 May 1986 (2 vols.; Athens: Greek Papyrological Society, 1988), I, pp. 167-84. However, P.Herc. 220 has been tentatively referred to Book VII in T. Dorandi, ‘Per una ricomposizione dello scritto di Filodemo sulla Retorica’, ZPE 82 (1990), pp. 59-87 (85)

  33. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    This may be a double comment I am not sure. This is footnote 65 from an article on the CBMW website,

    65 See S. Sudhaus (ed.), Philodemi Volumina Rhetorica (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1896), II, p. 133, lines 12-15. The Herculaneum papyrus fragments in question (now known as P.Herc. 220) are no longer extant, although a hand-drawn copy was published in the nineteenth century. For an extensive bibliography on P.Herc. 220, see M. Gigante, Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1979), pp. 107-108. It is usually assigned to Book V of Philodemus’s Rhetorica, which is being prepared for publication by Matilde Ferrario of Milan; see her ‘Per una nuova edizione del quinto libro della “Retorica” di Filodemo’, in Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Papyrology, Athens, 25–31 May 1986 (2 vols.; Athens: Greek Papyrological Society, 1988), I, pp. 167-84. However, P.Herc. 220 has been tentatively referred to Book VII in T. Dorandi, ‘Per una ricomposizione dello scritto di Filodemo sulla Retorica’, ZPE 82 (1990), pp. 59-87 (85)

    Note that he mentions that it is not extant. However, the hand drawn copy may be fine, but it shows many gaps. There are far too many words left out to provide more than a rough summary of the fragment.

  34. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 5:55 pm

    Here is a footnote from an article on the CBMW website. Footnote 65,

    65 See S. Sudhaus (ed.), Philodemi Volumina Rhetorica (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1896), II, p. 133, lines 12-15. The Herculaneum papyrus fragments in question (now known as P.Herc. 220) are no longer extant, although a hand-drawn copy was published in the nineteenth century. For an extensive bibliography on P.Herc. 220, see M. Gigante, Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1979), pp. 107-108. It is usually assigned to Book V of Philodemus’s Rhetorica, which is being prepared for publication by Matilde Ferrario of Milan; see her ‘Per una nuova edizione del quinto libro della “Retorica” di Filodemo’, in Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Papyrology, Athens, 25–31 May 1986 (2 vols.; Athens: Greek Papyrological Society, 1988), I, pp. 167-84. However, P.Herc. 220 has been tentatively referred to Book VII in T. Dorandi, ‘Per una ricomposizione dello scritto di Filodemo sulla Retorica’, ZPE 82 (1990), pp. 59-87 (85)

  35. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    Sue, I’m sorry we misunderstood one another. Since I am mistaken in my understanding, what do you mean to say when you ask ‘what gifts does God give men that he does not give women’?

  36. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    I am asking complementarians that question. I don’t think there are any.

  37. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    So do I understand you to affirm that a difference in gifts is not a justification for differentiation of function as natural ability and training and qualifiation are such justifications?

  38. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    Hi Lane,

    When it says, “to be responsible for” that means to ” instigate” to be the one who is responsible for something happening, as in violence. I think if you check the reference it is not a good thing.

    The quote for the fragment not being extant is in Al Wolters, A Semantic Study of authentes and its Derivatives, on the CBMW website. It says,

    65 See S. Sudhaus (ed.), Philodemi Volumina Rhetorica (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1896), II, p. 133, lines 12-15. The Herculaneum papyrus fragments in question (now known as P.Herc. 220) are no longer extant, although a hand-drawn copy was published in the nineteenth century. For an extensive bibliography on P.Herc. 220, see M. Gigante, Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1979), pp. 107-108. It is usually assigned to Book V of Philodemus’s Rhetorica, which is being prepared for publication by Matilde Ferrario of Milan; see her ‘Per una nuova edizione del quinto libro della “Retorica” di Filodemo’, in Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Papyrology, Athens, 25–31 May 1986 (2 vols.; Athens: Greek Papyrological Society, 1988), I, pp. 167-84. However, P.Herc. 220 has been tentatively referred to Book VII in T. Dorandi, ‘Per una ricomposizione dello scritto di Filodemo sulla Retorica’, ZPE 82 (1990), pp. 59-87 (85)

    As I said it is a fragmentary fragment, not going to rove much.

  39. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    I am trying to post a comment that shows that the fragment is not extant but it won’t accept. It is in footnote 65 of the artcile by Al Wolters on the CBMW website.

  40. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    What I said was that a difference in function ought to be based on a difference in excellence, or gifts.

    Since there is no difference in excellence or gifts between men and women as applied to church service, there ought not to be a difference in function.

    So, we are back to the fact that we should not talk about women being different unless it is relevant. If you want women in the lower orders because they are different then you really mean women are different as in women are less.

  41. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    Speaking for myself, I do not believe that a justification for differentiating the functions of women and men is that God give gifts to one gender that he does not give to the other.

  42. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    Lane,

    See footnote 65 in Al Wolters article on authentes on the CBMW website. He says there that the fragment is not extant.

  43. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:37 pm

    Lane,

    See footnote 65 in Al Wolters article on authentes on the CBMW website. He says there that the fragment is not extant.

    R. F.

    You simply asked ” it would help me to hear why you believe sameness in virtue erases difference in function.” I answered on my understanding of the relationship of excellence and gifting to function. If it si your gift, then it is your function. They cannot be separated.

  44. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    Lane,

    See footnote 65 in Al Wolters article on authentes on the CBMW website. He says there that the fragment is not extant.

    Also “be responsible” is in a negative sense, to instigate violence, as in “who is responsible for this crime?”

    R. F.

    You simply asked ” it would help me to hear why you believe sameness in virtue erases difference in function.” I answered on my understanding of the relationship of excellence and gifting to function. If it si your gift, then it is your function. They cannot be separated.

  45. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    Lane,

    See footnote 65 in Al Wolters article on authentes on the CBMW website. He says there that the fragment is not extant.

    Also “be responsible” is in a negative sense, to instigate violence, as in “who is responsible for this crime?”

  46. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    Speaking again for myself (i.e., not for Lane), I do not believe that the/a justification for a difference in function for women in the church is their difference in gender from men.

  47. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    Lane,

    See an article by Al Wolters on authentein on the CBMW website, footnote 65. It says that the fragment is not extant.

  48. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    Speaking a third time for myself only, I do not believe that the justification for the difference in function for women in the church is in gender.

  49. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 7:17 pm

    Hmm. My comments aren’t sticking – I do see yours.

  50. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 7:19 pm

    Okay, There it is. There is a footnote # 65 in an article on authentes by Al Wolters on the CBMW website that explains that the Philodemus fragment is not extant.

    “to be responsible for” for authentein is an established meaning in the context of instigating a crime, not a good thing.

  51. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    An article by Al Wolters on authentes on the CBMW website, footnote 65 explains that the Philodemus fragment does not exist.

  52. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    I guess I will let it go until Lane finds all my lost comments – ditto ditto

  53. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 7:26 pm

    Weird, what I keep trying to say is that Wolters article on the CBMW website states that the fragment is not extant.

  54. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    Maybe the name c b m w is causing the spam filter to balk. There is an article by Al Wolters there in footnote 65 which says that the fragment does not exist.

  55. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    Yup. That was it. The meaning responsible for means to be responsible for a crime – not a good thing.

  56. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    “Speaking a third time for myself only, I do not believe that the justification for the difference in function for women in the church is in gender.”

    What are you suggesting R. F. age, race, …

  57. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    No! I believe the justification is in God and Satan, that is, in what God did at creation and in what Satan did in the fall.

  58. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 7:54 pm

    That is, God created the man first; Satan attacked the man through the woman.

  59. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 7:59 pm

    One more clarification: I don’t believe that the justification is some moral deficiency in women that is not in men. Nonsense. Both sexes are totally depraved.

  60. jared said,

    November 4, 2007 at 8:36 pm

    I’m curious as to how 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 plays in this discussion. Paul, here, uses the same langauge of both man and woman in regards to the worship service. Both man and woman can “pray or prophecy” but one needs to have his head uncovered and the other needs to have her head covered. It seems like the whole point of this passage is to make sure that if a woman is praying/teaching then those being taught and those sent to witness the teaching in order to pass the message along (the “angels” of verse 10) need to know she is the one who has authority. More specifically, the woman needs a head covering that marks her out as different from all the other women present (who would, likely, be wearing head coverings already). Would this not necessitate some other understanding for Paul’s words to Timothy?

    After doing a little research I’ve discovered two interesting things:

    1. The Hebrew in Genesis 2 for what is normally translated as “helper” is used most often in the OT as a descriptor for God as He relates to His people. God is Israel’s helper as woman was/is to be man’s helper, so here, at the very outset of role distinguishing, we cannot say that man was created to have authority over woman. The word translated “helper” literally means “strength over against” that is, strength opposite of man. This is what Calvin says in his commentary “that she is a kind of counterpart, (ἀντίστοικον, or ἀντίστροφον) for the woman is said to be opposite to or over against the man, because she responds to him.” What’s interesting here is that at the fall it is Eve who “muscles” Adam into eating the fruit. Adam failed in his responsibility to be Eve’s counterpart; he failed to match or temper Eve’s strength (as she was his equal in this) in order to combat the deceitful serpent.

    2. The Greek word for “power” in 1 Corinthians 11:10 is ἐξουσία which is always used in reference to someone/something which has authority over someone/something else. Why would the woman’s head need to be affixed with such an indicator if she was supposedly not allowed to have such a position?

  61. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 9:45 pm

    Both sexes are totally depraved.

    Amen to that and don’t one on four women take in the chin – literally. Cromwell executed the king for abusing power and monarchs have been restricted ever since. We need to do the same thing with men. Remove any notion that they deserve power over someone else just because they are male. Neither sex should have power over the other unless it is reciprocal. 1 Cor. 7

  62. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 10:31 pm

    Sorry for speaking with so much emotion but as I said – one in four women raped and beaten in this day and age. Either I am one of these or I know one of these and no amount of fudging the scriptures – which is what I see from those complementarian scholars who won’t admit openly that certain evidence is not what they make it out to be – is going to heal the damage done to women by “male authority.” .

    Thanks Jared for pointing out how Adam failed Eve. And look at how Annanias and Sapphira failed each other. Both of them equally responsible.

  63. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    To be sure, Adam failed Eve. The fall of our first parents introduced distortions into the relationship between women and men. In the family, the husband’s responsible, self-sacrificing headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility. In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly lust for power or an abdication of spiritual stewardship; it inclines women to resist distinctions between their roles and those of men, or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries. Redemption in Christ aims, in part, to remove these distortions in the relationship between women and men introduced by the Fall.

  64. R. F. White said,

    November 4, 2007 at 11:34 pm

    Additional thoughts related to those in #50 would be the following.

    As equal heirs of redemption in Christ, both women and men are priests before God and should be encouraged to join one another in offering spiritual sacrifices of obedience and praise to God their Creator and Redeemer. As believers, both women and men are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and endowed with gifts of word and deed (i.e., gifts of speaking and serving) for the edification of the church.

    Women and men are both made in the image of God. They are equal before God as persons. There is no hierarchy in terms of value, worth, or dignity. Women and men are assured of an equal share in the blessings of redemption in Christ.

    Women and men need each other and are incomplete without one another. They are complements to one another. Women and men should therefore have a deep respect and appreciation for each other and for their differing callings and gifts.

  65. Kyle said,

    November 4, 2007 at 11:41 pm

    Jared, re: 47,

    Your interpretation is utterly absurd. The woman is to wear a head covering because man is the head of a woman, not because she needs to be marked out as having some kind of authority which the other women do not. (Otherwise how are the “angels” as you define them supposed to figure out who has authority amongst the hatless men?) Man is the image and glory of God, woman is the glory of man. Therefore, she is to wear a head covering to indicate that she is under the authority of men. Aside from this, you make the passage directly opposite to what Paul very clearly states in I Cor. 14:34.

  66. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 11:41 pm

    What are those differing gifts? Isn’t that what I asked.

  67. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    The former comment was for R. F.

    Kyle,

    “Therefore, she is to wear a head covering to indicate that she is under the authority of men.”

    There is not one instance in all of Greek literature where exousia means being under someone else’s authority. Believe me, if there was someone would have found it by now.

  68. Sue said,

    November 4, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    R. F. You said,

    “Speaking for myself, I do not believe that a justification for differentiating the functions of women and men is that God give gifts to one gender that he does not give to the other.”

    But now you say that there are differing gifts, but it is not justification for differing roles. However, I did want to know earlier fi you thought that there were differing gifts. What are they? I am curious.

  69. Kyle said,

    November 5, 2007 at 12:05 am

    Sure, re: 54,

    Did I say that exousia means “being under someone’s authority”? No. In fact, I’m arguing that this exousia, “authority (over another)” is possessed by the man. The man has authority over the woman, therefore the woman should wear that authority on her head. It’s clear in this context that Paul is not arguing that the woman should wear a headcovering to indicate her own authority. That makes mincemeat and nonsense out of the entire passage. The thrust is that, as man is under the headship of Christ, so woman is under the headship of man. Man is the image and glory of God, whereas woman is the glory of man. Man is not from woman, but woman from man. Man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for man’s sake. This is by far the most straightforward reading of the text. It makes us moderns nervous, imbued as we have been with the egalitarian spirit.

  70. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 12:40 am

    I did quote you Kyle. Now you say,

    I’m arguing that this exousia, “authority (over another)” is possessed by the man.

    This is not what the Greek says. Are you writing your own Bible here?

    Slavery and totalitarian government makes us moderns nervous too, so we don’t have them any more. Men make women nervous. People who can’t read Greek but think that they can make me nervous.

  71. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 12:41 am

    Sorry. What I meant was that patriarchy makes women nervous. Men do make me nervous, but only patriarchal men.

  72. kjsulli said,

    November 5, 2007 at 8:44 am

    Sue, re: 57,

    You did not quote me. I did not say that exousia means “being under someone else’s authority.” I was giving an interpretation of the passage, not a definition of the term.

    This is not what the Greek says. Are you writing your own Bible here?

    Here’s what the Greek says in I Cor. 11:10: dia touto opheilei hê gynê exousian echein epi tês kephalês dia tous angelous

    “because of this owes the woman to have authority upon the head because of the angels”

    As I have argued, it appears in context of this passage that this authority is not the woman’s own authority, but the authority of the man.

    People who can’t read Greek but think that they can make me nervous.

    I never claimed to be a Greek scholar. I do know just enough Greek to make basic sense of a passage given a decent lexicon and some help from English translations. Now, you’re free to argue that I’ve got it all wrong, but you must also make sense of the rest of the passage which seems to be pretty straightforward in giving man headship over woman.

  73. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 9:55 am

    I am someone who reads Greek, I am not someone who makes sense out of obscure passages in the Bible. However, wearing a veil or stola was a practice that did not symbolize submission in ancient culture but respectable status. A slave woman did not wear a veil. A wealthy widow, Eumachia, who was patron of many buildings and active socially and financially wore a veil. Sometimes Augustus wore a veil. Sometimes men wore a veil to demonstrate piety. But usually only women.

    It had nothing to do with being in submission. It had to do with custom. It was a symbol of both status and piety.

    There are no hard and fast rules for interpreting the use of a veil. However, you can’t make the Greek say something it blatantly does not.

    It must have been the symbol of woman’s own authority to prophecy and pray in the assembly. Remember that in 1 Cor. 7 authority has already been established as reciprocal. That does clearly say husband has authority ove wife’s body and wife over husband’s body. Quite different construction from 1 Cor 11.

    Individual women are treated as adults in the scriptures, they are not some kind of intermediate beings who are always under men. Men are no better than women and cause them a lot of grief.

    The submission passages apply to women being submissive to men who are themselves submissive to a totalitarian government. The entire ethos was different then. Now all I see is men who want democracy and equality for themselves and submission for women. Christianity is completely warped out of recognition.

  74. R. F. White said,

    November 5, 2007 at 11:37 am

    To Sue’s #68,

    I gather that you are referring to my statement: ‘Women and men should therefore have a deep respect and appreciation for each other and for their differing callings and gifts.’

    That latter expression ‘differing … gifts’ was intended to refer not to gifts as specific to a gender but simply to gifts as specific to an individual.

    Sorry for any confusion. I’m cutting and pasting comments from multiple contexts.

  75. kjsulli said,

    November 5, 2007 at 11:38 am

    Sue, re:73,

    I am duly impressed that you can read the Greek fluently.

    As for Greek and Roman customs for headcoverings: the customs varied from place to place (on which, see here), and the immediate context of the passage still seems to imply that the headcovering is meant as a symbol of man’s authority over the woman. You have not, as yet, addressed that immediate context.

    I Cor. 7 is not entirely irrelevant here, but it has specifically to do with the sexual relationship between husband and wife, not with the behavior of men and women in the congregation. I Cor. 14 does, however, have some bearing on behavior in the congregation, and there women are to be silent.

    Now, were we talking about totalitarianism and democracy? Are those in question in the passage? And does it matter for interpretation whether the ethos then was different than what it is now? I’m not asking that women be slaves. I’m trying to establish the proper interpretation of a passage.

  76. R. F. White said,

    November 5, 2007 at 11:49 am

    Sue,

    Earlier we talked about how exegesis is inevitably and decisively influenced by the controlling factors of existing commitments and larger frameworks of understanding. Your comments in #73 refer to democracy and equality. What control, if any, would you say that democracy and equality exercise over your exegesis of Biblical passages on women and men?

  77. jared said,

    November 5, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    Kyle,

    You say,

    Your interpretation is utterly absurd. The woman is to wear a head covering because man is the head of a woman, not because she needs to be marked out as having some kind of authority which the other women do not. (Otherwise how are the “angels” as you define them supposed to figure out who has authority amongst the hatless men?) Man is the image and glory of God, woman is the glory of man. Therefore, she is to wear a head covering to indicate that she is under the authority of men. Aside from this, you make the passage directly opposite to what Paul very clearly states in I Cor. 14:34.

    My interpretation is quite tenable and Paul already anticipates your counter-argument in verses 11-13. If woman is supposed to be under man’s authority because she came from man, then man is also under woman’s authority because he now comes from woman. I will readily concede that there’s a difference between headship and superiority, however, this does not preclude a woman from praying and teaching, especially if there is no man up to the task. At any rate, Paul has set the tone for this chapter by making the following statement: Christ is the head of every man, man is the head of a woman and God is the head of Christ. By “traditional” reasoning, then, aren’t we to conclude that Christ is in subjection to God in the same manner that woman is in subjection to man? If so (and I would say so given Paul’s crystal clear statement here), then there is an equality between man and woman as there is an equality between Christ and God. The context for the rest of the passage is men and women, respectively, praying and prophesying; presumably in the public arena. If we take 1 Cor. 14 (and 1 Tim 2) at face value then what do we do with Paul at this juncture?

    It should at least be clear from all of Scripture that authority is not a matter of ability, rather it is a matter of ordained circumstance. If things are operating normally (and when are they ever?) then the woman should not be leading her husband or her church, you’ll get no disagreement from me on this point. But your interpretation of “Therefore, she is to wear a head covering to indicate that she is under the authority of men” doesn’t make any sense at all. Paul’s argument begins in verse 3, not in verse 8. Verse 10 is not a conclusion to be drawn only from verses 8 and 9. Since, as I’ve pointed out, the context is men and women praying and teaching (prophesying) and since man doesn’t need anything to distinguish him as having authority (because he has it whether he is married or not) what else should we make of Paul saying the woman (who is praying and prophesying) needs to have a symbol of authority on her head? We already know (from the cultural context) that she’s going to have her head covered, Paul’s already implied that much in the verses leading up to this point. One could surmise that verses 6-9 are actually parenthetical to Paul’s admonishing in this part of his letter; look at verses 5 and 10 together:

    5 – But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

    10 – Therefore the woman out to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

    I think there’s at least some substance to this argument, it isn’t as you say “utterly absurd.” Paul, I’m sure, has Genesis 2 in mind for verses 11-12 and I imagine he is quite well aware of just how man and woman were created and to what extent one has authority over the other (and vice versa).

  78. R. F. White said,

    November 5, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    Also, back in #16 and #20, we talked about the position that the sameness of women and men in excellence (being) should lead to their sameness in function. In that light, the question arose, Why, then, does this position not lead to a denial of the sexes? What is the justification for a differentiation of the sexes? We know that, at creation, God differentiated His one image into male and female. I submit that the differentiation in humankind is rooted in the differentiation among the Persons of the Godhead, where sameness of being do not imply sameness of function. This consideration is not as remote to our conversation as it might initially appear, for Paul alludes to the relationship of the Father and the Son in 1 Cor 11, a text that has surfaced in our exchange. I’m inclined to agree with Fr. Bill: egalitarianism tends toward unitarianism.

  79. greenbaggins said,

    November 5, 2007 at 1:14 pm

    Sue, Andronicus, Baldwin’s translation: “This line is from another place. For now it does not fit properly. For then it was wont to be mentioned when the one doing (participial form authenton) the speech had set forth something astounding.” One could translate it “in charge of the speech.” This is page 203 of second edition of WIC.

    Your argument about the Philodemus sources is invalid. Even if the fragment itself does not exist, if it is recorded, we still have it. It is the same with the New Testament. We don’t have the original autographs, but that does not change the fact that we still have the NT. Your argument assumes that the editors of BGU (and Sudhaus, by the way, which is where Baldwin got it from) did not faithfully record their evidence. Did they unfaithfully record all the other evidence in their volumes? I’m not sure that it is the best thing to say that complementarian scholars are deliberately overlooking this evidence. The evidence did exist at one time and was recorded. The only part of the word in question that was missing was the ending. And, this fragment was recorded in at least two different anthologies. I think this constitutes existing evidence, not non-existent evidence. But the complementarian argument hardly rests on this fragment alone. The meaning of “teaching” is much clearer, and Marshall’s argument falls completely flat, because Paul knew and used the term “heterodidaskein” to refer to false teaching. It would have fit the context completely if that was what Paul wanted to say. He used the term in 1 Tim 1:3, and 6:3, in the very same document. Given the argument of Kostenberger (which even Marshall acknowledged was correct: he had to reverse the meaning of both verbs in order to preserve the egalitarian reading), and the clear meaning of teaching as something positive, the word authentein must also mean something positive (and Kostenberger’s study is based on original source syntactical study).

  80. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    I only have a few minutes but first the reference to 1 Cor. 11:10 is very clouded in English because often this word exousia is translated into English as permission or liberty, to have license to do something. Paul uses it this way all the time. If anyone has an Englishman’s Greek concordance they can look this up. You just can’t make nonsense out of the Greek which is what “under authority” does.

  81. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    The argument about Philodemus more correctly rests on the fact that authentein is not translated by “those in authority” but possibly bi “poerful lords”. So Baldwin made an outright error in citing it.

    I don’t know what WIC is and I have never seen the Adronicus quote before or seen anyone use it as reference. Does is mean “to be the author of” that is what some think 1 Tim 2:12 says, women shall not teach that she is the author of man. But, truly I don’t know what book you are quoting or why it is not in the appendix of Ev. Fem and Biblical Faith which is supposed to have the full study in it. I will look it up later.

  82. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 1:56 pm

    If yo argue that Paul would have used heterodidaskein for negative teaching, then you must argue that he would have to use exouziazw for positive authority. This is full of way too many holes. There is no clear way out. Of course, people can interpret it how they like as long as they say, this is my interpretation. And I say that he is interpreting it with self interst in mind because he is a man. And you say likewise about me.

    So, let us say that it is a use of straight power that neither man nor woman should use – authentein.

  83. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    Lane,

    My basic position about authentein is that we are at a draw and this is being incredibly gracious to Kostenberger because the PHilodemus quote is a misquote which he did not correct. The Andronicus quote seems to reinforce the egalitarian position.

    R.F.

    You wrote,

    “Earlier we talked about how exegesis is inevitably and decisively influenced by the controlling factors of existing commitments and larger frameworks of understanding. Your comments in #73 refer to democracy and equality. What control, if any, would you say that democracy and equality exercise over your exegesis of Biblical passages on women and men?”

    Absolute control. I live in an earthly democracy, if you do not, then please let me know what non-democratic country you live in.

    I was denied my democratic rights within a violent marriage and only non-Christians were able to help me. This, in spite of my attending a relatively non-patriarchal church. When the last woman on earth is beaten and abused then we can talk about male authority without causing someone post traumatic stress syndrome. But my perception is that men only want power and they use the Bible for this purpose. What a shame. My perception is that some men don’t even have a basic idea of what is going on in the world.

  84. kjsulli said,

    November 5, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    Lane,

    Are my comments being eaten? Just checking. :)

  85. R. F. White said,

    November 5, 2007 at 2:48 pm

    Sue,

    Words on a blog are not adequate to express how sorry I am to hear of your violent past. Personally, I repudiate particularly any woman or man who would use the Bible for the shameful purpose you have mentioned.

    As the husband of a wife who has served for a decade as the director of women’s ministries in one of the largest churches in our denomination, I assure you that I have more than a basic idea of what is going on in the world.

    No, I don’t live on earth in a democracy. I live in a representative republic. Meanwhile, my heavenly citizenship is held in a monarchy in which the king exercises his rule through representatives.

    As a student of Greek philosophy, you know that they analyzed democracy as one of the most deficient forms of government. It is not worthy, biblically or philosophically, to function as a control, absolute or relative, in exegesis.

  86. kjsulli said,

    November 5, 2007 at 2:48 pm

    Sue, re: 73,

    I’m going to try this one more time. It seems my response did not go through.

    I do envy you the ability to read Greek, it’s a very useful skill no doubt.

    Regarding headcovering customs among Greeks and Romans, see here. It is by no means certain that there was a standard practice and meaning with regard to headcoverings in Corinth. (You admit as much.)

    Paul is arguing that there is a standard practice in the churches of God. And the meaning is–well, that’s what’s being disputed, here, isn’t it? From what I can gather from the context, the meaning is that women are under the headship and authority of men. Do you have some explanation for the rest of the context? Why would Paul head up his argument in favor of women wearing headcoverings as a sign of their own authority by showing the man is the head of the woman, woman is the glory of man, woman was created for man’s sake?

    As for I Cor. 7, while not entirely irrelevant, this is specifically about sexual relations between husband and wife. I Cor. 11 has to do with the behavior of men and women in the congregation (as does I Cor. 14).

    Why you bring up totalitarianism and democracy, I’m not sure. But if there was a different ethos then than now in these regards, does this negate the interpretation of the passage?

  87. R. F. White said,

    November 5, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    Jared, to your post in #76,

    It looks to me that the principles and regulations presented in 1 Timothy 2 and 5 (1 Tim 5:2; 3:11; 5:9-10, 14; see also Titus 2:3-5; and 2 Tim 1:5) are also cited and applied in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 (1 Cor 11:5 and 14:26-35). First, I notice that the family-church analogy is at work in all four chapters. Second, it looks to me that in each chapter a key point that Paul urges is that the distinct roles assigned to men and women in marriage and family should carry over into the distinct roles assumable by men and women in the church. If this interpretation is right, it would mean that female teachers and prophets participated freely in the meetings of God’s household when it came to praying, singing, giving thanks, and the like (1 Cor 11:5 with 14:15-19; cf. Acts 1:14; 2:17-18); but when it came to giving instruction to the gathered church via the exercise of their gifts, they were at least ostensibly to be silent in that setting (1 Cor 14:19 with 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2:12). At the same time, as ‘mothers’ in God’s household, women with speaking gifts (or without) instructed other women, even as Paul’s directives to Titus indicate (Titus 2:3-5).

  88. greenbaggins said,

    November 5, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    Sue, WIC is _Women In the Church_, published by Baker. First edition 1995, second edition 2005. It has Baldwin’s article in the most up-to-date form, as well as Kostenberger’s argument, and articles by Schreiner, Yarbrough, and Dorothy Patterson.

    Any man who uses a position of power for anything other than service is abusing that power. To hear, therefore, of your being abused in just this way makes me plead to God for wrong things to be made right. But please, Sue, do not generalize from your experience to what you think all men want. I understand that you may be somewhat jaded from your experience. But not all men would use such a position of authority to abuse a woman. I can look you in the face and confidently tell you that I have never abused my wife, either verbally, or physically. I have sinned against her in other ways, ways in which I have asked her forgiveness, and she has given it. Abuse of that kind simply isn’t a sin to which I am tempted. I am tempted by plenty of others, but not that one.

    Thirdly, Paul can use whatever terms he wants to use. He doesn’t have to use exousiazo to make it plain that authority is what he had in mind. We could wish that he had used a word less controversial as to its meaning. However, a note is in order here: the feminist interpretation didn’t even exist before the 1970’s. Unless you want to affirm that the entire church was completely benighted on a major issue of crucial importance, you are going to have to admit that the egalitarian interpretation of 1 Tim 2 is a novelty.

  89. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    Lane,

    I have found the Aristonicus quote. It is considered to mean “be the author of” rather than a verb meaning “to be in charge of”. It is either not mentioned much because it is a set phrase meaning author, or it is considered only as support for the egalitarian position. Thanks for pointing it out for me.

    R. F.

    The US govt. has a website where it declares itself to be a democracy. if you claim a representaitve republic is not a democracy, fine. I’ll play ball.
    Then women need a representative govt. Marriage is an earthly arrangement between human beings. Churchill said that democracy was the worst form of government apart from any other. C.S. Lewis said that he was a democrat because he knew he was himself a sinner and not worthy of ruling a henroost. I don’t see that kind of attitude in men in the church today. I see men who disregard the plain meaning of Greek, think they can read afew books and know it all, don’t carea about truth, and are ignorant of the fact that women suffer world wide in proportion to the extent that they are excluded from decision making. Look at a little world vision literature.

    Anyway, I am sure you can see that no one will ever make me trust a male who wants power for himself again.

    R. F.

    I don’t see enough Greek known on this website to call it exegesis. I just wondered what you guys wer up to here and now have a pretty good idea, comparing the relationship between man and woman to the relationship between humans and God.

  90. jared said,

    November 5, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    R.F. White,

    Thanks for the response, that’s quite helpful.

  91. greenbaggins said,

    November 5, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    Sue, what about the grammatical argument and the argument about the Philodemus quotation?

    Your interpretation of the Andronicus quotation is not the only one on offer. Furthermore, there is no hint in the context of 1 Timothy either that women were dominating men such that Paul had to call a stop to it (and this itself would have been highly unlikely), nor is there any indication that women were teaching falsely.

    By the way, I’ve read more than a few books on the subject. I don’t know if that comment was directed at me, but I have read all the major English language commentaries on the passage, as well as most of the major books, and dozens upon dozens of articles. So, no accusations of lack of scholarship can possibly be directed my way.

  92. greenbaggins said,

    November 5, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Here is a further problem with Marshall’s argument: if Paul meant to use “didaskein” in the sense of “heterodidaskein,” such that the apostle is in fact telling women-but not men- not to teach falsely, how would that not still allow the same implication Marshall disavows, namely, that women and men are here treated inequitably? This is the conclusion of Kostenberger’s argument on page 76 of _Women in the Church_, second edition.

    Furthermore, why would Paul use the word “permit” of something that is so obviously wrong as false teaching? Paul condemns false teaching in much stronger language than “permit.” I would argue that “permit” implies something that is in and of itself positive, but which, under certain circumstances, is not allowed.

  93. Kyle said,

    November 5, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    Sue, re: 73,

    I’m going to try this one more time. It seems my response did not go through.

    I do envy you the ability to read Greek, it’s a very useful skill.

    Regarding headcovering customs among Greeks and Romans, see here. It is by no means certain that there was a standard practice and meaning with regard to headcoverings in Corinth. (You admit as much.)

    Paul is arguing that there is a standard practice in the churches of God. And the meaning is–well, that’s what’s being disputed, here, isn’t it? From what I can gather from the context, the meaning is that women are under the headship and authority of men. Do you have some explanation for the rest of the context? Why would Paul head up his argument in favor of women wearing headcoverings as a sign of their own authority by showing the man is the head of the woman, woman is the glory of man, woman was created for man’s sake?

    As for I Cor. 7, while not entirely irrelevant, this is specifically about sexual relations between husband and wife. I Cor. 11 has to do with the behavior of men and women in the congregation (as does I Cor. 14).

    Why you bring up totalitarianism and democracy, I’m not sure. But if there was a different ethos then than now in these regards, does this negate the interpretation of the passages in question?

  94. Kyle said,

    November 5, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    Lane,

    I don’t believe my comments are going through properly. It may be the spambox or maybe they’re still awaiting moderation. I’ll wait for them to show up.

  95. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    Lane,

    The Hubbell translation is not a translation but a summary made up of a few sentences to represent the general idea of what might be in the fragment. Many of the words are missing in the fragment. However, given the fragment and the summary, there is still no possible way that authenaisin is translated by “the ones/those in authority”. It is simply not possible. Have you read it? I referenced it somewhere here. It is all available on the net. Hubbell is in google books and you can look it up yourself. But it won’t help.

    Aristonicus, (if we could just clear up that we are not talking about Titus Adronicus) contains the expression “ho authenton” to be the author of. If you think that a translation supplied by Baldwin is correct, just ask yourself why he couldn’t identify the correct phrase in Philodemus. Baldwin’s study is full of translations made up by him on purpose to support his case. They are not the translation supplied by any translator of the classical material. Maybe you are not aware of how these Christian word studies are done. Decide what you want to prove, find just enough material to give naive readers a good impression and go with that.

    Are you aware of the complete nonsense produced by Wallace and Burer on Junia. What an embarassment. They did not get their major quote right at all. One must be very skeptical of all this stuff.

  96. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    Lane,

    but I have read all the major English language commentaries on the passage, as well as most of the major books, and dozens upon dozens of articles.

    I apologize. This is the first time I have posted on a site where people don’t read Greek. I am not used to working from commentaries. I really don’t know what else to say. I can’t show you how it works if you don’t read Greek.

  97. greenbaggins said,

    November 5, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    I have had 7 years of Greek, Sue, including 3 years of classical Greek at St. Olaf College, and 4 years of NT Greek at Westminster Theological Seminary. What on earth made you think that I don’t read Greek? The fact that I do read commentaries?

    You have argued from Marshall’s commentary. Where else are you going to find the culmination of years of research and the very best arguments on both sides but from the commentaries?

  98. R. F. White said,

    November 5, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    My, but we do have some assumptions at work here, no?

  99. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    Maybe confusing Aristonicus with Andronicus. :-) which got me alittle confused. But you can read the Philodemus fragment yourself then and translate it. You know then that authentein is not translated as “those in authority” – I don’t need to explain the argument, you can see it.

  100. greenbaggins said,

    November 5, 2007 at 5:27 pm

    Fancy that, Sue. Two people who both understand Greek coming to completely opposite conclusions about what the word means. I don’t think it is the first time. To me my interpretation seems completely natural. But to say that the meaning is self-evident is not an argument. These things need to be argued. Just because someone is a complementarian doesn’t mean their arguments are wrong. Sudhaus’s reconstruction is accepted by Vooys, who translates the word by Latin “dominor.” The Spanish-Greek dictionary translates it “ejercer la autoridad” (equals “exercise authority over.”) So, if it is so obviously meaning “powerful lords,” why do Greek experts and lexicographers disagree with that interpretation?

    You still have not answered the grammatical argument of Kostenberger. His argument does not depend on the meaning of authenteo. In fact, his argument heavily influences how we should read the verb. Comment 92 has further arguments against Marshall’s position here.

    Sue, may I ask, what do you have against men? I know it may be difficult for you to get over what has happened in the past. However, you simply cannot paint all men with the same brush. If some men were born to lead, are you going to penalize them for seeking to lead, and for seeking power for themselves, so that they can lead? Has your experience been so jaded, that you can no longer see godly men with anything but a jaundiced eye?

  101. greenbaggins said,

    November 5, 2007 at 5:43 pm

    Sue, my confusion over two very similar names should not lead anyone to conclude that I don’t read Greek. This does not give me much confidence in your powers of logic.

    Sue, are you truly teachable? Are you truly humble? I have tried exceedingly hard not only to listen to your arguments, but to all the egalitarian arguments. I have tried to answer your arguments. As sad as your experience with men in the past has been, it in no way constitutes any reason why I should be convinced by your arguments. This is not to downplay what you have experienced. The interpretation of passages of Scripture cannot be based on our experience. Rather, Scripture judges our experience. The answer to injustice is not to “even the score,” but to follow the Biblical path. This leads me into one of the poorest, most shallow arguments that egalitarians raise (although I have not seen you raise it): that culture has moved on, therefore we must move on. Again, the culture does not interpret Scripture. Scripture interprets culture. Again and again, Scripture judges culture. Why hasn’t the egalitarian interpretation surfaced until the last fifty years? It will not do to answer that the patriarchalists have shoved women down, including the proper interpretation of 1 Tim 2. That is yet another answer from culture. It is also speculative, since complementarians would not agree that women have been universally oppressed for the last 1900 years. I absolutely, positively refuse to grant that point. Furthermore, most of the best Scriptural interpreters knew what it meant to live sacrificially for their wives, and to love their wives.

    Sue, how do you interpret Ephesians 5 where Paul says that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church? Does Christ have authority over the church?

  102. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 6:12 pm

    Lane,

    You are sidestepping Philodemus. Here is the problem. Kostenberger cited Baldwin who misquoted Hubbell. I offer you Hubbell and then you ignore it.

    This is what I mean by my not wanting to quote commentaries. But then you cite Kostenberger’s grammatical argument so I quote Marshall against him.

    How did “exercize authority” come into the language as a translation? A good question, my guess is through Thedore Beza’s translation of the NT. Have you seen this translation? What is your theory? Once “usurpare authoritatem” replaced “dominare” in the 16th century, the translation tradition split in two.

    In English, it became “usurp authority” which is a serious crime. So from the first translation that I know of, which was dominare, up until the 19th century, “usurp authority,” the word had a negative connoatation. Then just as women were getting a little more freedom, zap, let’s change how we read this verse, and bring in something more powerful.

    The entire idea of “teaching authority” which men claim as theirs came from a document on papal authority and that is what the patriarch, supporter of male only leadership, wants today. It is patriarchy which I consider dangerous, as you might consider a non-representative government dangerous.

  103. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    You say that the eglaitarian argument has come up inthe alst 50 years. Are you familiar with Hilda, (7th century) teacher of 5 bishops. Are you familiar with Maragaret Fell, (17th century) Elizabeth Fry (18th century) and Catherine Booth (19th century) Do you know the first women ordained in the Anglican Church, Li Tim Oi, (20th century)

  104. greenbaggins said,

    November 5, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    No, Sue, I have not in the least sidestepped Philodemus. I argued that just because we do not have the original any longer does not mean that we don’t have it. So your argument about it not existing is not valid. I further argue that the instance of authenteo in that source is translated as “having authority” by Hubbell, the very man you quote as having a different interpretation. The interpretation of “have authority” is confirmed by a native Greek speaker, you know: John Chrysostom (I believe he lived just a bit before Beza). Here are his words: “The divine law indeed has excluded women from the ministry…The blessed Paul did not suffer them even to speak with authority in the church” (pg. 165 in the ACCS series). It is true that Chrysostom argues wrongly that Eve was not submitted to Adam before the Fall. However, that does not change the point that a native Greek speaker understood the passage to mean that Paul excluded women from having authority over men.

    None of these authors are commentators, Sue, in the sense that they have produced a full-length commentary on 1 Timothy. So, your rejection of commentaries is also flawed.

    Are you serious that men having the eldership role in the church means that women are not represented? You are assuming that all men in the church completely ignore their wives’ thoughts on matters related to the church. But if they don’t, but carefully consider what their wives say (I certainly do this), then they are represented, even if through their representative head.

    These women you mention, have they published interpretations of 1 Timothy 2? If so, could you please provide references and/or links?

    Contrary to your assertion, Sue, I am not side-stepping your arguments. Rather, you are side-stepping mine.

  105. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 7:39 pm

    Chrysostom does not determine the meaning and neither does Beza. Beza’s translation is interesting in that it explains the transition from “dominare” to “usurpare authoritatem” in Latin usage, and thus, from there to “exercize authority” as later interpretation of authentew. Chrystostom also uses authentew in a very negative sense here.

    For that the woman has beauty, and the man desire, shows nothing else than that for the sake of love it has been made so. Do not therefore, because your wife is subject to you, act the despot; (authentew) nor because your husband loves you, be thou puffed up.

    This is from the Catholic encyclopedia site. New Advent. So here we see that for Chrysostom, it means “act the despot”.

    You then write,

    I further argue that the instance of authenteo in that source is translated as “having authority” by Hubbell, the very man you quote as having a different interpretation.

    The phrase “those in authority” occurs in the line 6 out of 7 lines in Hubbell’s translation.

    But the word “authent[ai]sin” occurs in line 14 out of 35 in the original fragment. Do you still argue that the one is a translation of the other?

    I am avoiding other questions until we can clear up the difficulty of using the Philodemus fragment.

  106. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    Chrysostom is from homily 10 on Colossians, and verse 19. I am not taking the risk of including links.

  107. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 8:37 pm

    Lane,

    Does Chrysostom use the word authentew in the quote you offered? Does this quote demonstrate what Chrysostom thought about women or what the meaning of authentew is? I have lost track of the argument.

    You are assuming that all men in the church completely ignore their wives’ thoughts on matters related to the church.

    Are you assuming that the only women who have a voice in the church are those who are wives of elders who listen to their wives.

    I just happened to read a book in which Jim Packer admits that at his age, he has never yet been able to convince his wife of his view that women should not be ministers. After 50 years. Does that prevent him from teaching that women should not be ministers? Not at all. So if women disagree with their husbands their husbands keep on preaching the subordination of women just the same.

  108. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 8:42 pm

    Sorry. Colossians 3:19 for Chrysostom.

  109. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    Here is one sermon on 1 Tim. 2:12 with lots of citations from before 1859. (see pages 12-14) This is surely older than the last 50 years. This is in support of women participating in the purity movement and eventually increasing the age of consent for young girls from 12 to 16. Do you think women should wait around forever without women standing up for other women? Do you think women should not have had this authority to act on the behalf of abused children?

  110. Sue said,

    November 5, 2007 at 8:54 pm

    Women Speaking 1666

  111. greenbaggins said,

    November 6, 2007 at 10:50 am

    Sue, I appreciate the interaction. I am not going to be able to continue this conversation, as I cannot keep devoting so much time to it. I don’t think we are going to convince each other, and neither of us thinks the other is on solid footing.

  112. Sue said,

    November 6, 2007 at 3:28 pm

    Lane,

    Thanks for ending the conversation amicably. I hope I don’t leave the impression that I am either sidestepping anything or that egalitarians do not uphold the scriptures. I have tried to represent some of my own research in to 1 Tim. 2:12. Thanks for listening.

  113. Sue said,

    November 6, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    The egalitarian interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 did not even arise before the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. We must beware of interpreting the Bible according to worldly principles. That is a train wreck.

    I notice that you wrote this on a prevous post and I would like to respectfully respond that the egalitarian interpretation of 1 Tim. 2 arose with the purity movement of the 1860’s in England. I accept with regret that you do not have time to interact with the history of Biblical interpretation regarding women and ministry.

  114. Kyle said,

    November 7, 2007 at 6:56 pm

    Jared, re: 77,

    My interpretation is quite tenable and Paul already anticipates your counter-argument in verses 11-13. If woman is supposed to be under man’s authority because she came from man, then man is also under woman’s authority because he now comes from woman.

    Paul’s anticipating my counter-argument that man is the head of woman, woman is the glory of man, and woman was made for man? It seems rather to me that Paul is anticipating an objection to his argument that woman is under the authority of man: Despite the fact that woman is under the authority of man, man and woman are not independent of each other in the Lord (v. 11).

    hósper gar hé gyné ek andros, houtós kai ho anér dia tés gynaikos: ta de panta ek tou theou

    “for as the woman [is] from man, so even the man [comes] through the woman: and all things [are] from God” (v. 12).

    So there is a certain equality between men and women, in spite of woman being under man’s authority. And all has been arranged this way by God. Let neither forsake God’s ordained roles for them.

    At any rate, Paul has set the tone for this chapter by making the following statement: Christ is the head of every man, man is the head of a woman and God is the head of Christ. By “traditional” reasoning, then, aren’t we to conclude that Christ is in subjection to God in the same manner that woman is in subjection to man? If so (and I would say so given Paul’s crystal clear statement here), then there is an equality between man and woman as there is an equality between Christ and God.

    Does the Son, in His subjection to the Father, have an authority from Himself, or is He under the authority of the Father?

    If we take 1 Cor. 14 (and 1 Tim 2) at face value then what do we do with Paul at this juncture?

    That he wasn’t approving of women praying and prophesying in the public assembly. Which means either that I Cor. 11:1-16 is not addressing matters in the public assembly, or that Paul is more concerned to focus on the woman’s godly subjection to man in this passage than about prophecy and is not dealing with prophecy at this juncture. You can read a fuller discussion here. It seems clear, at any rate, that the weight of Scripture is fully against your contention that the apostle here is allowing that women may legitimately prophesy in the public assembly.

    But your interpretation of “Therefore, she is to wear a head covering to indicate that she is under the authority of men” doesn’t make any sense at all. Paul’s argument begins in verse 3, not in verse 8. Verse 10 is not a conclusion to be drawn only from verses 8 and 9.

    Did I somewhere limit myself only to vv. 8-10? I’ve explicitly cited vv. 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the course of this discussion. By the way, you might still address Paul’s arguments that woman is the glory of man (v. 7), and that woman was made for man (v. 9).

    Since, as I’ve pointed out, the context is men and women praying and teaching (prophesying) and since man doesn’t need anything to distinguish him as having authority (because he has it whether he is married or not) what else should we make of Paul saying the woman (who is praying and prophesying) needs to have a symbol of authority on her head? We already know (from the cultural context) that she’s going to have her head covered, Paul’s already implied that much in the verses leading up to this point.

    First of all, we do not know any such thing from the cultural context. Cultural practices varied among the Gentiles as to the frequency and situations in which women were expected to wear headcoverings, and so also did the meaning of doing so. (We can imagine this is even more the case in a cosmopolitan city like Corinth.) Besides which, Paul does not address physis until we get to vv. 14-15. (And this still has the feel of “God’s ordained order,” not “the prevailing cultural practices.” Cf. Rom. 1:26-27.) More to the point, the really absurd part of your contention in comment #60 was specifically that Paul has in mind that these prophetic women are to wear headcoverings to differentiate them from other women present who were presumably also wearing headcoverings for the sake of messengers who are to spread their teaching!

    One could surmise that verses 6-9 are actually parenthetical to Paul’s admonishing in this part of his letter; look at verses 5 and 10 together

    I would put vv. 3 & 10 together, since the former is the controlling argument:

    3. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.

    10. For this reason the woman should have authority on her head, because of the angels.

  115. Kyle said,

    November 7, 2007 at 6:57 pm

    Jared,

    I had a response to your #77, but at the moment it appears to be processing.

  116. November 19, 2007 at 8:56 pm

    [...] The original post can be read online here. [...]

  117. louu said,

    November 24, 2007 at 9:33 am

    Thanks for this conversation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 351 other followers

%d bloggers like this: