Green Baggins

Ephesians 4:17-19

Audio Version

1. If I like it, it’s mine. 2. If it’s in my hand, it’s mine. 3. If I can take it from you, it’s mine. 4. If I had it a little while ago, it’s mine. 5. If it’s mine, it must never appear to be yours in any way. 6. If I’m doing or building something, all the pieces are mine. 7. If it looks just like mine, it’s mine. 8. If I saw it first, it’s mine. 9. If you are playing with something and you put it down, it automatically becomes mine. 10. If it’s broken, it’s yours. Sound familiar? These are the toddler property laws that govern every toddler’s claims to toys, food, or just about everything else. It is evidence of our inherent depravity. Now, depravity is a long word. It means our sin nature. It means that our hearts are inherently evil. That is not a popular message to hear, and yet it is true. David tells us that in sin did his mother conceive him. That means that from his earliest existence, he was a sinful creature. Paul, while acknowledging this depravity very clearly here, calls us to abandon that depravity. We cannot do that on our own. But if God changes the heart, then we are able. This sermon might be somewhat dark. But there is always light in the Gospel of Christ.

Paul starts out with a very solemn statement: “I tell you this, and insist on it.” Literally, he is a witness for what he is about to say. In other words, he wants us to listen up, because what he is about to say is very important.

What he says is that our walk must look a certain way. In saying this, he is resuming what he was going to say at the beginning of the chapter. There, he said, “Walk worthy of the calling you have received.” But then, as so often happens in Paul, he interrupted himself to talk about the one body, and the one Head of the body, and the gifts He has given to the church. The implications of the context are that God has given many things to the church so that we can walk in such a manner. Now Paul returns to that idea here in verse 17.

Paul says that the Gentiles are futile in their thinking. Lots of people today believe that education is the answer to all our problems. If only we can get our schools to be better, then our social problems would simply go away. This is wishful thinking, since they believe that education is somehow neutral, and that our minds in our thinking are somehow neutral. The problem is that the heart influences the mind. If the heart is evil, then the thoughts will be as well. There is no escaping this conclusion from Scripture. Paul clearly says it here: Gentiles are futile in their thinking. The word “futile” here means “unable to accomplish the goal for which it was intended.” To illustrate, if you own a combine that was manufactured to harvest grain, and the combine is broken beyond repair, then you have a “futile” combine. That is, it would be worse than useless to try to use that combine for harvesting grain. It cannot achieve the end for which it was made. The same is true of our minds. Our minds were intended to know God. That is the highest and best knowledge to which we can attain. But our sin in Adam prevents us from knowing God as we ought. Our minds are futile without Christ. Paul is using the term “Gentiles” here to mean “heathen,” not “people who are not Jews.” In other words, Paul is taking over a Jewish form of expression, and changing its meaning from a physical marker (someone who was not a Jew) to a spiritual marker (someone who is not a Christian). So these “Gentiles” have futile minds that cannot know God. Why can’t they know God? Because they are alienated by their culpable ignorance.

Many people also want to say that since they are ignorant of the law of God, that therefore they ought to be let off the hook. But such is not the case. Their ignorance is a willful ignorance. Paul describes it as an ignorance that is due to the fact that they have hardened their hearts. It is a lot like Pharaoh, who hardened his heart so that he would not know the Lord, the God of Israel. They have hardened their conscience to the point where sin no longer bothers them. I sincerely hope that none of us are in that state where sin does not bother us anymore. If that is where you are, then beware! You have a hard heart, and your only hope is in Jesus Christ to change your hard heart into a living heart of flesh.

Notice that Paul says that such people are alienated from God. That means that they have no relationship with God. Obviously, you have to know someone to have a relationship with that person. And if you are willfully ignorant of that person, then you can have no relationship with that person. Knowledge of a person and relationship with that person go together. You cannot have the one without the other. This is especially true of God. How much do we know of God? Do we know that He is one God in three Persons? Do we know that all three persons have acted together to procure for us life and salvation? Do we know that He is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, glory, holiness, goodness, mercy, and truth? Do we know what He has done for us? Do we know that out of His pure love, He sent a Savior for us that we should no longer be darkened in our understanding, but might know the only wise God through Jesus Christ, the Son?

If we do not know God in this way, then what verse 19 says will apply to us. We will lost all sensitivity. That is, our consciences, which tell us what is right and wrong, will become dull. Then we will give ourselves over to all kinds of impurity, sensuality, and greed. Paul does not give us an exhaustive list of sins here, but we have the idea: people without good consciences are willing to engage in any and every sin. They are given over to it. Romans 1 tells us the same thing, only there it is even more scary, since it is God who gives them over to their reprobate minds. The reward of sin is more sin, and the culmination is death. In that process, the conscience slowly withers and dies away. As someone else has said, “She won’t listen to her conscience. She doesn’t want to take advice from a total stranger.” The trouble with the advice, “Follow your conscience” is that most people follow it like someone following a wheelbarrow–they direct it wherever they want it to go, and then follow behind. In such a way, people suppress the truth in unrighteousness, as Paul tells us in Romans. We have not thus learned Christ, as Paul will go on to tell us in verse 20.

The point here is that we have to face our own depravity squarely in the face, and not deny it as most people do. We have to acknowledge the fact that we are sinners in the sight of God. We must look at the worst person in the history of the world, and say, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” It is only then, when we have faced our own depravity, the bad news, that we can go on to see the good news of Jesus Christ. To say that we really aren’t all that bad is to say that Jesus really didn’t need to come. And that is blasphemy. Christ died to save sinners. And we should not be blind to our own depravity. Satan wants to blind us to that fact, but our conscience must show us that we are sinners.

As I said, this is a somewhat darker sermon today. I make no apology for that, since it is precisely the same tone that our Scripture passage has. That darkness should make us yearn for the light of the pure Gospel.

So, do not stifle your conscience. Instead, you should make it stronger by a careful study of God’s law. That will always make the conscience stronger. Then your conscience will convict you of sin, and direct you back to your Savior, Jesus Christ. And, as Paul says later in the passage, we are to put off our old selves, and put on Christ. It is a continual act as well as a one-time act. When we become Christians, we put on Christ in a one-time act. However, there is also a sense in which we must continually put on Christ. We must continually put to death the old man that is dying and as good as dead within us. And we must put on the new man, the Holy Spirit working in our souls. Then we can say, “There, because of the grace of God, go I into heaven.”

I highly recommend this book for a wonderfully detailed, careful, scholarly, and convincing interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15. I am in the midst of re-writing my paper on this passage. I hope to submit it for publication within the month.

It is one of the most “established” dictums of egalitarian theology that any difference in role implies a difference in value. So, if women have a different role from men in life, then they are automatically said to be inferior. Thus, Galatians 3:28 is (ab)used to “trump” 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and similar passages. I argue that this view of role and value is deeply flawed.

In the army, for instance, take the ranks of 4-star general and 3-star general. Is the 3-star general inferior in value to the 4-star general, just because he reports to his commanding officer? What about the 4-star general to the Army Chief of Staff? What about the Army Chief of Staff to the President? Is the President of the United States worth one iota more than anyone in the United States, just because he is the President? What then happens when he ceases to be acting President of the United States? Does his value go down? Just this example shows how deeply flawed and illogical this view of role and value is.

But the ace in the hole against this view of role and value is the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have different roles, though each is fully God. There is no gradation in value, unless we want to be Arians. It is quite blasphemous to state that the Father is worth more than the Son, because the Father commands and the Son obeys. The Father does command, and the Son does obey. But that implies nothing about their respective inherent worth. It is no accident that egalitarian theologians find modalism to be seriously tempting (see Moltmann, for instance). Modalism allows egalitarians a way out of the plain implications of the role/value debate. Unfortunately for them, modalism is also a way out of Christianity.  

In short, the role/value view of egalitarians is a cultural shift, not a biblical principle. Galatians 3:28 is not talking about the respective roles of men and women, but rather about their standing before God with regard to salvation. This is crystal clear from the context. Faith is the context (vs. 26). Putting on Christ is in the context (vs 27). It is a oneness in Christ Jesus. But God also gave some to be teachers, some to be apostles, some were given the gift of hospitality, etc. 1 Corinthians 12 (all by itself) ought to have axed the egalitarian interpretation of Galatians 3:28. But it is evident that egalitarian interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, in particular, are influenced by today’s culture far more than they are influenced by first century Christian thought. 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.

Ephesians 2:1-3

Have you ever noticed that you don’t have to train your children to do something wrong? That first time they disobey you, you didn’t tell them to do that. They just did it. We didn’t have to tell our daughter that she should be jealous of the attention that James was getting. We didn’t have to tell her to start hitting James, either. Why is this? Why didn’t we have to tell her about these things? For that matter, let’s broaden the question: “Why don’t people want Jesus Christ? Why don’t they come to faith in Christ?” What’s their problem? What’s our problem? For that matter, what is the world’s problem? In a word, sin. That is the problem. But we must be careful to define our terms. Sin means breaking God’s law, yes. However, sin also means our sin nature, inherited from Adam. Just as a child inherits blue eyes from his parents, so also he inherits sin from his parents, who inherited sin from their parents, and so on all the way back to Adam. This is Adam’s legacy, and this is what Paul is telling us here in the first part of chapter 2.

In chapter 1, Paul told us about the salvation that has been accomplished by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Paul then gave thanks for the faith of the Ephesian believers, and prayed that they might know God better, especially Jesus Christ, who has gone before us into heaven, and to whom all things are now subject.

Now, in chapter 2, Paul wants to remind us what we were before we became Christians. And before we get into the details of what Paul says, we must note that there are three views about the state of human beings. The first view is that there is nothing wrong with mankind. Maybe he needs a little education, but by and large, man is okay. There is a name for this belief: it is called Pelagianism, and was condemned by the entire church during the time of Augustine, who fought Pelagius tooth and nail. Pelagianism is utter heresy. I remember my pastor went to another church and the minister said that all was right with the world. My pastor wanted to go up to the minister, shake him by his black robe, and yell at him, “What are you wearing that robe for?” Everything is most certainly not all right with the world.

The second main view (and probably the most common) is that mankind is sick. With all due respect, (since I disagree with this view) Billy Graham holds to this view. You are sick, and the doctor comes along, and holds out to you the medicine. All you have to do is raise your hand and take it. Now, I do believe that God can convert someone to the true faith, despite this unfortunate way of putting things. Another way of putting this view is that your are drowning, and God throws to you a life-raft, and all you have to do is grab hold of the life-raft.

Then, there is the third view, which is the biblical view. It is the most pessimistic view of mankind, and therefore, the most realistic, and this view states that we are not sick, and certainly not well, but rather dead. We are not sick and merely need to reach out and grasp the medicine. Rather, we are already dead. We are not drowning, but rather lying at the bottom of the ocean as fish food. This is what Paul says here, “you were dead in your transgressions and sins.” He doesn’t say, “You were sick,” and he certainly doesn’t say, “You were fine.” No, he says that we were all dead. Of course, he does not mean physical death. We were walking around, breathing, and committing sin. One has to be physically alive to do that. But in terms of our spiritual relationship to God, we were dead. We were the living dead, more like zombies and corpses than like living humans. Does the picture of a zombie make you uncomfortable? Then so must the picture of our spiritual state before God worked in our lives.

Like many good, fine preachers, Paul speaks of our spiritual state in three points. We were dead because of the world, because of the devil, and because of the flesh. Firstly, we were dead in sin because of the world. It says that “we followed the ways of this world.” Again, as we have seen before, the word is “age.” We saw how the two ages are overlapping in Paul’s thought. We saw that the former age, or “this age” is the evil age. The world belongs to it. They want their heaven now. Of course, the result is that they have momentary pleasures, but nothing lasting, except eternal condemnation.

Secondly, Paul says that we were dead in sin because of the devil. Now, here we must be careful. The old excuse, “the devil made me do it” will not work with God. And we recognize this ourselves, if we come to think about it. To illustrate, a little girl was disciplined for kicking her brother in the shins and then pulling his hair. When her mother asked her why she let the devil make her kick her brother and pull his hair, she replied, “The devil made me kick him, but pulling his hair was my idea!” We know that the devil cannot force anyone to commit sin. No, his method is temptation. He presents the possibility. This is certainly evil. It is what he did in the Garden of Eden. He tempted Adam and Eve. That is what he does today as well. He puts ideas before your mind. Notice here that Satan is described as the ruler of the kingdom of the air. Scholars are not united on what this means, but I think that Calvin is closest to the mark when he says, “He speaks purposely of the air to make us understand that they are above our heads.” That is, the spirits are above us in power. We should not underestimate them. C.S. Lewis once said that the two great dangers regarding demons are that we either deny their existence or ascribe to them power belonging only to God. Either way, demons are happy. But if they inhabit the air (and not heaven or the earth: nor are they non-existent), then we will place them properly. This is important. Satan is not the equal of God, much as he would like us to think. But we must also say that he exists, along with all the demons. Many people today do not believe in anything that they cannot see. That is a very dangerous error which will find them out eventually.

The third reason that we are dead in sin is our flesh, our own sin nature. Paul says that we used to walk in sin. That is, sin used to be our way of life. Then, in verse 3, Paul says that we used to gratify the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. We have a sinful nature that is ours because we are descended from Adam. This doctrine of a sin nature is known as original sin. Original sin is not canceled out at baptism. We were born with it. As David says in Psalm 51, “In sin did my mother conceive me.” That does not refer to the act of conception, but to the fact that David has always been sinful, sinful from the time his mother conceived him. So, if one asks the question of how many sins it takes to make one liable to the punishment of hell, the answer is zero. We deserve it already in the womb, because of our sin nature, which is itself sinful. If a person were to say that their child was born free from that sin nature, and that children are born with a blank slate, that person would not be speaking the truth. The Bible says that in this fallen world, we are born with a sin nature, and that we had that sin nature even from conception.

As if this picture of mankind was not bad enough, Paul describes it as being even worse. Not only are we dead in our transgressions, not only were we sinful by nature, but furthermore, we are objects of God’s wrath. Literally, we are children of wrath. The idea of children is that there is a close relationship between parent and child. So, rather than saying that we are by nature the children of God, having a good close relationship with God, Paul says that we have a good, close relationship with God’s wrath. God’s wrath is not a popular subject these days. However, it is essential that we talk and preach about the wrath of God. Without knowing the wrath of God, which is bad news for us, we would never know God’s love, the good news. Otherwise, why do we evangelize? If everything is fine with the world, then the world doesn’t need Jesus. If people are even sick, there is less need for a miracle than if the person is dead, and about to suffer God’s just wrath. How do we know about God’s love? How do we know how wide, deep, broad, and high is the love of God? Only by knowing just how angry God is with sinners. Even though our sermon text is the first three verses, Paul does not stop here. Verse 4 gives us the glorious good news. We have had plenty of bad news about ourselves. But Paul does not leave us there, wallowing in our sins, but he tells us of the love of God. God’s wrath is the reason He sent Jesus to earth. It was so that Jesus would bear that wrath for us. It was so that we could get a new nature implanted in us by the Holy Spirit. It was so that Satan would no longer be able to deceive us. It was so that we would have an alternative to the world’s way of doing things. So the three great problems with our sin, namely, the world, the flesh, and the devil, would have an answer in Jesus Christ. Jesus deals with the world by creating His church. He deals with the flesh by implanting in us the Holy Spirit. He deals with Satan and the demons by conquering them in His resurrection from the dead. Is Jesus your answer? Has He done these things for you? If Christ has not resurrected your soul from spiritual death, then you must realize your utter peril here this morning. Realize that your life totters on the brink of utter ruin, and that only Jesus can save you from the coming wrath of God. Of course, the wrath of God is not some fly-off-the-handle, kind of rage. Rather it is the flip side of His love. How else would God respond to someone who spurns the love of God? We must not attribute human rage and anger to the wrath of God. The wrath of God is holy, just and good. It is a measure of God’s holiness and justice, when God’s law has been broken. Therefore, you cannot put the blame on God for your predicament. God’s wrath has not over-reacted at all. And you do not know if you will be alive tomorrow. Flee to Jesus, and discover the love of God!

The best application of this passage besides the Gospel call comes in the relationship of God’s wrath to evangelism. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones says, “Why is it that people are not Christians and not members of the Christian Church? Why does the Lord Jesus Christ not come into their calculations at all? In the last analysis there is only one answer to that question: they do not believe in Him because they have never seen any need of Him. And they have never seen any need of Him because they have never realized that they are sinners. And they have never realized that they are sinners because they have never realized the truth about the holiness of God and the justice and the righteousness of God; they have never known anything about God as the Judge eternal and about the wrath of God against the sin of man. So you see this doctrine is essential in evangelism.” Are we telling people to flee from the wrath to come? People might say, “Oh, what an unloving thing to say.” Actually, it is the most loving thing to say, since it is the truth. You wouldn’t think that doctor was doing his job, if you had an aggressive, dangerous cancer that needed treatment, but he said, “Oh, nothing’s wrong with you, you’re just fine.” You would think that that was a very unloving thing to say. In the same way, millions are perishing because they do not have the truth. We must reclaim the doctrine of God’s wrath against sinful humanity, if we are to be able also to give people the good news of Jesus Christ.

Some people might possibly think that the Puritans were ignorant of the already/not yet structure of Paul’s theology. This would be a bit premature. While no Puritan is equal to Vos and Ridderbos, yet there certainly are glimmerings of these truths. I was reading in Goodwin’s works, for instance, and came upon this quotation, which would seem to demonstrate an awareness of such issues. He is commenting on Ephesians 2:6

“Jesus Christ is appointed to be our life. Now of this life there are several degrees, several parts of it more eminent. The one is that of quickening; the other the resurrection and union of soul and body at the latter day. And the last is the sitting in heavenly places. So that indeed that life which God intends to bestow upon us, you see it is perfected by degrees. He begins with dealing with the soul here in a way of quickening; and then he doth raise the body. And this of the soul, it is the pawn of the other: as Tertullian saith, by the quickening of our souls, our bodies are also inaugurated into that resurrection which is in the world to come.”

It would seem, in fact, that the already/not yet goes all the way back to Tertullian, if the quotation is accurate. In any case, inaugurated eschatology (at least in terms of our body’s resurrection) is strongly implied here. N.B. “pawn” is used in the quotation much the same as “first-fruits” or “type.” He means that the resurrection of the soul is the “pawn” of the resurrection of the body.

We don’t like to think about death. However, not only should we, but it is healthy that we should. It all depends on how we think about death. Do we shake our fist at God when dying? Or do we see death as the threshold to glory? Here are two utterly contrasting views of death before our eyes. An example of the first: Mark Twain, became morose and weary of life. Shortly before his death, he wrote, “A myriad of men are born; they labor and sweat and struggle;…they squabble and scold and fight; they scramble for little mean advantages over each other; age creeps upon them; infirmities follow; …those they love are taken from them, and the joy of life is turned to aching grief. It (the release) comes at last–the only unpoisoned gift earth ever had for them–and they vanish from a world where they were of no consequence,…a world which will lament them a day and forget them forever.”

An example of the second: the dying words of Edward Payson: “The celestial city is full in my view. Its glories beam upon me, its breezes fan me, its odours are wafted to me, its sounds strike upon my ears, and its spirit is breathed into my heart. Nothing separates me from it but the river of death, which now appears but as an insignificant rill, that may be crossed at a single step, whenever God shall give permission. The Sun of Righteousness has been gradually drawing nearer and nearer, appearing larger and brighter as he approached, and now he fills the whole hemisphere; pouring forth a flood of glory, in which I seem to float like an insect in the beams of the sun; exulting, yet almost trembling, while I gaze on this excessive brightness, and wondering, with unutterable wonder, why god should deign thus to shine upon a sinful worm.”

II. Hermeneutical Issues

A. Situation in Ephesus
Is it the case that complementarians pay absolutely no attention to the background of the situation in Ephesus, or do not let that information affect their exegesis? Who was Artemis of the Ephesians? Baugh argues against various egalitarian and otherwise commonly held opinions regarding who Artemis was and the situation of the cult, as well the position and status of women in Ephesus. I will not reproduce his arguments here, but only summarize them: Artemis at Ephesus was the regular Greek goddess, not the fertility goddess of the ANE; the cult did not involve cult prostitution, since the priestesses were largely prepubescent; there were educated women at Ephesus, contrary to the suggestion that Paul is merely forbidding unlearned women from teaching. The idea of the mother-goddess being conflated with Artemis is a common but highly speculative opinion, based on the interpretation of the famous statue having many breasts. Baugh indicates that this interpretation is highly suspect. Other examples have been found having such protuberances on male statues of Zeus (see pg. 31). Therefore, the position of the Kroegers (that Paul was reacting against some kind of Amazonian feminism gone awry, and that authentein means “to originate”) is untenable.

B. Creation, Fall, Redemption
The issue of Eve and the relation of her position to the Creation and the Fall is a complicated issue. Keener argues that the subordination of women was due to the Fall, and that therefore it is not prescriptive. However, this assertion does not make sense of the argument made about the temporal priority of the male in verse 13. In Ephesians, Paul notes that the man is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church (never mind now the much-vexed discussion of kephale), and that this was true from the beginning. Actually, the Fall obscured this relationship such that the woman would want to rule over the husband, but that the husband would domineer over her (Genesis 3:16). In Redemption, therefore, it is possible, through a relationship with Jesus Christ, to redeem this relationship back to what it was originally supposed to be. Women need to fulfill their God-appointed roles in order to do so. This is not to say that every woman needs to be a stay-at-home mother. On the other hand, it means that such stay-at-home women ought not to be despised, as they so often are today. The Bible would say that such a calling is the most noble calling to which a woman can aspire.

What of Galatians 3:28? This verse has been used as a grid through which all the other literature in the New Testament on the question of gender relationships has had to pass. But is it to be (ab)used in such a manner? Verse 27 (usually conveniently overlooked by all who quote verse 28) says that the unity is that of being in Christ, and having his righteousness given to us. Verse 24 invokes justification by faith. Therefore, verse 28 is talking about our status in Christ before God the Father. This is said by the same Paul who said that there are different roles for different people in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-30). Role distinction is not, I repeat, not a sign of inferiority! Just as there is no shame in being a brigadier general as opposed to a lieutenant general in the army, nor is there any inferiority of person, only hierarchy of role, so it is in the family/church.

A word must be said about the relationship of this passage to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Keener argues that if we are going to be consistent about women in the church not having positions of authority over men, then we have to have them wear head coverings as well. It is disputed, however, whether Paul refers to something in addition to hair, or not. We cannot just assume that head coverings over and above the hair (hair is called a covering (verse 15)) is what is in view. Therefore, Keener’s objection is premature. He seems also to suggest that there is absolutely no cultural relativity in applicability of the Bible in the view of complementarians. This is manifestly not the case. “Greet one another with a holy kiss” is not usually interpreted to be universally binding in terms of its particular expression. Our equivalent today would be hugs or handshakes. However, in 1 Timothy, Paul argues from something that is not culturally bound, namely, the creation order of Adam and Eve, and the headship of Adam as male.

Another issue that must receive treatment is the issue of female prophecy. Several authors note that prophecy is just as authoritative as teaching. Prophecy is allowed to women. Therefore, teaching should be allowed as well. This involves a blurring of the distinction between office and function. Paul is talking about office in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (see the immediately following context). Schreiner’s contention that prophecy is more vertical, and teaching more horizontal does not convince me. Corinthians does not force the conclusion that the prophesying women held an office of prophet. What holds true for all the biblical examples of women teaching or holding a position of leadership is that such examples were exceptions to the rule. In the New Testament, prophecy was supposed to come upon women, because of the prophecy in Joel. Prophecy, therefore, is not a continuing entity in any case. Schreiner argues more convincingly that women could exercise prophetic gifts without disturbing male headship, whereas women could not teach men without disturbing male headship.⁸

III. Conclusions for Ethics

A. Goal, Motive and Standard of the two interpretations
The goal of the complementarian position (despite immense pressure from the culture to conform to the egalitarian position) has been, and should continue to be faithfulness to the biblical witness about the role of gender in the church. The motive has too often been a desire to keep the reins of power within the grasp of the men, without encouraging women to participate in ministry at all. This has resulted in the current backlash against tyrannical rule in the church, which rule has been based all too often on a view of women as inferior. However, to the extent that modern complementarian interpreters of this passage have discarded such unworthy motives, they are to be commended. Everywhere women are allowed to serve Christ, they should be encouraged to do so.

A great contrast between the ethics of the complementarian position and the ethics of the egalitarian position exists. The goal of the egalitarian position has been either explicitly or implicitly to conform to culture. Culture has the upper hand in hermeneutics in the egalitarian position, and culture interprets the Bible, rather than the other way around. This is demonstrated by the fact that the egalitarian position only became viable after about 1970. The motive might be many things. It is much easier to get a job at a main-line seminary or church, if one holds to egalitarian views. On the other hand, many “evangelical feminists” are not acting out of such impure motives, but are rather seeking to end inequality. The standard has been consistently to appeal to the current cultural situation as the definition of how we are to interpret the Bible. The Bible is effectively muzzled. There is a fear of the radical feminist wing that straight-jackets any opposition to their agenda. One is immediately labeled a misogynist if one holds to any difference in role (regardless of one’s view of the alleged ontological differences). Any difference in role is immediately seen to be an attack on the worth of a woman. We cannot let them win.

The definitive argument of this sort on the complementarian side (distinguishing between role and worth) is that of Charles Hodge. Jesus Christ is not one iota inferior to God the Father. He is God. And yet, there is a difference in role, one of subordination. Subordination is necessary in the world as a whole, for the world to “work.” Therefore, there is no dishonor at all in women being subject to male headship. Earle Ellis notes that only in the modern period are class distinctions viewed as evil per se.¹²

IV. Conclusion
If there is any more pressing issue in the conservative church today, I am at a loss to find it. Consistently, even in the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the issue of whether women should be allowed in ministry crops up just about every year in general assembly. A friend of mine recently said that it was only a matter of time before the GA voted to allow women into the ministry. I hope earnestly that he is wrong. I would be disappointed to have to leave the denomination in which I was baptized as an infant, and in which I grew up physically and spiritually (PCA). But the denomination would have left its moorings in the historic view of male headship as symbolized by Christ and the church, as well as any claim to see abiding principles in the Bible, rather than totally culturally determined “advice.” In this case, the slippery slope argument does work. Denominations that ordained women eventually ordain homosexuals, since Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 also become culturally relative. It is impossible to stop on such a slippery slope, as so many denominations have more than adequately demonstrated. Let us rather seek to be faithful to God’s Word.

1 See the irritatingly patronizing comments of Keener in Two Views, pg. 55.

2 See Köstenberger, Schreiner, Baldwin, 1995, pp. 13-52.

3 See Kroeger and Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman, 1992.

4 op. cit. pg. 63.

5 op. cit. pg. 62; see also Liefeld, 1999, pp. 109-110.

6 See Garland, 2003, pg. 505.

7 Women in the Church, pg. 129.

8 Women in the Church, pg. 130.

9 See Yarbrough, in Women in the Church, pp. 170-171.

10 See further Mounce, 2000, pg. 148.

11 Quoted in Women in the Church, pg. 255.

E. Verse 11

Here a shift in subject matter occurs from prayer to learning. Paul also changes the plural gunaixin (”women”) of verses 9-10 to singular gune (”woman”). However, does this shift involve also a shift from speaking about women in general to speaking about wives and husbands?¹ The singular form does not automatically mean wife,² even in close contrast with the plural form. Context must decide. Scholars and translations have not followed Quinn and Wacker here.³ I believe that Paul has in mind already the reasons in verses 13-14, which require a singular to connect with Eve as a representative. Therefore, Paul is using a generic singular to make his point. Mounce argues that a general principle is being stated here, and that the singular is most apropos.⁴ I think this is borne out further by Paul’s argument in verses 13-14, which speak of Adam and Eve as representative of male and female.

As many egalitarians have noted, hesuchia need not mean absolute silence.⁵ The word means “quiet, at peace.” The phrase at the end of the verse, en pase hupotage (”in all submission”), indicates that hesuchia must mean something in keeping with such submission. This phrase is usually overlooked by egalitarian scholars. They are quick to note the command for women to learn (manthaneto (”let them learn”) is an imperatival form indicating a command. This learning is an advance on Judaism, supposedly), but they are not quick to note the pase (”all”) in the last phrase of the verse. Paul has been emphasizing the manner in which men are to pray and in which women are to pray. Now, he stresses the manner in which women are to learn. It is an “in quietness, and without teaching” kind of learning. Lock notes that hupotage (”submission”)  hints at the entire relationship of woman to man in the house.⁶ Some scholars think that the question of manner extends through verse 12. However, as will be shown, such is not the case.

F. Verse 12
In many ways, this verse is the crux of the passage, and the most disputed. First, we will address the issue of the two infinitives. Köstenberger has shown that the construction of ouk…oude means that whatever those two words connect are viewed by the author either both positively, or both negatively.⁷ His argument is that if didaskein (”to teach”) be viewed positively, then so must authentein (”to have authority”). Didaskein is viewed positively within the Pastoral epistles as the passing on of the apostolic tradition. Therefore, authentein must also be viewed positively here as the normal exercise of authority. The importance of this argument will become sharper when the definition of authentein is discussed. Köstenberger’s argument has been challenged by I. Howard Marshall, in his commentary,⁸ and by Linda Belleville.⁹

Marshall argues in strange fashion from the less well-known word to the better-known word. He grants Köstenberger’s argument, but then takes it in the opposite direction by saying that because authentein most likely means “domineer,” or some such other negative meaning, that therefore didaskein must mean “false teaching.” Marshall says further that “the context makes it clear that the prohibition is stated because there was something wrong with the teaching given by the women. Although, then, the prohibition may appear to be universally applicable to women, it is in fact meant for a specific group of women among the recipients of the letter.”¹⁰

The problem with Marshall’s position is that he gives no evidence for his view of the context. It also does not follow that it is meant for a specific group within the community, even if we grant that the women were teaching. The issue is whether or not women are teaching at all. Köstenberger notes that if false teaching were in view, Paul would have used heterodidaskein (”to teach falsely”). Marshall objects that this would imply that Paul would allow men to teach falsely. But as Blomberg notes,¹¹ this objection does not carry force, because Paul could have said it in a way that clearly avoided such an implication (e.g.: “I do not allow women to continue to teach falsehood”). Belleville’s objection is that the construction ouk…oude can be used to express goal (the first idea leads to the second). The translation then would be, “I do not permit a woman to teach in order to have mastery over a man.” However, in the examples she gives (Mt. 13:13 and Acts 17:24-25), her spin on the two ideas is not proved. Hearing is not necessary to understanding, nor is dwelling in a man-made temple necessary to being served by human hands.¹² Her understanding of these passages would make the two infinitives more of a hendiadys (saying one thing by two words) than is warranted by the evidence. Didaskein and authentein are not likely to be a hendiadys, because they are separated by so many words. I think rather that didaskein receives the emphasis, being first in the sentence, and that authentein seems almost like an afterthought: “I do not permit a woman to teach, or, come to think of it, have any authority over a man (in the church setting).” Belleville further criticizes Köstenberger for not treating the infinitives like verbal nouns.¹³ She thinks they modify gune. However, what this assertion does for her argument is not clear. The infinitives complement ouk epitrepo, not gune. Gune is then the subject of the infinitives.

We must now deal with the meaning of authentein. Major research has been done on this word. Baldwin has done a very thorough job in researching all the known occurrences of the verb in extant Greek literature. His conclusion is that the one unifying concept of the word is that of authority.¹⁴ The fact that the verb form is never used to mean “murderer,” while the noun form authentes is, gives the lie to Keener’s and Belleville’s objections to Baldwin’s study. Keener is guilty of etymologizing, when he says that Baldwin should have included the noun form in his study.¹⁵ Marshall agrees with Baldwin on this issue of treating the verb form separately.¹⁶ In fact, Marshall criticizes Wilshire for making that very mistake in his analysis of the word authentein.¹⁷ Keener then has the audacity to claim that the entire argument for the complementarians depends on the meaning of this one word! As we shall see, such is far from the truth. Belleville claims that the one sense not in use at this time was “to have authority.”¹⁸ Baldwin has decisively shown that this is not the case. A more important argument is that of Belleville¹⁹ to the effect that Paul did not have to choose such an ambiguous word, and that if he had a positive meaning in mind, he could have used exousiazo. However, as Blomberg notes,²⁰ exousiazo is hardly unambiguous itself. Blomberg notes the possibility that it might have been precisely because of the ambiguity of exousiazo that Paul decided to choose authentein. Variety in word choice could be another factor. It is certainly not the case that this word has to have a special nuance simply because it is a hapax legomenon (word used only once).²¹ The New Testament hardly exhausts the Greek vocabulary of the day.

The noun andros that follows is best to be understood as being the object of both verbs: “I do not permit a woman to teach (a man), or to exercise authority over a man.”²² This has the effect of limiting the sphere in which a woman may not teach or have authority. This verse does not imply that women may never teach anyone. Paul plainly indicates that women may teach other women, as well as children. I think that the church setting of these verses excludes women from church office. However, in other institutions and settings, there is room for gray areas.

The syntax of the two infinitives and the meaning of authentein are closely related. Therefore, I have chosen to address epitrepo (”I permit”) only after both issues had been dealt with. Some egalitarians argue that the present tense of epitrepo seems to indicate that the command is only to be in force for a limited period of time, or that he is only stating his opinion. For the latter interpretation, see Mounce.²³ In regard to the former, however, I think there is another, much more likely explanation of the present tense, namely, that Paul does not permit women to teach or to have authority in the churches where he himself ministers, and that Timothy therefore ought to follow his example. Wallace further notes that the generic gune indicates that epitrepo be taken as gnomic, which would imply universality.²⁴ This is, after all, a pastor to pastor epistle. Nothing would be more natural for Paul than to use himself as an example.²⁵

Schreiner, in his essay in Two Views on Women in Ministry, makes a very solid argument against the notion that Paul forbade women to teach based on their being led astray.²⁶ Why would Paul only mention women? Why would men be allowed to teach, who had been led astray, but not women? Second, were all the women of Ephesus led astray by the false teaching? Surely, this is a bit much to swallow. There is no textual indication of a limitation on the command.

As Knight notes,²⁷ the interpretation that Paul is only excluding women teaching if there is not proper oversight is ruled out by Paul’s reiteration of “quietness” (Knight sees hesuchia as “silence”). This would form some sort of inclusio with verse 11. This fact forms another argument for why didaskein and authentein form two separate words. The chiasm goes as follows: a (“in quietness”); b (“not teach”); b (“not have authority”); a (“in quietness”).²⁸ This structure implies that teaching and having authority are two separate concepts.

G. Verse 13
This verse gives argumentation for the preceding verse. However, even this (besides much else) is disputed. Belleville argues that the verse is not causal in force, but explanatory.²⁹ However, she gives no reason whatsoever as to why Paul would give Adam’s created priority as even an explanation of a woman’s remaining quiet. The verse makes much better sense if explained causally, offering the reason why women should learn in silence, and not be allowed to teach men in the church. Belleville objects that verse 15 is against such an interpretation.³⁰ However, verse 15 is concessive in character. Ann Bowman makes the point that Paul, in verses 13-14, is using the rabbinic technique know as summary citation.³¹ Paul is reminding us of the entire context of Gen 2-3. Adam is the head of the family. He was formed first. Therefore, he deserves some kind of honor.³² This does not imply superiority in kind, but rather priority in time. Belleville offers a specious objection that eita (”then”) means a simple order of time.³³ But this is precisely the point! He is the “first-born,” although we should not import the Bible’s understanding of birthright into the passage here, as the first-born got twice as much as the next in line, whereas women are equal sharers in salvation.³⁴ Belleville makes a false dichotomy in her discussion of the creation narrative.³⁵ She says, “Do these narratives (Gen 1-2) put forward a divinely instituted gender hierarchy, as traditionalists claim? Or do they teach a male-female relationship of mutuality, as egalitarians contend? In a sense, the answer is “yes.” Hierarchy does not exclude mutuality. Is this verse a second reason for vv. 11-12, or is it a continuation of the vs. 13 reason? For reasons that will become clear later in the hermeneutics section, I believe that this is a second reason added to verse 13. Note that a “diabolical passive” exists here. Satan is the implied agent of Eve’s deception. Quinn and Wacker note: “In the argument of 1 Timothy 2:14 the serpent has disappeared into the anonymity of the Greek passive participle.”³⁶ This “diabolical passive” contrasts with the “divine passive” given in verse 15. More on the divine passive later. The reason Paul gives for why women should remain quiet in church is that men are to lead. It was this way in the beginning (that is the import of verse 13). The Fall was the result of Eve trying to subvert her husband’s covenantal headship by making the decision apart from him.³⁷ She was mastered by the animal whom she should have mastered. She mastered the one being on the planet she should not have mastered. She subverted and was subverted. Therefore, the punishment was that there would always be a battle for leadership between the man and the woman in marriage (Gen. 3:16). This is hardly placing the full blame of the Fall on the woman as some have said about the complementarian position. I do not think that this passage says that women are more easily deceived than men, though that is the conclusion of most of the history of the complementarian position, and even of a few modern commentators. As Schreiner says, it was a moral failing of Eve, not an intellectual deficiency.³⁸ This verse is a concession, or a correction of a possible misunderstanding. Given the guilt of Eve in the Fall, one might wonder whether or not there is any hope for woman at all. Paul affirms that there is hope. Note the passive voice of “be saved.“ As Knight hints,³⁹ this is probably a divine passive, which is difficult in the extreme to account for on any other interpretation of “child-bearing” than that given below. Through the regaining of her proper role in the world, reaffirming man’s headship in the family, the Christ would come. I interpret “child-bearing” as referring first of all to normal child-bearing, and then to the Child-bearing, that is, the birth of the Messiah. This interpretation has a long and honored tradition.⁴⁰ It does justice to the fact of the article in front of teknogonias (”childbearing,” which cannot in any case be decisive, but is suggestive), makes sense of “saved,” which otherwise is almost unintelligible and results in an unnatural understanding of the preposition dia, and does justice to the background of Genesis 3. The fact that Genesis 3 is in the background of this passage has escaped most commentators who have dismissed this interpretation (such as Marshall⁴¹). If one remembers the curses of Genesis 3, one is certain also to remember the promise of the Seed which would eventually come to destroy the serpent.⁴² The curse on Eve was a curse on her child-bearing. Paul wants then to remind them that the promised Seed would also come through child-bearing. This interpretation also allows sothesetai (”she will be saved’) to have its normal salvific force without introducing any works righteousness, which, as many commentators have noted, would be contrary to Paul’s theology. The only major objection that can be raised against this interpretation is that current child-bearing would then seem to be irrelevant, now that the Seed has come. However, this is where the insight of Royce Gordon Gruenler is applicable.⁴³ He argues that the Pastoral epistles are missions epistles (pg. 216). He argues this from vv. 1-7, esp. vv. 4-6. The implication for women today, therefore, is that child-bearing is a missionary activity. They are to remember that child-bearing was the instrument that God used to bring the Messiah into the world. See also Bowman’s assertion that “child-bearing” is a synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part stands for the whole, the whole then being all of child-rearing.⁴⁴ The “she” at the beginning of the verse refers primarily to Eve, therefore, and secondarily to all women who come after her. That might be the reason why Paul switches from singular to plural in this verse.⁴⁵ Certainly, Quinn and Wacker’s suggestion that it refers to the husband and wife is rather strange,⁴⁶ given that child-rearing is not in view. Furthermore, the woman’s “salvation” would then depend on the man’s remaining in faith, love, and holiness.⁴⁷ I think it more natural to understand the “they” to refer to women. The second part of this verse corrects the possible misunderstanding that might result if one took the “divine passive” too far at the beginning of the verse. One might think that salvation automatically accrues to women. Therefore, Paul stresses these things to ensure a non-automatic view of salvation.⁴⁸ The verse stresses the necessity of perseverance.

1 See, e.g., Quinn and Wacker, 2000, pp. 191, 199.

Great post on the heart. I agree with his Hebrew analysis (in case he was wondering). I especially liked this part: “So the neophyte who wails away at the songs with all his emotions but lacks theological understanding is no better off than the dry orthodustic theologian.”

If you believe what the world is saying right now, then you would believe that homosexuality is in the genes, and that people cannot help their sexual orientation. Is this sustained by the evidence? It is not sustained by the evidence. It is well known that identical twins share the same DNA. And yet, only %20 of the time when one twin is gay is the other twin gay, for males, and in the case of females it is only %24, according to this article. Therefore, it cannot be purely genetic, if at all. the article claims that environment plays a factor. I would agree that it could be a factor. But even there, it cannot be the whole picture.

What does the Bible say? Leviticus 18:22 says this: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” If this passage says that it is a sin, then it cannot be genetic, since sin involves choice. Lest any think that this is an exclusively Old Testament teaching, let’s go to Romans 1:24-27: “Therefore god gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

The exegetical issues that are often raised with such passages usually focus on whether Paul is talking about a one-time fling or a steady relationship. I believe that it refers to any such relationships. This is confirmed by the phrase “dishonorable passions,” and the phrase “contrary to nature.” Paul nowhere says that this is a one-time fling, and we must beware of twisting a text of Scripture to make it say what we want it to say.

Now, we get to the real heart of the issue. How ought we to treat homosexuals? Probably, many would accuse me of being a homophobic just from what I’ve already said. They would be wrong, and I could provide real-life examples to anyone who would ask me. I do not hate homosexual people. I hate all sin. Those two ideas must be separate if any kind of constructive dialogue on this subject can be made. The answer is that homosexual people need the love of God just as much as anyone else. They need the Gospel just like anyone else. In God’s eyes, all sin is an abomination, and so homosexuality is not a more heinous sin than adultery or murder. Sometimes, because the homosexual agenda has been so active, we Christians react more strongly to it than we should and forget that these people need love, too. Here are some great resources available to people struggling with this issue: a booklet from CCEF, a great book on the biblical issues, and the article references above is part of a website dealing with these issues, and another web-site dealing with sexually broken people of many kinds.

It has been argued by many orthodox theologians that the Trinity provides a model for certain male-female relations. The way it goes is something like this: The Father and the Son are coeternal, coequal, and the same in essence. There is absolutely no inferiority of essence when it comes to the Son. The Son is not one whit less God than the Father. Yet there is a taxis (Greek word for “order,” not American word for slaves (tyrants?) of the road) in the Trinity. There is an eternal order. The Son is eternally begotten from the Father, who is the eternal Begettor. They are of one will, and so their actions always coincide. But there was a fitness in the Son coming to earth. Since He was eternally begotten from the Father, He would also be temporally begotten in time of Mary.

The analogy then goes like this: women are not one whit inferior to men in any way (although it is usually acknowledged that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman). In essence, they are not less human than men. They are not mentally, spiritually, logically, or emotionally inferior to men. Furthermore, there is no taxis in general between men and women except in two cases: marriage and the church. There, the Bible says that man is the head of the wife, with regard to marriage. In the church, men are to lead. This is what the Bible says, culture notwithstanding. Is it possible that there can be a situation in which two people are completely equal in essence, but differ in taxis? That it happens in the Trinity is proof that a difference in taxis does not in any way imply inferiority in essence. Feminists insist so strongly on the opposite of what I have here asserted that it bears repeating: taxis in the Trinity implies that there can be taxis among humans without implying anything about inferiority in essence. This is one reason why feminists have reinterpreted the church’s doctrine of the Trinity so as to erase any and all differences between the Son and the Father. This is evident in the work of feminist theologians Catherine Mowry LaCugna, Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, Jurgen Moltmann, and his wife Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel. I would argue strongly that the Trinity as properly interpreted gives us an avenue forward in this debate. Women, would it be a dishonor to you to be placed in this analogy (only) in the place of Jesus Christ? I would hope not, just as placing a husband in the place of the Father in the analogy (only) does not give husbands any leave whatsoever to abuse this position.