And What Is It About Patriarchy That Scares Us?

Nodak, I have tracked down this concept that the word used for having authority carries sexual connotations. I have it in a book presenting a feminist view of 1 Tim. 2:11-15, I Suffer Not a Woman, by Richard and Catherine Kroeger. On pp. 94-95 they quote Michel Glykas (Michael Glycas), a Byzantine writer from the 12th century (a full 1100 years and more after 1 Tim. was written) and speculates that his usage of the word may be quoted from earlier sources. Then they give a few cases from classical Greek that have authenes (the noun) and authentein (the verb), which were synonyms for murder in some classical sources, as having occurred in context with sexual immorality.

There is a huge linguistic error in this analysis by the Kroegers, who appear quite amateur in linguistics. Classical Greek from way before the NT, and Byzantine Greek from over 1000 years after the NT, simply cannot be used to determine the meaning of a word in 1st century NT koine Greek. What linguists use to determine meaning is the usage of the word at the time of the document. Almost any other method used to determine the meaning of a word is likely to be a linguistic fallacy.

I hope you'll erase this particular argument (authentein means flirting in church) from your store of points used whenever you discuss the passage.

God bless. :type:

 

John--thank you for your thoughtful reply. But I won't be taking your advice. Why?

First off, the word does not have anything to do with flirting in church. It is used extrabiblically most often to describe the actions of the pagan temple prostitutes. That fits well linguistically with the "not currently allowing" verb tense. That is to say, it fit the then CURRENT problem. It fits best the context of what Timothy was dealing with--syncretism. And it is not the term generally used in the Scripture for "authority."

Secondly, the meaning is above is accepted by many Bible scholars in many denominations as accurate. I was taught it by scholars from a very conservative Bible school originally. Then I learned it from someone with NO Bible background, but strong Greek skills.

And as to whether or not feminists scholars push the point on this word--frankly, what does that matter? Feminists are somehow unworthy to study Greek? Traditionalists have no bias?

I started studying not women in ministry, but the qualifications of a pastor and a deacon due to the (in my opinion) wrongheaded push in my area for pastors to be required to have attended a denominationally backed seminary, and to pick their own deacons to serve only at the pleasure of the pastor.

You can imagine my shock when so many scholars kept basically asking me why I cared, since Baptists they knew accept only a Baptist translation rather than caring about what scripture actually says.

I am older, and very traditional and conservative. But more than that, I am unswervingly committed to standing on the Word of God.

I am just beginning to understand, however, that thoughtful and well meaning people may read more INTO the Word than can be read OUT OF the Word.

Which means I sometimes have to painfully choose between standing for what I have been taught the Word means or says, and standing for what it does say as best as I can understand it.

 

I used the term "flirting" to be playful. Lighten up. And I gave very clearly some linguistic facts--not opinions--concerning the word. And there you go again with the "not currently allowing verb tense." Where in the world do you get that? You obviously don't know any Greek.

This is baloney!! "Many Bible scholars?" Put your money where your mouth is and give me a quote (not a vague reference) from one single recognized Greek scholar who gives authentein a sexual meaning in first century Greek. I dare you!

 

Sorry to interrupt your [rather interesting and well-worth following] dispute, Gentlemen, but I found the following quote rather disturbing and wanted to chime in on it.

First, I think it's important to distinguish between knowledge (possession of data), understanding (comprehension of data's meaning and significance), and wisdom (knowledge of the data's use). Certainly the Holy Spirit can guide the English-speaker to wisdom using the knowledge transmitted through English translations of the Scriptures, but I'd be wary of stating that knowing Greek (and Hebrew) is not crucial in studying the Bible. It's certainly profitable to study the Bible in English, but -- and I don't think anything whatsoever against various language translations is implied here -- only the original texts were inspired. If by "The Bible" we mean to say "That perfect Holy book inspired by God", well, that is a very different thing from meaning "One of the English translations of that perfect Holy book inspired by God". Ergo, debates over the meaning of the original Greek text are perfectly valid -- indeed, absolutely essential.

Therefore, to return to the case at hand, unless one is actually studying the Greek, one has no means of knowing whether the English translation of the inspired text in fact accurately reflects "The Bible" in its perfectly inspired form.

 

Looking back at this quote, it looks too blunt and not polite. I apologize to nodak if she was offended. I was in a hurry and admittedly frustrated because nodak seemed to lightly brush off my research. (The old male ego at work? :smilewinkgrin: )

Having said that, my challenge still stands. I can find no Greek lexicons who give the meaning for authentein that nodak does. Further research confirms to me that the Kroeger's book, I Suffer Not a Woman (1992, I believe--I left my copy at the church), is the original source of nodak's view. The Internet is full of articles that take that view, but most of them give no sources. Of the ones that do, many of them refer to this book. Do a quick google search of "Kroeger authentein" and you get 389 hits!

For a scholarly review and partial refutation of the Kroegers, see this by S. M. Baugh (a Westminster Seminary prof) originally in Wesminster Theological Journal (I found it first on my Theological Journal CD): http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Book-...ard-Clark-Kroeger-and-Catherine-Clark-Kroeger

Sample: "The Kroegers claim justification for their interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 by taking authentein as an act of speech: "to proclaim oneself author of," an impossible interpretation of this verb. (And it does not function as indirect discourse with this meaning!) What is most interesting in the authors' philological treatment is that they come up with a classic case of 'illegitimate totality transfer,' which becomes programmatic for their historical investigation."

 

Does Paul undo what you are saying? These two lived in the same century which you are referring to, and Christ Jesus revealed to Paul His (Christ Jesus) mind - I Corinthians 2:16.

I personally cannot find where Jesus ever appointed a "woman Apostle", when He was on the earth, or in heaven. I wonder why this is?

If you don't mind, a little later I'll repeat what I posted (will be quoted) here some years ago. Can we of understanding really go so far to say that the "woman" is to join the man as the "head". Do we not wish to create a two headed monster"? Where can we find in His Word that God elevates woman to be the head?

Do you not give the answer here? All the troops are needed. But will we have a WOMAN GENERAL at the 'head of the troops"? Some think so.

My post of some years ago: QUOTE " I believe women can be sanctioned by a church for specific duties outside of the church service, such as Sunday school teachers to women and children, and men; Also as Chaplin's, missionaries, etc. In other words, they are not to "run the show", for they are to be under the authority of man. I personally do not believe a woman should be on a nominating committee, or handle the finances in a church for reasons given below. Assist yes, but not one to hold authority with the last say.

I believe the purpose of Paul's stance is as he states, which is in church, dissension must be avoided, and any time a man is fully put under the authority of a woman, that house will come down, or is not productive for the glory of God. Whether we like it or not this has to go back to Adam and the woman. The woman was deceived apart from Adam. Woman gave up her right of equality, or that of being coheir with right on her own.

We have to notice the essentials given in the beginning, viz. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them", Genesis 1:17. We see in Genesis 5:2 an interesting proclamation by God, "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." So ladies, you were (and are) really as we after all. This is the reason the Bible is so biased in favor of the male gender of tone and presentation, for it is spiritual, God making distinction only in our bodily makeup to carry out our functions as He intended on earth.

Here in the middle of this is that a little later remark, that really covers two subjects, but I'll only address one, and I believe you can see the other. I hope no one will take this as "smugness or chauvinism", as I believe this is what the Bible is showing us. Even though He calls us Adam He made us differently so that we two Adams (male and female) were made to come together, face to face in a perfect fit thus becoming one person (Adam), and this act allows God to call this marriage, the two becoming one. This is the only way marriage can be accomplished, and it is by Adam, the male Adam, and the female Adam, which is called woman by God. Notice God never once called the woman Eve. It is left up to Adam, the male Adam to name his generic named female woman Eve.

He is head, and one time listening to Waylon Jennings sing "Silent Partners" I was astounded as to the accuracy found describing the man and the woman, "She is the adjective, He is the verb". God is the Word, and the verb is the only thing that can make a statement about the subject.

The man has been made the verb, and the woman has made herself the adjective, for she cannot stand alone. But WOW, does she ever give color, and is able to modify. Could this be the answer? A "modifier" should not be made the "head" of an earthly church? Help, or helpmate - YES.
__________________
Christianfaith, ituttut
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12, For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal.1:11-12" UNQUOTE

 

1Cr 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

I would interpret this to say that all those who abide in Christ understand and apply the precepts of their Lord and Savior. Do you believe that they apply these in every aspect of their lives and are without sin? I do not. Therefore isn't there a chance that they would continue accepting certain ways of looking at the world that are definitely unChristlike? I would say they would. As far as Jesus' acts I'd say that although he didn't come to emphasize a change in laws (government) he did do things that were definately unacceptable at that time to emphasize the fact that every human being is important and has innate value whether they be Jew or Greek, male or female.

Why did Jesus speak to the woman at the well? This was against Jewish law for two reasons. First He spoke to a Samaritan and secondly He spoke to a woman alone. Why did God's plan use two women in extremely prominent roles as the first human beings to discover that Christ had risen? Then they went back and told the male disciples the good news. Talk about a woman not being allowed to instruct a man? This was the most important instruction in the history of the world. If women should be silent and subservient perhaps they shouldn't have run back to say this.

 

John--my understanding comes from the common teachings of those churches in the Wesleyan connection, going back to the early 1900's at least. Predates the source you quote. Burleson's blogs do, I believe, quote the one you cited.

Please actually go and read the posts at Wade Burleson's blogs--all seven of them.

It probably won't change your mind--that isn't the point. I don't think WB believes women should be ordained.

As to your lexicons, let us remember this about any study aid: it is as accurate or as biased as the person who wrote it.

If you don't believe that, consider this: there are those that defend not translating diakanos re Phoebe as deacon solely because they hold to the predecided view a woman cannot be deacon. Same word. Biased meaning.

The point being made is that there is equally valid scholarship on both sides of this issue. Those that hold to a different point of view than we hold to are not the evil empire. They are not stupid or unlearned. They are not rebellious.

They just understand the scripture differently.

And for the record, for most women, I believe it is a moot point. I believe moms' highest calling is raising their children. But there are times, places, and situations where men will not serve, or cannot serve, or God simply calls a woman. (Surely no one is going to deny that has happened in Scripture.)

I do not contend for women's lib--just for honest reading of the Scripture.

Sorry to have torqued your twitter valve.

 

So apparently we all need to learn greek or we're biblical idiots. And of course those who know greek are far superior. The Holy Spirit is our teacher, HE is capable, whether or not we know greek of teaching us God's word.

 

That is a ridiculous exaggeration: I never said or implied anything like being "biblical idiots" without a knowledge of Greek.

If you truly believe that it is the Holy Spirit who is teaching us God's word, then why bother to read the [English] Bible at all then? Clearly reading Scripture is superfluous, since the Holy Spirit is our teacher.

 

Um, the posts on Burleson's blog are not by him, but by some unnamed source. And I don't have time to read them right now--it's Saturday, must prepare for Sunday. But I've done a quick search of them and found that the anonymous author interprets authentein as "dominate" in one place. No problem there. Then he/she does mention Kroeger's position, but makes the same linguistic error as Kroeger, assuming that authentein, meaning murder in classical Greek, used in a context that also happens to have sexual connotations, then has any bearing on 1st century usage. Linguistically ludicrous!

Um, not just one or two lexicons. All of them!! Here are just the ones I have in software:

Thayer: 1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself 2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic 3) an absolute master 4) to govern, exercise dominion over one.

Anlex: strictly, of one who acts on his own authority; hence have control over, domineer, lord it over (1T 2.12)

Louw-Nida: control

Liddell-Scott: to have full power over

I could also give BAGD, Abbot-Smith, Souter, UBS, and two Greek-Japanese lexicons if I had time. But you can't give me a single lexicon that supports your position, yet you said "many scholars."

All I've asked you to do is provide one single scholar on your side. You haven't done that. And I fail to see what the deacon thing has to do with the authentein issue. Different linguistic principles altogether.

Well, then, give us an illustration from Scripture where that happened, please, and we'll go from there.

You are taking the exact same position as so-called "Biblical feminism" does. Don't be shy about it!

No problem.

 

That would be someone, not all of us, God gave the bible and He gives the Holy Spirit as our teacher, it isn't necessary for me to learn greek to understand scripture.

 

Are you saying here Jesus SINNED?

Where are you getting your information? You are saying the woman is the source, when the Bible explicitly informs us "the angel told them what to relay to the disciples", the MEN of God. Godly women are told what to do, and they do it, not claiming the authority came from them.

Pardon me for saying, but haven't you just said "the world gives the woman the authority to rule over man?

 

Actually, Jesus revealed to the world the Jesus gospel. This gospel states that we must first repent and accept Him as our Lord and Savior. We must then abide in Him and love God and our neighbor.

Just as many here argue that the original Greek and Hebrew must be understand in order to understand the Bible, I argue that the historical context must be understood. Jesus didn't sin when he went against the existing mores by talking to the woman at the well or by healing on the Sabbath. You must know that those things are well documented in the Bible. He was setting a new direction for the world, one which deemphasized the law and emphasized love.

These restrictions are part of the old way of looking at things not of His gospel of love.

In my description of Christ's resurrection, I said that two women were chosen by God to be the first to discover that Christ had risen. You replied that they were preceded by the Angels. Are you claiming that Angels are the same as men? Don't you see how preposterous a statement this is? The WOMEN went back to instruct the MEN. Get over it.

 

Do we agree here? If you mean the gospel of John the Baptist, which Jesus preached while on earth, then we do not agree. Jesus taught the "Kingdom of heaven is at hand" gospel, which you will not accept, and this gospel as He plainly tells us was only for His people Israel. Christ Jesus from heaven reveals to us through His Only Apostle today to the Gentile and the Jew, the Body of Christ, the Body Church, and not the "kingdom gospel is at hand.

Absolutely. But why do you discount what Paul tells you? The law has nothing to do with us, as we are dead to the law, and we are to be of the Body of Christ (no other Apostle has authority to speak to you on this matter, and none do), and we are to believe what Christ Jesus revealed to Paul.

Again who is it that speaks to us of the "church", not in Jerusalem or Judea, but of the Gentiles? Can you find through faith before Damascus Road? Through faith we will acknowledge that Christ Jesus did speak to Paul. Paul will reveal to us the mind of Christ Jesus in Heaven. I Corinthians 14:33-37, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

Is the woman to speak as a Pastor to the congregation with the authority given by the Lord? Not if we believe the Commandments of the Lord.

Where is your scripture that refutes Christ Jesus from heaven?

You are difficult to be nice to BB. You still don't get it, do you? What did the WOMEN relay to the MEN. They were "vessels" used by God, to relay to the MEN a Message. All the women did was relayed a message. Wake-up fellow Christian to what you are reading. DID NOT THE ANGELS INSTRUCT THE WOMEN WHAT TO TELL THE MEN, so the MEN could act on it? You do not realize you are taking away the Authority of the Apostles with your worldly knowledge that Instructs YOU to believe man and not God.

Why don't you just throw out all the Epistles of Paul for you just will not believe such scripture as 37 in I Corinthians 14 above, viz. it is Christ Jesus that INSTRUCTS Paul to relay a message directly to us, just as the WOMEN were told to relay a message to the Apostles. It is a good idea to listen to instructions by Christ Jesus as He sits on the right hand of His Father.