- While there were precursors of egalitarianism, an egalitarian school of biblical interpretation did not fully take hold until a few decades ago. However, nineteen centuries of virtual unanimity in this matter constitute strong presumptive evidence that the “historic” reading of the relevant texts is valid.
- Scott Baldwin, in a recent comprehensive study of the term αυθεντεω, leaves no stone unturned in examining all the available instances of this term in ancient literature. In short, he concludes that there is not a single unambiguous reference where the word means “domineer.”
- 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."
- 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 ..."
Next, Kostenberger writes about 1 Tim. 2:15,
- Arguably, 1 Tim 5:14–15 thus makes explicit what appears to be implied in 1 Tim 2:15: “childbearing” is merely a pars pro toto (a “part standing for the whole”), encompassing a woman’s entire range of marital, familial, and domestic responsibilities; and by adhering
to this role, women will be “preserved,” i.e. from Satan, contrary to Eve, who, when stepping outside her God-ordained sphere, was not preserved from the serpent but fell into transgression (verse 14).
On the comparison between female subordination and slavery Kostenberger writes,
- First of fall, it should be noted that, unlike female subordination, slavery is never in Scripture substantiated from the created order. In other words, slavery is considered by the biblical writers as a socioeconomic institution, albeit flawed, while the principle of female subordination is supported, not merely by an appeal to societal conventions, but by pointing to creation (cf. esp. 1 Cor 11:8–9; 1 Tim 2:12–13).
- thou shalt be under thy husband's power (Douay Rheims from the Vulgate)
Kostenberger is clear that those who disagree with him are not radical feminists but Gordon Fee and F. F. Bruce.
However, he concludes by saying,
- Rather than embracing the radical feminist agenda and subscribing to the notion that women will only be able to live up to their potential if exactly the same church functions are open to them as to men, we affirm that Scripture teaches that man and woman are equally created in God’s image; that man and woman are equally saved by grace through faith in Christ; that man and woman are fellow-heirs of grace, of equal worth in the sight of God.
Dr. Kostenberger teaches that men are in positions of authority over their wives, thus denying that the only time husbands are given authority over their wives is in the reciprocal command in 1 Cor. 7. Complementarians deny fundamental aspects of the scriptural commands regarding marriage.
Complementarians bind the female half of the human race to submission to the male half and thus deny the equal dignity of man and woman before God. Many complementarian women say that in this case they will be judge of when their husband is exercising authority over them "in Christ" and when he is doing it in the flesh. In this way some complementarian women set themselves up as judges over men.
I have blogged before about articles on the gender blog, and staff from the CBMW assured me that they would interact with my writing. To this date they have not.