Denny Burk on 1 Tim. 2:12 cont.

I can post but not comment at the moment, so here is more on Denny Burk on 1 Tim. 2:12. Denny writes,

By the way, I should mention that Baldwin lists “assume authority” in his range of possible meanings for authentein, and he even says that the idea is “not intrinsically negative” (p. Women in the Church,” 45, 47). He includes it, however, as a sub-meaning of “to act independently” which he says “carries the idea of being one’s own authority” (p. Women in the Church,” 47). This appears to me as a contradictory point in Baldwin’s survey. “Assume authority” cannot be neutral if it is subsumed under the negative idea of “acting independently.”

Baldwin offers no examples in the centuries preceding or directly following the writing of the NT which show authentein to have a positive connotation. The one citation which Baldwin offered, in the Philodemus fragment, was shown to be incorrect. The fact is that D. Carson and the ESV study Bible and the Baldwin article have all disseminated false information.

Denny Burk and Douglas Moo on 1 Tim. 2:12 in the NIV2011

I recommend that readers visit Denny Burk's blog to see the interaction between these two men. So far, neither of them have acknowledged that the Calvin Bible of 1855 had "assume authority" from Calvin's Latin "auctoritatem sumere." The argument seems to be based on whether or not the translation is a clear complementarian translation.

Since I have not been allowed to post on this post of Denny's I would appreciate if any reader here would communicate the information regarding Calvin's Bible to the readers there, in defense of Dr. Moo. It is also worth mentioning that the Vulgate had dominari, and the KJV had "usurp authority."

Denny Burk on the NIV 2011

I am not surprised. As I thought, in the NIV 2011, it is the translation of 1 Tim. 2:12 which has complementarians outraged. It is the most important verse in the Bible, is it not? Women must be kept in place in order for men to collect their thoughts - or so some seem to think. Dr. Burk writes,

One cannot underestimate the importance of 1 Timothy 2:12 in the intra-evangelical debate over gender roles and women in ministry. There is a reason why countless articles and even an entire book have been written on the interpretation of this single verse. In many ways, this verse is the most disputed text in the debate. It is clear that Paul is prohibiting something, but just what he prohibits has been fiercely contested.

In response I wrote in a comment on his blog,

"Are you aware that “assumer d'authorité” was Calvin’s own rendering of this verse. (Docere autem muliere non permitto, neque auctoritatem sibi sumere in virum, sed quietam esse.) I am surprised that you and Grudem part so vigorously with Calvin on this point.

And the KJV had “usurp authority.” We know from the sermons of Lancelot Andrewes that to “usurp” was treason, a crime to be punished with death.

There is also a significant point which you have missed regarding Köstenberger’s conclusion. While many, both egalitarians and complementarians agree that both verbs didaskein and authentein must have the same force, not all agree that that force is positive.

Here is the discussion from Köstenberger’s website,

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.

But “virtually always” is not at all the same as “always.” In Titus 1 didaskein is construed negatively, and this negates K’s argument. In fact, there are no clear positive occurences of authentein, and one clear negative example of didaskein in the pastorals, so we are obliged to consider the possibility that authentein is negative, as the BDAG indicates."

And in a further comment, I wrote,

"The history of interpretation on this verse should not start in 1984.

Vulgate – dominari
Erasmus – autoritatem usurpare
Wycliffe – have lordship on the husband
Tyndale – have authority
KJV – usurp authority
Calvin – assume authority [1855]
Luther – herr sei"

To be honest, I do not have an English translation produced by Calvin. There is, however, an English version which is called the Calvin Bible, and it appears to be an English translation of Calvin's Latin commentaries. For 1 Tim. 2:12, it has, "But I suffer not the woman to teach, nor to assume authority over the man, but to be silent." This is from the 1855 Calvin Translation Society. I have no record of what English translation Calvin would have approved. Nonetheless, we can see that the rendering of the NIV 2011, "assume authority" does not originate in 2005, nor is it a novel and suspect translation. And yet, Denny Burk writes, "As you can see, the crucial change occurred in the TNIV 2005." Oh dear.

Update: Denny has deleted all my comments on this post. He has not acknowledged that "assume authority" is a translation option with a good history. Douglas Moo has now commented in defense of the NIV2011. This is déjà vu. I can hardly believe it. Everyone else is off analysing this and that in the NIV2011 but for some the only significant verse is 1 Tim. 2:12. Complementarians are not afraid to cast aspersions on their own people.

"Honor such men"

Those who campaigned against the TNIV, lead by the editor of the ESV, like to use the following verse as a foundation for their disapproval of the TNIV.

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, Rev. 22:18

Wayne Grudem concludes his summary of concerns against the TNIV with these words,

If the TNIV should gain wide acceptance, the precedent will be established for other Bible translations to mute unpopular nuances and details of meaning for the sake of "political correctness." The loss of many other doctrines unpopular in the culture will soon follow. And at every case Bible readers will never know if what they are reading is really the Word of God or the translators' ideas of something that would be a little less offensive than what God actually said. "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it" (Deut. 4:2).

However, I cannot help but notice that Grudem was himself responsible for adding the word "men" to the ESV. In Phil. 2:29 it reads,

29 So receive him in the Lord with all joy, and honor such men,

In fact, this phrase, "honor such men" is now a quotable Bible phrase, one that was not available in the KJV. It is clear that Grudem, the editor of the ESV, feels that no words should be added to the word of God with the exclusion of the word "man" or "men." How silly of me not to understand this the first time around.

Here is the Greek for this verse, no "men" in sight.

προσδέχεσθε οὖν αὐτὸν ἐν κυρίῳ μετὰ πάσης χαρᾶς, καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους ἐντίμους ἔχετε,

When Paul writes about Epaphroditus and then says honour "those who are like him," we have to look at what it is about Epaphroditus that is significant in this passage, and whether women could meet the same criteria. Here is the passage in Philippians about Epaphroditus, and I then follow up with a similar passage in Romans 16, written about Phoebe and Priscilla.

But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, co-worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs. ²⁶ For he longs for all of you and is distressed because you heard he was ill. ²⁷ Indeed he was ill, and almost died. But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow. ²⁸ Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you may be glad and I may have less anxiety. ²⁹ So then, welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor people like him, ³⁰ because he almost died for the work of Christ. He risked his life to make up for the help you yourselves could not give me.

¹ I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. ² I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. ³ Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. ⁴ They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

I cannot imagine any rationale at all for saying that Phil. 2:29 should be translated as "honor such men." It is very difficult for me to feel that the commentary promoting manhood in the Bible ought to be taken seriously. Very difficult indeed.

Rachel and Mary

Far from dying down, the gender debate is developing in some very entertaining directions. Rachel Held Evans has plans to spend some time with Mary Kassian at Southern Baptist Seminary. Naturally I am deeply concerned that some people may get the wrong impression about Canadian women from Mary Kassian. I personally cannot identify with the come thither sexuality latent in her photo shoot. I tend to a more casual look myself, and am not into leather. Oh well, I always think of Canadian women as a down home bunch who don't aspire to much more than a well-fitting pair of yoga pants and Uggs.

I am following Rachel Held Evans blog with avid interest although I do think the entire effort bears an uncanny resemblance to the Julie and Julia fiasco. In this case, Held Evans is imitating the stereotypical 1950's housewife, as she is represented in Mary Kassian's book, but as she never existed in real life.

As Kassian says, "Pornography and rape and homosexuality, sexual perversion, sexual addiction, sexually transmitted diseases were uncommon and rarely encountered" back in the world of her childhood, that world which never existed. And of course, "once married, a woman could normally count on her husband to financially support her and the children." This is why there were so many orphanages. Orphanages where children were sterilized, back in the idyllic world of the 1950's in Alberta, and probably all across Canada, back in the good old days of Mary Kassian's youth.

Um. Just in case it sounds as if I am being hard on Kassian, this is what she has to say about those who don't hold to her view of womanhood. "Now days, the epitome of empowered womanhood is to live a self-serving, self-righteous, neurotic, narcissistic, superficial, and adulteress life."

She completely disregards the fact that many single women want to be empowered to care for their parents, their children, their pets and their house, as well as reach out to others.On top of that, most of them wish to support themselves - what a selfish and adulteress desire. Did I just write that? Will some save me from this kind of spelling blunder! I wonder who edited this sermon of Mary's?

NIV 2010

The NIV 2010 is available today on the Biblegateway website. There are some fascinating changes - I would love to have seen the inside trading on some points.

Here is the fun stuff . In Hebrews 2:17, the phrase "brothers and sisters" was tossed to the cutting room floor and replaced with "them."

For this reason he had to be made like them,^k]">[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Hebrews 2:17 (Or like his brothers) NIV 2010

For this reason he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. TNIV

In 1 Tim. 2, "Christ Jesus, himself human" (TNIV) was replaced with "the man, Christ Jesus." HT Dave Ker, Better Bibles Blog. Some loss of meaning and literalness there, but in 1 Tim. 2:12, the NIV 2010 retains the wording of the TNIV, "to assume authority" thus rendering it a 'novel and suspect' translation, according to Wayne Grudem. In fact, "to assume authority" is close to the KJV, "to usurp authority" and identical with the English translation of the French Bible that Calvin was associated with (called in English Calvin's Bible.) Congratulations to the NIV 2010 team on keeping the TNIV wording here.

In Romans 16:7 Junia remains "outstanding among the apostles" but a footnote offers "esteemed by the apostles." In spite of the fact that there is no support for the translation offered in the note, this seems like a reasonable compromise. I find the compromises very cleverly done.

For other commentary, view this list.

Year of Biblical Womanhood

Rachel Held Evans has announced the topic of her next book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood. I have enjoyed reading the posts and comments on her blog ever since. Her audience is diverse and the comments are quite entertaining. Unfortunately commenters do not worry much about the sensitivities of complementarians so be warned. I don't think they mean any harm, and are not vicious, but many just can't get their head around many of the things that John Piper likes to smoke. I recommend To Vote or Not to Vote.

The end of perspicuity

I am not sure when the doctrine of perspicuity began. Perhaps it was during the Reformation that some decided the scriptures were clear and forthright. However, we can safely announce the end of perspicuity this year. It is now out in the open that complementarians dither endlessly about whether Ephesians 5:21 refers to non-reciprocated submission, or submission which is reciprocal, albeit different.

They are not the same thing, if you think about it. If submission is non-reciprocal, then the command in Eph. 5:21 is only intended for those Christians who are in roles of submission to other Christians, it is not an instruction for everyone. Some time ago after careful consideration, Denny Burk wrote,

I think “one another” is used in the non-reciprocal sense Ephesians 5:21 as well.

But the other day he wrote about Thielman,

He takes a different tack on the interpretation of “submitting to one another” in verse 5:21. He understands that both husbands and wives are to submit to one another, but they are to do so in different ways. Thus he maintains the Pauline notion of headship while distinguishing his view from the “mutual submission” interpretation of egalitarians.

For most complementarians, there are many different ways to interpret the words of scripture. As long as they all lead to the authority of the husband over the wife, one can still call oneself a complementarian. But great latitude is allowed in exegeting scripture. Why is Thielman acceptable? Because he distinguishes himself from egalitarians. Not because he has any particular understanding of scripture. In fact, relatively few jump to defend the clarity of scripture. Many jump to defend the authority of the male over the female.

More about kephale in Philo

On Denny Burk's recent post about a commentary of Ephesians, Derek writes,

What part of “in a manner” do you not understand about Philo’s text and explanation? The mechanics of his interaction with the other kings is simply not relevant here and Philo says as much. All that is needed is to understand the way a leader relates to his herd. That’s it. Read it again and more carefully and you’ll see it.

The difficulty is that "leader of the herd" is not a particularly literal translation of this phrase. I would prefer to see Derek engage with the passage in Greek, rather than continue to comment on the English. This is from Fitzmeyer, page 86,

Philo speaks of Ptolemy II Philadelphus as one who was outstanding among the Ptolemies and expresses it thus,


genoumenos kathaper en zōō to hēgemoneuon kephalē tropon tina tōn basileōn

being, as the head is the leading part in a living body, in some sense the head of kings [of the Ptolemaic dynasty]. (De Vita Mosis 2.5.30)

The word translated as "herd" is ζῷον, "animal, creature, image" found here,

πρῶτον μέν νυν τύπον ποιησάμενος λίθινον ἔστησε: ζῷον δέ οἱ ἐνῆν ἀνὴρ ἱππεύς, ἐπέγραψε δὲ γράμματα λέγοντα τάδε: “Δαρεῖος ὁ Ὑστάσπεος σύν τε τοῦ ἵππου τῇ ἀρετῇ” τὸ οὔνομα λέγων “καὶ Οἰβάρεος τοῦ ἱπποκόμου ἐκτήσατο τὴν Περσέων βασιληίην.”

First he made and set up a carved stone, upon which was cut the figure of a horseman, with this inscription: “Darius son of Hystaspes, aided by the excellence of his horse” (here followed the horse's name) “and of Oebares his groom, got possession of the kingdom of Persia. Herodotus Histories

The truth is that Philo's use of kephale is as a metaphor, and we are not exactly sure how to translate it. It is not an established way to say that someone had authority. Philo uses the word kephale elsewhere to denote a person of exemplary virtue. There is no indication that Paul wants us to believe that the husband in a marriage relationship naturally displays an exemplary morality that the wife would do well to emulate. The comparison is strained.

Here is a longer article about kephale in Philo. I regret that these are not full posts, but simply responses to a discussion which is ongoing on Denny Burk's blog, where I have been blocked.

The main question that I am left asking is why such a passage would be considered one of the most significant pieces of evidence that kephale means "authority."

Kephale in Philo

With reference to the discussion going on on Denny Burk's blog, all I can say is that the citation from Philo is proof against Grudem's taxonomy, which is as follows, stated negatively,

"we cannot find any text where person A is called the "head'' of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons"

Ptolemy was called the head of the Ptolemies, but was not the authority over his father or other kings in his famiy line. In fact, the only person who was ever called the kephale of a family, tribe or nation of which he was the leader, was Jephthah.

I am not going to change my story on this.

If you want to talk about who is the "head of the household" then you have to go to another Greek phrase oikodespotes. In the verb form, this word is applied to women in 1 Tim. 5:14. In the New Testament, it appears that there were at least a few women who were the head of their own household - Lydia, Chloe, Nympha, the elect lady, and so on.

Any woman reading this needs to know that believing that the husband is the authority in the marriage, has no benefit in terms of getting into heaven, raising one's children well, bringing honour to God, or preventing divorce. Submission to an unpleasant spouse, either husband or wife, may seem to work in the short term, but it is highly dysfunctional in terms of maintaining a relationship, and is in fact, one predictor of divorce. People need to know the truth.

Response

I am not able to comment on Denny Burk's blog, but my material is discussed there. I will post in response this evening.

Venus and Mars - Love and Respect

I wonder why Venus and Mars have become such popular icons for the female and male in love. Why do we imagine that eros is the child of war and beauty? Why is "beauty submitted to war" even an erotic image in the first place? And why do some Christians invest such an notion with even a particle of truth?

In fact, we may find another romantic hero in mythology. Not Mars, the god of war, but Hephaestus, also known as Vulcan, the god of technology. Perhaps he was not the best-looking, the most buff and fit god of all the gods. He was a plain-looking creature, by some accounts a bit lame but nonetheless, the god of craft and fire, the god of forging and forming. What's to choose between war and craft?

Who loves a Vulcan, but Jane Eyre, that pragmatic young woman, who wisely rejects St. John Rivers, the staid clergyman, for Rochester, her personally flawed but much loved Vulcan. I am sure that by now you must think that I am in love with Spock, not so, although I wonder just how many real life males fall between Nimoy and Shatner.

In any case, it was not Mars but Hephaestus (that is Vulcan) who warrants our interest. And who did he marry? According to some traditions, Hephaestus was married to Aphrodite, (that is, Venus) but according to another story (the Iliad) Hephaestus' true mate was Charis (Grace.)

If I wanted to hijack a story to use as an icon for Christian mating, for seeking the perfect complementarian relationship, I would not touch Mars and Venus with a ten foot pole. I would chase after Hephaestus and Charis. (okay, so it doesn't make a great book title, "Men are Hephaestus and Women are Charis" (or Aglaia, the youngest grace.) Nope, that would not sell books. But it might be a love worth having.

In contrast to both John Gray, of Men are from Mars ..., and Eggerichs, of Love and Respect, I highly recommend John Gottman. All this to say, in an interesting way, that there is a great comparison between John Gray (Men are from Mars ...) and John Gottman right here. If I had to recommend any books - by anyone at all - on love and relationships, it would be John Gottman.

All this nonsense, or sense - depending on who you are - is because I received an email today thanking me for my series on Love and Respect, which I wrote about a while ago. I am no fan of this kind of pop psychology.

Love and Respect 1
Love and Respect 2
Love and Respect 3
Love and Respect 4
Love and Respect 5
Love and Respect 6
Love and Respect 7

There are a few more posts on this topic under Eggerichs.

preparing to be a help meet

Just when I think that I need to put the whole issue of biblical womanhood out of my mind, and enjoy a little fresh air, it inserts itself back into my life. Last week my daughter came home with "Preparing to be a Help Meet" by Debi Pearl. I actually read most of it, and found some of the anecdotes quite entertaining. It was an odd read, unsophisticated in many ways, and I can in no way recommend it. But I understand how a young girl, who is recently engaged, might enjoy reading it and fantasize a little.

Anyhow ... my daughter was horrified. She doesn't normally want to talk these things over with me, but she did admit that this book was so much worse than anything I had mentioned. Oh well, she'll survive and she won't be overly influenced by it.

We did confirm that this is the same Debi Pearl who still advocates on her website that parents buy half inch flexible tubing in order to give their children a series of "licks" on their feet or legs whenever they stray from the straight and narrow. This is still up on their site. Go figure.

Anyway, I do think that women need to consider what it means to "help" others. Being a caregiver is a major preoccupation of women my age. Some are caring for parents, moving them into supported living facilities, or moving them into their own house. One friend has just acquired a new house that she can live in with her parents.

Other women are paying for their children's university education or helping them get on their feet financially. Some women are caring for husbands, siblings, or others in their family.

The important thing is that each of us will feel the need at some point in our life to be the caregiver, the one who provides for others that we love. The question then is how we prepare for this. It is something that we don't really want to think about. We might want to fantasize that we will be the one who is cared for. This may happen for us also, in our turn. But we don't need to prepare for that. We need to prepare for those times when we have to care for others.

Preparing to be a help meet, then, in my view, is a vital consideration. We need to be able to support ourselves, to pay for food, shelter and eduation for our children. We may need to buy a house, or cover medical costs or travel to be with our parents. Ideally these responsibilities are ones that we will share with a spouse. But chances are that half of us, or more, will be on our own at some time in our lives with these responsibilities staring us in the face.

We need to be in a position also to care for others beyond our famility and close friends. We need to be able to reach out to others, to change the living conditions of those who cannot care for themselves. How can we do this?

Preparing to be a help meet - nothing is more important.

FIRST TIMOTHY 2:8–15

While I have not been blogging much lately, I have still been reading the blogs, and it seems that the topic of women and the Bible has not cooled. Quite the opposite, it is warming up. I want to contribute a few notes, as I can.

Noel Bullock of British Columbia has written a paper called FIRST TIMOTHY 2:8–15. HT CBE Scroll. She covers material that I have presented on this blog in the past and does a very thorough job of it. I think my readers will be grateful to have her paper.

Young Earth Egalitarians?

RJS has been blogging at Jesus Creed. Let me say that while I am comforted at the steady blogging on behalf of women in ministry, I am hurt and horrified at how the actual woman herself is abandoned to her fate. RJS writes,

I’ll be blunt – to attach complementarianism to the gospel in any fashion is to distort and damage the gospel message. Complementarianism devolves to rules. But God will use our efforts anyway. To attach egalitarianism to the gospel message is to distort and damage the gospel message – it takes the focus off of Christ and onto us, and this has dire consequence. Egalitarianism devolves to rights.

So are women not to have rights? Men have rights. It is okay, just fine and dandy, for men to have rights. Oddly even Saint Paul had rights. He asked to be recognized as a Roman citizen so that he would not be beaten. Why did he do such a craven thing and stand on his rights? A woman should never do this. She should just put up, even if what is happening to her is wrong.

I have the sense that the insistance that egalitarianism is about rights and that is not gospel, is expressed by someone who has no idea what it would mean to live out one's life from birth to death without rights. Clearly this writer would not rate abolition of slavery as a gospel essential either.

Please judge by my sarcasm that I am still hurting from what it meant to me to be part of a complementarian community. The truth is that I was lucky. I have a job and I can support myself and my children. I feel privileged and grateful to my parents. Many people come out of fundamentalism with the sense that they have wasted years of their life in futility. Vanity, I think it is called. Emptiness. Feeding the beast of fundamentalism.

PS. In the comment thread, there is a call out for young earth egalitarians. I am pretty sure that some women who read this blog are young earth egalitarians, although I am not. You might want to take a look.

In all honesty, I am grateful to RJS for keeping this topic alive. However, I get the impression that he thinks it is no big deal to live one's life without basic human rights, such as going in and out of one's house freely, working to earn money, controlling how many times one becomes pregnant, attending the church of one's choice and so on.

a question for Gospel Coalition

In today's post, Scot Mcnight is engaging the blogosphere on the issue of women in ministry. HT New Leaven

KJB spotting

A few years ago, I used to post on spotting citations of the King James Bible in literature. To tell the truth, I don't think that I have ever spotted any other translation in a work of English literature. This could just be me, but I don't think so. The King James Version is by far the most cited and most recognized translation of the Bible in modern English literature.

Here is my most recent find,

Its gonna be okay, I whispered to myself, knowing, as the words trotted through the fain hope in my mind, that I'd uttered the certain jinx formula. The saying, pride goeth ... before a fall ... is condensed from the second collection of the Book of Proverbs, 16:18 - Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. It's attributed to Solomon. If he did say it, Solomon was a man who knew horses intimatley well; much better than I did ...

This is from the monumental novel, Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts, page 692, published in 2003 and there are rumours that it was to be made into a movie with Johnny Depp in the lead role. What other translation of the Bible would Depp cite - really ??

Although I fully support modern translations of the Bible, the literary importance of the King James Bible should not be ignored.

Faithful in little ...

‘Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much.' Luke 16:10.

This is in response to T.C.'s post on Dan Wallace's recommendation on a Bible version. I might have resisted commenting on his post except that I believe that the NET Bible is a translation which should never be recommended to a woman. I don't think women need to be exposed to this level of misogyny. Some of the notes misrepresent the original so seriously that I hope that my own daughter never discovers that this Bible version exists.

But I won't go into that tonight. I want to look at the simple inaccuracy of one note. Here is one of the notes for Romans 16:7.

6:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia,⁶ my compatriots⁷ and my fellow prisoners. They are well known⁸ to the apostles,⁹ and they were in Christ before me.

My remarks are in blue.

8tn Or “prominent, outstanding, famous.” The term ἐπίσημος (epishmo") is used either in an implied comparative sense (“prominent, outstanding”) or in an elative sense (“famous, well known”).

This is open for debate. It is not a "fact" that there are two contrasting uses of this word.

The key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30).

The commentator says "frequently, if not usually." We can conclude from this that is would be at least equally likely that the dative would be used for a comparative notion. In fact, there are times when the genitive and the dative are used synonymously.

ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν Matt. 23:11 (genitive)
the greatest among you

ὁ μείζων ἐν ὑμῖν Luke 22:26 (en plus dative)
the greatest among you

When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6).

Pss. Sol. 2:6 has not been shown to contain an "elative" use of the word ἐπίσημος.

Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients.

ἐπίσημος is not a word of perception.

In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.”

There is no support for this.

See M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91, who argue for the elative notion here.

Mike Burer and Dan Wallace are fully aware that their argument is not supported by the facts. I look forward to seeing if the note for this word is altered when the NET Bible undergoes a revision. In the meantime, the authors have not responded to those who have countered their article, Bauckam, Epp and Belleville.

I feel strongly that even if a commentator knowingly misrepresents only a few verses of the Bible, he or she should not be trusted on the rest of the Bible.

Plans for a Vancouver CBE group

Barb Orlowski emailed me recently with this notice proposing a chapter of the CBE for Vancouver,

There's been a buzz among the local members of Christians for Biblical Equality since Dr. Barb Orlowski enquired about a chapter in the Vancouver and Lower Fraser Valley area. Since there are no local chapters at the present time there is keen interest in exploring the possibility further among those who are connected with CBE. If you would like to explore with us, please contact Barb.

Christians for Biblical Equality is an organization of Christians who believe that the Bible, property interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all racial and ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings of scripture as reflected in Galatians 3:28: "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."

For more information about CBE, visit their Website at www.cbeinternational.org.

To connect with someone locally and find out how things are unfolding, please email Dr. Barb Orlowski in Langley: orlowski@telus.net. Or phone her at: 604 - 534 - 7870.

Subservient to men

Sometimes people wonder when a woman bristles. But it is clear that some complementarians do think that women are to be subservient. At Parchment and Pen, Michael, (I assume it is the blog author who wrote this) writes,

Egalitarianism: Theological position held by many Christians (contra complementarianism) believing the Bible does not teach that women are in any sense, functionally or ontologically, subservient to men. Women and men hold positions in society, ministry, and the family according to their gifts, not their gender. The principle of mutual submission teaches that husbands and wives are to submit to each other equally. Prominent egalitarians include Doug Groothuis, Ruth Tucker, William Webb, Gorden Fee, and Linda Belleville.

Imagine that! Terrible, isn't it to think that some Christians do not think of women as subservient to men. Shocking.

But men who write things like this are still treated as great buddies by many egalitarian men.

What I am looking at right now

I am at a teacher tech conference right now. Here is what we have just watched.

Update: Crap, just as I posted this, I noticed that the keynote speaker had said my name and everyone was staring at me. It turned out that she had a long quote from one of my articles on special needs students and udl up on the screen.

I do have some unpublished articles as well. I have had a lot of non-writing projects on the go lately but I do need to get back to writing some day.

Salander

I have just finished reading the trilogy and viewing the first two movies in Stieg Larsson's series. I have noticed many basic misunderstandings from those who have only seen the movies. I haven't much time but here are some central themes in the books.

Lisbeth Salander is a young woman who suffered from several kinds of abuse as a child. Her father caused her mother lasting physical and mental injury in front of Lisbeth. Lisbeth was later institutionalized and restrained with a straitjacket for months on end. All her appeals to social workers and psychologists were unacknowledged since the Swedish government did not want a record of her father's existance. Lisbeth is not just an example of what happens as a result of abuse, but of what happens as a result of unacknowledged abuse.

Lisbeth is declared incompetent because she does not answer questions posed to her by the psychiatrist during a psychiatric evaluation. This raises the very real issue of how to tell the difference between selective mutism, low verbal IQ and Aspergers. While the story makes clear that Lisbeth is on one level a genius, we don't know for sure if she is selectively mute because of trauma or if she really is an individual with Asperger's syndrome.

Lisbeth is called bisexual by some reviewers of the movie. This completely overlooks the fact that Lisbeth has an constant attachment and desire for the main character, Michael. He is, on the other hand, unable to return her love since he is promiscuous. Ultimately, he feels that he is too old for her, but he may consider settling down with a woman who does not appear until the third book.

Lisbeth engages in sexual activity with a female friend with the understanding that this is an expression of physical intimacy and tenderness that she is in need of and has not experienced from her parents. She is not bisexual in the sense of desiring a female life partner.

I know too many children who have experienced some measure of the abuse that Lisbeth Salander suffered. The series was a fascinating read for me. The movies seem to leave out anything at all that I found interesting in the book. The character of Lisbeth Salander is very well protrayed, but the complexities of her life are drawn too sketchily to get a sense of her morality.

Eat, Pray, Love, on the other hand, is a much better movie than a book. Actually, they are both rather appalling, but I wanted to see what some other people are reading and viewing. I was rather amused to find that an earnest complementarian quoted from Eat, Pray, Love recently to prove that biblical womanhood is written in our hearts. The truth is that I don't eat pasta, I don't like to chant, and being run over would NOT be my preferred way to meet a guy. Sheesh.

ad hoc

Sometimes I really miss the Better Bibles blog and its commenters.

Has Hebrew gender usage influenced English?

Jim Hamilton asks this question in his post, Was Gender Usage in the English Language Shaped by the Old Testament in Hebrew?

I am quite open to considering that biblical usage has affected our language so I am willing to consider this. Jim opens his post with this context,

I’m not presenting a thesis here, just making some observations and posing a question. In the guidelines for a dictionary article I’m in the process of writing, I read this:

In particular, articles should avoid referring to “man” (likewise “mankind,” “men,” “he,” “his” and so on) generically. Language often regarded as patriarchal should be modified to avoid giving wrong impressions.

Jim then discusses the use of the Hebrew word adam in Gen. 1 - 5, where it is used to refer to both men and women, to refer to the human race, and to refer to an individual person. (I have to ask, at this point, if the Hebrew word adam can refer to "a man" as a single male human being? If anyone can offer an example, that would be great.)

Next, he presents some thinking out loud on this topic. He makes some good points.

So let me rehearse some things we know, and then I’ll me ask my question: We know that William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible profoundly shaped the English language. We know that many, many users of the English language—people whose use of it is/was widely imitated by others, authors, poets, and such—were profoundly shaped by the use of the English language in the Bible, not least the stately King James. Knowing these things, here’s my question:

Was the generic use of the masculine (man, he, him, etc.) urged against in the quote above something that entered the English language because man is spoken of this way in the Hebrew of Genesis 1–2?

And having asked my question, I have another observation. Earle Ellis once explained that he quit the NRSV translation team once he realized that the translation was being driven by an egalitarian agenda. He noted that more literal translation philosophy results in the thought patterns and language uses employed in the Bible shaping the language of the target-culture, whereas more dynamic equivalent translations risk the target culture setting undue boundaries around the renderings of Bible translators.[1]

How shall a man respond to these things? He can be shaped by his culture, or he can speak and write the way the biblical authors did. If it was good enough for them . . .

Regarding the influence of Tyndale's translation, I would agree that it has had enormous influence, but I have also found that in certain cases, it has not had the influence that some people attribute to it. For example, an editor of the ESV told me that "propitiation" was in the Tyndale translation. However, it is fairly common knowledge that Tyndale created the word "atonement" to translate those Greek words that are normally translated as "propitiation" in the King James Bible. The use of the word "propitiation" was wrongly attributed to Tyndale's translation.

So, I am curious to see how Tyndale translated the Hebrew word adam. Usually, it is translated as "man" or "Adam." However, in Numbers 31 adam is translated as "women" because it refers to a group of all females. In the King James Version and subsequent Bibles, adam is translated as "persons" in Numbers 31.

Just this brief discussion provides some data. I will summarize as much relevant information as I can from this and other language resources.

The Hebrew word adam can be translated into English as

- a man
- Adam
- a human life
- persons
- women

I assume that it can also refer to a group of men, but I cannot come up with a reference for this.

The English word "man" can translate the following Hebrew words,

- adam
- enosh
- geber
- ish

So, right away, one can see that there is enormous difficulty in mapping Hebrew into English.

I believe the following is also useful information. In Hebrew, Greek, Latin and German, there were different words for "man" referring to human beings, and "man," a male/citizen. I personally think that we are better off in modern English with both "human being" and "man.."

Hebrew - adam/ish, geber
Greek - anthropos/aner
Latin - homo/vir
German - Mensch/Mann

Finally, I personally would go first to German and Middle English to find out the precedent of the word "man" in Tyndale's translation. In Luther's translation, of course, adam is translated by the word Mensch. I know that it might seem that the English word "man" is closest to the German word Mann, a male. However, that is not the case. In German, the word for "someone" is quite simply man, a person, a human being, a somebody, an indefinite pronoun referring to a person.

And in Middle English, of course, there is man, also "someone," an indefinite pronoun, as in German. For a male person, there is the word wer/were. And that is how we know that a werewolf is a male human being who transforms into a wolf at night.

If God had wanted to call the human race after male human beings, he would have needed to use a word designating maleness in Hebrew, and this might have been translated as were by Tyndale in an effort to be specific. We might have retained the word were in English, if the attribute of maleness had been considered important to the early translators. The human race might have been called were, which is just a little bit better than being called has been.

Somehow, I am in favour of asking the kind of questions that Jim Hamilton asks, but I find the research does not lead to simple answers. Or does it? Am I a man? Yes, I am a "somebody." Am I a woman? Yes, a stereotypic woman, in fact. Am I a were or a has been? No, but I will be some day, in the manner of all human beings.

Update: This is my response to Denny Burk's response to Jim Hamilton's discussion. I don't know whether Jim will publish my comments but this is what I posted on his blog.

Next, I would like to respond to these points of Denny Burk,

Usually, a linguistic justification goes something like this. “We can’t use generic masculines because language has changed, and we don’t want to confuse readers. Modern readers are likely to mistake generic “he” as a signifying only males. Therefore, we cannot use it.”

This justification at least has the merit of being linguistic, though I think it is profoundly wrong.

My research indicates to me that the following men mistook the generic "he" pronoun in 1 Tim. 5:8 for a reference to males only - Dennis Rainey, Russell Moore, Robert Sagers, Stuart Scott, John McArthur and Owen Strachan. It appears not only readers of the Bible are confused but also expounders of the Bible are confused.

I think feminists were right to argue that patriarchy is embedded in language (though I think they were wrong to attempt an artificial expunging of the usage). Masculine terms are routinely used in a generic sense in scores of languages, and I think the usage probably stems from a patriarchal impulse that originally informed the language. It’s ish then a derivative ishah. It’s man then a derivative womanor (womb-man).

To be parallel to Hebrew, we would need to see adam and adama as a parallel to "man" and "woman". However, adam and adama, are parallel to "human" and "humus", as Robert Alter translates them, in order to perserve the literalness of the Hebrew. Alter is commited to translating literally in order to reveal the meaning and the form of Hebrew, its poetry and rhythm.

I wouldn’t press any deep anthropological points as if men are therefore the “default” sex. But I do think that the name and its derivative reflects a patriarchal sense. That adam would stand for both man and woman is not surprising in this kind of a linguistic world. But it’s not just Hebrew. The phenomenon occurs in numerous languages.

Hebrew has four words which English translates as "man" and Greek, German and Latin have two words. English is much better able to indicate the Hebrew pattern if we use "human being" for adam, and "man" for ish. It is not a perfect match, but closer than simply using "man" for four distinct Hebrew words.

Jana Chapman Gates on Complementarianism

Gates has written an article for Christianity Today on complementarianism - Woman as Folly. Denny Burk has written it off as caricature. I thought it was relatively mild.

However, it is interesting that Denny Burk jumped to the conclusion that Gates reported that the teaching she was exposed to said that women were more prone to sin. Here is what Gates wrote,

The speaker on the DVD said these verses showed that women should appreciate the desire of men to analyze and provide counsel. But I had a hard time moving beyond the underlying premise, at least as I heard it: Women are foolish.

But Burk misreads her article and writes,

Gates’s article is interesting, but it is ultimately not that helpful. Mainstream complementarians are not making the case that women are more prone to sin than men.

And that is not what Gates said. She said that mainstream complementarians are teaching that women are not as able to analyze as men. Here is Tom Schreiner on male and female differences. I think his views here are fairly mainstream.

because of the different inclinations present in Adam and Eve. Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity.

Complementarians are saying that men are more analytic than women. Complementarians also believe that men have the right to make decisions for women. Two plus two .... as they say. I would suggest that Denny analyze Gates' article a little more carefully.

Thomas Schreiner, “An interpretation of 1 Timothy 2: 9-15: A dialogue with scholarship” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2: 9-15 Eds. Andreas Kostenberger, Thomas R Schreiner and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker Book Houser, 1995) 145-6.

The Bible and its Traditions

Jim West has blogged about a new set of reference works called La Bible et ses Traditions. I noticed that Jim passed on a list of resources. Since I have many additional resources, I felt that perhaps I should list them here.

Studylight
Greek New Testament
Look Higher (200 Bible translations)
The Greek Text of the Orthodox Church
Septuagint
NETS
German Bible Portal
French Bible Portal (godieu)
Hebrew-English Bible
Hebrew with Rashi
Calvin's Latin commentaries and translation
Erasmus Center for Early Modern Studies
Peshitta
Gothic Bible
Geneva Bible
Julia Smith's Bible
Hekman Library

That's a start. This does not include lexicons, etc. I'll see what I can do.

Douay-Rheims 1610

When researching Bibles on the internet, it is always better to view a facsimile rather than an electronic version. Of course, they are not searchable in the normal way, and resist the student who wants to line something up using software.

Here is 1 Tim. 2:12 in the Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims. This Bible is found in electronic form on many sites.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

But I have found the 1610 version of the Douay-Rheims so far only here, where we can read,

But to teach, I permit not unto a woman, nor to have dominion over the man: but to be in silence.

Can authentein mean "to lead in church?"

This is much disputed. Odd, since the Southern Baptist Church and many other churches prohibit women from leadership of a mixed group on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:12.

After a blog discussion with Andreas Köstenberger a few years back, he posted on the topic, 1 Timothy 2:12—Once More.

The discussion is broken into two parts. First, there is the argument from lexical evidence. Regarding this, Köstenberger writes,

At the heart of the book were the two chapters devoted to lexical and semantic analysis. In the former, the likelihood was suggested that “exercise authority” (Grk. authentein) carries a neutral or positive connotation, but owing to the scarcity of the term in ancient literature (the only NT occurrence is 1 Tim. 2:12; found only twice preceding the NT in extrabiblical literature) no firm conclusions could be reached on the basis of lexical study alone.

Note that Köstenberger makes no assertion that there is any evidence for a "positive" connotation. He only says that "the liklihood was suggested." He does not attach his endorsement to this notion. I suggest that he knows there is none.

He then suggests that we cannot come to a firm conclusion on the basis of lexical data alone. However, here is an occurence of the word in the second century AD,

3 cent. AD) Hippolytus (d. AD 235) On the End of the World. De consummatione mundi, in Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schrften, ed. H. Achelis in De griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 1.2 (Leipzig: Himrichs, 1897), 239-309.

“Therefore, everyone will walk according to his won desire, and the children will lay hands upon their parents, a wife will hand over her own husband to death and a man his own wife to judgment as deserving to render account. Inhuman masters will authentein their servants and servants shall put on an unruly disposition toward their masters.”

I am omitting a couple of other occurences because they are found in reconstructed fragments, but neither of them have a positive connotation. There are many other occurences of cognates of the word authentein and some of these are very negative.

Köstenberger then proceeds to discuss the grammatical arguments for why the word authentein should be considered to have a positive connotation. He indicates that other scholars agree that authentein and didaskein should have the same force. I agree, and believe that authentein and didaskein are both related to a negative activity in this case. Sometimes teaching is negative - it is unhelpful or false. This use of didaskein occurs in Titus 1,

they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.

And, in fact, Köstenberger recognizes that Marshal comes to this conclusion.

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.

But Köstenberger continues,

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.

Köstenberger does not support his statement that "this ... is hardly the case" and he ignores the fact that didaskein does occur with a negative connotation in Titus 1:11.

In conclusion, only one interpretation fits the facts - that of Marshall. Authentein is most likely a word with a negative connotation, and in this verse didaskein refers to some innapropriate teaching which women were involved in. It may very well be that the author of this epistle meant that women should not teach in a mixed group. I really cannot tell from this verse.

One thing is very clear to me. There is no evidence, lexical, semantic, grammatical or otherwise, which supports the notion that authentein could mean "pastoral leadership."

Bible scholar final showdown

I am very happy to link to this post in the Bible Scholar Showdown

Fee and Witherington are prolific writers of commentaries. Wright has one major commentary on Romans as well as his “For Everyone” series. All three are New Testament scholars who have lead their respective fields. Fee is well known for his Pauline studies. Witherington for his Socio-Rhetoric studies and Wright for his Third Quest and historical Jesus work. Whatever the result there will be a book give away so spread the word and lets see who wins the final showdown!

I honestly do believe, and I say this sincerely, that egalitarians are in a position to be excellent scholars of the Bible. Egalitarians cross the spectrum, some finding egalitarian principles in the Bible, and some not so much. Egalitarians can look at both possibilities, or come down somewhere in between, as I do.

In any case, I am proud to say that all three of these theologians have been formative for me.

A shocking example of proto-feminism!

Or one could also ask "Is it possible to preach the gospel in German?" Many pastors have told me that the gospel cannot be properly preached using a Bible which does not have the phrase "adoption of sons."

But of course, Luther's Bible does not have any such thing. In fact, there are very few sons at all in Luther's Bible. I have long wondered how such a Bible could be used to bring about salvation. In fact, I believe the entire Reformation should be reexamined on the basis of Luther's translation of Gal. 4:4-7

Da aber die Zeit erfüllet ward, sandte Gott seinen Sohn, geboren von einem Weibe und unter das Gesetz getan,

⁵auf daß er die, so unter dem Gesetz waren, erlöste, daß wir die Kindschaft (being a child) empfingen.

⁶Weil ihr denn Kinder seid, hat Gott gesandt den Geist seines Sohnes in eure Herzen, der schreit: Abba, lieber Vater!

⁷Also ist nun hier kein Knecht mehr, sondern eitel Kinder; sind's aber Kinder, so sind's auch Erben Gottes durch Christum.

(But when the time was fulfilled, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, ⁵to redeem those under law, that we might receive being a child. ⁶Because you are children, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, dear Father." ⁷So here is now no longer a slave, but a child; and since a child, so also an heir of God through Christ.)

Of course, I am still waiting for the statement against the Luther Bibel. But Calvin was no better. Nor Coverdale.

The image is from A compleat English dictionary: oder, Vollständiges englisch-deutsches Wörterbuch 1783.

What does wifely submission look like?

We understand that CBMW teaches that men may have to "reestablish rulership" over their wife, and "exert leadership." This is a proactive attempt to ensure that the wife does submit. The language for leadership of the wife, is similar to that of the children, and the question may be asked by the husband "how do I enforce subordination?" The husband may resort to punitive measures.

But what does CBMW say that submission of the wife looks like? Here is Bruce Ware again, cited by Jeff Robinson on the Gender Blog,

"The level of Jesus' submission to the Father, then, is complete, comprehensive, all-inclusive an absolute. There are no exceptions to his submission and obedience, for he never once sins at any point throughout all his life."

David Kotter then explains the relevance this has to a wife,

The wife is called to imitate the submission of Jesus Christ to the Father. Jesus Christ is so great that both a man and woman together are needed to display his glorious leadership and servanthood.

Imagine if something of that nature, as seen in the first quote, were enforced on a wife. We can only imagine that in the dark world of perversion, a human being might impose this on another human being in this way. But it would be psychotic, not glorious.

However, CBMW constantly insists that this submission must be joyful, voluntary and fully endorsed by the wife. She must smile while having her brains scooped out. This incredibly twisted and deeply troubling abuse is going on under the name of Christianity.

When will Christians stand up and repudiate this infringement on the humanity of women? I am deeply concerned that an organization is allowed to continue counselling people to impose psychological damage on women with impunity.

I know that some complementarians say that total mental and physical control of a wife by a husband would be "sick" and yes it is sick. What are they doing to eradicate this teaching?

Spousal abuse: CBMW blames the wife

Bruce Ware is the author of "Summaries of the Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions on the Role of Women in the Home and in Christian Ministry"

Most complementarians hold, then, that sin produced a disruption in God's order of male headship and female submission, in which a) the woman would be inclined now to usurp the man's rightful place of authority over her, and man may be required, in response, to reestablish his God-given rulership over the woman, and b) the man would be inclined to misuse his rights of rulership, either by sinful abdication of his God-given authority, acquiescing to the woman's desire to rule over him (and so fail to lead as he should), or by abusing his rights to rule through harsh, cruel and exploitative domination of the woman.

Please read this more than once. A man may be required to establish rulership over his wife, and he may abuse this right. But why does he do this? According to this passage, it is in response to his wife's inclination "to usurp the man's rightful place of authority over her. This is what "most" complementarians hold, according to CBMW. The CBMW places the blame for spousal abuse on the wife. This directly impedes a woman's ability to escape and receive appropriate help for the danger she is in.

This has been up on the CBMW website for several years. Read about the Demand for an Apology from CBMW on the Associated Baptist Press.

Asking for an apology from CBMW

I would like to pass on an email which I received just now. Please link to it if you possibly can. I am happy to provide evidence that each of these concerns regarding CBMW is valid. Let me add that I have many more concerns than those listed here.

Dr. Randy Stinson, President
Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood
2825 Lexington Road, Box 926
Louisville, KY 40280

And

Dr. J Ligon Duncan III
Chairman of the Board of the CBMBW
First Presbyterian Church
1390 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39202

The Freedom for Christian Women Coalition met on July 24, 2010, in Orlando, Florida, and agreed and affirmed this Demand for an Apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood because of the concerns as listed in the following pages.

For the sake of all Christians, men and women, we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, make a public apology for the misuse of Holy Scripture as it relates to women, and cease to publish or promote The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.
Sincerely,



Freedom for Christian Women Coalition

DEMAND FOR AN APOLOGY FROM THE
COUNCIL ON BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD

At a time in our church history that the main focus should be on winning lost souls and spreading the gospel to a hurting world, we fear for the future because the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood has placed a greater priority on women’s submissive role rather than on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It is with that thought in mind that we make these statements.

1. We are concerned that men are being taught that they are god-like in their relationship to women within the church and home. As the mothers, wives, and daughters of these men, it is our concern that this doctrine is setting them up for failure as Christian fathers, husbands and sons;

2. we are concerned about the sin that evangelical church leaders commit when they deny the love of Christ fully to women simply because they were born female;

3. we are concerned about the damage this causes to families when husbands and fathers are told that they have Headship over their wives and daughters;

4. we are concerned about wife abuse, girlfriend abuse, and abuse to female children that takes place in many homes where evangelical men are taught that they have earthly and spiritual authority over women;

5. we are concerned that the children who attend churches that subscribe to the principles of The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood will grow up not knowing the full redemptive power of the blood of Jesus for both men and women;

6. we are concerned for the mental and emotional development of girls and boys who attend churches that teach males have superiority over females;

7. we are concerned that men who are taught that they have Male Headship over a home and church do not feel that they are not accountable for abusive attitudes and actions towards women;

8. we are concerned about the mistranslation of the scriptures by complementarian translation committees and by the false teachings propagated by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;

9. we are concerned that pastors who teach and preach male domination/female subordination cannot relate in a loving, Christ-like manner to female members of their congregations because they have already judged them and found them lacking;

10. we are concerned that the issue of wifely submission, promoted so heavily by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is more about power and control than about love or obeying the Word of God.

It is because of these concerns that:

1. We demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood acknowledge the harm that has been done to the church body by The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, confess it as sin, and denounce it;

2. we demand that denominational leaders and all churches and seminaries which have adopted The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood do the same;

3. we demand a public apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, and from all heads of seminaries and Bible colleges that have adopted The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, for the inestimable damage this statement has done to all Christians whose lives have been influenced by it;

4. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood begin to promote the Biblical design of functional equality for all Christians, both men and women;

5. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood begin to speak out against pastors who continue to demean women and oppress Christians by the use of The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;

6. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood chastise pastors who claim that abuse of women is acceptable and justified because the wife is not submitting to the husband;

7. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood make known to every boy and every girl who attend an evangelical church, that God is their head, and that authority over another human being can come only from God;

8. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood teach men that they share equally in the burden of society’s ills, and that all that is wrong with society today cannot be blamed on women;

9. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood do everything in their power to teach seminarians to show the love of Christ to both men and women;

10. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood teach pastors to be loving towards those Christian men and women who disagree with The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;

11. and, finally, for the sake of all Christians, men and women, we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, make a public apology for the misuse of Holy Scripture as it relates to women, and cease to publish or promote The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.

Shirley Taylor, bWe Baptist Women for Equality presented at the
Seneca Falls 2 Evangelical Women’s Rights Convention July 24, 2010 in Orlando, Florida

AFFIRMED BY THE FREEDOM FOR CHRISTIAN WOMEN COALITION AT THE SENECA FALLS 2 EVANGELICAL WOMENS RIGHTS CONVENTION
JULY 24, 2010 IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA

Grudem's thoughts on male language

Here are a few thoughts on the masculine language of the ESV from its editor Wayne Grudem, who wrote The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy.

On one side stands feminism and egalitarianism, promoting its own way of salvation and distorting the truth, insisting that there should be no gender-based differences between status, prominence, or authority of one person and another. On the other side stands the teaching of the Bible that God affirms both the honor of all human beings and the God-ordained differences among them, including differences in men’s and women’s roles in marriage. page 144

“He” includes both men and women, but does so using a male example as a pictorial starting point. In a subtle way, this use brings along with it an unequal prominence to men and women page 145

Feminism replaces biblical honor with a misguided attempt to wipe out the differences in people with respect to prominence, order, leadership, and representation. page 147

Wayne Grudem could not be clearer if he tried. The difference between men and women is that women are not equal with men in status, prominence, authority, order, leadership and representation. It is the last item which is his concern in this book. Dr. Grudem believes that the use of the generic "he" and many other male terms, is part of the inspired word of God. He recognizes that the prominence given to men and women in the language of the ESV is unequal and he believes that this is the way it should be.

In fact, the ESV adds many male pronouns that are not in the Greek original. The ESV uses many male terms that were not used in the Bibles of the Reformation. The masculinization of the scriptures started in the 19th century and is taken to many lengths today.

Adoption of children: the NRSV and the ESV

TC has responded to my question as to why he has chosen the ESV rather than the NRSV as his standard Bible translation in this post, A few thoughts on why I chose the ESV over the NRSV. TC offers three main points, first mentioning that the ESV was a winner but not my much in Paul's epistles - no details here.

Second, he provides the example of "fornication" rather than "sexual immorality" for porneia. While I agree with TC on this point, I was also amused because I remember being lectured on how the TNIV was a terrible translation based on the fact that "fornication" had been replaced by "sexual immorality!" I am not able to take this as a serious substantive argument - but I do agree with TC on this point.

His third point is that N. T. Wright found that some of the gender decisions are not as "felicitious as they might be." I am unable to interact with this, simply because there is no indication that N. T. Wright was comparing the NRSV with the ESV when he made this comment. It is a nice quote but fundamentally irrelevant.

Now for the specifics. In spite of a rather amorphous beginning to his post, TC was able to corral a couple of words which he suggests benefit from better gender decisions in the ESV than in the NRSV. This is very helpful for me, because I am always asking myself why the NRSV has not become a standard Bible accross the English-speaking church.

The two terms which TC holds up as difficulties are the word huiothesia etymologically "placement as a son," and adelphos, etymologically "uterine sibling," of "from the same womb." You may find this kind of detail tedious and pedantic, but I hope to demonstrate to TC that those who react as he does to what "seems an overly-zealous move to avoid gender-specific language" in the NRSV, have not "dug deeply" and, in fact, have not even scratched the surface of language. (May she forgive me - language that is.)

TC goes into more detail in an earlier post on adoption of sons, concluding,

So I say to my brothers and sisters who are egalitarians, Don’t be enraged at “adoption of sons” or “sons” in English Bible translations like the ESV and HCSB. Instead, embrace the terms “adoption of sons” and “sons,” because of their theological and christological import.

As a footnote, I hear the objection, “Well, “adoption of sons” is too gender specific, because it excludes women (sisters in Christ).” The solution is not to opt for “adoption of children.”

Rather, we need to teach our people how to read their Bibles—how to dig down deep, until the texts yield their meanings, ala Luther, and to enjoy the discovery, not of our world, but of the biblical world.

But in an effort to make the truth clear, some of our newer English Bible translations have found themselves dumbing down the text too much.

I will argue that "children" is a better term in every way, providing continuity with the Hebrew bible, concordance with Paul's other writing and is the foundation of the Reformation.

First, in the Hebrew bible, the phrase בְנֵי beni can be literally translated as "sons of" and some of the time, it does refer to male offspring only. However, when it is used with the name "Israel, " בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל it is usually translated as "the people of Israel" in the ESV. Often we also read the phrase עַמִּי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל "my people, the children of Israel." It is recognized that the expression "children of Israel" occurs in apposition to "my people" and refers to the same group of people.

The pattern then for the ESV is that when the word בְנֵי beni refers to males only, it is translated as "sons;" and when it refers to a people, it is translated as "people" except for those times where "people" already occurs in the verse. In that case, to provide variation, the phrase "children of Israel" is used. This is the pattern then for the Old Testament of the ESV. If the word "sons" is used, then it means "males only."

The expression "sons of God" does occur in the Old Testament a couple of times, in Gen. 6 and in Job. In Gen. 6 this phrase appears to mean something like "males with malevolent super powers and a user attitude toward women." In Job it is a bit more difficult to determine whether the "sons of God" are a malevolent or not. In summary, in the Old Testament of the ESV, the phrase "sons of" refers to males, and so this is consistent with the preface of the ESV.

In Stephen's sermon in Acts 7, teh ESV translates his reference to the people of Israel as the "children of Israel" and the pattern found in the Old Testament is continued. The people whom God has chosen are referred to as the "children of Israel. "

Paul takes up the language of "children" in Romans 9, where he uses the phrase "children of Abraham" and "children of God" in Greek τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ. Paul is not concerned with maintaining the use of a word with male semantic content, or male form. The word τέκνα is neuter.

Later in this same chapter, Paul does write, τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ, and this is translated in the ESV as "sons of Israel," with a note that this is the same term as "children of Israel." Is maleness in view here? There is no indication in the references to σπέρμα, the "offspring" or the τέκνα, the "children" of the υἱοί the "sons" that maleness enters into it. In fact, Paul cites the phrase "my people."

For Paul, the phrase which the ESV translates as the "sons of Israel" refers to the "children of Israel" and those people whom God calls "my people.' The only problem with the ESV is that suddenly and for the first time, breaking continuity, it presents this term in English as "the sons of Israel" and continues with "the sons of "God." Clearly, for Paul, a masculine term in not necessary, or he would not be so comfortable with using alternate terms. He appears to use the phrase υἱοί Ἀβραάμ to indicate a formal equivalent with the Hebrew. However, the underlying Hebrew phrase is always translated into English as "children of Abraham."

The ESV has made an odd decision here to masculinize the phrases in their translation. There may be an assumption on the part of many readers that "sons of God" was found in earlier Bibles. I do believe that an equivalent may be found in the Vulgate. However, the Reformation Bibles, and the King James Bible were comfortable with using "the children of God" in these passages.

And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Romans 8:26. KJV

TC is especially concerned about the phrase "adoption of sons." I will briefly mention that the Luther Bible, Calvin's Latin translation, and the French Bible de Geneve, and the Bishop's Bible, all had the phrase either "adoption" or "adoption of children." Regardless of the technical use of the word in Greek, there is no indication that Paul has maleness in mind, since he so frequently uses gender inclusive terms in his discussion. Evidently Luther, Calvin and important English translators did not sense that maleness was in view in these passages. The Reformation did not suffer for it.

(Of course, TC may wish to go back in time and instruct Paul, Luther and Calvin on how to really read the Bible. That is another option.)

In short, for the Hebrew Bible, for Paul, and for the Bibles of the Reformation, the "people of Israel" and the "people of God" were called by a term which has been considered gender inclusive most of the time. The masculinization of the scripture in English began in the late 19th century, when hyper literal Bibles came into vogue, and the REV and the RSV introduced "sons of God." There is no reason to continue this trend, unless one considers the 19th century sacred n some way, but we should seek an historic response, a response based on the intent of Paul and the foundation of the great Bibles of the Reformation. We should use gender inclusive language because this is in keeping with the heritage God has given us.

I hope to continue this discussion with a further post on the translation of adelphos.

Who is a person under the Hebrew law?

Here is something that I am puzzling over. In the preface to the NRSV, the translators are explicit in saying that the term in English must indicate to whom the word is referring. i.e. does the word used in Hebrew or Greek refer to only men, or to all human beings.

Typically, one might say that ish in Hebrew refers to a male, head of a house. But I am not at all sure about that. Here is the passage which puzzles me. It is clear that translators of different Bible versions are not too sure either. In the NRSV, verse 14 has "a man" but in verse 18, it says "anyone."

10 No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. No bound or hired servant of the priest shall eat of the sacred donations; ¹¹but if a priest acquires anyone by purchase, the person may eat of them; and those that are born in his house may eat of his food. ¹²If a priest’s daughter marries a layman, she shall not eat of the offering of the sacred donations; ¹³but if a priest’s daughter is widowed or divorced, without offspring, and returns to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s food. No lay person shall eat of it. ¹⁴If a man וְאִישׁ eats of the sacred donation unintentionally, he shall add one-fifth of its value to it, and give the sacred donation to the priest. ¹⁵No one shall profane the sacred donations of the people of Israel, which they offer to the Lord, ¹⁶causing them to bear guilt requiring a guilt-offering, by eating their sacred donations: for I am the Lord; I sanctify them.

17 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: ¹⁸Speak to Aaron and his sons and all the people of Israel and say to them: When anyone אִישׁ אִישׁ of the house of Israel or of the aliens residing in Israel presents an offering, whether in payment of a vow or as a freewill-offering that is offered to the Lord as a burnt-offering, ¹⁹to be acceptable in your behalf it shall be a male without blemish, of the cattle or the sheep or the goats. ²⁰You shall not offer anything that has a blemish, for it will not be acceptable in your behalf.

However, in the ESV and the TNIV, verse 14 and verse 18 both have "anyone." Ish in the Hebrew may refer to any "participant", or any "man." The translators disagree on this. This appears to me to be a fundamental problem. We do not know if a woman is a person before the law.

This is the type of question that David Stein writes about here and in comments on this post. I hope that Joel Hoffman will also weigh in with comments. I would appreciate any insight into who ish is in the Hebrew law.