Still Waiting

I took some time earlier this year to pay a visit to Dr. Kostenberger’s blog, titled “Biblical Foundations,” to see what he wrote on his personal blog. As I expected, he had some posts set up on the issue of women in ministry. Actually, he has about 10 discussions devoted to gender issues.

In any case, what struck me was a response provided by a visitor to the blog (named Michelle). This is what she wrote:

"Dr. Kostenberger,
I’ve read your book titled “Women in the Church” (2005 edition), as well as Grudem’s book “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth” (2004) and am grateful to you and other scholars who pour over this research everyday.
Having had three semesters of Koine Greek myself as an MDiv student, it is my observation that, while the Greek word “authentein” is an important word in determining the meaning and application of this passage, isn’t context key to any passage? I was always taught within my hermeneutics passage that “a text means what it means in its context.” Greek study is important to any passage, but first, in order to read a passage, we have to read it in its context.
It seems to be the view of Thomas Schreiner, Wayne Grudem, and other scholars that the reason why Paul prohibits women from the teaching position or any other “authoritative” position (if that’s how you interpret it) is because Paul appeals to the creation order. However, not only does Paul argue a creation order, but also the deception of the woman (”the woman was deceived”). Is it possible that Paul could be reaffirming the Law (since, in 1 Timothy 1, there are some “desiring to be teachers of the law,” 1 Tim. 1:7 who entertain “myths and endless genealogies”, 1 Tim. 1:4)?

It has been the result of my study of this text (and I’ve read books from both sides of the argument), that, if Paul is reaffirming the Law, then the word “authentein” will be interpreted according to Paul’s reference to Genesis. Paul here argues Adam’s creation first, then Eve’s deception. But both of these concepts are addressed in Genesis already. Paul is not quoting a passage from Genesis, but referencing it.

As a result, “authentein” will have something to do with Paul’s maintenance of Adam being created first and his affirmation that Eve was the one who was deceived. In your book, it is stated that Eve’s mistake was by responding to the serpent. But does God punish Eve for responding to the serpent, or for her sin (read Genesis 3:16)? Eve is punished for her sin, not because she “took authority” from her husband by responding to the serpent. Finally, your book also states that the serpent violated the principle of male leadership when he went to Eve– but the serpent isn’t punished for this, either in Genesis 3. He is punished for deceiving Eve.

In light of reading Genesis for what it is, there seems to be no principle of male headship violated by Eve. In the context of Ephesus, however, it seems that the women are claiming that Eve came before Adam– otherwise, why would Paul write “the woman” was deceived, and not “Eve was deceived”?

Last but not least, what do we do with the references of “authentein” in the Apocryphal books such as Wisdom of Solomon 12:6 and 3 Maccabees 2:29? In both cases, the word refers to either “murdering with one’s own hand” or “former status”. You rule out the possibility in your book of the word “authentein” being translated as “to be primarily responsible for,” but, if you place this definition within the context of Genesis (the passage Paul references in his response in 1 Tim. 2), you will see that Adam is primarily responsible for the Fall, as God states to him, “cursed is the ground becauase of you…” (Gen. 3:17, ESV). It seems then, that, Paul is telling women not to teach that the woman is the origin (or lord) of man, since “Adam was first formed, then Eve…” Adam was responsible for creation’s fall.

I think the evangelical community has also missed the earlier portions of 1 Timothy 2. Verse 5 states, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” It is here and only here in the canon of Scripture that Christ is referenced as “the man, Christ Jesus.” This in itself is telling as to what the problem at Ephesus is here. If Paul is having to state “the man, Christ Jesus” and argue that “the woman” was deceived, then surely, endless genealogies are responsible for this false teaching.

I think context, grounded with the story in Genesis, gives us the definition of this Greek word. The word “authentein” refers to the meaning “to author” a man, or “to be the origin” of man.

Context will help us determine what this word means in the future. But nowhere in chapter 2 is there a reference to church leadership– that comes in chapter 3. Paul is concerned with correct doctrine here in chapter 2. The woman was not to be the lord over man (Adam, and men, were appointed “lord” over the home in Genesis 3)."

What I find most fascinating about this post (although long) is that Michelle made some great points. She clearly seems to know her Greek, is preparing to receive a Master of Divinity Degree, and has had some significant time in Greek studies. She poses some good questions, and even seems to have done some work in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) with the references to 2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon. However, it’s been a little over two months since Michelle posted this response, and she has yet to hear from the distinguished Dr. Kostenberger.

What can be said about such an absence? Dr. Kostenberger regularly checks his site, and, if you visit his blog, you’ll notice that he often responds to requests, questions, comments, etc. quite regularly. With the case of Michelle, however, Dr. Kostenberger fails to address the concerns over the text that she has. Maybe he doesn’t think his stance is as strong as hers.

This is a good case in point of what often happens in the Complementarian/Egalitarian debate. Whenever someone responds to the Complementarian blogs and sites, they receive little response (unless they are as famous as Ben Witherington). If they aren’t, however, Kostenberger has no time for them.

So, until Michelle hears from the distinguished Andreas Kostenberger, she’ll just keep waiting…and so will we.

Does the Bible Teach THIS About Headship?

I was reading today a blog post from Andreas Kostenberger’s blog titled “Biblical Foundations.”(http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=51)
His blog post titled “What Does the Bible Teach About Headship?” was supposed to show the male leadership in the home and church is not a traditional thought, but one found in the Word of God.

However, there are problems with his argument. First, regarding his five reasons for the male’s headship in the home and church, Kostenberger lists two questionable factors: the first is that of “God’s holding Adam—not Eve responsible for his and Eve’s sin even though Eve had sinned first.”

But did God do this? Did Eve get off scot-free? No. Let’s go to Genesis 3 to see what really happened:

“He said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree which I commanded you not to eat?’
The man said, ‘The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.’
Then the LORD God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’
The woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate’” (Genesis 3:11-13, ESV).

Notice here that when Adam is questioned about disobeying God, he blames it on Eve; and when God questions Eve, she blames it on the serpent. It would seem then, that the serpent is at fault—but God punishes all three parties:

“The LORD God said to the serpent…To the woman he said…And to Adam he said…” (Genesis 3: 14, 16, 17).

God punishes the serpent, Eve, and Adam. Eve gets punished for her sin APART from Adam. Adam does not get punished for Eve’s sin, but for his own:

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife…cursed is the ground BECAUSE OF YOU…by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground…” (Gen. 3:17-19). Adam is not punished for Eve’s sin; if he was, Eve would never have had pain in childbirth (Gen. 3: 16).

The next reason Kostenberger gives for the male’s headship is “the woman’s designation as the man’s suitable helper.” I looked up the word “helper” in the Septuagint (LXX) and the word for “helper” here is “Boeithos.” This same word is used of the LORD God in Hebrews 13:6 and the scripture reference Paul uses from Psalm 118:6. This word in no way labels the woman as just a “help” meet, but someone who comes to the aid of man. In short, the word “helper” is a reflection of the nature of God—for God comes to the aid of His people, not only in the days of Scripture, but even today.

The next statement that puzzled me involves Romans 5 and its implications for 1 Timothy 2:
“In the New Testament, Paul speaks of Adam’ s representative actions on behalf of all of humanity (his ‘federal headship’) and of Christ’s serving as the head of a new humanity (Rom. 5:12-21). Paul also repeatedly affirms God’s creation first of Adam and then of Eve and ON THIS BASIS MAKES PRONOUNCEMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE MAN’S HEADSHIP (1 Cor. 11:8-9; 1 Tim. 2:13).”

Let’s first approach the last sentence in this previous statement. Kostenberger argues that Adam’s being created first makes the male head in the home; but where do we read that Adam’s time of creation before Eve is what made him the head of the home? In Genesis 2, the Lord God formed a woman from Adam’s rib and officiated over the first wedding in Scripture. Adam names her, but isn’t given lordship over her. When is he given headship? In Genesis 3, when Eve sins:

“Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16b).

The word here for “rule” in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) is “kurieuo,” which means “to be lord over.” Only in Genesis 3 is Adam made lord over his house, which means at that point, he becomes head of the family. While he existed as head over creation in Genesis 1 and 2, he doesn’t become head of the home until Genesis 3, when the Fall occurs.

Now, let’s deal with 1 Corinthians 11:8-9:

“For MAN WAS NOT MADE FROM WOMAN, BUT WOMAN FROM MAN. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”

Kostenberger cites this as the reason that Paul appeals to male headship; however, in this passage, Paul is not appealing to male headship alone, but how male headship over the wife and home impact women exercising their gift of prophecy and their right to pray during public worship. However, this seems to be the argument of the Corinthian congregation instead of Paul. The reason I believe this is because Paul comes to a different conclusion in verses 11 and 12:

“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, SO MAN IS NOW BORN OF WOMAN. And all things are from God.”

Did you read that? Even though the first woman, Eve, was born from man, man is now born from woman, he now comes into the world through a woman giving birth. There is an even plane here in terms of male and female that Paul seems to draw on in verses 11 and 12. Neither man nor woman are INDEPENDENT or without the other, so women wearing head coverings in worship is not a necessity.

If Paul negates male headship here bearing a role in women wearing head coverings (and exercising their gifts during public worship), why would he appeal to creation order in 1Timothy 2 to prevent women from exercising their gifts in the public assembly at Ephesus? Why would Paul contradict himself in two different letters to two different churches? Complementarians who interpret this passage in such a way are the ones who are theologically liberal and fail to hold the hermeneutical principle of Biblical consistency.

Let me add another note to this debate. If the Lord didn’t require women to wear a public sign of their husband’s authority in the church (while they were exercising their gifts), what makes Kostenberger and other complementarians believe that God AUTOMATICALLY gives man the leadership reigns in the church? If man and woman are on equal terms (according to 1 Corinthians 11), then why are they treated UNEQUALLY in 1 Timothy 2?

1 Corinthians 11 is a major passage; but it helps us to understand 1 Timothy 2 in a better light. The passage itself is not referring to the authority of the husband over the wife in the church or the home; instead, it is referring to a false teaching. But I will leave that for another time.