Playing Cards With Mark Driscoll

When I was a teenager, I was introduced to a card game with the uncouth name, "Bullshit." The game is basically about leading (or misleading) the other players to believe that you possess a better hand than you actually do. Once a player has caught on to another player's false claims, they call the bluff by shouting "Bullshit." I loved this game because it created a space in which one did not have to mince words about obvious and purposeful false claims. You simply announced these false claims for what they were.

At times, it seems like sectors of the church engage in a death match competition to prove who is more right, more orthodox, more faithful, more biblical, etc. And often each side will over estimate their own "hand" and underestimate the "hand" of the others. And every now and again, someone will so grossly misrepresent, that the time comes to stand up, lay all the cards on the table, and call the false claims what they are: bullshit. And I am having one those moments with none other than Mark Driscoll because of the following quote from 2008's Church Leadership booklet:

"Without blushing, Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men. While many irate women have disagreed with his assessment through the years, it does appear from this that such women who fail to trust his instruction and follow his teaching are much like their mother Eve and are well-intended but ill-informed. . . Before you get all emotional like a woman in hearing this, please consider the content of the women’s magazines at your local grocery store that encourages liberated women in our day to watch porno with their boyfriends, master oral sex for men who have no intention of marrying them, pay for their own dates in the name of equality, spend an average of three-fourths of their childbearing years having sex but trying not to get pregnant, and abort 1/3 of all babies – and ask yourself if it doesn’t look like the Serpent is still trolling the garden and that the daughters of Eve aren’t gullible in pronouncing progress, liberation, and equality (p. 43). "

Like I said: Pure and unadulterated bullshit.

I usually take little interest in Mark Driscoll, though I've familiarized myself with his work for the sake of being well-rounded. Sometimes, I come across something so ridiculous that I might make it a facebook status, and then move on. I, clearly, am not Mark Driscoll's target audience. I am fiercely egalitarian, fiercely NONreformed, and have found a "home" in emergent circles. So, I don't waste a lot of time being outraged at Driscoll, since I suspect he enjoys the "persecution." But when I came across the quote above I was both irked and intrigued for the following reasons:

1. How blatantly hateful and ignorant it is. (not very surprising, but irking)
2. How poorly it was thought out and argued.
3. And most importantly, how it COULD and SHOULD serve as a wake up call for more reasonable complementarians on how they interpret 1 Tim 2:11-14.

First off, Driscoll's appeal to current women magazines to "prove" women are easier to deceive than men is probably the most dishonest part. Mark Driscoll and his engaged-with-culture-self should know better than anyone that men's magazines are selling just as many lies and just as many men believe them, including the one about "true" masculinity being about tough-guy, violence-prone Western notions of maleness. In fact, current top ten lists place both Playboy and Penthouse as two of the most popular men's magazine, in which women are portrayed as voiceless, brainless eye-candy for men to use for sexual gratification. And then other popular magazines, such as Maxim, Esquire, and GQ teach men their worth and the worth of others depends on good looks, money, fine clothing, current style, and how much stuff one can accumulate. Maxim just featured an article entitled "How to Cheat and Not Get Caught." Now should I uphold the lowest form of male-directed media and apply it to my brothers in Christ working to bring about God's Kingdom--who actively work against such mindsets? Of course not.

So while Driscoll's magazine anecdote is clearly ludicrous, I am more interested in his lead point. That the reason women are declared unfit to lead in the Bible is because they are gullible, easily deceived, and still paying for Eve's sin as clearly expressed by the Lord via the Apostle Paul. And I want to applaud Mark Driscoll for coming clean on this. Because most comps, who I admire for being as compassionate and as generous to women as their theology allows, should find these remarks very troubling indeed. Not only because they are extremely offensive and sexist, but because it is the logical conclusion of this kind of theology. If one wants to read the verses in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 "as is" (without considering the immediate context of the letter, the larger cultural context of the time, and the linguistic controversies that have plagued these verses for centuries), and apply these verses literally and universally, then one must also embrace the reasons for the "command." If one wants to continue to exclude women from teaching or having authority over men because "the Bible says so," then one must also accept the reasons given for WHY they are excluded. Mark Driscoll does exactly this, preaching that women are easily deceived and are still under the shadow of Eve's failing.

Most complementarians teach that the restrictions placed on women are about divinely mandated roles and gender hierarchy serves as a picture of Christ and the Church, and so forth, but never would they (or most of comps anyway) dare vocalize that women are restricted from teaching men or having authority in the church because women's very essence renders them dumber than men and it's a continued punishment because of Eve. And yet, that is the only choice the "as is" approach leaves a reader with.

Driscoll brings to light, though probably unintentionally, the quandary many comps find themselves in: how to keep preaching against women teaching men or having authority in the church without having to teach that women are fundamentally and irreversibly inept for the task compared to men.

My complementarian brothers and sisters, if you want to continue to exclude women from teaching and having authority in the church based on the verses in 1 Timothy, then do as Mark Driscoll does, and actually teach that women in their very essence are dumber than men because they are more susceptible to deception by their very nature and must still be held accountable for Eve's sin.

Because the only bigger bullshit move than actually believing women are inherently gullible and more susceptible to deception than men, is to still continue excluding women from leadership positions based on one part of a scripture while rejecting the reasons given for their exclusion in the very next part of the scripture.

Mandatory Head Coverings?

I have taken quite a long break from blogging. One reason is astounding busyness. The other reason has more to do with feeling reflective as of late: mulling, examining and processing instead of proclaiming and soap-boxing. :) Anyway, I'm back and returning to the subject of head coverings for women and hair length for men.

My last post on head coverings highlighted the varying customs among religions and cultures in the ancient world on the subject. Read here for a refresher.

Now that we know each culture (and subculture for that matter) had varying policies and motives when it came to head coverings, we can see how all these ideas collided in the church, once all kinds of people began converting to Christianity. Paul's letter to the Corinthians reveals quite a number of divisive disputes infecting the church there.

We must remember, as nearly all historical records confirm, that the early church was largely made up of women and slaves. Since most women married in all three cultures, we know that many Christian women were in "mixed" marriages with unbelievers. Since women could be divorced, beaten into submission, or ostracized from their families without legal recourse (especially in a Greek city, like Corinth), it was imperative to protect these women. This is what I believe is driving Paul's passage on head coverings. We find the same sort of concern from Peter who encourages wives to win over their husbands through a loving example, "without a word." To our modern ears, it sounds as if Peter thinks women should be seen and not heard, that they are not to usurp a man's place by vocalizing the gospel to men, even their own husbands. But the reality is that these women's lives were at stake. If they vocalized their faith to their unbelieving husbands, they would likely face abandonment, abuse, public humiliation, destitution, the taking away of their children and even death. Peter and Paul knew full well what the consequences of women preaching the gospel to their unbelieving husbands could bring. Veiling/unveiling could bring equally dire consequences to women, especially if they were married to unbelievers.

The fact of the precarious fate of women in the ancient world alone should signal to modern readers to proceed with caution before handing out head coverings for women and measuring the length of hair on men.

But as I pointed out before, Paul's arguments go BEYOND cultural factors, but that doesn't mean culture had nothing to do with it. So do not think I am dismissing this passage based on culture alone. I am just asking that readers admit that women of faith found themselves in a dangerous and complicated time that we spoiled American Christians can barely comprehend.

The next post will focus on the abundance of textual problems in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16: mainly translation options and and the inconsistent interpretations of this passage that are out of line with other scriptures.

Some History On Head Coverings

"The veil was a sign of guilt and shame worn by the Jew in worship to signify condemnation before the law. But what has the Christian to do with such a sign when professing that, 'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,' and 'There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,' (Romans 8:1). For such believers to wear a sign of condemnation is to nullify the worth of the atonement, and so dishonor Christ who released them from the condemnation of the law."--Katharine Bushnell

Before we can delve into the actual text of 1 Corinthians 11: 3-16, we must set the stage to get a feel for the context and unique situation Paul was dealing with when he composed his instructions to the Corinthian Church.

Corinth was a Greek City situated on the peninsula of Southern Greece and was part of the Roman Empire during the time Corinthians was written. Before 146 B.C., Corinth was known for its military might, commercial capabilities, and for its excessive worship of the love goddess, Aphrodite. The city erected a temple dedicated to her, staffed with up to a thousand temple-slaves and courtesans. Prostitution became so ubiquitous in Corinth that the phrase "to corinthianize" became slang for "practicing fornication." This went on until the Romans destroyed the city in 146 B.C. and its citizens were dragged off into slavery. In 44 B.C., the city was refounded by Julius Caesar and became a Roman colony. It regained prominence by 27 B.C., becoming the capital of of the Roman province, Achaia. This resurrection set the stage for Corinth to become a cultural melting-pot, where Roman, Greek, and Jewish cultures found themselves coexisting, conflicting, overlapping and sometimes, colliding.

Corinth became the wealthiest city in Greece during the first century A.D., with a possible population of 600,000. The city returned to its roots and reestablished the temple of Aphrodite during this time. The gods of Apollo, Asclepius, Poseidon, Hermes, Artermis, Zues, Dionysus Heracles and even Egyptian deities also found their way into Corinthian culture during this period.

In light of the myriad of religions and gods present in Corinth, it is not surprising to find a myriad of customs and practices that varied from time to time, place to place, and sect to sect. Not only were the customs themselves varied, but separate groups with shared customs still possessed different reasons for engaging in those customs. For instance, Jewish men covered their heads during worship to symbolize their guilt under the law, while certain Greek men covered their heads in accordance with the mystery cults that taught followers to cover their heads while engaging in religious sexual rites and ceremonies to preserve their anonymity. So certain Jews and certain Greeks both covered their heads, but for very different reasons.

We must remember that neither Greek nor Roman culture were monolithic cultures. Sub-cultures and diverse sects formed within each culture and had both over-lapping and conflicting customs. Most people think the Greek and Roman cultures were nearly interchangeable because the scripture lumps its people together as "gentiles", but each culture was VERY different and clashed over a number of religious, philosophical and legal matters.

Although Jewish culture is considered to be a monolithic culture for the most part, we must remember that there were still different offshoots and interpretations of Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc.), who also argued over all sorts of customs.

We know that within specific Greek cults, women DID NOT always cover their heads during religious ceremonies. But whether these cults' uncovered women characterizes Greek culture as a whole cannot be determined. There is some evidence that only Greek married women wore head coverings (as an external symbol of marriage, sort of like our modern-day wedding ring) and single women went about with uncovered heads so they could more easily find a husband. Roman culture was much more consistent, with the vast majority of its people wearing head coverings (both men and women) during religious ceremonies, but not always in everyday public life. The type of head coverings were also diverse: colorful scarves, helmets, headbands, heavy woolen cloths, coverings that went down to the ground, partial ones that only hid the back of the head and hair, and so forth. But there is no doubt that head coverings were associated with piety in Roman culture.

Jewish men wore (and still do) head coverings, called talliths, as a symbol of guilt and shame before God. It was their way of showing that they were guilty under the law and their sin separated them from God. To this very day, the practice still stands in Jewish worship. Jewish women consistently covered their heads during this time, but throughout Jewish history there is evidence of women freely appearing without head coverings. But during this time, it would seem the majority of Jewish women absolutely kept their heads covered in worship services, in public, and even in their own homes, lest they face dire consequences (more on that later...)

Since Paul attempted to unify these THREE distinct cultures under the counter-cultural Christian faith, the cultural component to this passage cannot be underestimated when we study Paul's teaching on head coverings.

If we are honest about the cultural dynamics prevalent in Corinth at the time of Paul's letter, we must abandon the tendency of adhering to our own pet generalizations about the comprehensive "policy" of head coverings (who wears them and why) in the ancient world. It is simply futile. The Roman Empire fostered a pluralistic society with great variances in social and religious customs in any given city. Corinth was no exception. This complex, non-comprehensive reality makes understanding the head covering passage more difficult, but it should humble each"side," since NOBODY has an air-tight, irrefutable interpretation. We should come reason together, weigh all the evidence, seek the Spirit's guidance and be convinced in our own minds of this passage's intent. If we find that we differ in our understanding, we should show respect, while keeping each other intellectually honest.

In the next post, I will delve into some alternate interpretations of this passage. I'm curious as to which interpretations readers hold to as of now. I'm only aware of a few readers that actually enforce the head coverings passage at "face-value." What is every one's current personal understanding of this passage or what has it been in the past?

What's the Deal with Head Coverings and Hair Length?

"But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled faces, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."--Paul, 2 Corinthians 3:15-19.

"I pray you, be you mother, or sister, or virgin, or daughter...veil your head. All ages are imperilled in your person. Wear a rampart for your sex, which must neither allow your eyes egress, or ingress to other people. Arabia's female heathen shall be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely that they are content to leave one eye free to enjoy half the light than to prostitute the entire face..."--Tertullian, 3rd century theologian.

So what is the deal with head coverings? From a "biblical perspective," should women be wearing them? Should men not? Should women only wear their hair long and men only have short hair? These are questions, we as believers, must ask ourselves while studying 1 Corinthians 11:4-16.

1 Corinthians 11:4-16 is ranked as one of the most difficult passages in the bible to understand, not because it's admonishment is "unfavorable," but because the meaning of certain words/phrases within the original text can not be adequately defined and the context is obscure. Anyone who claims to KNOW 100 percent how this verse should be understood is lying to you. It is one of the most disputed passages in the entire bible with a myriad of interpretive possibilities.

But I will try to present the positions that I think make the most sense and are most conducive with my understanding of scripture, as I am sure my "opponents" will argue for the interpretations that fit best with their understanding of the scriptures. Since this text is difficult, with a variety of valid interpretive options, it is important to note that these verses should not be used as a foundation for one's viewpoint on the role of women in the church, but only as an enhancement for either position, depending on how one becomes convinced of its meaning.

Most moderate-complementarians ironically view this passage as one of the few "cultural" admonishments recorded in scripture that is no longer relevant for today. However, because of the way English versions are translated, the text does not allow for such an understanding. The face value reading asserts that women should wear head coverings (and men should not). None of the reason given for this are cultural at all, nor do they have anything to do with "offending" others. Paul argues for women covering their heads/having long hair and men uncovering their heads/having short hair because (1) man is woman's "head," (which complementarians interpret as leader or authority figure), (2) man is the "image of God," while woman is "the glory of man" and was created for "the sake of man" (3) FOR the above reasons, the woman needs to wear a symbol of subjection on her head while in church, (4) because of the angels, (5) nature itself (not culture) teaches it is a shame for men to have long hair (inferring that nature also teaches woman should have long hair and/or wear head coverings); and (6) whatever Paul is trying to say here, he maintains that the Church (as a whole) has no other practice/custom.

None of Paul's arguments here, as we know them in our bibles, are cultural. Complementarians (depending where one falls on that broad spectrum) still believe the husband/man is the head, the woman/wife is to be in subjection to man/husband, that angels still exist, and so forth. So, if all of those factors are still true and still apply, why is it that moderate-complementarians disregard the head covering/long hair mandate for women and uncovered/short hair for men?

So, whether one is complementarian or egalitarian, one must determine what exactly Paul is arguing for and why? Then we must determine if Paul's argument is a time-bound or universal teaching, and how to faithfully live it out today. If it is universal and all-time binding, what does that mean for how believing men and women dress and wear their hair today? If it is time-bound, why is Paul arguing for this practice then? The next few posts will explore some of the options.

Phoebe: A Deacon of The Early Church

"What was Phoebe's work? Was it material or spiritual? Was her chief duty to 'mend men's socks,' as one fellow put it? Was that the way she served, or deaconed the Church? The phrase "whatsoever business" (affairs) implies that she rendered a variety of service. It is not at all reasonable to suppose that the Holy Spirit would make such prominent and important mention of Phoebe if she did nothing more than mend socks for "many and for Paul." Can anyone honestly dodge the fact that she was an official?"--A. S. Copley

Phoebe is an intriguing character briefly mentioned at the end of Romans. Paul, who had not yet been to Rome, sends Phoebe to deliver his letter, what we now know as the book of Romans. Think, Phoebe was entrusted with the original scripture to carry over 800 miles, by boat, to the Romans. Letter carriers also were given verbal instructions to explain parts of the letter as they read it out loud to the recipients.

"I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also."--Paul, Romans 16:1-2:

There are three key Greek words used to describe Phoebe, adelphe, "sister;" diakonos, "deacon/minister/servant;" and prostatis, "patroness/protector."

English versions tend to translate these words found in this verse with technical accuracy, but fail to achieve contextual and consistent accuracy. If Phoebe was a man the words "diakonos" and "prostatis" would be translated as deacon/minister and leader/protector. But because Phoebe is a woman, translators opted for "servant" and "helper." The word helper is especially misleading. In English, "helper" connotates the weaker, less qualified aid that comes under a superior, more qualified leader and carries out their bidding or tends to their menial business to free the superior one to tend to more important matters. However, a helper in Hebrew and Greek was considered to be one of superior strength and status with superior resources, who was in a position to rescue or lift others out of dire situations. In fact, the word helper in Hebrew, ezer, is attributed to God 17 times in the Old Testament and a handful of times to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. One who helps was seen as the stronger, not the weaker. The word prostatis literally means "a woman set over or put in front of others" and should be translated as protector or benefactor. Paul asks that the church (men and women) to come along side her and provide assistance with her affairs.

Paul is abundantly clear that Phoebe was a prominent leader in the church of Cenchrea because she helped him and many others. Prostatis is the feminine form of the Latin patronus, which means "one who is the legal representative of the foreigner." In Jewish communities it meant
the legal representative or wealthy patron. Phoebe somehow was the legal protector of the Christians at Cenchrea. In the Old Testament this noun is used of officials in charge of the work of the King (1 Chron 29:6) and of chief officers “who ruled over the people” (2 Chron 8:10). In its verb form the word means “to be at the head of, to rule, to direct” and it is used of those who “rule” in the church (Romans 12:8, 1 Thess 5:12, 1 Tim 5:17).

Translators also the conveniently choose the word "servant" for diakonos instead of minister or deacon, but this is an inconsistent interpretative-choice based on the biased theological supposition that asserts a woman could not be an "official" deacon/minister, so Paul must have meant that Phoebe was an everyday servant with no leadership role in the church whatsoever. However, this is not how Paul used the word diakonos in his letters, nor does it fit the immediate context of his introduction of her. Paul, who had not yet been to Rome, vouches for Phoebe to verify her leadership role in the church, so the people will cooperate with her and join in on the mission she was on. Why would Paul entrust a "table waiter" to be his representative 800 miles away to a church he had never been to and give her the sole responsibility of delivering and explaining what would become scripture and ask the church in Rome to assist her in whatever work she was there to do? This is obviously missionary language and an official recommendation for Phoebe.

Paul consistently used diakonos to describe an official leadership position and tied it with the ministry of the word, evangelism, missionary work, preaching and teaching the gospel to others with authority from God to do so.

Paul applies diakonos to Phoebe in the same way he applies it to himself and to other colleagues in his ministry who preached, taught, and lead. He described her as a (or even the) deacon of the church in Cenchrea.

Consider these scriptures:

Col. 1:23-25: "...Of this church I was made a minister (diakonos) to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God..."

1 Cor. 3:5: "What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants (diakonos) through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one."

Ephesians 3:7: "Whereof I was made a minister (diakonos), according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power."

2 Corinthians 3:6: "Who also hath made us able ministers (diakonos) of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

1 Thessalonions 3:2: "And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister (diakonos) of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith..."

Ephesians 6:21: "But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister (diakonos) in the Lord, shall make known to you all things.."

Also see: 2 Corinthians 6:4, 2 Corinthians 11:15, 2 Corinthians 11:23, Phillipians 1:1,1 Timothy 3:8, 1 Timothy 3:12, and 1 Timothy 4:6.

Paul consistently ties being a "deacon/minister/servant" with preaching the word, teaching the word, nourishing others with the word, holding onto good doctrine, and being a vessel through which others come to Jesus. So are we to think that because Paul addresses a woman with this title that all of a sudden the word diakonon means something other than it's official usage in the early church? That these women remained silent and only waited tables? (nothing wrong with waiting tables and doing domestic chores, Christ washed his disciples feet. The point is that doing those acts does not preclude one from teaching, preaching or using whatever spiritual gift they have been endowed with in the midst of the entire church body.)

Paul's form even denotes that Phoebe is an official deacon/minister in the church of Cenchrea. He calls her diakonon in its masculine form. If he wanted the Christians in Rome to believe she was some sort of waitress, he would have called her a doulos or used the feminine form for "servant," but no, he uses the masculine, official term consistently used throughout the new testament to describe a specific leadership role within the church.

Advocates for women priests concur:

"Are we to change the meaning of the exact same words just because they are applied to a woman? When a man is called a deacon, it means he was a leader in the church, could be as prominent as Stephen, but a woman is called a deacon, it means she nothing but a letter carrier with no leadership authority to guide others in the church into a closer walk with Christ. The early Greek Fathers certainly understood Phoebe to have been an ordained minister. Clement of Alexandria (150 - 215) speaks of the ‘women deacons’ (diakonoi gunaikes) whom ‘the noble Paul mentions in his letters’. Origen (185 - 255) states: ‘This text (Romans 16,1-2) teaches with the authority of the Apostle that also women are instituted as deacons in the Church’. And may we omit the testimony of Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia (112 AD), who reports that he arrested a group of Christians whose two female leaders bore the title of ministrae (Latin for diakonoi)?"---from womenpriests.org

How the role of deacon got separated from preaching, teaching, and leading is the product of church tradition, not biblical precedent. Paul regularly ties the role of "diakonon" to teaching the gospel to others.

I thought the writer of this website explained the evolution of diakonon well:

Yes, "diakonos" can mean servant, but in Pauline ecclesiological usage "servant" takes on the nuances inherent in "Servant of the Lord" language from the OT, especially in regard to Moses. While non-ecclesiological usage could refer to someone who does menial task, anyone who is referred to as a diakonos in ministry takes on a high status. In fact, according to context, diakonos is often translated as "minister".Moreover, the fact that Phoebe is listed as a diakonos "of the church Cenchrea," makes likely the diakonos is an official position. This is all the more obvious when we take into account that Paul is giving formal introduction to her to the Roman churches. Such formal introductions were commonly given in letters of referral, which this epistle contains for her. In such letters, the referrer would normally emphasize the referee's official capacity.--from Treasures Old and New Biblical Texts.

Dianne McDonnell elaborates about the evolved meaning of diakonos and Phoebe's legacy in this article: Phoebe: Traveling Through Time.

What About Women Elders and Deacons? Part 2

Elders and deacons in the early church were people who already served the church in a certain capacity according to gifting and were then recognized for it. They also were not limited to these roles or labels. For example, Stephan is considered to be the first deacon, but we know that while he aided the elders and served many, he also preached the gospel publicly and performed signs and wonders with authority.

"And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people" (Acts 6:8)... "they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke..." (Acts 6:10).

So just because one serves others, does not preclude them from leading, preaching, or teaching. One can both be a "foot washer" and a bold leader in the church. That is the beautiful counter-cultural, counter-worldly possibilities of the redemptive gospel, where authority and service is shared and determined by giftings, not "status" or the amount of power you can exercise over another. We submit ourselves to others, cooperating with each other, and all ultimately [should] submit to Christ.

"Requirements" for Elders and Deacons.

Paul leaves Timothy on in Ephesus and Titus on in Crete to appoint elders and deacons and to combat widespread false teachings. Paul wants capable believers to fulfill these roles. Desired attributes for elders and deacons are found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

The words for "elder/bishop" is presbyter/epikosmos and are masculine, as is the word diakonon, the word for deacon. Before "elder" became a leadership role in the church, it literally meant, "the aged" or "the elderly." However, the ministry of elders did not require a candidate to be literally old, but older or more mature in the faith. This is how the term elder was coined. Similarly, diakonon is masculine and literally means "servant" or "minister." This was a fitting title for this specific leadership role within the church because of Christ's admonishment found in Matthew 20:25-28:

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

It should be noted that diakonon became an "official" word among Christians referring to a specific ministry/leadership role within the church and not just anyone who serves others, for ALL christians are called to become servants. But the mark of leadership in the Church should be through SERVICE to others, not the ability to control others and give orders.

presbyter and diakonon, while masculine in nature, are used in the early church, much how ekklesia and adelphos are used. Ekklesia, a feminine noun, means church or more literally, "the called out ones." Even though this word is feminine, we know that when ekklesia is used in scripture it includes men, too. Adelphos, masculine, is translated as brethren, and was also used to include both women and men when speaking of believers. We will see in the another post that Phoebe was called a diakonon, in it's masculine form, even though she is clearly a woman.

Presbytera, the feminine of presbyter, appears in 1 Tim. 5:2, while the masculine form occurs in the preceding verse (5:1). If 1 Tim. 5:1 refers to an elder who is to be entreated as a father (as indicated in older versions), then verse 2 refers to a woman elder who is to be entreated as a mother.

This next commentary I found through a commenter of CBE.

In 1st Timothy Chapter 3 and 5:17-19, Paul outlined in detail the office of the presbyter (elder). "After completing his list of qualifications for bishops and deacons (I Tim 3:1-10), he continued by including the women when he said, "qunaikas hosautos" or "women likewise." Hosautos links the entire list of qualifications into one single theme. It links the deacons with the bishops in verse 8 and then links them to women in verse 11. The usual translation for presbyter (elder) is "older men" and "older women" but the Greek word is the same one used for elders everywhere. If consistency is to be maintained, then "presbutero" and "presbuteras" should be translated as men presbyters and women presbyters. A more nearly correct translation would be, "Do no sharply rebuke a male presbyter, but appeal to him as a father, to the young men as brothers, women presbyters as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity."

Catherine Kroeger, a bible scholar, speaks about the existence of female elders in the early church"

"Titus (2:3-5) also gives a list for those who hold the title of presbytis, the  feminine word that
corresponds to the masculine presbytes. In some versions presbytes is translated elder,
while the feminine term in the next verse is rendered "old woman." Though often translated
as "old woman," presbytis was used in early Christian literature to denote female presbyters
(Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon lc 2B). There is a qualification list for these women: reverent
in life style, not slanderers or addicted  to much wine. They must be  hieroprepeis (worthy of
the priesthood), again an indication of fitness for a special office.They were also to be
"teachers of good things."" 

While Paul admonishes older women to teach younger women, he does not limit their teaching.
In a world where the sexes were segregated in nearly all aspects of life, even in the home
(separate entrances and rooms for each sex), naturally women would be teaching women more
than they would men. But this is not because women teaching men is inherently wrong, but it
was just not practical in this culture. However, women could easily gain entrance to certain
sectors of society and bring the gospel to places that men could not always, such as leper colonies
and other places where the poor and sick were kept, including men.

Paul also instructs older men to teach younger men, but we would never conclude that this limits
older men from teaching the entire congregation when they gather. It is common sense that
older men would be natural mentors to younger men and older women would be mentors to
younger women. This, however, does not mean they have nothing to offer the opposite sex when
teaching the Gospel or using their gifts in midst of the entire body.

Also, every other passage dealing with presbyteros in the pastorals is taken to refer to
officeholders, including two passages in this same chapter of 1 Timothy (5:17, 19).  

The main reason cited for excluding women from serving as deacons and elders is the phrase
mias gunaikos andra translated in most English versions as "husband of one wife," which is
viewed as a requirement for eldership and deaconship. Since women cannot be the "husband of
one wife," it is assumed that only men are permitted to perform these roles within the church.

People who use the "husband of one wife," clause to exclude women from this role, must also then use it to exclude single men, remarried men, widowers, and men without children or men with only one child or still young children. These admonishments from Paul are not so much qualifications are they are disqualifications for people certain scenarios, i.e., men with multiple wives, rebellious children, and so forth, not that they have to HAVE a wife and children, but IF they do, this is what is acceptable. "The husband of one wife," clause seems not to be a qualification, but a disqualification for polygamist men.

The options of "husband of one wife"--

A man must be presently married to one wife, in other words, he cannot be a polygamist, Polygamy was common among MEN in Roman, Greek and even Jewish culture. It is the only gender-related "requirement," and since men were the only ones allowed to have more than one spouse, it is natural that Paul would only direct it to the man. The rest of the qualifications are all in gender-neutral language in the original Greek with words like tisi, which means person or one. Although most English translations use the the pronoun "he," the original greek uses the word "one."

We know polygamy existed in the culture. When people were converted it was from that culture, and the problems of the culture were promptly imported to the church.

If one maintains that a man MUST be married in order to serve as an elder in the church, this is problematic for a few reasons. One Paul, who was notoriously single, would be excluding himself from this office, even though he refers to himself as an elder in Philemon 1:9. Where Paul applies it to himself ("I Paul, the elder"). Many English versions simply translate this verse as "I Paul, the aged" or " an old man," but the word in the Greek is presbyters, the word Paul regularly uses to describe a leadership role in the church. In the context of this verse, he is appealing to the church to heed his words because he is an elder, not just because he is literally old. Plus, Paul views singleness as an asset to ministry, not a hindrance. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul wrote that he wished everyone could be like himself, celibate and single, so they could serve the Lord without distraction or divided interests. Would Paul wish everyone to be this way and yet forbid the ones who were single from filling such a key leadership role?

Catherine Kroeger also believes the husband of one wife clause was meant specifically to disqualify polygamous men from serving in this capacity.

"The direction that a male elder have only one wife appears to serve as a specific disqualification for those with multiple wives. It is not necessary, however, for an elder to be married at all. Indeed, the Apostle Paul maintained that his singleness gave him far greater freedom to further the cause of Christ (1 Cor 7:32-35)."

The next posts will look at women deacons and elders throughout church history and Phoebe, who Paul calls a deacon. Forgive me for the length, but it's been quite a while since I've posted anything of substance. :)

What About Women Deacons and Elders?

Complementarians differ on the issue of women deacons. Moderates say yes (like the church I attend) and others say no because any position that "elevates" a woman above the "lay people," which undoubtedly includes MEN, would give the impression that certain women exercise an authority in the church that certain men do not/cannot exercise, therefore women cannot be deacons because it would directly or indirectly put them in "authority" over some men. Pretty much all churches of the complementarian-persuasion are united in the belief that women cannot be elders/bishops/overseers. Note: all three terms are used interchangeably within the New Testament, and both complementarians and egalitarians agree that elder/bishop/overseer is the same leadership role.

I personally find it hard to believe that if a woman like Junia could be considered an apostle (not one of the 12 obviously, but one of the later apostles that witnessed Christ's ascension...) and apostles were the ones who were traveling missionaries, who planted churches, and appointed elders and deacons, that women would be denied the opportunity to serve as an elder or deacon. Plus, with the numerous legitimate female prophets recorded in both testaments, it's a bizarre notion that women would be prohibited from being a deacon or elder, two positions that were "under" apostles and prophets. The way we "modern" Christians "DO" church is quite different from the first century. The "office" of apostle and prophet are pretty much obsolete now. But in the first century church, apostles and prophets were at the top of the food chain (if one must be concerned with hierarchy.)

"And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues."--1 Corinthians 12:28

So, Paul considers apostles and prophets to be the most "authoritative" figures, although the whole purpose for any of these positions is sacrificial service and empowering others through the gifts of Holy Spirit to take part in what God is doing, not to have power over others. TEACHERS come next, which modern day pastors have become in the church, and so forth. Even if one denies that Junia was an apostle, one can hardly deny the abundance of legitimate female prophets in both testaments. Prophecy is not limited to predicting the future or receiving a new word from God. Prophecy can also come in the form of wisdom (which can be a teaching), knowledge, encouragement, and a reminder to God's people of their obligations to God and each other. Both prophets in the Old and New Testament did this. Prophetic voice s challenged the status quo to return people's hearts to God. A prophet's role is very similar to the role pastor. Prophecy takes on new dimensions in the New Testament age and goes beyond speaking "thus saith the Lord," although I cannot think of a MORE authoritative task. Prophecy can also be instruction for the building up of the entire body, given so all "may learn," "be encouraged," and just like teaching, it should be evaluated. Just because one prophesies or teaches does not make them unquestionable or above error. Hearers are always suppose to evaluate prophecy and teaching for themselves. Prophecy and teaching are GIFTS, not originally "offices," and definitely not a way to control or dominate people. That is why it is beyond me that some churches forbid women from expounding upon the scriptures in front of her church body, if she is capable. Can we not evaluate what a woman teaches as we do, or as we should do, when men teach? Doesn't true authority lie with Christ and His truth, not with the vessel that proclaims it?

So, in the next post we will look at the "requirements" for elders and deacons, the original language, various interpretations, and church history.

I'm curious as to what opinion readers of this blog hold to and if they align with their own church bodies. Do you think women can be elders and deacons, or neither, or women can be deacons, but not elders?

The Case For Junia, The Lost Apostle

"Greet Andronicus and Junia(s), my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."--Paul, Romans 16:7

The story of Junia is a sad one. Beginning in the 13th century, her memory was not only diluted, but the fact that she was an "outstanding" female apostle was hidden by medieval copyists who changed her name to the more male-sounding "Junias." Since the truth has been recovered that Junia was clearly a woman, modern-complementarian translators and scholars now try to strip Junia of the title "apostle," by concluding that she was merely known by the apostles or favored by the apostles, but could never have been deemed an apostle herself. This is a NEW interpretation. The fact that Paul was commending two apostles was never debated, only whether Junia was female or male, and even that debate did not start until the 13th century. The historical reading of this verse has always been that Junia was both a woman and an apostle. It's important to note that the early church fathers who conceded to these facts were by no stretch of the imagination "egalitarians." Many held degrading beliefs about women and their "divinely designated" position in life. But even they could not deny that Paul deemed this woman Junia to be an apostle, and an outstanding one at that.

Two Complementarian Views

1. Junia was really a man

The more hardcore-complementarians still refuse to admit that Junia(s) is a woman, even though for the first 1300 years of church history, ALL commentators of Romans 16:7 believed Junia to be a female AND the male name "Junias" did not even exist during Paul's era. On the other hand, the Latin/Roman-female-name "Junia" is found in ancient literature of Paul's time and found nearly 250 times in ancient Roman inscriptions.

The first person to expound on Romans 16:7 was the early church father, Origen of Alexandria (185-253), who understood the name Junia to be feminine. Other prominent church fathers and theologians recognized "Junia" as a woman: Jerome (340), who translated the Latin Vulgate; Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), a bishop and Greek scholar; Theophylact (1050-1108), and Peter Abelard (1079-1142), a French theologian and philosopher. Not a single commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) assumed the name to be masculine. Aegidius offered no textual or historical evidence to support his belief that Junia was a man. He simply made the passing comment about how "these two men" must have been honorable.

John Chrysostom, church father from the 4th century, made it crystal clear that Junia was both a woman and an apostle:

"To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles—just think what a wonderful song of praise that is...how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle."

Even though the historical and textual evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of rendering "Junia" as a feminine name, complementarians like John Piper and Wayne Grudem cling to the writings of the notoriously disturbed church father, Epiphanius, to "prove" that Junia could have been a man. Epiphanius (315-403) wrote the "Index of Disciples," in which he lists Junia as one "of whom Paul makes mention [and] became bishop of Apameia of Syria." Since Epiphanuis wrote the phrase "of whom" as a masculine relative pronoun, Piper and Grudem conclude that Epiphanius believed Junia to be a man. Regardless of what Epiphanius believed about the gender of Junia, it should be noted that he also believed Priscilla was a man! He once wrote that "the female sex is easily seduced, weak and without much understanding. The Devil seeks to vomit out this disorder through women... We wish to apply masculine reasoning and destroy the folly of these women."

Needless to say, Epiphanius is hardly a credible source. His own writings prove he succumbed to the worst brand of degrading patriarchy. He so despised women that he sought to edit influential ones right out of the scriptures.

New Testament scholar Bernadette Brooten comments on the fictitious male-name Junias:

"To date not a single Latin or Greek inscription, not a single reference in ancient literature has been cited by any of the proponents of the Junias hypothesis. My own search for an attestation has also proved fruitless. This means that we do not have a single shred of evidence that the name Junias ever existed. The feminine Junia, by contrast, is a common name in both Greek and Latin inscriptions and literature. In short, literally all of the philological evidence points to the feminine Junia."

It's important to note that not only is the male name "Junias" nonexistent within the New Testament manuscripts, but it does NOT appear even once in ANY ancient manuscripts, sacred or secular.

The feminine name Junia, however, is found in ancient Greek literature AND appears nearly 250 times in ancient Roman inscriptions.

Bible Scholar Richard Bauckman links the Latin/Roman name Junia to the Greek name Joanna. This would explain the title of apostle. In "Women in the Heart of God" by writers from Christian Thinktank, Bauckman's theory is elaborated upon:

Recent argumentation by Bauckham makes a strong case that not only is this word-noun-name feminine, but also that it is the Latin-ized version of Joanna (one of Jesus' traveling companions/disciples—cf Luke 8.3 and 24.10)! Joanna was the wife of Herod's steward, and would have had a Latin/Roman name for purposes of administration. This identification would make the most sense of the name, her relation to Rome, her being 'in Christ' before Paul, and of her apostolic status (as a witness of Jesus' deeds and resurrection—Acts 1).


2. Junia was merely known by the apostles

This interpretation asserts that Junia was most likely a woman, but was simply well known to the apostles or highly favored by the apostles, but was not an apostle herself. However, if this was the correct and most natural understanding of Romans 16:7, then copyists would not have stooped so low as to blatantly changing the text. This was a desperate and theologically-motivated alteration to change the gender of Junia without any textual or historical warrant. If the verse simply meant that a woman was well known by the apostles, there would have been no controversy, no deceptive tactics to mask Junia's gender in male trappings in the first place. No one on either side of the debate ever questioned whether Paul was deeming these two apostles, but only whether or not Junia was male or female. So, this new interpretation emerged as a last ditch effort in the face of indisputable evidence that Junia was, in fact, a woman. It aims to disprove the notion that a woman could ever be a rightful apostle.

A report from BBC on Adronicus and Junia pointed out:

"The most natural way to read the Greek phrase is that both were apostles; some modern interpreters have rejected this reading mainly because they presuppose that women could never fill this office."

The original Greek (nor the historical reading) does not support this complementarian interpretation. It's basically grammatical gymnastics employed to cast flimsy doubt upon the validity of a woman apostle.

The fact that Junia was imprisoned with Paul should tell us that this woman was a public figure who was considered a leader in the church. The whole point of Romans arresting and killing christians was to make an example of the boldest ones and most influential ones, so other christians would be deterred from following suit. Had this woman remained "silent" in the assemblies and never dared to preach/teach the gospel to men, it hardly makes sense as to why she would find herself behind bars. History bears witness to the fact that the large majority of christians captured, imprisoned, and martyred were public figures and leaders within the early church, men and women alike (more on that in an upcoming post).

Below are two excellent articles on Junia. Both examine the evolution of Junia's name from feminine to masculine and the original wording of this passage in the Greek. I highly recommend reading both articles to get a better grasp on the implications of the original language and the ugly reality of how Junia's gender was masked for nearly 8 centuries. These two articles take a more in depth look into the original language. They have done such an excellent job, that I feel no need to regurgitate their findings here. :)

Junia, A Woman Apostle By Dianne D. McDonnell
Junia, The Female Apostle: Resolving The Interpretive Issues of Romans 16:7 by Dennis J. Preato

The Mistranslation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."--Paul, 1 Timothy 2:11-12

Paul's letters are already difficult to interpret because they are like listening to one side of a telephone conversation, but faulty translations only further complicate our understanding of his words. There are a few key words that are conveniently mistranslated in 1 Timothy 2: 11-15.

Hesuchios/Hesuchia: Traditionalists normally translate this word as "silence" (at least in passages concerning women), but the word in all other places is translated as "peacefulness" "Peaceable" or "quietness." The word does not carry the meaning of literal silence or absence of speech, but of an atmosphere or presence in which learning should take place. Strong's Greek Dictionary defines hesuchios/hesuchias as "properly, keeping one's seat," "stillness" "undisturbed," "undisturbing," and "peaceable."

When Paul has absence of speech in mind, he uses the term "sigao." The same word is used just nine verses earlier and is translated as "peaceable," 1 Timothy 2:1-2. Hesuchios/hesuchia is translated as quiet/quietness in 1 Thess. 4:11, 2 Thess. 3:12, 1 Peter 3:4. None of these verses are about silence, as in the literal absence of speech, but a tranquil quietness or peaceable presence/environment. This fits the context much better than a literal silence, since Paul just rebuked the men in the congregation for praying while angry and quarreling. Obviously, this would NOT be the optimum environment for anyone to learn in. Thus, Paul tells Timothy to make sure the woman can learn in quietness or peacefulness, and not amid the chaos that was taking over church meetings.

Paul also instructs that women should learn in full submission. This is not a unique request asked only of women, but men are also suppose to learn in full submission to the gospel and sound teaching. The reason this command is directed toward women here is only because teaching women in the same way as men was still a revolutionary practice and still repulsive to many men, believers or not.

Now, onto the grand-daddy of mistranslations and controversy....

"...nor to have authority over [authentein] a man..."

Exousia is the normal word used for "authority," a carrying out of one's official duties. But this is not the word Paul uses here. He instead picks the word authentein and it is the ONLY time this word appears in the New Testament. Exousia, however, appears over 100 times. Other uses of authentein from the same time period show that this word does not simply mean legitimate or routine authority, but carries violent, sexual, and dominating meanings.

Authentein.

It cannot be stressed enough how unusual this word is, especially for Paul. Paul writes about authority quite a bit and he never uses authentein as a synonym for legitimate, godly authority. For most mentions of authority, he uses exousia. Louw and Nida's Lexicon lists 12 common ancient Greek words that are synonyms for routine or legitimate authority, exousia being the most common throughout the new testament. There are 47 words that are synonyms for legitimate "rule" or "governing." Yet Paul uses none of these words in 1 Timothy 2:11, he chooses the unusual authentein.

We do not find any evidence that authentein, in any of its forms, connotates a routine or legitimate authority until the late third to fourth centuries, far too removed from Paul's era to provide relevant meanings and contexts. And even once the word took on a less severe meaning in later centuries, THIS passage was ALWAYS been understood as Paul forbidding women to dominate a man, not simply exercise legitimate Christ-like authority. Consider these early translations:

Old Latin Version from the second - fourth century translates this verse as "I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate a man {neque dominari in viro}.

The Vulgate, from the second to fourth century, translates this verse as "I permit not a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man {neque dominari in virum}.

"There is a basically unbroken tradition, stemming from the oldest version and running down to the twenty first century, that translates authentein as "to dominate" and not "to exercise authority over."-Linda Belleville

It is not until the 1500s that the verb authentein used in this verse changes from the drastically negatively-charged "to dominate/domineer" to a slightly water-downed phrase, "to usurp authority" (thanks, King James). Still different from exercising legitimate authority, but much less forceful than the violent and even sexual connotations of the original authentein. The King James version asserts that women are not to wrestle authority or seize it from men. No believer is permitted to usurp authority or act in self-interest over others. It is not until after World War II that authentein really gets the botched-translated: "to exercise/assume authority over." That's right, less than 80 years ago! So, the notion that women may never exercise godly authority within the body based on this verse is completely unbiblical, both logically and historically.

Exegetical Fallacies in Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11–15
This is by far the best article I've read on 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Linda Belleville, a new testament professor, put together a thorough and compelling paper on 5 exegetical fallacies concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-12 : Contextual/historical, Lexical, Grammatical, Cultural, and Doctrinal. She provides a thorough survey of the early uses of authenteo, in all its forms. This is a MUST read to gain a proper understanding of the egalitarian position.

Catherine C. Kroeger also put together a brilliant survey of authentein (and all it's sister-nouns/adjectives) uses from before Paul up until the third and fourth centuries. I would particularly challenge Tonya and Catrina to read these articles in full before giving me CBMW rebuttals. :)

These combined articles find that early uses of authentein (in its noun, verb, and adjective forms) collectively mean "criminal mastermind," "a perpetrator," "one who slays with his own hand," "self-murder," "women who can command domestic and sexual services from their male concubines," "incestuous sex and murder," "religious sexual orgies," "to dominate," "to control," "to restrain," and "to domineer."

Hardly the meaning we find in modern translations of 1 Timothy 2:11.

One of the earliest meanings to authentein is the act of murder or the act of violence.

Wisdom of Solomon 12:6, an apocrypha book translated into ancient Greek, considered "scripture" by both Jews and Christians until the second century AD, uses a form of authentein.

"With their priests out of the midst of their idolatrous crew, and the parents, that killed with their own hands [authentas] souls destitute of help."

Ancient Greek grammarians and lexicographers define authentein as "to dominate," "to control, restrain, and domineer." It is also classified as a "vulgar" term, possibly because of it's sexual uses.

Other notable uses of the word include:

Josephus, the famous Jewish historian from Paul's own time, used the noun form, authenten, to describe the "author" of a poisonous drink. Diodorus of Sicily wrote about the "sponsors" (authentas) of daring plans and the "perpetrators" (authentas) of a crime. John Chrysostom, an early church father, used the same word, authentia to express “sexual license” or perverse sexual practices. Clement, another early church father, linked the word with women involved in sexual orgies.

Catherine Kroeger makes an excellent analysis of the implications of the original meaning of authentein:

"Chrysostom [the early church father] uses autheritia to denote "sexual license." If the word in this context refers to sexual behavior, it puts a quite different interpretation on the entire passage. For instance, if we were to translate the passage, 'I forbid a woman to teach or discuss higher algebra with a man,' we would understand the prohibition to be directed against instruction in mathematics. Suppose it read, 'I forbid a woman to teach or talk Japanese with a man.' Then we infer that the injunction applies to the teaching of language. 'I forbid a woman to teach or dangle a man from a high wire' would presuppose that the instructor was an aerialist. 'I forbid a woman to teach or engage in fertility practices with a man' would imply that the woman should not involve a man in the heretical kind of Christianity which taught licentious behavior as one of its doctrines. Such a female heretic did indeed 'teach to fornicate' in the Thyatiran church mentioned in Revelation 2:20 (cf. 2:14f.; Num. 25:3; 31:15f.).

Too often we underestimate the seriousness of this problem for the New Testament church. A passage in 2 Peter expresses concern not only for those drawn into this error but also for the illegitimate children which it produced:

'But Israel had false prophets as well as true; and you likewise will have false teachers among you. . . . Having eyes full of adultery, that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls, an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children which have forsaken the right way ... following the way of Balaam.... They utter big empty words, and make of sensual lusts and debauchery a bait to catch those who have barely begun to escape from their heathen environment (2:1,14f.,18).'"

Others have conducted in depth word studies on authentein with similar results...

Dr. David H. Scholer sites Leeland Edward Wilshire's exhaustive study of the word authentien.

"Wilshire is the first to use the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) computer database, which contains virtually all three thousand ancient Greek authors from Homer to A.D. 600. The database showed that authentein and its cognates occurred about 330 times and over a large number of centuries almost exclusively meant “a perpetrator of a violent act, either murder or suicide.”

But there is no evidence from the first century that authentein means ordinary or legitimate authority. Nothing exists until the late third and fourth centuries to suggest other meanings, and even then, the verse in question still translates authentein as "dominating men" or "domineer over men."

Paul is not allowing a woman to teach others to dominate men, to teach the domination of men, nor to dominate a man themselves, but to be peaceable (heshucias). This verse has nothing to do at all with mature, trained christian women exercising their spiritual gifts and serving the body through teaching, preaching, or leading. These were women led astray by false teaching, whom Paul is correcting in these verses and who must start at the beginning with full submission to the gospel and sound teaching.

He ties in the creation story to draw a correlation between Eve being deceived by the voice of false teaching and these women. It is a reminder to the church of the devastating effects of false teaching and deception.

I know someone is going to say, "Well, if Paul is forbidding dominating others as opposed to holding mere authority and it's wrong for all believers to dominate each other, why does Paul only address this to women?" Consider that HERE IN THIS LETTER, Paul is correcting the ones exhibiting specific behaviors. Consider that Paul only tells the men to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger or disputing. Now, just because he only directs the men here in this verse, does that mean women shouldn't lift up holy hands? Does it mean women are free to be angry and constantly disputing in or out of church? Of course not. But the men in the body were the ones exhibiting this behavior, so Paul only addresses them, even though it's inappropriate for all believers to behave that way. Likewise, he only addresses the women about dominating and seizing authority through false teachings, possibly sexual ones, because they were the ones doing it in this instance.

Consider this reality of ancient Greek culture pointed out by Catherine Koeger:

"Virtually without exception, female teachers among the Greeks were courtesans, such as Aspasia, who numbered Socrates and Pericles among her students. Active in every major school of philosophy, these hetairai (high-class, intellectual prostitues) made it evident in the course of their lectures that they were available afterwards for a second occupation. But the Bible teaches that to seduce men in such a manner was indeed to lead them to slaughter and the halls of death (cf. Prov. 2:18; 5:5; 7:27; 9:18). The verb authentein is thus peculiarly apt to describe both the erotic and the murderous."

It becomes overwhelming clear from the the well-documented culture of Ephesus coupled with the original word meanings used in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, that this mandate is not a prohibition against all women teaching/preaching/leading in the church. It's simply absurd to keep gifted and qualified women from teaching the truth of the gospel, leading church bodies in the ways of Jesus, or simply contributing their gifts by vocally participating in the gatherings of the entire body because of a verse that was originally a disciplinary action against women at Ephesus. who were lead astray by false teaching.