Priscilla Papers | Spring 2015

VOLUME 29, NUMBER 2 SPRING 2015

“PRISCILLA AND AQUILA INSTRUCTED APOLLOS MORE”PERFECTLY IN THE WAY OF THE LORD” (ACTS 18)”

PAPERS

3 The Significance of Paul’s

Addition of “and daughters” in 2 Corinthians 6:18 Lee Magness

6 Women, the Church, and Bible

Translation: Key Passages, Issues, and Interpretive Options Scott Munger

16 Translating auvqente,w (authenteō) in 1 Timothy 2:12 Jamin Hübner

27 Book Review: Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues, by N. T. Wright Dawn Gentry

28 Book Review: The CEB Study Bible, ed. by Joel B. Green Charles M. Metcalf

30 Book Review: Streams Run

Uphill: Conversations withYoung Clergywomen of Color, by Mihee Kim-Kort Kristen Nicole Caldwell

Chr istians for Biblical Equality | www.cbeinter national.org

Essential to an academic journal is a group of scholars who ably advise the editor. These four women and four men have agreed to comprise the Priscilla Papers Peer Review Team. They deserve our gratitude for sharing their expertise and thereby advancing the mission of CBE. Lynn H. Cohick holds a PhD in New Testament and Christian Origins from the University of Pennsylvania and is Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College. Her several publications include Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life, as well as Philippians in the Story of God Bible Commentary series, and Ephesians in the New Covenant Commentary series. In 2007, Lynn published the article, “Met with Dancing: The Changing Faces of African Christian Women,” in Priscilla Papers.

Havilah Dharamraj is Academic Dean and Professor of Old Testament at South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies (SAIACS) in Bangalore, India. Her academic degrees include an MS in biochemistry, an MA in Christianity, and a PhD from the University of Durham, UK. In 2011, she published the book, A Prophet Like Moses?: A Narrative–Theological Reading of the Elijah Stories. Havilah serves on the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV and was a keynote speaker at the 2007 CBE conference in Bangalore.

Tim Foster is Vice Principal of Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia, where he teaches in pastoral theology and New Testament. He holds degrees from Moore Theological College, the University of Sydney and the University of Technology, Sydney, as well as a DMin from Fuller Theological Seminary.

Tim has filled several pastoral roles and was a speaker at the 2010 CBE conference in Melbourne.

Susan Howell is Professor of Psychology at Campbellsville University in Campbellsville, Kentucky. Her degrees include an MEd and EdD from the University of Louisville. In 2010, she published “Gender Differences: Facts and Myths” in Priscilla Papers. Susan is a frequent contributor to CBE’s blog, “The CBE Scroll.”

Jamin Hübner is an American theologian and author from South Dakota. He is a graduate of Dordt College and Reformed Theological Seminary, and holds a ThD from the University of South Africa. He teaches at John Witherspoon College in South Dakota’s Black Hills. In addition to being the author of A Case for Female Deacons (Wipf and Stock, 2015) and other books, Dr. Hübner is an active member of several academic societies and regularly speaks on gender and theology.

Loretta Hunnicutt is Professor of History at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California. She has an MA from Pepperdine and a PhD from Georgetown University, Washington, DC. In addition to journal articles and encyclopedia contributions, she has published the book, The Life of Selina Campbell: A Fellow Soldier in the Cause of Restoration.

Adam Omelianchuk has an MA from Talbot School of Theology and is a PhD candidate in philosophy at the University of South Carolina. He has published two articles in Priscilla Papers: “The Logic of Equality” and “The ‘Difference’ Between ‘A and Not-A’: An Analysis of Alleged ‘Word Tricks’ and Obfuscations.”

Charles “Chuck” Pitts is Professor of Old Testament at Houston Graduate School of Theology. He holds an MDiv and PhD from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is active in local church ministry and with the organization, United Against Human Trafficking.

Join me in welcoming the Priscilla Papers Peer Review Team.

DISCLAIMER: Final selection of all material published by CBE in Priscilla Papers is entirely up to the discretion of the editor, consulting theologians, and CBE’s executive. Please note that each author is solely legally responsible for the content and the accuracy of facts, citations, references, and quotations rendered and properly attributed in the article appearing under his or her name. Neither Christians for Biblical Equality, nor the editor, nor the editorial team is responsible or legally liable for any content or any statements made by any author, but the legal responsibility is solely that author’s once an article appears in print in Priscilla Papers.

Editor • Jeff Miller Associate Editor / Graphic Designer • Theresa Garbe President / Publisher • Mimi Haddad President Emerita • Catherine Clark Kroeger† Consulting Editor • William David Spencer On the Cover • www.kingjamesbibleonline.org, used with permission

Peer Review Team: Lynn H. Cohick, Havilah Dharamraj, Tim Foster, Susan Howell, Jamin Hübner, Loretta Hunnicutt, Adam Omelianchuk, Chuck Pitts BWGRKL, BWGRKN, and BWGRKI [Greek] PostScript® Type 1 and TrueType fonts Copyright ©1994-2013 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved.

These Biblical Greek and Hebrew fonts are used with permission and are from BibleWorks (www.bibleworks.com).

Priscilla Papers (issn 0898-753x) is published quarterly by Christians for Biblical Equality, © 2015.

122 West Franklin Avenue, Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55404-2451. For address changes and other information, phone: 612-872-6898; fax: 612-872-6891; or e-mail: cbe@cbeinternational.org. CBE is on the Web at www.cbeinternational.org.

Priscilla Papers is indexed by Christians for Biblical Equality, the Christian Periodical Index (CPI), American Theological Library Association’s (ATLA) New Testament Abstracts (NTA), and Religious and Theological Abstracts (R&TA), and is licensed with EBSCO’s full-text informational library products. Full-text collections of Priscilla Papers are available through EBSCO Host’s Religion and Philosophy Collection, Galaxie Software’s Theological Journals collection, and Logos Bible Software.

2 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

The Significance of Paul’s Addition of “and daughters” in 2 Corinthians 6:18 Lee Magness “And I will be to you as a father, and you will be to me as sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” So writes Paul in 2 Cor 6:18, evidently quoting from 2 Sam 7:14. But the 2 Samuel passage lacks the words “and daughters.” Some scholars assume that Paul has merged the language of 2 Samuel with a quotation from another OT passage where sons and daughters are mentioned.

Others argue that Paul has added the words not to echo an older text, but to affirm an insight of his own.1 Whether Paul has borrowed the phrase or created the phrase, the addition clarifies his understanding of God’s covenant people. And the clarification is significant: Paul included women.

Paul’s quotation in v. 18 includes several modifications and additions. Paul adds “and,” connecting this statement to the rest of the catena. “Him” and “he” become “you,” while “son” becomes the plural “sons.” With these alterations, Paul applies the statement not to David’s heir, but more broadly to God’s new covenant people. And Paul adds, “says the Lord Almighty” (legei kurios pantokratōr), confirming 2 Sam 7 as the context.

In that chapter God is called the “Almighty” (pantokratōr) on three separate occasions (vv. 8, 25, 27). But the most fascinating addition to v. 18 is the words, “and daughters.”

The shape of a Pauline catena

What is the source of these words? Is Paul quoting from another OT passage or adding his own words to clarify the OT passage he is quoting? Some texts (including NA28 and UBS5), some prominent study Bibles (such as The New Oxford Annotated Bible and The NIV Study Bible), and many commentaries (including Plummer, Bruce, and Martin) cite Isa 43:6 as the possible inspiration for the addition of “and daughters.” This verse from Isaiah reads, “bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth.” Scott Hafemann, for example, argues that Paul is deliberately combining the Messianic implications of 2 Sam 7 (“son”) with the restoration motif of Isa 43 (”sons”).5 But the contexts of Isa 43 and 2 Cor 6 have little in common. Isaiah 43 celebrates the role of the Servant in the ingathering of many nations who will acknowledge the Lord, quite the opposite of the separatist sentiments of 2 Cor 6. And the wording is different, with 2 Cor 6 joining sons and daughters without modification while Isa 43 distinguishes between them with separate possessive modifiers (“my sons” . . . “my daughters”). Therefore, although Isa 43 is certainly parallel to 2 Cor 6 insofar as it references both sons and daughters, both content and context militate against it as a direct source from which Paul has quoted.

Deuteronomy 32:19 may actually have a stronger claim to being the OT source of the Pauline addition.6 It reads: “The Lord saw it, and was jealous; he spurned his sons and daughters.” The context is a stern warning against idolatry: “They sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they had never known” (32:17). A parallel warning occurs in 2 Cor 6:16—“What agreement has the temple of God with idols”—and Paul had called idols demons earlier in his Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor 10:20). The Deuteronomy passage matches better than Isa 43:6 in terms of context and wording, but there is nevertheless no compelling reason this passage would had to have been in Paul’s mind when he added “and daughters.”

Some have suggested that 2 Esdras 1:28-30 could have served as the inspiration for the phrase. That passage reads, “Thus says the Almighty Lord, ‘Have I not prayed you as a father his sons, as a mother her daughters, and a nurse her young babes, that you would be my people, and I should be your God; that you would be my children, and I should be your father?’”7 The text mentions sons and daughters and features the phrase, “says the Lord

The verse falls within the debated passage, 2 Cor 6:14–7:1. Some treat the passage as a non-Pauline interpolation,2 others as a Pauline interpolation drawn from another communication with the church at Corinth or elsewhere.3 Some read the passage as a tangential parenthetical statement, while others read it as an integral part of Paul’s argument regarding the implications of God’s covenant for the controversies in Corinth.

Whatever its role in the Corinthian correspondence, this passage, which deals with the contact between followers of Christ and unbelievers, includes a catena—a chain or series—of four quotations from the OT, imploring believers who comprise “the temple of the living God” to have nothing in common with unbelievers and their idolatrous ways. The four quotations are arranged chiastically.4 The first and the fourth citations (v. 16b and v. 18) remind believers that God is their God, their father, and that they are his people, his children. The first section (A, v. 16b) reads, “I will dwell among them and walk among [them] and I will be their God and they will be my people.” The last section (A', v. 18) echoes, “And I will be to you as a father and you will be to me as sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”

The middle citations (v. 17a and v. 17b) call on believers to avoid contaminating contact with the idolaters in whose midst they lived. Section two (B, v. 17a) says, “Therefore go out from the midst of them, and be separated, says the Lord.” And section three (B', v. 17b) adds, “And quit touching the unclean, and I will welcome you in.”

The fourth and final citation in the catena (v. 18) includes the addition that commands our attention—“and daughters” (kai thugateras). The Septuagint passage from which Paul appears to be quoting, 2 Sam 7:14, says, “I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me.” But Paul writes, “And I will be to you as a father, and you will be to me as sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” Although Paul was capable of quoting OT passages with little regard for the original context, there is a connection here. In 2 Samuel God promises David that he will have an heir who will build a house, a temple, for the Lord. And it is that very temple which supplies the controlling metaphor for Paul in this passage: “What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God” (2 Cor 6:16a).

The source of a Pauline addition

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 3

Almighty.” But the first two chapters of 2 Esdras appear only in than many think.” Many interpreters understand Paul’s addition Latin and may be of Christian origin as late as the third century as an affirmation of the equality of women with men. This AD. And again, the contexts are egalitarian emphasis is highlighted noticeably different. Second Esdras in the commentaries of Lipscomb, threatens to give God’s promises to Lenski, Kistemaker, Baker, Harris, We are not caving in to the culture another people if the covenant people and others.12 Listen to Lipscomb’s when we translate adelphoi as do not cease their violence. There is quaint quote: “It is characteristic “brothers and sisters” or anthrōpoi no hint of the need for withdrawing of Christianity that it was the first from contact with other peoples as in as “men and women.” We are not system that ever recognized the 2 Cor 6. The text hardly qualifies as a dignity of women and raised them caving in to the culture when we source for Paul’s added words. generally to the same moral and refer to “people” instead of “men” In spite of the common assumption spiritual level with men.”13 Alfred or “humanity” instead of “man” in that Paul must have been quoting the Plummer saw in these words how our lessons and sermons. We are words “sons and daughters,” from “Christianity raised woman from Isa 43:6 or elsewhere, it is possible not caving in to the culture when the degradation into which she had and even likely that the words come been thrust, not only in heathen we eliminate the ubiquitous “he’s” from the general terminology found cities, like Corinth, but even among and “him’s” from our conversation. throughout scripture and not from the Chosen people.”14 a single source.8 Paul could well But there is more than social have added these words on his own egalitarianism at work here, no volition to clarify his understanding matter how significant that may of the relationship between God and God’s covenant people. have been. These two little words—“and daughters”—tell us Textual critics view the words “and daughters” as a Pauline something about Paul’s view of the nature of the church; the addition to an OT quotation rather than as a quotation from verbal addition has a way of “including women in the messianic another source. NA28 and its predecessors do not italicize “your assembly in Corinth.”15 This ecclesiological approach is also daughters,” indicating the editors’ judgment that these words prominent in the thinking of Colin Kruse, who speaks of the have not been quoted from the OT. All five editions of the United “immense privilege of belonging to God’s people.”16 Ralph Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament handle this OT citation in Martin claims that “Paul ‘expands’ the scope of the community identical fashion, removing the quotation-indicating boldface addressed to include women” because in Christ “all men and type from kai thugateras. Both editions of Zondervan’s A Reader’s women participate in the community of God.”17 Greek New Testament follow suit, similarly removing boldface Closely connected to this ecclesiological significance is the type from these words. In other words, our long-respected and theological significance of the wording of 2 Cor 6:18. C. K. most widely-used Greek Testaments understand kai thugateras as Barrett hints at it: “It is significant that Paul, whose attitude a Pauline composition added to the quotation and not a Pauline toward women has often been misrepresented, should modify quotation from the OT. his Old Testament quotation so as to include God’s daughters Although most English translations provide no clue that as well as his sons.”18 Jean Héring adds a theological twist to anything has been “added” in 6:18, the translators of the New his egalitarian interpretation: the words have been “added to the Jerusalem Bible reproduce the pattern of the three abovetext . . . to stress the equality of the sexes in the eyes of God.”19 mentioned Greek Testaments by not treating “and daughters” as Ernest Best recognizes the theological weight of the addition in a quotation. Quoted words are italicized, but not “and daughters.” words as simple as they are profound: “God loves all, and so does Thus the one translation that designates which parts of 6:18 are Paul.”20 This interpretation best reflects the context of the verse, quoted by Paul and which parts are composed by Paul clearly where the focus is clearly on God, the God who promises to be includes “and daughters” among the composed material. present (“I will live with them and walk among them”) and to be The significance of the Pauline addition parent (“and I will be your father”).

What then is the significance of this apparently deliberate Further implications of the Pauline addition addition for the interpretation of 2 Cor 6:18? The possibilities The implications of these two Greek words, often overare historical, sociological, and ecclesiological. The historical looked additions in 2 Cor 6:18, are far-reaching—historically, explanation looks to Paul’s relationship with the Corinthian sociologically, ecclesiologically, and theologically. But the congregation. Ben Witherington believes the words reflect implications are also translational and liturgical and homiletical Paul’s “desire to be reconciled with both his male and female and conversational. It is precisely in these areas, in our converts in Corinth.”9 William Baker suggests the possibility communication to and with and about one another, that we need that “women, maybe more than men, have been attracted to to be most attentive. Paul’s deliberate addition of “and daughters” Paul’s opponents in Corinth.”10 James Thompson wonders if it is a model for Christian communication. He could have reasoned reflects the “special prominence of women in the Corinthian that “sons” was widely used for groups of both men and women21 church.”11 or that “sons” suggests the concept of “heir” and “adoptees.”

But Witherington also allows for a more far-reaching But in this important passage he reworks scripture itself to sociological implication, namely that Paul “was more egalitarian communicate inclusively.

4 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

We are not caving in to the culture when we translate adelphoi as “brothers and sisters” or anthrōpoi as “men and women.” We are not caving in to the culture when we refer to “people” instead of “men” or “humanity” instead of “man” in our lessons and sermons. We are not caving in to the culture when we eliminate the ubiquitous “he’s” and “him’s” from our conversation and replace them with “they’s” and “them’s.” We are following the practice of Paul who would not—at least in this instance—write “sons” without adding “and daughters.” Elsewhere, in Gal 3, Paul was careful to follow his great assertion that “you are all sons of God through faith” (v. 26) with a clarifying “neither male nor female” (v. 28). He was resolved to think and talk about gender in Christian ways, inclusive ways. And we too must talk as inclusively as we think.

The insight that women are included is as prophetic now as it was in the time of Paul. It challenges the patriarchal understanding we have regarding the standing of women among the covenant people of God. And it challenges us to reject the use of patriarchal, gender-exclusive language, not to be politically correct but to be pertinently covenantal and positively Christian, to think and talk about women in a way that honors them and the people of God and the person of God. Paul included women when he thought about the human race. He included women when he thought about the church. And he included women when he thought about God. Perhaps Best said it best when he described the import of the addition of “and daughters”: “God loves all, and so does Paul.”

14. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915), 210.

15. Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 354.

16. Colin Kruse, 2 Corinthians (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1987), 139.

17. Ralph Martin, 2 Corinthians, 206-7.

18. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), 201.

19. Jean Héring, The 2nd Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1967), 51.

20. Ernest Best, Second Corinthians (Louisville: John Knox, 1987), 66.

21. Contra Garland, 2 Corinthians, 339-41.

LEE MAGNESS is Professor Emeritus of Bible at Milligan College. He continues to serve as a valued teacher at Milligan and at Emmanuel Christian Seminary, both in eastern Tennessee.

He holds a PhD from Emory University and is well published.

Notes 1. See for example James Burton Coffman, Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Abilene: ACU Press, 1974), 386-87.

2. See for example Rudolf Bultmann, The Second Letter to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985).

3. See for example Ralph Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC; Waco: Word, 1986), 192-94.

4. For another view of the structure of 2 Cor 6:16-18 see James M. Scott, “The Use of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6.16c-18 and Paul’s Restoration Theology,” JSNT 56 (1994): 73-99.

5. Scott J. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 283-86.

6. David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1999), 339-41.

7. The passage is fascinating in its own right. God is pictured metaphorically as both a father and a mother, and the image of a hen and her chicks is reminiscent of Jesus’s poignant statement in Matt 23:37 (par. Luke 13:34).

8. Coffman, Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, 386-87, goes so far as to call these words “a brand new revelation.”

9. Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 406.

10. William R. Baker, 2 Corinthians (Joplin: College, 1999), 265-66.

11. James Thompson, The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (Austin: Sweet, 1970), 98.

12. David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1976), 3:97; R. C. H Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1937), 1090; Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 233; Baker, 2 Corinthians, 265-66; Murray Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 510.

13. Lipscomb, Commentary on the New Testament Epistles, 3:97.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 5

Women, the Church, and Bible Translation: Key Passages, Issues, and Interpretive Options Scott Munger Public debates continue—and sometimes boil over—concerning approaches to Bible translation. “Literal” is often trumpeted as the divine model, while “interpretive” approaches are seen as invariably sliding away from the ideal. The sacred text’s teaching about women—their role and the language used to describe it— stands at the center of a factious debate in the Western church.

This article presents some of the key passages cited to buttress or confound one side or the other, analyzing them to demonstrate what the author believes is scripture’s strong, if not always obvious, egalitarian position on the exercise of spiritual gifts in the church.

That teaching has often been obscured by literal renderings devoid of implicit but vital contextual information. This article attempts to explain and supply that missing information in succinct ways.

Equivocate as we might about difficult passages and key terms, translators are sometimes forced to make interpretive choices that, one way or the other, are bound to stir debate, affect lives, and support or derail centuries of church practice. We translators are not always free to leave such decisions to the reader. We need to be honest: our theology affects the nature of our work—in this case, the daily life of half the audience and the worldview of the whole.1 By way of background, note below some key OT selections, some accounts of Jesus’s attitude toward women, and various NT events and teachings.

Old Testament Exodus 15:20–21: Miriam, a prophet Judges 4:4ff.: Deborah, a prophet and leader 2 Kings 22:14ff. (2 Chr 34:22ff.): Huldah, a prophet Proverbs 31:10ff.: The activities of an excellent wife Jesus and women Matthew 9:20–22 (Luke 8:43–48): The bleeding woman Matthew 15:21–28: The Syrophoenician woman Matthew 22:23–33: Marriage and heaven Matthew 26:6–13 (Mark 14:3–9; Luke 7:37–39; John 12:1– 8): A woman anoints Jesus.

Luke 10:38–42; John 11:1ff.: Mary and Martha Luke 23:49–24:11: Women from Galilee John 4:28–30, 39–42: The woman at the well John 8:1–11: The woman caught in adultery John 20:1–18 (Matt 28:1–10; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–2): The resurrection and Mary Magdalene Additional passages from the New Testament Luke 2:36–38: Anna, a prophet Acts 2:17–18: Women prophesy Acts 13:50; 17:4: Socially influential women Acts 18:18, 26; Romans 16:3–4: Priscilla, a teacher Acts 21:9: Four daughters of Philip, prophets Romans 1:13 etc.: Recipients of epistles 6 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

Romans 16:1–15: Key women in the church 1 Corinthians 1:11: Chloe, a leader 1 Corinthians 11:11: Interdependence of the sexes 1 Corinthians 14:34–35: Women in the church Galatians 3:28: Equality in Christ Ephesians 5:22–33 (Col 3:18, 19): Relationships on earth and in heaven Philippians 4:2–3: Euodia and Syntyche, Paul’s coworkers Colossians 4:15: Nympha, church host 1 Timothy 2:9–3:11: Believing women Some key New Testament terms and passages The following terms and passages raise major interpretive challenges concerning the place and role of women. Where we Christians stand can affect our psyche, family relations, earthly careers, interaction with other believers, participation in church, witness to the world, relationship with God, and expectations for eternity. Attempting to avoid the sometimes vehement debate about the issues, translators may wish to remain neutral and translate accordingly—but that is not always possible.

“Brothers” or “brothers and sisters”?

Many NT books are letters written to or about people called adelphoi, a word historically translated in English as “brothers.”2 The meaning and translation of this term is important, a fact supported by public and scholarly discussion about it.

Many people claim that, since the Greek says “brothers,” it should be translated by the same word in English. In fact, the Greek does not say “brothers.” Ancient Greeks did not speak English. The Greek says adelphoi. In these passages, the ESV includes an accurate footnote to its rendering “brothers”: “The plural Greek word adelphoi . . . refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to men or to both men and women who are siblings (brothers and sisters) in God’s family, the church.”

The central question for translators is: What does adelphoi mean in this or that context? Some translations render the term as “brothers” (ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV 1984, RSV). Others say “brothers and sisters” (GW, NCV, NET, NIV 2011, NLT, NRSV).

A few, similar to the latter in terms of gender, read “friends” (CEV, REB, TEV) or “fellow believers” (TFT). Translators cannot skirt the issue. We must determine if the NT documents in view were written equally to male and female believers. If not, then the rendering should be simply “brothers.” But if women were included, then which is more precise in modern English— “brothers” or “brothers and sisters”?

As any dictionary proves, many words have multiple definitions.

So the key question is the same with adelphoi as with other Greek or Hebrew terms and expressions: Which meaning best fits the context? Put another way, which meaning did the author intend to convey? Whatever choice is made, translators interpret.

Additional gender-related terminology and grammatical constructions The following limited but pithy examples point to the heart not only of linguistic details, but also to sociolinguistic issues which, rightly or wrongly, have been associated with them.

Some claim that the Greek word anēr, often translated as “man,” never means generic “someone” or “person.” See, for example, a televised debate between Wayne Grudem and myself where he noted James 1:12 as a case in point.3 However, at least four Greek lexicons—Arndt, Bauer, and Gingrich; Louw and Nida; Newman; and Thayer—take tacit issue with Grudem by claiming that anēr in some contexts means “person” or something similar. (The NET Bible notes on Luke 11:31, 32 and James 1:12, 20 concur.) Those who take time to listen will find it hard to dismiss this quartet as out of tune with reality.

Concerning pronouns, note the following quotation. It reflects a trend toward decreased usage of so-called “generic he” in modern English: “Shaking a baby can cause brain damage that will affect them the rest of their lives.” The words them and their obviously refer here to a single baby of either gender.

Some people might phrase the above another way: “Shaking . . . will affect him the rest of his life.” Either usage has a single baby in view. The grammar employed in the “baby . . . them” form may not be everyone’s English, but it is certainly many people’s English, including that of James Dobson, the one who made the statement.4 More to the point, it parallels the rendering of Rev 3:20 in the TNIV NT (2001) criticized by Dobson and others for this very thing.5 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me.

Either approach entails a tradeoff. The first, “a baby . . . them,” corresponds to “anyone . . . them” in the TNIV’s Rev 3:20.

Grammatical number in these examples is inconsistent, but, in context, “them” becomes a semantic singular, and gender properly exits the stage as irrelevant. (Nothing about the anatomy of baby boys makes them more vulnerable to damage by shaking than baby girls, and the Greek of Rev 3:20 implies that gender has nothing to do with a person hearing Christ’s voice.)

In the second approach, “a baby . . . him . . . his” corresponds to the rendering of Rev 3:20 as “anyone . . . him . . . he. . . .”

There, grammatical number is consistent, but, to avoid wrong meaning, readers must dismiss the gender of English “him/he” as extraneous.

Some, attempting to keep their cake and eat it too, apparently believe in a mystical male core at the heart of reality. We all agree that Rev 3:20’s linguistically masculine Greek pronoun autos is, at a deeper level, often generic for either gender. But, in the keep-and-eat world, beneath those two layers beats a masculine heart, supposedly reflecting male headship over creation. Only God knows if this supposed core is real. It certainly cannot be deduced from linguistics, and Jesus never taught about Greek grammar.

As for English, apart from noting the limitations of each approach above, any claim that one form is somehow better than the other is mere illusion. The choice for translators is not a matter of right or wrong, but of natural Greek versus natural English.

So-called literal translations adopting a singular-singular form (“anyone . . . he”) reflect Greek pronominal convention.

More meaning-based translations with the singular-plural form (“anyone . . . they”) employ common English, especially important in more complicated passages. Neither approach is better or worse. They serve different functions, and ongoing “quarrels about words” (1 Tim 6:4) at this point are more likely to damage the church than enlighten it.

Note that even the most literal translations do not always translate the original languages literally. A revealing case in point involves the Holy Spirit. The Greek of John 14:17 refers to that person of the Trinity as “it.” Of thirteen English translations consulted which employ pronouns at this point, all read “him/he.” Likewise, English translations do not reveal linguistic gender in Gen 1:2. A literal translation would follow the Hebrew: “the Spirit of God she was hovering.” Turning once again to the NT, we see that, though Jesus is called a “child” in English, the Greek uses a linguistically neuter term, paidion (Matt 2:9). Following proper grammatical rules, the Greek then refers to him by the pronoun “it” (Matt 2:11, 13).

Based on the above, we might send out a tongue-in-cheek call for research papers. First up will be the meaning of the Holy Spirit’s intertestamental sex change from feminine Hebrew to neuter Greek, and from there to masculine in our English Bibles. Sequels should explain how the child Jesus was asexual or hermaphroditic until later in life.

Jesting aside, let us be candid: No translation is literal. The reasons are numerous, and two are obvious. First, as we saw above, so-called linguistic or grammatical “gender” is at odds with real life. Second, and more pervasive, words have multiple meanings. “See Spot run” is a sentence from the illustrated Dick and Jane children’s reader series popular decades ago. Webster’s dictionary proudly presents more than thirty definitions for English “see,” more than forty for “spot,” and more than 175(!) for “run.” (Thus, the use of pictures as added context in children’s books.) It may be unsettling, but interpretation is vital, and the original languages of scripture are no different. Which words and expressions are used or rejected in a translation is, by necessity, a matter of choice. Translators, therefore, should strive to be scripturally informed and eschew parochial theology. We may imitate Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek phraseology, but we should always remember that only meaning can truly be “translated.”6 1 Corinthians 14:34–35: Interpretive choices This important passage could mean at least two very different things. Some other positions—implausible in my estimation— have been proposed.7 The 1995 NASB—an especially literal version and, therefore, often ambiguous or unclear—is presented here in italics. My comments follow within parentheses.

A literal position “The women (i.e., all Christian women everywhere) are to keep silent in the churches; (“Silence,” without reference to context, is simple to understand. Women should not even sing. No words in church, ever. Of course, few if any people believe such things and at least allow women to sing. In so doing, they quietly reject a literal interpretation of a literal translation.)

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 7

for they are not permitted to speak, (in contradiction to Luke 2:36–48; 1 Cor 11:5; 14:3–5) but are to subject themselves, (to male authority) just as the Law also says. (i.e., Gen 2:20–24 and/or Gen 3:16, though not part of the Mosaic law as strictly defined. Interpreted here, this can only mean silence in a mixed group of believers. It would hold despite the fact that such silence is unknown elsewhere in the Bible, is contrary to Christ’s “new wine” and Paul’s teaching elsewhere in this epistle, and is clearly contradictory to many NT examples.)

If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; (This, admittedly, contradicts the idea that learning is a major reason for church attendance. With that essential purpose lost, and given that women should not speak a word in church, it might be wisest and safest for all if they stayed at home.) for it is improper (i.e., not sinful, but breaking some kind of Christian virtue not noted elsewhere.) for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor 14:34–35 NASB). (i.e., despite Gal 3:28 and many other passages, it is more important that women be silent than that they speak truth in church. Put another way, better that an animal rebuke a wayward prophet like Balaam [Num 22] than that a gifted, Spirit-filled woman share or even sing with a mixed group of assembled Christians.)

A contextualized position “The women (i.e., Corinthian women from that Greekoriented society; cf. 1 Cor 5:1–2; 6:15ff.) are to keep silent (also; i.e., like people in vv. 29 and 30, which set the context for this section, concluded by v. 40) in the churches; (i.e., not universally, but when someone else is teaching, prophesying, etc.; cf. 1 Cor 11:5; 14:3–5; Luke 2:36–38.) for they (as is also true of men) are not permitted to speak, (out of turn/contentiously, per v. 30) but are to subject themselves, (to the proper rules of order, per 1 Cor 14:27, 29, 30, 33, 40) just as the Law also says. (i.e., listening respectfully to the law, prophecy, or to witnesses in turn; cf. Gen 49:1–2; Exod 24:3; Deut 4:1; 18:15; 19:15–19; 31:9–13, 28–30; 32:44–47; Josh 8:30–35; Neh 8:1–8; 1 Kgs 3:16ff.)

If they desire to learn anything, (in addition to that presented) let them ask their own husbands at home; (about those things) 8 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

for it is improper for a woman (even as it is for a man) to speak (when someone else is exercising a declarative gift) in church.” (Such practices keep church meetings orderly and edifying—the main topic introduced by vv. 26–27 and concluded by v. 40.)8 1 Timothy 2:9–15: Interpretive choices “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, (i.e., in public settings, including church. Paul was not, for example, instructing Greco-Roman women to wear street clothes when sleeping or bathing at home.) not with (i.e., not with “a focus upon,” consistent with the NASB’s addition of “merely” in 1 Pet 3:3, a similar passage: “Your adornment must not be merely external.”) braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman (i.e., in church, per 3:15, not, for example, in public school classrooms.) must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. (The main verb and primary focus in the Greek is clearly “receive instruction”; the manner, a secondary focus, is “quietly . . . with submissiveness”— an attitude all believers should maintain.)

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (Again, as in the 1 Corinthians passage, what is the context for this silence? Jewish boys became “sons of the Law” at age thirteen. If the context here is universal, meaning “any woman in relation to any man,” then many absurdities arise. For example, thirteen-year-old boys, quoting Paul, could refuse to listen to their mothers’ instructions, contra Jesus’s example in Luke 2:51. For this and other reasons, we rightly restrict the context here, as in vv. 9 and 11, to a church teaching situation.

The question then becomes, does v. 12 mean that all women at all times in all church circumstances must never teach a man, or is it further restricted by the context of v. 11, i.e., that women should be quiet and submissive while being instructed? If we go with the thirteen-year-old boy scenario, we must conclude that Paul, and scripture itself, is inconsistent, for in 1 Cor 11:5—clearly a church context—Paul allowed women to prophesy. Furthermore, in 1 Cor 14:1–5 and Eph 4:11, he ranks prophets/prophecy higher than teachers/teaching. Thus, we can conclude that the context in v. 12 is the same as v. 11, as well as 1 Cor 14:34–35—that is, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over9 a man [when he is teaching in church], but to remain quiet.”)

For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman

being deceived, fell into transgression. (In addition to the need for public etiquette as noted prior to v. 13, women should maintain respect for the original, albeit fading, created order. That might include a measure of respect for males in general, and especially for one’s husband [1 Cor 11:8–10; 1 Pet 3:1–7], but not silence in church. Conversely, “in the Lord” men are to respect women [1 Cor 11:11–12].)

But (i.e., despite the curse and consequences of Eve’s sin for women.) women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with selfrestraint” (1 Tim 2:9–15 NASB). (“Self-restraint” is especially noteworthy in church before male teachers.

But it need not exclude women from prophesying to men or, necessarily, even teaching them. Indeed, speaking of the fall, we note that Adam played his own part. Though not first like Eve, he willfully sinned against God. If the nature of Eve’s deception militates against her daughters teaching men, then why does it not equally limit women teaching women and children [Titus 2:4–5]? And what of Adam’s role in relation to his sons teaching anyone? Adam’s sin was with eyes wide open, making his the greater wrong.)

1 Timothy 3:1–13: Overseers and deacons “It is a trustworthy statement: if any man (The Greek does not say “man” here. It has an indefinite pronoun meaning “anyone.”) aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he (There is no “he” here in the Greek.) desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (Clearly, Paul moves from “anyone” in v. 1 to man [“husband”] in v. 2. The key question is whether vv. 2–7 restricts women from being leaders. If understood that this section outlines requirements applying particularly to men leaders, then v. 11 simply adds further or unique requirements for women leaders. This view makes good sense of the structure and context.)

Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not doubletongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond

reproach. Women (The 1984 NIV reads “their wives,” as do the KJV, TEV, NLT, GW, NET, and ESV. But the Greek has only one word, no “their” added by the above translations. The word means either “wives” or “women.” The main text of the 2011 NIV now reads “women,” as do the NASB, CEV, NCV, NRSV, and the RSV, the source of the ESV. So, in this parenthetical sentence, is Paul referring to the wives of deacons, or to women deacons and possibly women elders? In an ironic twist, note that the rendering “women” is not only more inclusive than “their wives,” it is also more literal.) must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. For those (Who are “those”—men alone, or men and women? The Greek does not say “males.”) who have served well as deacons (Since this concept of service clearly includes elders too, it is not a stretch to say that Paul’s statement here implies v. 11 can be taken likewise, i.e., women who serve as deacons or elders. Women are not elsewhere barred from eldership any more than Deborah, the prophet over Israel [Judg 4:4ff.], was barred from her role. The church is not more restrictive than its predecessor. So, can women be deacons or elders? This passage does not exclude them.) obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 3:1–13 NASB).

Summary and conclusions on 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy Unless we adopt a universal and absolute “keep silent” injunction binding upon all women in every mixed-gender church meeting, we have no choice but to interpret these passages in an earlychurch context such as Corinth or Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3).

If we see Paul in the 1 Corinthians passage as describing a new, quasi-prophetic spiritual gift designed exclusively for women—women who must restrict themselves to the authority of men with a full-fledged gift—we do injustice not only to the immediate and broader scriptural contexts, but also to the church. It seems far more likely that, instead of setting roadblocks, so to speak, in front of Spirit-gifted and Spirit-filled women, Paul is simply providing them with instructions for navigating in the new covenant community. Given that he ranks prophecy’s authority and/or significance ahead of teaching (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), the instructions would naturally and without mention apply to that gift as well. As we will see later, this realm of gender (male/female) and its role in the church parallels Paul’s teaching in Gal 3:28 about two other earthly realms: the ethnoreligious (Jew/Gentile) and the socioeconomic (slave/free).

Either God frees Christian women in church—whether ancient Greco-Roman or modern—to speak in whatever roles a man does, or, when men are present, women in church are to be entirely silent. Which interpretation best fits the immediate Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 9

and broader scriptural contexts? Translators are not always free to ignore such questions.

Romans 16:1–15: Women mentioned by Paul “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. (The NASB here translates the word diakonos as “servant.” But, in 1 Tim 3:8 and 3:12 above, and also in Phil 1:1, the NASB translates that word “deacon.” In view of Paul’s application of diakonos to Christ [Rom 15:8], to the government [Rom 13:4], to himself and others called to preach and teach [1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25; 1 Tim 4:6, etc.], and finally to “deacons” as noted above, it is difficult to maintain that Paul uses the term here to describe a person who merely practiced hospitality and the like.)

Greet Prisca and Aquila, (That the woman is mentioned first is significant. She had the more important role.) my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, (Paul, as a “worker” in Christ, was obviously not a silent learner or submissive wife. So, when he calls Priscilla his “fellow worker,” he can only mean she was involved in activities similar to his own.) who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; (Priscilla taught Apollos, a powerful teacher, evangelist [Acts 18:24–28], and key figure in Corinth [Acts 19:1; 1 Cor passim]. We should not believe that the Gentile churches that Paul notes were thankful simply for Priscilla’s domestic service.)

10 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

also greet the church that is in their house. . . . (Was she silent in her own house, never teaching a man anything?)

Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. (How? Only like Rhoda, the servant in Acts 12?)

Greet Andronicus and Junias, (By most accounts this Junias [“Junia” in ESV, KJV, NET, NIV 2011, NLT, etc.] refers to a woman.) my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, (The word “apostle” is a transliteration of a Greek term occurring more than seventy times in the NT. A noted interlinear only once renders it other than “apostle.” The word means “sent one/emissary,” but sent for what—to hostess church meetings? Some counter that the Greek “outstanding among” [NASB, NIV; cf. KJV, etc.] really means “well known to” the apostles [e.g., ESV, NET, and NET footnote]. Yet, both the latter translations are satisfied to use “among” for the same construction in a similar context [Matt 2:6]. Regardless, this prominent woman was a prisoner like Paul. The Romans could be brutal, but it is doubtful they imprisoned Junia for her cooking. Clearly she advanced the gospel with influence equal to male apostles.) who also were in Christ before me. . . . Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, workers in the Lord. Greet Persis the beloved, who has worked hard in the Lord. . . . (Here are three more women “workers.” Paul cannot be talking about them raising children and keeping house—as admirable as that is. These women, like the others above, worked “in the Lord” as Paul did.)

Greet Rufus, a choice man in the Lord, also his mother and mine…. (Here is another great woman. In calling

her his “mother,” Paul must have felt a tie that ranks her service to him far beyond that of a mere physical provider.)

Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them” (Rom 16:1–15 NASB). (Three more women, amounting to eleven mentioned in these few verses. All were important to Paul and other believers. Did they really teach nothing in church, except, possibly, when grown males were absent? Paul has been labeled a misogynist. The opposite is true.)

Some theological considerations Matthew 22:30—Angels and humans in heaven Some years ago, a well-known theologian, prior to releasing an intentionally controversial book he had written about Bible translation, asked me to review a prepublication draft. We met in a distant city. My overall evaluation was not favorable. Toward the end of the lengthy discussion, I cited Matt 22:30, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (NIV 1984, 2011). Clearly, angels do not marry. If they have gender, the purpose for it is unknown. It seems fair to conclude that gender on earth will have a different, diminished, or nonexistent role in heaven. My theologian friend responded that he believes we will retain our gender in heaven. I concluded with this: “Your beliefs are up to you, but since, at this point, they are not clearly demonstrable from scripture, they shouldn’t be used to stir up factions in God’s church.” The listener might have wanted to respond again, but he said nothing. A few minutes later, we departed. Maybe my deductions—or worse, my demeanor—were flawed. But I have yet to see a reasoned explanation of Matt 22:30 that points in an obviously different direction.

Furthermore, by way of caution or rebuttal, it has been noted that Adam—a word first used for humanity in Gen 1:26 but not used as a proper name until after both the creation of Eve and the fall—was a male before the creation of Eve. On the other hand, his gender did not mean much prior to Eve, something tacitly supported by God’s assessment that Adam’s single state was not “good.” He needed a “helper.” If angels have no such “helpers,” what might gender be to them? We simply do not know.

Imagine ourselves in heaven looking back upon our previous existence. Many of our concerns for earthly comforts will appear weak and ignoble. Attempts to establish ourselves in society or a profession will seem fleeting, empty, or even selfish. Desires to vindicate ego and create self-worth—faithless. Hierarchies based upon perceived human worth—empty imaginings.

And any conscious turning from truth—craven or pagan. No matter how we view this thing we call gender,10 we should acknowledge it as mysterious and our present perspective as entirely earthbound. Let us approach it with care. The Pharisee Gamaliel, when considering how to deal with early followers of Jesus, gave wise counsel to his fellow Jewish leaders (Acts 5:33– 39). Adapted below for those who reject or remain skeptical of the role of Christian women, it deserves consideration.

In the present case I advise you: Leave [Christian women] alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or

activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop [them]; you will only find yourselves fighting against God. Gender in relation to faith in Christ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:28 NIV 2011) While, in this life, obvious differences exist—ethnic, social, and physical—Paul’s point here clearly goes beyond a mere affirmation of our value and equality before God. God’s view of others should affect our own relations with them. The church should not focus on distinctions that are not central to God. Though he created ethnicities (Jew/Greek), allows for social distinctions (slave/free), and humanity comes in both male and female, none of it obstructs the freedom of God’s Spirit in the human heart or the gifts God gives each Christian for service and leadership.

In relation to exegesis and theology, the result is a hierarchy of principles. F. F. Bruce rightly states the following in his commentary on this verse: How Paul allowed the principle of “no ‘male or female’” to operate in practice may be seen, for example, in his appreciation of the Philippian women who “laboured side by side” with him in the gospel (Phil 4:3) or his recognition of the right of women to pray and prophesy in the church…. Paul states the basic principle here; if restrictions on [this] are found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, as in 1 Cor 14:34f. … or 1 Tim 2:11f., they are to be understood in relation to Gal 3:28, and not vice versa.11 In the light of Gal 3:28, note carefully the following passages: Acts 15:1–31; Rom 13:1–7; 1 Cor 8:1–10:33; 2 Cor 5:13–6:11; Eph 5:22–6:9; Col 3:18–22; 1 Tim 6:1–2; Titus 2:3–5; and 1 Pet 2:12–3:17. The details are diverse, but the outline is clear. In social settings—especially among unbelievers—slaves, Gentiles, and all Christians were instructed to observe rules of propriety.

For the sake of the gospel, Paul even restricted his own freedom, sometimes severely. But the constraints of such earthbound relations did not exclude slaves or Gentiles from exercising their spiritual gifts in church. Likewise, neither do they exclude women.12 Even if women are free to teach and lead, that does not imply that they are all adequately gifted and equipped. The same, of course, applies to men. On the other hand, lack of acceptance and opportunity for women undoubtedly impedes their path to competence. A similar situation in the United States social order has been obvious among African Americans, particularly in the past. And lack of social equality remains a major problem among low-caste peoples of India. The moral of the story for women might be this: When gifted by God to minister to his church, they may need to become better equipped than men equally gifted.

C’est la vie.

From all the above, it is clear that women may speak in church.

But what about teaching or leading men? As if prophesying to them is not proof enough, or that Deborah was wrong to lead Israel and Barak (Judg 4:4ff.), someone might demand, “Prove

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 11

that women may lead or teach.” To that might come the response, “Prove that they may not.”

But some raise a red flag. They maintain that: error and confusion over sexual identity leads to: (1) marriage patterns that do not portray the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31–32); (2) parenting practices that do not train boys to be masculine or girls to be feminine; (3) homosexual tendencies and increasing attempts to justify homosexual alliances . . . (4) patterns of unbiblical female leadership in the church. . . .13 The sky may indeed be falling on Western, post-Christian civilization. But it is hard to see how godly women leaders such as Deborah, Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis are in any way responsible. The four points above are more easily turned on their heads than defended. (1) Regarding “marriage patterns,” any number may damage the image of Christ and the church, and biblical examples of poor husbands far outstrip those of poor wives. (2) As for “parenting practices,” the NT twice warns fathers against a domineering approach (Eph 6:4; Col 3:21). No such warning is given to mothers. (3) In the clearest reference to the source of homosexuality, Paul traces it to rampant and willful idolatry, not to overbearing women (Rom 1:18–27). (4) Finally, and sadly, “patterns” of unbiblical governance indeed bleed red throughout the history of Israel and the NT church. Almost invariably, however, jealous, power-hungry men are to blame, the male religious leaders of Jesus’s day taking first place (Matt 23:29–36). Hitching all these troubles to a runaway fear of bossy women and passive men can raise a dust storm. But those who squint through the debris might be surprised at what they see.

Is that Barak, perched without Deborah atop the social rubble, wagging his finger at women?

Concluding remarks It is quite possible that these issues cannot be solved by the exegesis of a few verses, much less by the definition of a Greek word here or there. The whole context and tenor of scripture is required.

Our personal—and often unacknowledged—attitudes, training, fears, weaknesses, upbringing, tendencies, and experiences can play a key role in determining where we each land on these questions. In other words, as we look at scripture and draw conclusions from it, we must also look at ourselves. In my own case, it took many years to reach this point. Maybe I am stubborn or dull-witted. My opinions come with no guarantee.

If you have insights, I need to hear them.

Church history is of dubious help. Consider this: Even after years of living with Jesus, and after all the marvelous happenings described in Acts 1–9, the great Apostle Peter and the vast majority of Jewish believers were either opposed to or ignorant of a great truth. Until the events of Acts 10–15, they did not accept that (1) Gentiles had equal rights to the blessings of the gospel, and (2) Gentiles were free from the Jewish law.

We should be careful as we study God’s plans for men and women, whether now or in the age to come: “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror…. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully…” (1 Cor 13:12 NIV 2011). No one has access 12 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

to everything about this topic. As shocking as it might seem to some—despite the trend of the church in this or that era, the number of theologians with these or those qualifications, and the preponderance of pastors from this or that denomination—the majority could be wrong. History shows that the consensus has often been wrong. Theological speculation, monomania, and a priori judgment play a central role in the chronicles of religion, but they deserve no place in the interpretation and translation of God’s holy word. The choices we make in translating scripture can have a dramatic impact on people’s lives. In the case of women, it will affect the daily life of half the audience and the world view of the whole.

In the last days, God says,

I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

Your sons and daughters will prophesy,

your young men will see visions,

your old men will dream dreams.

Even on my servants, both men and women,

I will pour out my Spirit in those days,

and they will prophesy.

I will show wonders in the heaven above

and signs on the earth below,

blood and fire and billows of smoke.

The sun will be turned to darkness

and the moon to blood

before the coming of the great and glorious day

of the Lord.

And everyone who calls

on the name of the Lord will be saved.

(Acts 2:17–21 NIV 2011) Notes 1. The personal views expressed here have no official relation to any organization or translation, including the NIV, which is overseen by an independent group of scholars.

2. Examples include Rom 1:13 (and so throughout the epistle); 1 Cor 1:10; 2 Cor 1:8; Gal 1:2, 11; Eph 6:23; Phil 1:12; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:4; 2 Thess 1:3; 1 Tim 4:6; 2 Tim 4:21; Heb 2:11; 3:1; Jas 1:2; 2 Pet 1:10; 1 John 3:13; 3 John 3; and Rev 6:11.

3. Jack Cafferty, “The Big Question: Should the Bible be Politically Correct?” CNN American Morning with Paula Zahn, Jan 29, 2002. Transcript available at http://transcripts.cnn.com/ TRANSCRIPTS/0201/29/ltm.12.html.

4. James Dobson, “Child Welfare and Parental Rights,” CT284/24848, © Focus on the Family, July 18, 2000.

5. My submission to Christianity Today concerning the debate about the TNIV, Dobson’s English, and Rev 3:20 was included in the periodical’s May 21, 2002, edition.

6. For more on this important topic, see my 2014 paper, “Bible, Babel, and Babble: The Foundations of Bible Translation,” available in English and Spanish at http://www.biblica.com/niv/translation-foundations.

7. D. A. Carson notes the weaknesses of several options in “Silent in the Churches,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (ed.

John Piper and Wayne Grudem; Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 133–47.

8. Carson also dismisses a position similar to the contextualized approach presented here, for two reasons: (1) It focuses on women to the exclusion of men, and (2) he claims that the word hypotassō in v.

34 (NASB’s “subject themselves”) “normally involves subordination of a person or persons to a person or persons, not to an order, procedure, or institution” (“Silent,” 138). Carson’s first objection can be addressed in several ways, some noted elsewhere in this paper. His second objection

is misleading. In Rom 8:7, Paul teaches that “the mind set on the flesh . . . does not subject itself (hypotassō) to the law of God” (NASB), and, in Rom 10:3, he grieves that his Jewish kin “did not subject themselves (hypotassō) to the righteousness of God” (NASB). Such statements by Paul stand not only as important exceptions to Carson’s claim about what is “normal,” they structurally and semantically parallel the use of hypotassō in 1 Cor 14:34, the verse in question. Carson calls his own position, “An Interpretation Constrained by the Context.” The label is good, but not the substance. He claims that v. 34 restricts women not from giving prophecies in church, but from evaluating them (pp. 142– 44). Carson apparently missed the Orwellian, text-wrenching insertions his interpretation requires of vv. 29 and 32: “Two or three [male or female] prophets should speak, and the others [males only] should weigh carefully what is said…. The spirits of [male and female] prophets are subject to the control of [male] prophets.”

9. The terms “teach” and “exercise authority,” if not a hendiadys (expressing one idea through two words connected by “and,” for emphasis or clarification), are closely related. The latter word is a NT hapax legomenon—it occurs but once. Much ink has been spilled discussing the meaning of and relationship between these words.

Understood in the context here, a woman who corrects a man during his public presentation does so by usurping his right to teach.

10. To gender could be added the concept of sex, but that is for another discussion.

11. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 190.

12. Some people cite Jesus’s appointment of twelve male apostles as support for the subordination of women within the church. The deduction may appear logical, but it is self-destructive. Jesus did not appoint any Gentile apostles either. So, if the example of the twelve excludes women from leadership, then it does the same to Gentile men.

13. Piper and Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 56.

SCOTT MUNGER has lived in the Philippines, Kazakhstan (USSR), Russia, Nepal, and India, and has checked portions of Bible translations in some forty-five languages. He has taught in seminary and is the author of Rethinking God. An ordained minister, Scott recently retired from his role as Vice President for Translations at Biblica and continues to work as a volunteer jail chaplain and a private Bible translation consultant. He has been married to Jennifer for over 35 years. This article was originally presented at SIL International’s conference in Dallas, Texas, in 2013.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 13

14 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 15

Translating auvqente,w (authenteō) in 1 Timothy 2:12 Jamin Hübner In the women-in-ministry debate, the verb authenteō in 1 Tim 2:12 has played a crucial role.1 As a result, a plethora of scholarly efforts have aimed at uncovering what exactly the term meant during Paul’s time and what it meant specifically in 1 Tim 2:12.2 Despite such painstaking work, there remains considerable disagreement about what the term means. Both egalitarian and complementarian evangelicals claim the research is in their favor. To complicate matters, Bible translations continue to vary over the term and the verse’s phrasing (sometimes newer versions of the same translation).3 All of this prompts scholars to step back and ask, what does the research actually show?

And more importantly, how should Christians translate and understand the meaning of this term and verse as they regularly read their Bibles?4 What the reference works say Students of the Bible naturally (and necessarily) turn to dictionaries and lexicons to find out what a particular word means. But, due to the limited nature of lexicography and human effort, simply glancing at a reference work can be deceiving. It is necessary at least to broaden the scope of one’s resources in order to avoid error. Even examining multiple versions of the same kind of work (e.g., lexicons, dictionaries, etc.) can reveal significant differences and even inconsistencies. Authenteō is no exception, as demonstrated by the following entries, reproduced here as they appear in eight lexicons: au qv ente w , (s. au qv e n, thj; Philod., Rhet. II p. 133, 14 Sudh.; Jo. Lydus, Mag. 3, 42; Moeris p. 54; cp. Phryn.

120 Lob.; Hesychius; Thom. Mag. p. 18, 8; schol. in Aeschyl., Eum. 42; BGU 1208, 38 [27 b.c.]; s. Lampe s.v.) to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to w. gen. of pers. (Ptolem., Apotel.

3, 14, 10 Boll-B.; Cat. Cod. Astr. VIII/1 p. 177, 7; B-D-F §177) a nv dro ,j, w. dida s, kein, 1 Ti 2:12 (practically = “tell a man what to do”)5 au qv ente w , strictly, of one who acts on his own authority; hence have control over, domineer, lord it over (1T 2:12).6 37.21 au qv ente w , : to control in a domineering manner— “to control, to domineer.” gunaiki. ou kv e pv itre p, w . . . au qv entei n/ a nv dro ,j “I do not allow women . . . to dominate men” 1 Tm 2:12. “To control in a domineering manner” is often expressed idiomatically, for example, “to shout orders at,” “to act like a chief toward,” or “to bark at.”7 883 au qv ente w , . . . vb.; . . . Str 831—LN 37.21 control, have authority over (1Ti 2:12+)8 au qv ente w , domineer, have authority over9 au qv ente w , , f., h s, w, to have full power over, tino ,j N.T.10 16 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

831. au qv ente w , authĕntĕō, ŏw-then-teh´-o; from a comp. of 846 and an obsol. e n[ thj hĕntēs (a worker); to act of oneself, i.e. (fig.) dominate:—usurp authority over.11 au qv ente w , I domineer over (a colloquial word, from au qv e n, thj, “master,” “autocrat,” = au tv oj + root sen, “accomplish,” in a n` u w , ).12 Surveying these standard reference works, there appears to be a number of possible nuances, such as an aspect of selforiented, personal action (“act of oneself,” “assume a stance of independent authority”), power (“dominate,” “have full power/ authority over”),13 or negativity (“domineer,” “lord over”).

Potential common denominators include some notion of authority or active wielding of power. However, none of these works define the term as a generic exercise of authority without some additional shade of meaning.

Why is there such variation? One reason is that authenteō is a hapax legomenon, a word used only once in a corpus. In our case, authenteō is never used anywhere else in the NT, nor even in the Greek OT. This sometimes makes discerning the meaning of a word challenging since there is nothing to directly and internally compare.14 Moreover, authenteō is rare outside of biblical literature. While many NT hapaxes can be discerned by their occasional or numerous uses in contemporary Greek literature, we are not as fortunate in finding such references for authenteō. In fact, over the past half-century, scholars have only been able to find about three to four additional occurrences within Paul’s lifetime—and those are the ones that matter most.

Occurrences centuries before and after the writing of 1 Timothy carry little weight since the meaning of words can (and does) change over time.15 This paucity is one reason it is baffling to see authors bring attention to studies of authenteō (or any other word) that examine “dozens,” “hundreds,” or “thousands” of occurrences.16 Whether a study examines a million or a hundred occurrences is not in and of itself significant—just as the common criticism of NT manuscripts having 400,000 textual variants is not in and of itself “statistically” significant.17 In the case of discerning the meaning of authenteō in 1 Timothy, most weight should be given to those occurrences that surround the time of 1 Timothy itself. When one actually does this kind of analysis—along with compiling the data from other major studies—the debate surrounding authenteō comes into clearer focus.

Contemporary occurrences of authenteō Table 1 chronologically summarizes occurrences of authenteō around Paul’s time along with the judgments of leading voices on the topic.18 Keep in mind that each column should not be given equal weight since many are not actual studies. For example, Wayne Grudem’s appendix is a mirror image of H. Scott Baldwin’s research. Similarly, Thomas Schreiner’s work (overtly) relies on Baldwin’s study (hence the consolidation). In

Table 1: Contemporary occurrences of authenteō Text using authenteō

Baldwin /Schreiner

Grudem

Payne

Belleville

Philodemus in Rhetorica 2.133 (110-35 BC)

to rule, to reign sovereignly

to rule, to reign sovereignly; “those in authority”

“murders” or “those who murder”

“powerful lords”

“The Letter from to compel, to influence; to compel, to influence Tryphon,” BGU 1208.38 “I compelled him” someone/something; (27 BC) “I exercised authority over him”

assume authority; “I assumed authority against him”

“I had my way with him” or “I took a firm stand with him”

Aristonicus Alexandrinus in De signis Iliadis 9.694 (27 BC-AD 37)

to be primarily responsible for, to do, or to instigate; “the one doing the speech”

“the one selfaccomplishing the speech”

“the author of the message”

1 Timothy 2:12 (60s AD)

“ ‘assume authority “exercise authority over’ . . . could be over” appropriate” (Baldwin); “exercise authority over” (Schreiner)

“to assume authority,” or possibly “to dominate”

teaching that tries to get the upper hand; “to teach with the intent to dominate a man”

Ptolemy in Tetrabiblos 3.13.10 (AD 127-148)

to control, to dominate

to control, to dominate; to dominate “dominates”

to dominate; “dominates”

Moeris Atticista, Lexicon Atticum (2nd cent. AD)

to exercise one’s own jurisdiction

to exercise one’s own jurisdiction; “to have independent jurisdiction”

-

-

any case, the quotations identify each scholar’s translation of the term in the context of its occurrence.

Is there any consensus about these contemporary usages?

Yes, at least to a point. There is agreement that the usage by Ptolemy means “to dominate.” Another general agreement is that the English term “authority” can be used in translating 1 Tim 2:12. The self-oriented nuance of authenteō also has a strong presence, although it is debatable whether this is agreed by all.

Another major insight is that, contrary to traditional complementarianism, “exercise authority over” or “have authority over” is not the obvious or regular meaning of the term during Paul’s day. This insight is ironic since the above table implements complementarian data as well as that of others.19 What is also insightful is that there are several possible meanings of the term. As Andreas Köstenberger has rightly put it, “Word studies of the term au qv entei n/ [authentein] . . . in extrabiblical literature . . . are able to supply a range of possible meanings. As one considers the term’s meaning in its specific context in 1 Tim 2:12, one should seek to determine the probable meaning of au qv entei n/ [authentein] with the help of contextual and syntactical studies.”20 If this is the case, however, how can another author simply say, “The recent studies of H. Scott Baldwin and Al Wolters show the term signifies a positive use of authority”?21 No study has actually shown this.

The table also reveals that it is erroneous to shrink all possible meanings into a single generic concept so that any additional

-

nuance is immediately discounted. This is the error of Grudem, who wrote, “Whenever we have seen this verb occur, it takes a neutral sense, ‘have authority’ or ‘exercise authority’. . . .”22 Six years later, Grudem revised this conclusion, saying the word’s sense is “primarily positive or neutral.”23 Of course, neither of these conclusions is accurate. As the above table demonstrates, few, if any occurrences denote or connote a “positive” use of authority,24 and a “neutral” use of authority also does not clearly appear to be “primary.”

Finally, it is an error to write, “What we can say with certainty is that we have no instances of a pejorative use of the verb before the fourth century AD.”25 It can easily be argued that all of the instances above, with the possible exceptions of Atticista and Aristonicus, are pejorative (or negative) uses.26 If even one of these cases was possibly pejorative, surely it is a stretch to declare a state of “certainty” regarding all of them!

At the very least, all of this shows that complementarians are noticeably confused about what complementarian studies (among others) of authenteō have shown. While Baldwin’s study remains a standard resource for many scholars, there is no consensus on the specific conclusions it supports.27 Thus, Baldwin’s study is said by complementarians to show that the term has a “positive” sense (Schreiner), “neutral” sense (Grudem A), and a “positive or neutral sense” (Grudem B). The reason for such confusion is not that Baldwin’s study has been poorly conducted; rather, confusion has resulted from applying Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 17

Baldwin’s research to questions it is not equipped to answer. As the Table 1 comparison shows, No matter which set of data one appeals to, there is no scholarly basis for asserting that comparative literature demonstrates that au qv ente w , [authenteō] in the firstcentury meant, as a whole, a “neutral” or “positive” exercise of authority. To assert otherwise is to ignore the collective results of the most exhaustive and relevant research produced on this matter.28 Etymology: Cognates and morphology Having outlined some indicators of what authenteō did not mean, it is appropriate to ask just what it did mean.

The most important and obvious place to answer this question is the immediate context, and that means reading 1 Tim 2. But before turning to that epistle, there is another area of research that should be addressed: etymology.

Etymology is a somewhat “clumsy tool for discerning meaning.”29 It is useful, however, “especially in attempts to understand the meanings of hapax legomena.”30 One field of etymological study is the study of cognates. For example, the verbal and adjectival cognates of the noun “friend” are “befriend” and “friendly,” respectively. It makes sense that if one wants to know the meaning of one word, one can consult its verbal, nominal, or adjectival cognates for help. If I knew only the meaning of “friend” and wanted to know the meaning of “friendly,” I would be right to infer that it means something to the effect of “being or behaving as a friend.” Of course, some cognates do not share related meanings, but many (perhaps most) do. That is one of the chief reasons exegetical commentaries contain numerous studies of cognates.

As it turns out, the verb authenteō has a nominal cognate, authentēs. What did authentēs mean around Paul’s time?

According to Albert Wolters’s definitive study on the word, it meant “murderer,” “master,” or “doer.”31 This is unsurprising, since both the lexical survey and Table 1 indicate that authenteō had a negative, power/controlling, or self-oriented nuance.32 Does this suggest that (the infinitive of) authenteō might mean “to murder,” “to master,” or “to do”? Possibly, although one cannot always directly convert the meaning of cognates into an equivalent for the related word in question. Indeed, some options are more plausible than others, especially given the context of 1 Tim 2 and the parallel uses of the term (see Table 1). Nevertheless, the meanings of authentēs do shed some light, and it would be a “mistake to assert that, due to the lack of full and direct correspondence, the pejorative connotations often associated with au qv e n, thj [authentēs] cannot correspond to pejorative connotations in its verbal cognate au qv ente w , [authenteō].”33 That is, the correspondence between authenteō and authentēs may be loose, but correspondence exists and must be taken into account.

Another field of etymology is morphology, the study of morphemes (e.g., prefixes, roots, stems, endings, suffixes).

When one studies the morphology of authenteō, taking notice of the initial morpheme, a striking pattern among similar NT words emerges: authadēs = “self-satisfied” authairetos = “of one’s own accord” 18 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

automatos = “by itself” autarkeia = “self-sufficiency” autarkēs = “self-sufficient” autokatakritos = “self-condemned” autocheir = “with one’s own hand” Furthermore, the third person pronoun autos often functions as what grammarians call an “adjectival intensive,”34 which focuses on the self (translated in the singular as “himself,” “herself,” or “itself”). The verbs aucheō (“I boast”) and auxanō (“I cause”) similarly direct attention to one’s self. Thus, a significant number of NT words beginning with au- focus on the self. Is this mere coincidence (and thus irrelevant)? Possibly. But it is more likely that Paul may have been “morphologically motivated”35 to use authenteō in 1 Tim 2:12 for its self-oriented nuance.

Combined with the scholarly consensus that authenteō in 1 Tim 2:12 involves a root concept of “authority,”36 it is reasonable to infer that authenteō may have been used to describe a kind of authority that is self-initiating or self-asserting.

Independent research has concluded as much. One scholar describes it as “the active wielding of influence (with respect to a person) or the initiation of an action.”37 Several lexicons contain similar definitions, such as, “of one who acts on his [or her] own authority,”38 “to assume a stance of independent authority,”39 and “to act of oneself.”40 Translators as well have gone this route, such as the NIV (“assume authority”), KJV (“usurp authority”), CEB (“control her husband”), MSG (“take over and tell the men what to do”), VOICE (“teach in a way that wrenches authority from a man”), and others.

Therefore, there is good reason to believe that authenteō around Paul’s time carried some notion of self-oriented authority, exercise of power, or action. The final question that must be asked, however, is if any of this fits the original context of 1 Tim 2:12.

1 Timothy 2:12 and the immediate context The preceding verse, v. 11, says, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.” This is noticeably the very opposite of self-assertion or initiation. Since v. 11 is directly connected to v. 12 by the conjunction de (unfortunately excluded by almost all translations), it makes sense that the author is continuing the flow of thought initiated earlier in the context. In fact, in v. 9, Paul encourages women to dress “with modesty and selfcontrol, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire”—all of which draw attention toward themselves. Finally, in vv. 13-14, Paul continues to humble certain Ephesian women by pointing to the humble origins of all women; how ironic that these domineering, self-asserting women of the Ephesian church, who had trouble sitting under the teaching of men,41 would forget that it is man from whom they (existentially) initially originated! Paul is not calling for decontextualized universal “gender roles,”42 but for immediate humility and a stop to inappropriate behavior (see Figure 1).

At the very least, then, Paul is trying to correct an ungodly attitude manifested by some Ephesian women. The whole of ch.

2 is filled with corrective measures for unacceptable conduct. the immediate context . . . is generally “negative.” In the chapter, Paul provides numerous correctives to poor

Figure 1: Interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:12

behaviors—some given in the form of grammatically negative commands (e.g., “without quarrelling,” “not with braided hair”). Verse 12 is another such prohibition of ungodly behavior. To put it bluntly, it is contrary to the immediate context to suggest that Paul is prohibiting a good behavior in 2:12.43 Combined with contemporary usages (see Table 1 and Figure 1), it is almost certain that authenteō does not signify “a positive use of authority”44 in 1 Tim 2:12.

Another contextual point is that Paul corrects the specific manner of behavior, not general activities: The entirety of 1 Tim 2 testifies to this fact—from the way that prayer is conducted (vv. 1-8), to proper dress (v. 9), to the manner of learning (vv. 11-12). There is consensus that the how question is Paul’s concern—including in v. 11. Schreiner says, “The focus of the command is not on women learning, but the manner and mode of their learning,”45 and Moo, “For it is not the fact that they are to learn, but the manner in which they are to learn that concerns Paul . . . the stress falls not on the command to watch it, but on the manner in which it is to be done.”46 This fact is crucial, since v. 12 cannot be separated from

v. 11. Not only are they syntactically connected by the conjunction de . [de],47 but they also share the use of the term hs` uci,a [hēsuchia]—which is used to denote a particular manner of behavior in v. 11.48 Therefore, the immediate context requires that Paul’s prohibition in v. 12 is addressing the way in which women learn, not Christian “ministries” and “activities”49 in general.50 As I. Howard Marshall remarks, “au qv entei n/ [authentein] as a reference to ‘authority’ (leadership) unrelated to teaching would exceed the scope of the discussion initiated at vs. 11. It is, therefore, more likely that the verb characterizes the nature of the teaching rather than the role of women in church leadership in general.”51 Similarly, Rebecca Groothuis writes, It seems forced and unreasonable to view 1 Timothy 2:12 as denying women the ordinary and appropriate exercise of authority. It appears far more likely that the prohibition refers to a negative and harmful use of authority—which, in principle, would be prohibited for men as well as for women. . . .52 Indeed, “it is hard to imagine Paul disapproving of the extension of his commands here to both genders, as if women could pray while angry and divisive or men could flaunt extravagant clothing Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 19

and ignore righteous living!”53 This observation highlights an important principle of hermeneutics: instruction given to one sex does not mean that it does not apply to the other sex. (In that case, the Israelite wives, for example, would be free to covet their neighbor’s husbands, since the Decalogue only prohibits men from coveting their neighbors’ wives!)54 In summary, then, the context indicates that some Ephesian women were behaving in a particularly ungodly manner as they were taught by other (predominantly male) Christians. As many scholars have noted, the only imperative in these verses (and in vv. 5-15, in fact) is “let a woman learn” (manthanetō), which may give us a better picture of Paul’s focus.55 The Ephesian women were disruptive (possibly in the same way as in 1 Cor 14:34-35) or overlyassertive instead of submissive students; “abandon worldliness, get off your high horse, and act more Christlike!” might be a loose way of summarizing Paul’s overarching communicative goal in 1 Tim 2:9-15.

The phrasing of 1 Timothy 2:12 Before going on to observe translations of 1 Tim 2:12, one final matter must be addressed, and that is the relationship between authentein and didaskein (“to teach”), which Paul mentions in tandem in 1 Tim 2:12. Philip Payne (and others) contends that Paul was communicating one concept by the use of two words while Andreas Köstenberger (and others) contends that Paul was communicating two concepts by the use of two words.56 This debate is visually summarized in Figure 2.

This particular discussion is nuanced. For instance, the degree of specificity assigned to each word may not be so binarily

summarized. It is quite possible that both terms contribute to a single concept, meaning that the words retain some degree of distinctiveness while being semantically joined. English speakers do this frequently. I can say that the concert was “loud and obnoxious” (or “neither loud nor obnoxious”) to describe a single experience without absolutely collapsing the meanings of “loud” and “obnoxious.” The reason I add “obnoxious” is to add a shade of meaning (either denotively or connotatively) that is not captured by the word “loud” alone. At the same time, however, “loud” and “obnoxious” complement each other to describe a unified, singular experience without losing their distinctiveness.

It is often the case that as more words are added, more shades of meaning are also added.57 That is why languages have multiple words with similar, but not identical, definitions; words are like tools that fit some circumstances better than others. All of this suggests that the traditional dichotomy between “one concept or two” in 1 Tim 2:12 may be too simplistic. Figure 3 illustrates potential alternatives.58 Discerning among these alternatives depends on the style of the author and intended precision. In the case of 1 Tim 2, Craig Blomberg notices something significant: Paul seems to have a propensity to use pairs of largely synonymous words to say just about everything important twice (or, occasionally, four times)! Thus we find in verse 1 “petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving”; in verse 2a, “kings and all those in authority”; in verse 2b, “peaceful and quiet,” and “godliness and holiness”; in verse 3, “good and acceptable” (KJV; TNIV, “pleases God”); in verse

Figure 2: One versus two concepts in 1 Timothy 2:12

20 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

Possible Alternative A

Possible Alternative B

Figure 3: Possible alternatives in 1 Timothy 2:12

4, “to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”; in verse 7a, “a herald and an apostle”; verse 7b, “I am telling the truth, I am not lying”; in verse 8, “without anger or disputing”; in verse 9, “decency and propriety”; and in verse 11, “quietness and full submission.” With this many examples of the pattern, we might well expect to find a similar pair in verse 12.59 This does not mean that Paul was being entirely redundant in his language (as if authentein was meaningless or devoid of nuance), but that the use of two words to describe one concept in v. 12 appears possible, indeed likely.

The tendency of translators is to avoid directly addressing this matter by aiming for a “word for word” correspondence, leaving it up to readers to decide just how closely related the two terms are (see Table 2). Other versions do intentionally separate (ASV, KJV, NEB, REB) or combine (ISV, MSG, VOICE) the two words.

Given the complexity of this issue, it is no wonder that there is little consensus. Nevertheless, given Blomberg’s observations, the arguments of Payne, and the fact that Paul seems to be addressing a larger experience of women who are learning in 1 Tim 2:11-12, it is more likely that, between the two poles of “one concept or two,” authentein is used with didaskein “together to convey a single more specific idea.”60 The quiet demeanor and recognition of authority which are to characterize the learner are contrasted with teaching in a manner which is heavy-handed and abuses authority. “au qv entei n/ [authentein] as a reference to ‘authority’ (leadership) unrelated to teaching would exceed the scope of the discussion initiated at vs. 11. It is, therefore, more likely that the verb characterizes the

nature of the teaching rather than the role of women in church leadership in general.”61 Many complementarians (perhaps unwittingly) agree. D. A. Carson believes the verse addresses “a church-recognized teaching authority.”62 Similarly, Schreiner says “1 Timothy 2:1115 prohibits only authoritative teaching.”63 Whether Paul is addressing a “teaching authority” or “authoritative teaching,” it is clear that several complementarians64 believe a single concept— with perhaps two distinctive aspects—is being addressed. Thus, the ASV, KJV, NEB, REB and similar translations establish too much separation in their renderings.

Translating authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12 As observed previously, evidence strongly suggests that the use of authenteō in 1 Tim 2:12 is “pejorative” or “negative”—so much, in fact, that even the greatest critics of this position concede to its inherent possibility. For example, Wolters says, “There is a widespread lexicographical consensus that authenteō here means ‘have authority over’ and/or ‘domineer.’”65 Similarly, Schreiner says, “Nonetheless, in context authentein can have a negative meaning. We should not rule out the possibility that the context will incline us toward the meaning ‘domineer’ or ‘play the tyrant’ rather than ‘exercise authority.’”66 It is therefore unsurprising that translations tend to bring out the negative sense of the verse (see Table 3).

Cindy Westfall’s recent study has made this possibility a near certainty. After one of the most thorough linguistic and lexicographical studies to date, she concludes: The most important conclusion of this paper is that, according to the 60 samples in the database, when αὐθεντέω occurs with a personal/animate actor and a

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 21

Table 2: Phrasing 1 Timothy 2:12 Trans.

Two-Concept Leaning ------------

AMP ASV

---------------------------------------“to teach or to have authority”

“to teach, nor to have dominion”

CEB

“to teach or to control”

CEV

“to teach or to tell men what to do”

ESV

“to teach or to exercise authority”

ISV

“in the area of teaching, I am not allowing a woman to instigate conflict”

KJV

“to teach, nor to usurp authority”

NASB

“to teach or exercise authority”

NCV

“to teach or to have authority”

NIV 1984

“to teach or to have authority”

NIV 2011

“to teach or to assume authority”

NEB

“to be a teacher, nor must woman domineer”

NET

“to teach or exercise authority”

NLT

“teach men or have authority over them”

NRSV

“to teach or to have authority”

MSG REB

------------------------One-Concept Leaning

“take over and tell the men what to do” “to teach, nor to usurp authority”

TLB

“teach men or lord it over them”

TNIV

“to teach or to assume authority”

VOICE

personal/animate goal, a negative evaluation is given unless the actor has a divine or ultimate authority.67 Note that no translation even attempts to bring out a positive rendering (e.g., “I do not permit women to teach the gospel authoritatively”; “I do not permit women to authoritatively teach truths at church”; “I do not permit women to teach the Bible or properly exercise authority”; “I do not permit women to properly teach, nor to properly exercise authority”). The reason for this is obvious: such translations are impossible to square with the context, have unchristian overtones, and border the theologically absurd.

But 1 Tim 2:12 is considered by many to be the biblical case against women pastors;68 its traditional interpretation must be championed if men alone are to remain behind the pulpit.

Otherwise, the case against women in ministry is jeopardized.69 In an attempt to salvage this “big gun” against women pastors, many scholars have tried to undermine the very possibility that authenteō can be “negative” in 1 Tim 2:12. One such attempt is Köstenberger’s study of syntactic parallels in the book, Women in the Church. Briefly summarized, the study shows that, given the construction of 1 Tim 2:12, both didaskein (“to teach”) and authentein should be “viewed either positively or negatively by the writer or speaker.”70 And since didaskō is usually used in a 22 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

“to teach in a way that wrenches authority”

positive sense in the NT, Köstenberger deduces that authenteō must be positive as well.

Aside from the fact that this argument assumes a stark (and therefore erroneous) separation between these terms,71 and aside from the fact that the conclusion of this argument runs contrary to virtually all other evidence (including context, which may be the most important evidence), there are other problems. Most notably, the significance of the “positive” sense of didaskō is overstated. There are several “negative” uses of the term that tend to go unnoticed, such as Matt 5:19a, Titus 1:11, Rev 2:14, 20.72 It is well within the range of NT Greek that didaskein (an infinitival form of didaskō) can be viewed negatively in 1 Tim 2:12. This does not necessarily mean false teaching is being addressed, especially since the focus of 1 Tim 2:11-12 is on behavior and the action of teaching, not the content of teaching. Köstenberger and Schreiner both err in assuming that “to teach” negatively automatically means “to teach error.”73 There are obviously a number of ways one can teach in a negative, unacceptable manner without teaching error!74 Furthermore, the purpose of the NT itself is to proclaim the good news of salvation; it is no surprise that “teach” in the NT is typically viewed positively. Whether the teaching (noun)

Table 3: Translating 1 Timothy 2:12 Trans AMP

Positive

Neutral

Negative

“to teach or to have authority”

ASV

“to teach, nor to have dominion”

CEB

“to teach or to control”

CEV

“to teach or to tell men what to do”

ESV

“to teach or to exercise authority”

ISV

“in the area of teaching, I am not allowing a woman to instigate conflict”

KJV

“to teach, nor to usurp authority”

NASB

“to teach or exercise authority”

NCV

“to teach or to have authority”

NIV 1984

“to teach or to have authority”

NIV 2011

“to teach or to assume authority”

NEB

“to be a teacher, nor must woman domineer”

NET

“to teach or exercise authority”

NLT

“teach men or have authority over them”

NRSV

“to teach or to have authority”

MSG

“take over and tell the men what to do”

REB

“to teach, nor to usurp authority”

TLB

“teach men or lord it over them”

TNIV

“to teach or to assume authority”

VOICE

behind didaskō (verb) in 1 Tim 2:12 is theology, biblical studies, cooking or otherwise is irrelevant since, as noted above, the focus is on the action and manner. Paul does not here seem to address specifically what is taught, but only how teaching occurs. (This is why it is baffling to see entire denominations and organizations forbid women from teaching biblical studies and theology—while allowing other subjects—on the basis of 1 Tim 2:12.75 It is equally baffling to believe that Paul would have effectively prohibited the proclamation of the gospel in this way.)

Conclusion: Some historical and pastoral reflections A balanced re-examination of 1 Tim 2:12 and studies about this passage suggests a remarkably unremarkable conclusion: today’s standard lexicons and Bible translations do well both in rendering the passage and in establishing the range of meaning for authenteō. The average Christian consulting Louw and Nida or BDAG and reading the immediate context in the NIV or KJV is adequately positioned to interpret the passage properly. (No “expert testimony” needed here!) This should come as a great relief to those intimidated by scholarship or who simply want to know “what the author is saying.”

What is remarkable is how far theological constituencies are willing to go in order to protect tradition, enforce patriarchy,

“to teach in a way that wrenches authority”

and retain control in the Christian community. This is especially true regarding 1 Tim 2:12, and the status quo is not helped. Internal studies conducted for no other purpose than to affirm the traditional interpretation are hailed as nails in the egalitarian coffin but remain dubious or self-rebutting. Cries for context only come home to roost and ultimately threaten to unshackle the sacred chains of “gender roles.” Hermeneutical stability ends up not so stable after all.76 Historically, it is lamentable that the (patriarchal) lens of interpreters has led to a patriarchal reading of 1 Tim 2:12 in the first place. This is no surprise given the influence of traditional ideologies about gender and the tendency of fallen human beings to hold on to positions of power. But, one may wonder why in this age such an erroneous reading still exists—especially in churches dedicated to the Bible’s teaching? If today’s standard works and translations should lead one to the interpretation espoused in this essay, why have they not in many other spheres? Undoubtedly, there are a number of reasons—and they stretch beyond the scope of this essay. One, however, is worth mentioning here.

There may be nothing more influential to the spiritual and biblical thought-life of the believing community than the biblical texts themselves—that is, the default translations of Christians.77 Sermons, readings, prayers, private study, classes, Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 23

etc., are saturated with biblical texts, and these texts—in the English words of particular translations—have a tremendous impact on how Christians construct theologies, make decisions, and view life.78 One might have noticed a trend in the above observations about 1 Tim 2:12 and translations: three of the most influential English translations in the past half-century all contain the misleading rendering of “have authority” or “exercise authority” (NIV 1984, NRSV, and ESV). With the NIV (1984) as a global standard for English-speakers, the NRSV as the default “academic” translation used in the public university, and the ESV as a new standard for conservative evangelical circles and seminaries, it is no surprise that many (perhaps most) Christians today are puzzled when they realize “authority” in 1 Tim 2:12 is a word used nowhere else in their Bibles. This is simply the fruit of what has been sowed.

It is true that the KJV has not completely faded out of use, that the original NIV rendering of 1 Tim 2:12 has been positively revised in 2011 (and previously in the TNIV), and that numerous new translations capture the tone of the context. Nevertheless, Christian egalitarians are still working against the tide on this issue. And while it would be reasonable simply to spread the use of gender-neutral (or gender-inclusive) translations in our communities, churches, and families, two of the best (the NRSV and NLT) oddly contain “have authority,”79 and therefore do little to serve in this regard.

Does the question at hand require the consultation of experts after all? Perhaps to a degree; proper use of the Greek and Hebrew OT/NT is always preferable, and that requires special education.

Someone needs to make it clear that “exercise/have authority” in 1 Tim 2:12 is a misleading translation. But it is important for teachers not to claim a monopoly on theological truth when wading through these sensitive texts, nor to leave brothers and sisters in Christ in a hopeless position if they do not seek such specialized training. In the end, prayerful discernment is needed as much as sound, critical scholarship.

Notes 1. The verb is used as an infinitive (authentein) in 1 Tim 2:12.

2. E.g., Armin Panning, “ΑΥΘΕΝΤΕIN—A Word Study,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 78 (1981): 185-91; Carroll Osburn, “ΑΥΘΕΝΤΕΩ (1 Timothy 2:12),” ResQ 25 (1982): 1-12; George Knight III, “ΑΥΘΕΝΤΕΩ in Reference to Women in 1 Timothy 2:12,” NTS 30 (1984): 143–57; Catherine Clark Kroeger, “1 Timothy 2.12: A Classicist’s View,” in Alvera Mickelsen, ed., Women, Authority and the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986), 225-44; Leland Wilshire, “The TLG Computer and Further Reference to authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12,” NTS 34 (1988): 120–34; Paul W. Barnett, “Wives and Women’s Ministry (1 Timothy 2:11-15),” EvQ 61 (1989): 225-38; Kevin Giles, “Response,” in A. Nichols, ed., The Bible and Women’s Ministry (Canberra: Acorn, 1990), 65-87; Timothy J. Harris, “Why Did Paul Mention Eve’s Deception? A Critique of P. W. Barnett’s Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2,” EvQ 62 (1990): 335-52; Gloria N. Redekop, “Let the Women Learn: 1 Timothy 2.8-15 Reconsidered,” SR 19 (1990): 23545; D. P. Kuske, “An Exegetical Brief on 1 Timothy 2.12 (οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός),” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 88 (1991): 64-67; Leland Edward Wilshire, “1 Timothy 2:12 Revisited: A Reply to Paul W. Barnett and Timothy J. Harris,” EvQ 65 (1993): 43-55; Andrew C. Perriman, “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: The Meaning of authenteō in 1 Timothy 2:12,” TynBul 44:1 (1993): 129–42; Albert Wolters, “A Semantic Study of αὐθέντης and its Derivatives,” JGRChJ 1 (2000): 145–75; Robert

24 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

W. Wall, “1 Timothy 2.9-15 Reconsidered (Again),” BBR 14 (2004): 81-103; Albert Wolters, “Αυθεντης And Its Cognates In Biblical Greek,” JETS 52, no. 4 (2009): 719–29; Henry Baldwin, “An Important Word: αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Andreas Köstenberger and Thomas Schreiner, eds., Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 39–52; Leland Wilshire, Insight into Two Biblical Passages: Anatomy of a Prohibition 1 Timothy 2:12, the TLG Computer, and the Christian Church (Lanham: University Press of America, 2010); Cynthia Long Westfall, “The Meaning of αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12,” JGRChJ 10 (2014): 138-73. Cf. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, Appendix 7, and Payne, Man and Woman, chs. 16–22. Please note that I wrote this article independently of Westfall’s recent JGRChJ publication (cited above); we apparently spent four years researching the same topic without being aware of it! I became aware of her article in the first week of March 2015 but had enough time to at least revise this footnote and cite Westfall’s article in a few key places below prior to publication in Priscilla Papers. More importantly, I am glad to know that Westfall’s independent study has only served to re-affirm the basic conclusions of this article.

3. I’m primarily thinking of the NIV, which read “exercise authority” in 1973, 1978, and 1984 and changed to “assume authority” in the 2005 TNIV and 2011 NIV. 4 . When necessary, I will reference my own forthcoming essay, “Revisiting auvqente,w in 1 Timothy 2:12: What Does the Extant Data Really Show?” The Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 4, no. 1 (Spring 2015). Though that article is significantly longer and more technical, the present article gives more focus to the practical outworking of NT translation and includes a substantial amount of distinct material.

5. BDAG. 6. Barb Friberg, Neva Mille, and Timothy Friberg, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Bloomington: Tafford, 2005), 81.

7. J. P. Louw and Eugene Nida, Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd ed.

(New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 1.473-4.

8. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997).

9. Barclay Newman, A Concise Greek–English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; United Bible Societies, 1993), 28.

10. Henry Liddell, A Lexicon: Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek– English Lexicon (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 132.

11. James Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2009), 17.

12. Mark House and Maurice Robinson, eds., An Analytical Lexicon of New Testament Greek (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2012), 54.

13. Cf. Westfall, “The Meaning of αὐθεντέω,” 171: “A basic semantic concept that accounts for the occurrences of αὐθεντέω in the data base of 60 verbs is: the autonomous use or possession of unrestricted force.”

14. To be sure, there are over 1,600 hapaxes in the NT (1,672 in NA28/ UBS5), so one must not exaggerate the significance of such a term based solely on its infrequency.

15. Cf. Craig Blomberg and Jennifer Markley, Handbook of New Testament Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 119.

16. E.g., H. Scott Baldwin, “Complete List of Eighty-Two Examples of Authenteō (“to exercise authority”) in Ancient Greek Literature,” Appendix 7 in Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.

Grudem is equally misleading in his essays and essay titles, such as “Does kephalē (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” in George Knight III, The Role Relationships of Men and Women: The New Testament Teaching (Chicago: Moody, 1985), republished in TJ 6 (1985): 38-59; cf. “The Meaning of ‘Head’ in the Bible,” JBMW 1, no. 3 (June 1996): 8.

17. This has been a staple phrase by Bart Ehrman and some other Bible critics in the past twenty years and, despite having been refuted by numerous textual and biblical scholars (e.g., Stanley Porter, Dan Wallace, James White, et al.), the statistic (and its complementary statistic, “3 variants per word”) continues to be abused in countless publications.

18. The table data comes from Baldwin, “An Important Word”; Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,” in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (ed. Andreas Köstenberger and Thomas Schreiner; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005); Belleville, “An Egalitarian Perspective,” in Two Views of Women in Ministry (ed. James R. Beck; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 96-7, and idem, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” 214-15; Payne, Man and Woman, ch. 20; Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, Appendix 7.

19. Strikingly, Baldwin does not even list “exercise authority” or “have authority” as options in his study (“An Important Word,” 51). See “Revisiting αὐθεντέω,” footnote 76; Payne, Man and Woman, 373.

20. Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Gender Passages in the NT: Hermeneutical Fallacies Critiqued,” WTJ 56, no. 2 (Fall 1994): 259-83.

21. Schreiner, “A Response to Linda Belleville,” in Two Views, 108, emphasis mine.

22. Wayne Grudem, “An Open Letter to Egalitarians,” JBMW 3, no.

1 (March 1998): 3.

23. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 317, emphasis mine.

24. Contrast both of Grudem’s positions with that of William Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 126: “Most agree that its basic meaning is either the neutral ‘to exercise authority’ or the negative ‘to domineer’ in the sense of exerting authority in a coercive manner.”

25. Baldwin, “An Important Word,” 49; See also Wolters, “Semantic Study,” 155, and idem, “Auqenthj and Its Cognates,” 727.

26. I generally use “pejorative” and “negatively” interchangeably.

“Pejorative” typically means “deprecatory” or “slighting.” “Negative” is sometimes used more broadly. Many articles on authenteō do not define “pejorative” and “negatively” in strict, technical definitions because the terms are rarely so exact.

27. This should probably not even be the case, given the methodological problems of Baldwin’s study. See Westfall, “The Meaning of αὐθεντέω.”

28. Hübner, “Revisiting αὐθεντέω.”

29. D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 33.

30. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 33.

31. Wolters, “A Semantic Study,” 145-75; see also idem, “Auqenthj and Its Cognates,” 719-29.

32. What is surprising is that Wolters misinterprets the data produced by his own study. See the section “Etymology: Cognates and Wolters’ Research” in Hübner, “Revisiting αὐθεντέω.”

33. Hübner, “Revisiting αὐθεντέω.”

34. See, for example, Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 348-49; Jamin Hübner, A Concise Greek Grammar (forthcoming).

35. See Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 48.

36. Cf. Baldwin, “An Important Word,” 51: “The root meaning involves the concept of authority.”

37. Perriman, “What Eve Did,” 138.

38. Friberg et al., Analytical Lexicon, 81.

39. BDAG. 40. Strong, A Concise Dictionary, 17.

41. Teaching appears to be the immediate context of 1 Tim 2:11-12.

And the above statement assumes—upon evidence (note, for example, the assumption that elders are men in Titus 1 and 1 Tim 3)—that

first-century teachers in the church were typically male (though not exhaustively male—note, e.g., Prisca in 2 Tim 4:19, and cf. Rebecca Groothuis, Good News for Women [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997], 215).

42. Even if Paul was addressing “gender roles,” and even if Paul was appealing to the “creation order” to substantiate them, the appeal to “the creation order” does nothing to establish universality. All ethical commands and instruction, regardless of scope and temporality, can (and must) be grounded in creation in some way to be legitimate.

For it is God’s permanent establishment of creation and all of its laws, regularities, and natures that allows people to administer any kind of ethical judgment, from the most circumstantial and temporary to the most eternal and binding. Cf. James DeYoung, Women in Ministry: Neither Egalitarian Nor Complementary (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2010), 65: “an author may cite a universal to support a non-universal— something historically and temporally limited.” I would go further and suggest that this is the norm rather than the exception in NT theology.

43. Hübner, “Revisiting αὐθεντέω.” This conclusion is particularly favorable since, as Payne remarks in Man and Woman, 379, “Either ‘to assume authority’ or ‘to dominate’ makes a better contrast with ‘quietness’ in 1 Tim 2:12 than ‘to exercise authority’ or ‘to have authority.’

Furthermore, either ‘to assume authority’ or ‘to dominate’ makes a better contrast with ‘to be in full submission.’” Cf. Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 224.

44. Schreiner, “A Response to Linda Belleville,” in Two Views, 108.

Cf. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 317; Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (ed. Andreas Köstenberger and Thomas Schreiner; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 9698.

45. Schreiner, “An Interpretation,” 97.

46. Douglas J. Moo, “What Does it Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem; Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 183. Cf. Aída Besançon Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 77; James Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 200-1; Stanley Grenz and Denise Kjesbo, Women in the Church (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 127-8; Payne, Man and Woman, ch. 20.

47. Whether the term functions contrastively (“but” in NET, NASB, and KJV) or connectively (“and”) is irrelevant at this point.

48. Schreiner, “An Interpretation,” 98; Hurley, Man and Woman, 200; Payne, Man and Woman, 315; Linda Belleville, “Exegetical Fallacies in Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” Priscilla Papers 17, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 4-10; Besançon Spencer, Beyond the Curse, 77-80.

49. Moo, “What Does it Mean,” 180.

50. Hübner, “Revisiting αὐθεντέω.”

51. I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 460.

52. Groothuis, Good News for Women, 215.

53. Craig Blomberg, “Gender Roles in Marriage and Ministry,” in Reconsidering Gender (ed. Myk Habets and Beulah Wood; Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2011), 56. Cf. Thomas Geer Jr., “Admonitions to Women in 1 Timothy 2:8-15,” in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity (ed.

Carroll Osburn; Joplin: College, 1995), 1:294: “Paul is just as against men domineering as he is women (e.g., Eph. 5:21; 1 Cor. 11:11, 12). In Ephesus, he is facing the issue of domineering women”; I. Howard Marshall, “Women in Ministry,” in Women, Ministry, and the Gospel (ed. Mark Husbands and Timothy Larsen; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 77: “If it tells women not to domineer, the same lesson can equally be applied to men who may consciously or unconsciously also domineer over women. Similarly, if it tells men not to engage in anger and disputation, it also says the same to women.” See also, N. T. Wright, “The Biblical Basis for Women’s Service in the Church,” Priscilla Papers 20, no.

4 (Autumn 2006): 9; Ronald Pierce, “Evangelicals and Gender Roles,” JETS 36, no. 3 (September 1993): 350.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 25

54. This applies, of course, to all of the controversial “gender texts” in the NT, such as Eph 5; the call for women to “submit” in no way suggests that men should not submit to their wives (and I realize this is evident enough from 5:21, but it bears reiterating).

55. N. T. Wright goes as far as to say that this is “the key to understanding” v. 12; Wright, “The Biblical Basis for Women’s Service in the Church,” 9.

56. See Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence”; Philip Payne, “1 Tim 2:12 and the Use of ou dv e , to Combine Two Elements to Express a Single Idea,” NTS 54 (2008): 235-53; idem, Man and Woman, 337-60; Andreas Köstenberger, “The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12: A Rejoinder to Philip B. Payne,” JBMW 14, no. 2 (Fall 2009): 37-9; Philip Payne and Andreas Köstenberger, “Discussion of 1 Timothy 2:12,” JBMW 15, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 27-31. “Οu dv e Combining Two Elements to Convey a Single Idea and 1 Timothy 2:12: Further Insights,” pp. 24-34 in CBE’s 2014 special edition journal, Missing Voices: Broadening the Discussion on Men, Women, and Ministry, available at http://www.cbeinternational.org/ sites/default/files/ETS2014-web-1.pdf 57. Of course, there is a point where adding more and more words does not contribute more and more to a concept; the addition of more words dilutes the meaning of each word, and the curve of the wordcount/meaning graph levels off (just as the effect of drugs is strong at first, but then begins to have less and less effect; cf. the “law of diminishing returns” in economics). Paul seems to have walked this line in the Pastorals (cf. the Blomberg quotation below).

58. In the graphics, “Possible Alternative B” is the same as “Possible Alternative A” except that it highlights the multi-faceted nature of concepts. Concepts are rarely isolated, singular entities.

59. Craig Blomberg, “A Complementarian Perspective,” in Two Views, 169. Cf. Robert Saucy, “Paul’s Teaching on the Ministry of Women,” in Women and Men in Ministry: A Complementary Perspective (ed. Robert Saucy and Judy Tenelshof; Chicago: Moody, 2001), 306.

60. Payne, “1 Tim 2:12 and the Use of ou dv e ,,” 240, emphasis mine.

The full sentence containing this quotation is, “The fundamental function of ou dv e , in these cases is not to subordinate one expression to another, but simply to merge them together to convey a single more specific idea.” Cf. “Possible Alternative A” above.

61. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 460.

62. D. A. Carson, “Silent in the Churches,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 152.

63. Thomas Schreiner, “The Valuable Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 223.

64. See also Stephen Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (reprint; East Lansing: Tabor House, 2006), 139: “[1 Tim 2:12] reserves to men the kind of teaching which is an exercise of authority over men. . . .”

65. Wolters, “A Semantic Study,” 50.

66. Schreiner “An Interpretation,” 104.

67. Westfall, “The Meaning of αὐθεντέω,” 171.

68. Susan Foh, Women and the Word of God: A Response to Biblical Feminism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 238: “There is only one sufficient argument against women’s ordination: scriptural prohibition,” and that “prohibition against the ordination of women to the ministry is 1 Timothy 2:12.” Cf. Susan Foh in Women in Ministry: Four Views (ed.

Robert Clouse and Bonnidell Clouse; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989), 91: “There is only one valid argument against women’s ordination to the ministry: scriptural prohibition. This prohibition is found in 1 Tim 2:12”; Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (Littleton: Lewis and Roth, 1995), 59: “First Timothy 2:11-14 should alone settle the question of women elders.” Cf. Schreiner’s attitude in “An Interpretation,” 86.

69. This is, in fact, what led me (and many others) out of aggressive complementarianism and into egalitarianism (and eventual membership with CBE). I, however, was fortunate not to have signed a legal contract at a seminary, college, church, or organization that

26 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

forbade me from changing my views on gender and ministry. One can only imagine how many secretive egalitarians would speak their minds if not for the threat of job termination, career loss, and alienation!

70. Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence,” 57.

71. See discussion in previous section.

72. Regarding one of these cases, Andreas Köstenberger says, in “‘Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15’ (Ch. 12) by Linda L. Belleville,” JBMW 10, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 43-54: “in Titus 1:11 the context clearly indicates a negative connotation by the qualifier ‘teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.’ No such negative qualifier is found in 1 Tim 2:12, however.” But, why are further qualifiers necessary in 1 Tim 2:12 than those already present?

Consider that (a) the word is paired up with authentein (which, as we have seen, has anything but a “positive sense” in the first century), (b) the immediate context is one of correcting ungodly behaviors, and (c) Paul and the original audience know far more about the specific situation and the Ephesian women than we do—and we do know that the Ephesian women had very specific problems (see 1 Tim 5:13; 2 Tim 3:6, etc.). So, Köstenberger is hardly in a position to be demanding “qualifiers” to know if didaskō in 1 Tim 2:12 is used “negatively”; such demands are artificial (cf. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 223-24).

73. See Schreiner, “An Interpretation,” 105; Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence,” 74. Cf. Köstenberger, “Gender Passages in the NT,” 266-67; Harold Hoehner, “Can a Woman Be a Pastor–Teacher?”

JETS 50, no. 4 (December 2007): 770.

74. See Towner, Letters to Timothy and Titus, 223-24.

75. E.g., the note at 1 Tim 2:12 by Ray Van Neste in ESV Study Bible (ed. Wayne Grudem and J. I. Packer; Wheaton: Crossway, 2008): “Women are not permitted to publicly teach scripture and/or Christian doctrine to men in church (the context implies these topics). . . .”

76. This article has not specifically addressed this issue. However, it will be addressed in a forthcoming article on the “clarity of scripture” and 1 Tim 2:12, where I examine multiple complementarian interpretations of 1 Tim 2:12—most of which are (supposedly) “clear” to the average reader. See also Jamin Hübner, “The Evolution of Complementarian Exegesis,” Priscilla Papers 29, no. 1 (Winter 2015): 11-13.

77. I am not excluding the work of the Spirit in this assertion.

78. See John Goldingay, Models for Scripture (Toronto: Clements, 2004), 192ff.; Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009). Many post-modern authors (e.g., Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Michael White, Paul Ricoeur) have ably shown the power of language in human experience.

79. The NLT fortunately includes at least a marginal note saying “or . . . usurp authority.”

JAMIN HÜBNER is an American theologian and author from South Dakota. He is a graduate of Dordt College (BA Theology), Reformed Theological Seminary (MA Religion), and the University of South Africa (ThD), and he currently serves as the Director of Institutional Effectiveness and founding Chair of Christian Studies at John Witherspoon College in the Black Hills. In addition to being the author of A Case for Female Deacons (Wipf and Stock, 2015) and other books, Dr. Hübner serves as a peer review editor for Priscilla Papers.

Book Review Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues

By N. T. Wright (HarperOne, 2014) Reviewed by Dawn Gentry N. T. (Tom) Wright is an esteemed scholar and prolific author whose work is no stranger to readers of Priscilla Papers. His article, “The Biblical Basis for Women’s Service in the Church,”1 was one of the first I read on the topic and served as a launching point for my subsequent research and writing. Consequently, I am pleased to provide a review of his recent book, Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues.

Wright is well-respected in academic circles. While some of his theology is considered traditional, he is unafraid to bring more controversial views to the forefront. In this book, Wright emphasizes the influence that the eighteenthcentury Enlightenment had on the development of modern Western thinking. Similarly, his assertion that Epicureanism is foundational for Modernity is borne out in several essays, particularly as it applies to political thought. Until readers are able to recognize their own firmly held, underlying beliefs about the way things are, he notes, they will be unable fully to appreciate the (potentially surprising) things scripture has to say.

(On the impact of worldview on the dialogue about patriarchy versus equality, see the summer 2014 issue of Mutuality.)

As a former bishop and current professor, Wright skillfully crafts exemplary scholarship into a readable treatise, while showing pastoral care for his readers. His ability to reach a varied audience is evident in his For Everyone New Testament Commentary series, and this ability shines in Wright’s latest work as well. Using several case-studies, Wright illustrates how “people may not expect the Bible to have much to say on these topics… [and] when it does speak to them it may not say what people have imagined” (x). Wright found he was himself “surprised by scripture” and developed these essays in response to lecture requests on various topics.

The first three essays interact with the scientific community.

In “Healing the Divide Between Science and Religion,” Wright lays out his case for Epicurus and Lucretius as predecessors of Darwin, and suggests a deep-seated opposition between a “system in which God has been disinvolved” and one that “insists on God’s actions in creation and providence” (15).

His second essay asks, “Do We Need a Historical Adam?” and suggests that even asking the question raises concerns about scriptural authority (27). In his third piece, Wright examines the difference between scientific inquiry and historical analysis, using the resurrection of Jesus as an important example.

Subsequent essays include conversations on creation care (and how it relates to our views on the second coming) (95), the question of systemic evil in the world and our needed response to be “living embodiments of that new creation” (128), and three ways to “listen afresh to the message of the whole Bible” (140). In his chapter on idolatry, Wright also illuminates the importance of biblical wisdom as a remedy for widespread worship of “Mars, Mammon, and Aphrodite” (156). He engages in conversation with political systems and, in particular, notes the importance

of the church playing its part “in holding the powers to account and thus advance[ing] God’s restorative justice” (179).

Nestled among the wide ranging topics above is Wright’s essay, “The Biblical Case for Ordaining Women” (64-82). Of interest to me at the outset was the titular shift from “women’s service” (2006) to “ordaining women” (2014). After comparing the two essays closely, however, I do not see much expansion of thought—the beliefs described in his 2006 Priscilla Papers article remain essentially unchanged in his 2014 book. (In fact, much of the book’s essay is word-for-word from the article.)

Perhaps adding the phrase “women’s ordination” increases the book’s list of topical subjects (for library searches) or searchengine optimization (e.g., for Google and Amazon).

For long-time members of CBE who may be discouraged by this similarity, I will highlight a few developments that were added in the book. When calling attention to women leaders in the early church, Wright suggests incredulity over translators fighting about Junia being a woman since no historical or exegetical proof exists that she was a man. He mentions the woman who anointed Jesus, pointing out, “this was a priestly action that Jesus accepted as such” (69). There is an expanded introduction about cultural issues and head coverings (73) and a brief comparison of the use of kephalē in Ephesians to that in 1 Corinthians (75).

Wright does not doubt authorship of the Pastorals. He offers an updated translation of “the hardest passage of all” (1 Tim 2) which he hopes will show how “the words can actually mean something significantly different than what has usually been assumed” (78). He recognizes that some might charge his translation serves only to “tailor this bit of Paul to fit our culture” but asserts that there is “good, solid scholarship” behind it (79).

Wright does take the time to explain the word authentein as having overtones of “being bossy or seizing control,” without getting into the nuances of the Greek (the book, after all, is not an academic one) (80).

Because CBE's website provides easy access to the 2006 article (www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/editorsreflections-autumn-2006-204),2 there is no need to buy this book for the chapter on women’s ordination. Having said that, there are certainly other positive reasons to read it, and its topical variety provides helpful discussion points on “contemporary issues.” One encouraging point about the broad appeal of this book (both in its writing style and array of content) is that many who have not yet been exposed to the teachings of CBE will perhaps pick it up and read it. On the topic of women’s ordination, the well-respected N. T. Wright would be a positive first read.

Anyone with particular interest in one or more chapters will be happy to note that many of them have been expanded into their own books, and Wright alludes to these titles within each essay to recommend further study. Our own study of scripture often leads to more questions than answers, and Wright asserts, Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 27

“some of the most important questions in life need to be approached from several angles at once” (xi). While the chapter on women may not be a “new angle” to some CBE supporters, it will certainly be new to many. Wright’s book serves as a vital conversation partner for dialogue and provides an original and biblical perspective for some current issues, including women’s ordination.

Note 1. Priscilla Papers 20, no. 4 (Autumn 2006): 5-10. This 2006 article was adapted from Wright’s address at the 2004 “International Symposium on Men, Women, and the Church,” co-sponsored by CBE, Women and the Church (WATCH), and Men, Women and God (MWG) at St. John’s College in Durham, England.

2. All issues of CBE’s award-winning journals are available for free under the Publications Menu at www.cbeinternational.org, except the most recent three years. CBE members may access all articles.

DAWN GENTRY is now pursuing her MDiv at Emmanuel Christian Seminary, after 11 years of full time church ministry. She and her husband, Harold, have two grown children and an adorable grandson. Dawn is passionate about equipping others for ministry and encouraging dialogue on a biblical theology of women. When she’s not writing papers for graduate classes, she blogs at www. dawngentry.com.

Book Review The CEB Study Bible Edited by Joel B. Green (Nashville: Common English Bible, 2013) Reviewed by Charles M. Metcalf A wide spectrum of thoughtful Bible students could benefit from The CEB Study Bible. This text provides the reader with ample study notes, cross-references, maps, introductory essays to each biblical book, and a concordance. For those not familiar with the Common English Bible translation, the CEB was produced in 2011 utilizing the effort of over 120 translators from twenty-two faith traditions. One of the primary goals of this translation was achieving a balance between accurate renditions of the ancient original texts and clear expression to the target audience. The result is a readable version utilizing contemporary English.

The translators also sought to “use gender-inclusive or neutral syntax for translating pronouns that refer to humans, unless context requires otherwise” (xxi). This translation was crafted in the church community for the church community.

When one surveys the team of contributors to this study Bible, it is apparent these scholars are from diverse faith communities representing a wide range of Christian theological tendencies. With this understanding, no one branch of Christianity or denominational belief dominates the text. Of the sixty-three contributing authors, nineteen are female (30%).

Since the purpose of the CEB is to provide an everyday English translation, it is no surprise to see that the overwhelming majority of scholars who worked on The CEB Study Bible are from the United States.

Individuals familiar with study Bibles will be pleased to see some of the additional features The CEB Study Bible offers. Each book of the Bible begins with an introductory two-page essay together with a related full color picture followed by a basic outline of the book. The format includes a single column page layout for the biblical text coupled with scriptural cross-references along the outer margins. The bottom half of each page has a two column layout with copious study notes highlighting individual 28 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

verses and sections. These notes read like a condensed form of leading biblical commentaries (Interpretation, Expositor’s, etc.) that provide historical background and context rather than trying to persuade the reader to take certain theological positions. Each book also includes numerous brief topical essays which provide rich insights into the relevant history and themes addressed.

One positive feature of The CEB Study Bible is its use of color: the text is black, the headings are maroon, the chapter numbers are goldenrod, the numerical cross-references are blue, and the essays have a light green background. These colors blend well to present a clean and aesthetically pleasing format while helping the reader quickly identify sections without being overwhelmed. The final section contains additional articles, a concordance, and twenty-one full-color maps. The concordance, while not exhaustive, contains eighty-two pages of entries, much more than would be expected of a study Bible. The high quality maps were created by the National Geographic Society.

The supplemental articles in the back of the Bible approach various contemporary theological concerns and would benefit from a brief introduction. The articles discuss the authority of scripture, the Bible’s unity, how we got the Bible, the Bible and its chronology, and guidelines for reading the Bible. Each of the articles (five to six pages in length) guides the reader through common questions such as: Why is the OT relevant? Did the NT authors think they were writing scriptures? What is the proper use of the Bible? How should we approach scripture? The articles also touch on how the Bible has been used as a repressive tool in slavery, racism, and the abuse of women. Overall, they do an excellent job providing a quick overview of each topic and are helpful in theologically framing and understanding scripture as a whole.

Christians who hold an egalitarian viewpoint will be encouraged when studying some of the materials related to gender equality in The CEB Study Bible. Immediately following the second and third chapters of Genesis, the study Bible provides an essay on “Gender in Genesis.” This essay highlights how both male and female are created in God’s image. It also addresses the term “helper” and how this word is not to be understood as a pejorative, for God is also called a helper in the Bible. It concludes by discussing how, even without institutional authority, the women in Genesis often prove powerful and influential in God’s unfolding story. Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 14 is also accompanied by an article highlighting the historical setting and cultural context of the day. It points readers to 1 Cor 11:5 which speaks about women prophesying and praying in worship services. The CEB also corrects an editorial injustice often found in Eph 5. Some Bible translations have separated v.

21 from v. 22 by inserting a paragraph break or a new heading such as “Wives and Husbands.” When translators do this they encourage the use of proof texting and dissuade readers from viewing the entire context of Paul’s instructions. The main idea in v. 21 is a command for everyone to submit to each other; v.

22 gives a specific application within Christian households.

The CEB has neither paragraph break nor subheading between v. 21 and v. 22: “21and submit to each other out of respect for Christ. 22For example, wives should submit to their husbands as if to the Lord.” Another significant text to explore is 1 Tim 2. This section also has a corresponding essay which frames the passage within a domestic context rather than a church context.

The CEB uses “wife” rather than “woman” in vv. 11, 12, 14, and 15 (with “woman” as a footnoted alternative). As a result, v. 12 reads, “I don’t allow a wife to teach or to control her husband.”

In summary, the CEB translators and Study Bible contributors did an admirable job with some often misunderstood passages.

Overall, the CEB translation offers a readable text. The contemporary language makes for a smooth cadence in corporate

worship. Outdated and difficult to understand terms have been substituted with more modern everyday language. Rather than utilize a term such as “devoted things” from Josh 7, for example, the CEB simply refers to them as “items reserved for God.” Examples like this demonstrate how this translation can be faithful, accurate, and suited for contemporary readers.

However, there are a few instances when the contemporary language may possibly skew understanding (e.g., “supervisor” instead of “overseer” or “bishop” in Phil 1:1). One sticking point for formal writers and some academics will be the CEB’s use of contractions within the text. In seeking to allow the Bible to speak in a modern language the translators have chosen to use contractions. Nevertheless, this element should not detract serious students of the Word from using the CEB. This translation is appropriate for personal devotion, group Bible studies and corporate worship. The CEB Study Bible can help engage readers in the world of the biblical writers while remaining faithful to God’s intentions for God’s Word. Clergy and laity alike will benefit from the wide-ranging notes which can aid in developing sermons and lessons for small-group Bible studies. Among a crowded field of study Bibles, The CEB Study Bible readily distinguishes itself. I would highly recommend this Bible to Christians seeking to be molded by God into the people that God has called us to be.

CHARLES M. METCALF is a PhD student in organizational leadership at Eastern University.

He holds an MA in theological studies from Asbury Theological Seminary and a BA in church ministry from Warner University. He has served as the pastor of Clearview Chapel in LaGrange, Georgia, since 2005.

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 29

Book Review Streams Run Uphill: Conversations with Young Clergywomen of Color

By Mihee Kim-Kort (Judson, 2014) Reviewed by Kristen Nicole Caldwell The recently published book, Streams Run Uphill: Conversations with Young Clergywomen of Color, poignantly opens up a whole new world for those of us who still see through the eyes of the dominant culture. The title’s Clergywomen of Color gives a small taste of the experiences these women have faced and continue to face. Yet these women also share much with their Caucasian sisters, such as growing up without seeing a woman preach, encountering shock when announcing they are pastors, loneliness, disrespect by parishioners, internalizing negative perceptions, and disentangling various contradictions.

The primary goal of this book is to amplify the voices of these silent women in order to spark change. Through this book, these women have a platform to speak in their own culture, language and ethos. Each of the ten chapters features a clergywoman of color and may include short sections from Kim-Kort herself, as well as quotations from anonymous clergywomen. The chapters categorically focus on ten struggles: sexism, racism, ageism, community, tokenism, family, legitimacy, finding one’s niche, voice/authority, and calling. Surprisingly, though the title refers to “young” clergywomen, the only references to age concern past experiences that occurred at age thirty, thirty-something, and forty-two (96, 80, 37, respectively).

While the narratives are easy to read, the concepts are profound. These women live with the daily pressure to adapt to the dominant white culture and bury their ethnic heritage. One calls it “playing white” in order to be approved (69). There is an inward struggle between dissolving into the dominant culture and creating space for themselves. KimKort shares that she often vacillated between two extremes in which she would adopt the voice and mannerisms of the group to fit in (losing self) yet would also sometimes speak up, only to feel like an awkward radical (63, 53). Another contributor shares how she lives in a “liminal state” since she does not fully belong in either place (The United States or China) as a Chinese Asian American (79). She lives between both places.

These accounts show how churches need to learn to value unique cultural perspectives, talents, and values. One clergywoman expresses feeling afraid to simply let her large curls fall down, saying, “I can’t help but wonder if even my hair would deter people from hearing me preach God’s word” (20). In the post-worship receiving line, one man would always call an Asian American clergywoman “doll” because she reminded him of a porcelain doll (14). At introductions in ministry contexts, Kim-Kort rarely senses people are genuinely interested in her ethnic culture, and her parents hated her being called “cute” by her friends (19, 58). While such outside perceptions and comments may seem nothing but a whisper to some, to these women they are deafening 30 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015

because such perceptions invalidate their cultures. One contributor, for example, endured a parishioner objecting to having more than ten Hispanic families at their church (111)! As clergywomen of color, it is difficult to navigate and address such racist comments.

Expressed through narratives, this book has a powerful prophetic voice because of its implications for congregations, denominations and theological institutions. Kim-Kort points to the issue of tokenism (using one person to suffice for representation) in ch. 5. Her denomination has a “Committee on Representation” where she has served as a minority representative. She has often wondered if tokenism is her “denomination’s version of affirmative action” (60).

Kim-Kort shares how a friend who started the first antiracist training at a seminary was saddened by invalidating comments and lack of non-minorities among future pastors (62).

Thankfully, these stories also provide some answers for clergywomen of color. While the tendency has sometimes been to hide their racial identity by means of their Christian identity, they have been able to break free by identifying how their ethnic culture has been devalued (69-70). Though negative perceptions can stick to them, they have learned to take these stickers off, refusing to internalize negative messages (42). Some have found creative ways of celebrating their cultures in their ministries, discovering that some people will indeed accept their gifts (51). This discovery involves a frightening yet necessary step—speaking in your true voice, whether it is ethnic, feminine, both or neither.

Clergywomen of color, this is a must read!

KRISTEN NICOLE CALDWELL is a bishop for the Worldwide Fellowship of Independent Christian Churches, serving as one of the Board of Directors and the diocesan bishop of Ohio. She received a BA in Bible/ Preaching from Central Bible College and an MDiv in Biblical Studies from Ashland Theological Seminary. Having studied data from 75 women clergy in 18 denominations, she completed her DMin at Ashland Theological Seminary, writing on “Discovering the Primary Hindrances Women Face in Fulfilling their Call to Ministry.”

Christians for Biblical Equality Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) is an organization of Christian men and women who believe that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of believers of all ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings of Scripture as reflected in Galatians 3:28.

Mission Statement CBE exists to promote biblical justice and community by educating Christians that the Bible calls women and men to share authority equally in service and leadership in the home, church, and world.

Statement of Faith • We believe in one God, creator and sustainer of the universe, eternally existing as three persons in equal power and glory.

• We believe in the full deity and the full humanity of Jesus Christ.

• We believe that eternal salvation and restored relationships are only possible through faith in Jesus Christ who died for us, rose from the dead, and is coming again. This salvation is offered to all people.

• We believe the Holy Spirit equips us for service and sanctifies us from sin.

• We believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, is reliable, and is the final authority for faith and practice.

• We believe that women and men are equally created in God’s image and given equal authority and stewardship of God’s creation.

• We believe that men and women are equally responsible for and distorted by sin, resulting in shattered relationships with God, self, and others.

resists the work of the Spirit of God and is unjust.

Christ’s redemptive work frees all people from patriarchy, calling women and men to share authority equally in service and leadership.

• God’s design for relationships includes faithful marriage between a man and a woman, celibate singleness and mutual submission in Christian community.

• The unrestricted use of women’s gifts is integral to the work of the Holy Spirit and essential for the advancement of the gospel in the world.

• Followers of Christ are to oppose injustice and patriarchal teachings and practices that marginalize and abuse females and males.

Envisioned Future CBE envisions a future where all believers are freed to exercise their gifts for God’s glory and purposes, with the full support of their Christian communities.

CBE Membership CBE membership is available to those who support CBE’s Statement of Faith. Members receive CBE’s quarterly publications, Mutuality magazine and Priscilla Papers journal, as well as discounts to our bookstore and conferences. Visit cbe.today/members for details.

Core Values

CBE Board of Reference

• Scripture is our authoritative guide for faith, life, and practice.

• Patriarchy (male dominance) is not a biblical ideal but a result of sin.

• Patriarchy is an abuse of power, taking from females what God has given them: their dignity, and freedom, their leadership, and often their very lives.

• While the Bible reflects patriarchal culture, the Bible does not teach patriarchy in human relationships.

Restricting believers from exercising their gifts— on the basis of their gender, ethnicity, or class—

Miriam Adeney, Myron S. Augsburger, Raymond J. Bakke, Anthony Campolo, Lois McKinney Douglas, Millard J. Erickson, Gordon D. Fee, Richard Foster, John R. Franke, W. Ward Gasque, J. Lee Grady, Vernon Grounds†, David Joel Hamilton, Roberta Hestenes, Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, Donald Joy, Robbie Joy, Craig S. Keener, John R. Kohlenberger III, David Mains, Kari Torjesen Malcolm†, Brenda Salter McNeil, Alvera Mickelsen, Virgil Olson†, LaDonna Osborn, T. L. Osborn†, John E. Phelan, Kay F. Rader, Paul A. Rader, Ronald J. Sider, Aída Besançon Spencer, William David Spencer, Ruth A. Tucker, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Timothy Weber, Jeanette S. G. Yep Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No.2 ◆ Spring 2015 • 31

32 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 29, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2015