A Case for Biblical Egalitarianism: Part Three (The Rebuttal)
This article is Part Three of a series of articles (see Part One and Part Two) exploring some of the details of the egalitarian/complementarian debate. This article follows up a podcast episode of Bible & Banter where Luke Copeland and myself dove into a discussion about several key passages, including the passages from Luke’s article on the complementarian perspective. Luke has also written a rebuttal against the egalitarian position, and primarily that which was discussed in our podcast episode.
Below, you’ll find my rebuttal to Luke’s article. I have quoted much of his article, and responded to each point for each passage as best I can. This rebuttal was the base of what I used in the podcast episode, so much of it will be familiar to those of you who listened/watched the podcast.
There will be Part Four, wherein I refute the second half of Luke’s article.
Enjoy!
THE CREATED ORDER & THE CURSE
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone;
I will make him a helper fit for him.”
-Genesis 2:18
From the very beginning, we see a clear delineation in male and female roles. To be clear, this is not a difference in value. Genesis 1:27 establishes that men and women are equally made in the image of God. Yet that equality speaks to their value, not to their functions. The mission of mankind- to multiply upon the earth and subdue it- is served differently and cooperatively by men and women. Women are given as “help-mates” for men. See? Equal in value, different in role.
I’m not disagreeing that males and females can have distinctive roles. What I disagree with is that one person of a biological gender is subordinate to another within those distinctive roles. Men and women are different. Mentally, physically, emotionally - they are different. Women can’t do all that men can do, because that’s not how we were created. Men are typically stronger physically, and women are softer in build and stature normally. Mentally, our brains work differently (I could quote lots of scientific studies here, but most of it is in science-speak that I don’t understand). We handle emotions differently. But they are compatible with one another in unique ways. Men are built physically in a way that could be seen as a protector of women, who are normally built smaller. Even our reproductive organs are built in such a way that they fit together. That doesn’t make one less than the other, or subordinate by design. That makes them compatible. That makes them two pieces of a puzzle designed by God Almighty himself.
I’ve written about my exegetical and etymological analysis of the term “ezer” or “help-mate” already, so refer to my article about that. In short, I don’t think it’s a term that connotes subordinate in any way. I don’t think a male-female hierarchy is stated, implied, or indicated in the created order.
The other key description early in Genesis is the curse God speaks against Eve in Genesis 3:16. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you. This verse is hotly contested, because there is a Hebrew word that can be translated “toward” or “against.”
Thankfully, we have exactly the same construction in Genesis 4:7. And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it. What this text reveals is that both translations of the Hebrew word in question yield the same interpretation. Whether Eve’s desire is “for” or “against” her husband, it is a desire with the implication of control. Consequently, the curse is not the establishment of Adam’s authority. If it were, there would be room for an argument that redemption through Jesus Christ lifts that curse and nullifies that authority. Instead, the curse is Eve’s rebellion against the established order between husband and wife of authority and submission respectively.
The Fall. This is a passage that I decided not to look at in my own articles, and perhaps I should have at least stated my understanding of the passage. I have several issues with how Luke explains his perspective, and they may not be what is expected. Contrary to popular belief with other egalitarians, I don’t actually know if the translation has any major bearing on the interpretation of the passage. Whether the preposition is translated “toward” or “against” or “contrary to” doesn’t affect my understanding. Why? Let me see if I can explain. I’m going back to the basics of my biblical training here.
What happened in the Fall? When we go back to the beginning, and strip away the controversy about man and woman and whether there is a hierarchy or subordination or equality… What actually happened?
Adam and Eve are created, and they are in harmony with God. Adam is given the explicit command to not eat from the tree, and it can be inferred that this command is passed on to Eve as well (whether she was standing next to Adam, or Adam told her himself, is not 100% clear to be honest - either way, she gets the message). Eve is deceived by the Serpent (the enemy), and eats the fruit from the forbidden tree. When the Serpent deceives her, he does so by twisting words and causing doubt in what Eve knows of the command, and what she knows of God (“Did God really say…?”). Eve eats the fruit from the tree, and then Adam also eats from the tree. Eve is deceived first, clearly. Was she more gullible? Was she more susceptible to deception? We don’t know that. We know that she was deceived by the Serpent first, and then Adam.
Suddenly, Adam and Eve are aware of several things that they were not aware of previously. They are aware of their nakedness, they are aware that they have done something wrong, and they are aware of their shame and fear which causes them to hide. They are aware, presumably, of the knowledge of good and evil (as the tree is named). They are aware of themselves and their own power in a way that they have not been thus far.
Autonomy. They are aware of their own ability to self-govern.
And so, chaos is introduced into the world. Autonomy. Self-governance. Disobedience. Disharmony.
Before the deception and the eating of the fruit and the disobedience of a command from God, there was harmony. Adam and Eve were content and living with God in this paradise. After the deception and the disobedience, there is disharmony.
That, in my opinion, is at the core of what has happened. We see a transition from harmony to disharmony. From paradise to chaos.
Continuing with the story and how it unfolds, Adam and Eve are therefore banished from the garden (paradise) and they suffer the consequences for what they have done.
If we look at every layer of the curse, at the core of it all is chaos and disharmony. Whereas prior to the Fall Adam and Eve were on the same wavelength, so to speak; after the Fall there is contention. Prior to the Fall there was joy and happiness and contentment. After the Fall there is pain and sorrow and contention. Adam and Eve are no longer in harmony with one another and they are no longer in perfect harmony with God. Now, there is Sin.
And much like the Serpent or another predator, it crouches at the door waiting to strike.
There is much I could extrapolate on regarding Hebrew poetry and how the language is structured here, but the base of what I want to emphasize is the duality displayed. That’s what Hebrew poetry often does - it highlights a duality. Good and evil. Right and wrong. Harmony and disharmony.
The translation of the Hebrew word “el” as “toward” or “against” or “contrary to” does not change my understanding of the Fall and the curse. All indicate tension and disharmony between two people.
Within my understanding of the creation of mankind, this makes sense. I disagree with Luke when he says that “the curse is Eve’s rebellion against the established order between husband and wife of authority and submission respectively.”
No, the curse is the consequence of chaos and disharmony as a result of disobedience. The curse is not Eve’s rebellion. The curse does not fall on Eve alone. That is a blatant misreading of the text. The curse is much more complex and multi-layered than that.
But, with the curse we also see a promise. Adam and Eve messed up, Adam bears the brunt of the responsibility because he was created by God first (this still doesn’t conflict with egalitarianism in my opinion) and he should have known. Does that equate to a hierarchy? No. It means that Adam bears the responsibility because he was the first created human. Adam and Eve messed up, but there is promise for redemption.
Eve’s offspring will contend in the midst of this chaos and disharmony in the world, stand up directly to the Enemy, and overcome.
Eve’s offspring, Jesus Christ, will win and defeat the Enemy. And her offspring who will do this will come to be called “the second Adam,” because he is able to do something that Adam and Eve could not - perfect obedience and service to God. This second Adam will not succumb to temptation, and he will not be overtaken by the disharmony and chaos.
I realize that some of you may not be happy with the poetic/symbolic type of language I use in describing my perspective on Genesis. Well, the Hebrew language is quite poetic and symbolic in much of its structure, so I thought I’d follow suit.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CASE
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man;
rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
-1 Timothy 2:11-14
There is a lot to unpack in these verses. The first and most important observation we must make is that Paul clearly and plainly forbids women from teaching or exercising authority over men in the Church. Note that Paul bases this principle in both the created order and the fall. This flies in the face of so much of the typical egalitarian argument, which claims that the prevalence of male leadership in the Bible is culturally driven.
While complementarianism does not hang solely on this passage, I am convinced that it is the single most difficult section of the Bible for the egalitarian. Women are not to lead men in the church.
1 Timothy 2. Otherwise known as - the problem passage for egalitarians. The dynamite passage, so to speak. In some sense, I agree. In another sense, I blatantly disagree. I appreciate the frankness with which Luke handles the passage and his interpretation of the passage (which is, plainly speaking, quite literal and surface level). I believe that this passage, and much of the NT, is far more nuanced than we give credit for.
The “typical egalitarian” argument Luke depicts is “that the prevalence of male leadership in the Bible is culturally driven.” I both agree and disagree with his statement. I do think this is an argument largely supported by egalitarians, but I don’t think it’s a complete one. I do think that Luke’s weakness with this passage is that he does not take into account the cultural and historical background surrounding the passage, and I would even argue that he separates the text from it’s historical, cultural, and even literary context.
My argument for understanding 1 Timothy 2 is twofold:
Paul is writing to Timothy, pastor of the church in Ephesus where Paul spent a good deal of time, about a primarily cultural and situational issue.
Paul uses the creation narrative in his entreaty to women/a woman in Ephesus still within this cultural and situational context.
My hermeneutical or interpretation method is very much based in a Historical-Grammatical approach. I cannot separate the text from it’s historical, cultural, literary, and grammatical context. I also firmly stand by my belief that a proper understanding of the historical, cultural, literary, and grammatical background and context of the text is necessary for right preaching and teaching. Knowledge of this background information can only enhance one’s understanding of the text.
When I began looking into this passage, and really paying attention, I took an approach that I learned from exegetical classes in seminary.
I started a new google document, made two columns on the page, and inserted the English biblical text on one side and the Greek text on the other side. Then, I started commenting with my observations and questions in the margins. Soon enough, there were pieces and phrases in the text that were highlighted in various colors, underlined, and italicized.
I came away with more questions than answers.
Let me tell you something that might be a surprise to you. It wasn’t until seminary that I began to even think about egalitarianism as a valid interpretation of the text. Up until this point, the assumed perspective that I was most familiar with and operating under with my reading of Scripture, was actually complementarianism. That was the assumed viewpoint that I was taught, whether it be intentionally or unintentionally, up until that point. I didn’t learn what egalitarianism was, as a way of thinking or a specific interpretation of Scripture, until I was in college and I learned the name for it. I didn’t start trying to determine my own beliefs in that area until seminary. I didn’t think to question what I was taught until someone presented another view to me.
When I started asking questions in seminary, I did the initial exercise I described above (except on printed paper rather than a google doc), and began to ask more questions.
Let’s talk about it.
_________________________________________
Here are my initial observations::
Paul is writing to Timothy, pastor in Ephesus.
Paul spent 2 years (at least) in Ephesus. He knows many of these people. He knows what they are dealing with.
Timothy took over as Pastor of the church in Ephesus some time after Paul left.(Acts, 1 Tim. 1)
Paul is writing primarily in the letter about false teaching that is going around the area. 1 Timothy 1 details the issues surrounding this. This is the broader context and reason/purpose for the letter that we can see.
Ephesus is full of paganism, and false gods. Every street you turn on, there is a temple to another false god or goddess. The Temple of Artemis was there in Ephesus, and it was hailed one of the “Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.” Possibly well known for having temple priestesses?
Why is Paul writing in the first person? “I urge.” “I desire.” “I do not permit.” Does this indicate that Paul is speaking directly into a situation?
Why does Paul switch from plural “women” in vs. 9-10, to singular “a woman” in vs. 11-12? Does this support the implication I see that this is Paul dealing with a specific situation? Did he have a particular woman in mind while writing the letter? One whom Timothy would know?
V. 9-10 talk about the proper way that women should carry themselves within God’s house of worship. Braided hair and gold and pearls and costly attire are signs of wealth. It’s quite possible that the home in which the church assembled was the home of a wealthy woman. I think Paul is basically saying... “Don’t be flashy. Don’t draw attention to yourselves as women. The church is not the place to do so.”
V. 11-12 are the two verses that most complementarians like to toss onto the table and leave them there, usually with no discussion. However, there is discussion to be had. In these verses, Paul uses the singular “a woman” rather than the plural “women.” I believe this is an indicator that Paul is speaking directly into a situation that he and Timothy are specifically aware of. Several things to analyze:
Paul says “let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.” This is not a directive on whether a woman, or women, can learn the things of God. It is a boundary set in place for this specific church on how women should learn. Quietly, with all submissiveness as a student. I see nothing wrong with that. Paul has been a student and teacher himself for a long time, and there is a certain posture with which students should hold themselves - women included.
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Several things I want to discuss here…
Paul uses the first person “I do not permit.” I believe this is again indicative that Paul is speaking directly into a situation.
This appears to be within the context of the previous verse - the context of women learning.
The word translated “to exercise authority” has been a long-contested issue. I will say that I prefer the translation of “to usurp authority” or “to domineer.”
The word used here is αὐθεντεῖν (authentein)- present active infinitive of the root word authenteo. This word only appears here in the NT. It is what we call a “hapax legomenon” or, a word/phrase that appears once within the canon of Scripture.
I would say that it is risky to base one’s argument almost entirely on a hapax legomenon, because it is. But both sides do this. What I would emphasize is that it is risky to base one’s argument almost entirely on a hapax legomenon that historically has been translated differently than it is in the modern translations. It is risky because there is evidence in contemporary manuscripts and texts which show that a different translation would be preferred, and this is supported by other terms being used in the NT (in 1 Timothy itself) to connote “exercise authority”.
With the Historical-Grammatical method, the interpreter first begins with the text itself, then looks at the grammatical features of the text in its original language if able, and also considers the historical background. What is the Historical-Grammatical approach for a hapax legomenon?
Scripture interprets Scripture. Look elsewhere in Scripture for similar concepts and themes, related texts, or similar instruction.
Consider extra-biblical texts that are contemporary to the text found in the Scriptures. The human authors of Scripture were writing to be clear, not to be confusing. They would arguably be consistent with how words are used at the same time in their contemporary context.
Now, more about authentein from my research.
This word when appearing prior to and contemporary with the first century, often had negative overtones such as “domineer,” “usurp,” or even “murder” or “perpetrate a crime.” Only during the later patristic period (between the 6th and 8th centuries) where the meaning “to exercise authority” came to be the primary use of the term.
There are 5 instances where authentein was used outside of the Bible around the 1st century, all of which have the same negative overtones described above and do not have a neutral tone at all.
It is also significant in my opinion that a multitude of pre-modern versions of the Bible translate this word not simply as “have authority” or “exercise authority,” but with some negative connotation.
The Old Latin (2nd to 4th centuries AD) - “I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate (dominari) a man”
The Vulgate (4th to 5th centuries AD) - “neither to domineer over a man”
The Geneva Bible (1560) - “neither to usurpe authority over a man”
The Bishops Bible (1589) - “neither to usurpe authority over a man”
The King James Bible (1611) - “nor usurp authority over a man”
These translations show that the modern translation of “exercise authority” is neither uniform nor self-evident in the history of translation and interpretation.
My Greek language resources support this translation of “usurp authority” or “domineer.” These are trusted academic resources that I’ve used for years.
BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich - Greek Lexicon) - have authority, domineer over someone
Trenchard - have authority, domineer, control
Sakae Kubo - have authority, domineer
I think if Paul wanted to connote the idea of the ordinary exercise of ecclesiastical leadership and authority, there are other terms that he arguably would have used - because he used other terms elsewhere.
Most notable is the term proistemi, which is used by Paul several times in reference to church leadership itself (1 Tim. 3:4, 5, 12; 1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Thess. 5:12; Rom. 12:8). This word has the sense of “manage, conduct, rule, direct, be concerned about,” and certainly connotes the expected type of leadership that should be exhibited by those selected to lead.
The fact that this unusual and ambiguous term is used here indicates, as argued, that there is a certain set of circumstances in view as Paul is writing his letter. I think he has used this term with a specific purpose in mind.
V. 13-15 are Paul’s appeal to the creation narrative. Luke claims that this supports the universality of application in regard to this passage and the restriction against women being able to have spiritual authority.
However, in looking at how else Paul uses the creation narrative in his letters, there is diversity. In Romans 4, he labels Adam as the one responsible for the Fall.
In 2 Corinthians 11, he writes “I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning [Gen. 3:1–6], your minds might be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ” by the “super apostles” who are preaching a “different Jesus.” Dr. John Davis, a former professor of mine from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, sums it up best:
The point to be noticed is that Paul draws a parallel here between the deception of Eve and the danger of the entire Corinthian congregation (or its [male] leaders) being deceived by false teachers. In this text, the figure of Eve is clearly taken to apply to the entire congregation and not specifically to the women within it, as though they, merely by virtue of their gender, were uniquely susceptible to such deception. This is to be contrasted with the reference to the deception of Eve in 1 Timothy 2:12, when Paul is writing to a church in Ephesus in which he is concerned that some of the younger widows have already “turned away to follow Satan” (1 Tim. 5:15), and is aware of “weak-willed women '' in Ephesus who are burdened by sins and have not learned the truth, their homes being infiltrated by false teachers (2 Tim. 3:6–7).
I actually think that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 may be best understood within the context of 1 Timothy as a whole, and particularly the immediate preceding context in 1 Timothy 1:3-11.
3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer
4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.
5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk.
7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.
9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
By looking at both passages, especially chapter 2 in light of chapter 1, we can see that there is a larger context at play here. There is false teaching going on in Ephesus, which Paul is writing to Timothy about with instructions on how to deal with this. I think it is plausible to interpret that Paul is writing with (1) a particular person in mind in chapter 2, and (2) that this person, apparently a woman, has perhaps succumbed to false teaching and may in fact be spreading it around (this is a contested theory among scholars, but I still argue that it is a possibility based on the context). This is a problem, and Paul is addressing it with instructions to Timothy to not allow this woman, and perhaps other women in the church community as well until further instruction and mediation can take place, to teach or exercise spiritual authority.
Context is key, and the early church was still going through growing pains. After all, Scripture interprets Scripture.
______________________________________
This article will be continued in Part Four, where the later half of Luke’s article will be rebutted. Thanks for reading!
-C