Regarding the concern about understanding the meaning in it’s own context: please remember that the Jewish understanding of words was different than many of our understanding of words. To use the same word in one place meant connecting it to other locations where it was used. Understanding scripture as a whole is essential and so when we put passages like 1 Tim in context, we need to remember the overarching themes of the entire Bible.

Indeed, not just Jewish, but the general ancient conception of words is usually far removed from our own. Heck, the word “word” (greek “logos”) had an absolute plethora of meanings.

Problems arise with the general issue of what constituted “scripture” for them (which we discussed a bit not too long ago). Also, Timothy’s approach to the texts may not be entirely what one would consider “Jewish” (not sure if we can really determine such thing though) considering he was a convert of some sort. And finally, the main problem with αὐθεντεῖν is that, to my knowledge, it doesn’t occur in the septuagint, which would more or less have been “scripture” to the intended audience. So, unfortunately, we can’t make the necessary connections. However, connections can be made between the uses of “ezer,” like Tom has done.

Hank, thank you for your comments….I will get back with you, brother….I promise.

I wonder what Hank meant by the statement: “Woman was created to fill a role, which is what Bob has been arguing–unless I miss your point in these words.” Were men created to fill a role? Is there just one role or many? What about all the women and men who are used by God throughout the Bible and don’t fit into the “role”, or do they?

Also, as we look at the issue of “patriarchy”, equality, and submission, we need to look at the reality of how things have been manifest - the truth is that in most cases, women have been treated as subserviant, being given tasks in the church that require less intelligence and skill. Would a complementarian please explain what you believe the relationships between women and men, their roles and skills, etc look like in a prefallen or post redemptive world.

In regards to 1 Timothy 2:9-15, again the actual text is left alone to show that αὐθεντεῖν the meaning you show exists for the word is the actual meaning that Paul had in mind. You failed to demonstrate that Paul was not using αὐθεντεῖν as a synonym to ἐξουσιάζω, you just ruled it out. That is key. No argument is given for why Paul is using αὐθεντεῖν the way you argued it could mean. You did an amazing job showing that αὐθεντεῖν could mean dominate or domineer, but failed to put it in 1 Timothy 2:12 as Paul’s intended use. Also, I always think it is a bad idea to deal with “well if this author wanted to say this, he would have used this term.” Not that you can’t get some good exegetical information from that line of thinking, it often leads to an exegete going off on some rabbit trail that has nothing to do with the text.

What is a text but a grouping of words? You make it seem like one word doesn’t changed a text. Yet, individual words signify something, and if we can place a word in it’s broader literary context (ie - the greater corpus of contemporary Greek texts), we can get a sense as to what exactly a word is trying to signify.

αὐθεντεῖν, understood in the broad realm of Greek literature, has a fairly specific meaning in reference to domination, and originally even meant the murder by one’s own family member. This is the word’s history. If Paul is using the word to signify a different idea, then he absolutely failed to alert his audience, as his audience would have already had a specific idea associated with that word.

Since the word had a specific contextual meaning, one that is markedly more nuanced than ἐξουσιάζω, the burden of proof resides with whoever supports an alternate understanding of αὐθεντεῖν. It is the one equating the two words who must “go off on some rabbit trail that has nothing to do with the text.”

PS - someone needs to teach me how to use quotes here…

But it is interesting in your post you said, "The woman is never said to need the man, he is said to need her. He needs her help, not her subordination." Woman was created to fill a role, which is what Bob has been arguing–unless I miss your point in these words.

In regards to 1 Timothy 2:9-15, again the actual text is left alone to show that αὐθεντεῖν the meaning you show exists for the word is the actual meaning that Paul had in mind. You failed to demonstrate that Paul was not using αὐθεντεῖν as a synonym to ἐξουσιάζω, you just ruled it out. That is key. No argument is given for why Paul is using αὐθεντεῖν the way you argued it could mean. You did an amazing job showing that αὐθεντεῖν could mean dominate or domineer, but failed to put it in 1 Timothy 2:12 as Paul’s intended use. Also, I always think it is a bad idea to deal with "well if this author wanted to say this, he would have used this term." Not that you can’t get some good exegetical information from that line of thinking, it often leads to an exegete going off on some rabbit trail that has nothing to do with the text.

As regards your view of Artemis being the source of Paul’s concern in the text, it is interesting, but is unconvincing. You admit it yourself that Paul might not be dealing with Artemis. She just fits the way you understand the text. The argument itself is sound, but just cannot be proven from 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy or Titus.

As a result, all of the complementarians are left unconvinced and all of the egalitarians are left convinced. My objections are not to say that you are wrong because I find your argument lacking necessary substance, especially for my mind. But I am say just that, your argument lacks substance on key issues, especially in the realm of grammar, when so much of your argument hinges upon those issues (αὐθεντεῖν  not being synonymous with ἐξουσιάζω or that the meaning you have shown αὐθεντεῖν to have is the intended meaning of Paul; Artemis being the "godless myth" that Paul was addressing Timothy about; ezer in fact meaning what you say it does in the context of Genesis 2).

(And you may not intend for your use of "patriarchy" to be pejorative or derogatory, but it does come off that way. I can see why Bob might be a little upset by it.)

Furthermore, I have Complementarian support for the use of this word. Russ Moore, professor of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was quoted a few years ago in support of redeeming the word ‘patriarchy.’ He was frustrated by its negative connotations as a result of feminism, and he wanted to reinvest the word with non-feminist meaning.

So, no, I’m not going to qualify the use or stop using the word. It is the position of the Complemnatarians that men hold the positions of power within the church and family. Not only that, but I have BC’s calling for the use of this word. And finally, if I meant the word in a pejorative sense, then I would need to stop using it altogether for the sake of my own soul, but as I am using it neutrally, I don’t feel convicted to cease using the word. Seems you’re so afraid of pop-feminism that you want to abandon traditionally held language.

Hank,
I’m not sure what you mean. It took me 3 posts in I Timothy, but I think I supported my claim that this is what Paul meant with the use of Authentein. If there was a violently matriachal bend in the femals within the church at Ephesus, as the whole Artemis reading suggests, then there is the justification for my applied definition of the word. That combined with all the historical evidence that suggests the word was overwhelmingly used that way - I think its a shut case.

As for ezer - I’m not trying to redefine this word. ‘Helper’ is a fine translation. I just don’t like what we have placed on that word through our cultural biases. No where in the Hebrew Bible does this word have implied subordination - so the burden of proof lies on those who claim it implies subordination. That’s all I’m saying.

Unless, of course, I’ve misunderstood what you were saying….then, just ignore all I have just written.

I’ve noticed in your posts that you will demonstrate that a word can mean something but you never actually show in the particular context that you are addressing, e.g 1 Timothy 2:11 and Genesis 2, that this is the meaning intended by the author/redactor. This in my mind has severely weakened your case. What I have noticed as a result is that egalitarians remain egalitarians and complementarians remain complementarians (I agree with Bob that calling this view "patriarchy" is misrepresenting complementarianism). I am hoping that this is due impart that you are busy and that you aren’t writing dissertations. I am also hoping that your next posts will do more to present a compelling argument, especially on a grammatical level as I have noted.