Theology for the Masses

The following is written by Jon Zens, a prolific Reformed writer and authority on New Covenant Theology:

First, 1 Cor.7:1-5 is the only place in the NT where the word “authority” (Greek, exousia) is used with reference to marriage. But it is not the authority of the husband over the wife, or vice versa, that is in view, but rather a mutual authority over each other’s body. 1 Corinthians 7:4 states that the wife has authority over her husband’s body. One would think that this would be a hard pill to swallow for those who see “authority” as resting only in the husband’s headship.

Second, Paul states that a couple cannot separate from one another physically unless there is mutual consent (Greek, symphonou). Both parties must agree to the separation or it doesn’t happen. The husband cannot override the wife’s differing viewpoint.

John Piper suggests that “mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance” (p.32). The problem with a dogmatic statement like this is that it will allow for no exceptions. But 1 Corinthians 7:5 contradicts Piper’s maxim. If the wife disagrees with a physical separation, the husband cannot overrule his wife with the “final choice” (p.33). Such separation can occur only if both husband and wife are in “symphony” (unity) about such an action.

Now if mutual consent applies in an important issue like physical separation from one another for a period of time, wouldn’t it seem proper that coming to one-mindedness would be the broad model for decision-making in a healthy marriage? Piper feels that “in a good marriage decision-making is focused on the husband, but is not unilateral” (p.32). In light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 I would suggest that decision-making should focus on finding the Lord’s mind together. Over the years the good ideas, solutions to problems and answers to dilemmas will flow from both husband and the wife as they seek the Lord as a couple for “symphony.”

1 Corinthians 7:5 throws a wrench into the works for those who would include the husband’s “final say” in male headship. Paul teaches that unless the couple can agree on a course of action, it cannot be executed. I suggest that this revelation invites us to re-examine what the husband’s headship really entails (cf. Gordon D. Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1-7 Revisited,” Paul & the Corinthians: Studies On A Community in Conflict, Trevor J. Burke/J. Keith Elliott, eds., Brill, 2003, pp.197-213).

I’d like to direct you all to this article from the New York Times Magazine about Mark Driscoll and the “new Calvinism.” It’s really interesting, and definitely highlights some important issues surrounding both Driscoll and the (relatively) recent Calvinism resurgence.

I find this quote, from the final page of the article, especially interesting:

Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

I’m personally not a very big fan of Driscoll. I think what he’s done on the cultural front is important and interesting…but this article highlights the exact reasons why his hyper-authoritarian militaristic brand of Christianity (and the Calvinist roots behind it) scares me. Any thoughts, comments, reflections?

A Very Brief Background to Artemis:

The Greek/Roman female deity Artemis/Diana had a twin brother named Apollo. When her mother went into labor, Artemis came out of the womb first. Having preceded Apollo, many female worshipers considered her superior to Apollo because it symbolized the female preceding the male and therefore being superior. After she was born, while her mother was giving birth to her brother, Artemis assisted her mother across a river where she helped her mother give birth. This act made her, in the eyes of the women who followed her, the goddess of protection during childbearing. The problem, however, lied in that she was prone to killing a woman in labor just for the fun of it. This caused women not only to need her assistance, but also to fear her assistance.

Artemis was sort of a Feminist deity of the Greco-Roman world – especially Ephesus, Timothy’s location when Paul wrote to him (as her temple was in Ephesus). Women rallied around here for strength and escape from male oppression, and she gave them an avenue of resistance in a patriarchal culture.

I Timothy 2

As the previous word study from my last post suggests, the problem in the church did not lie in the fact that the women were preaching or having authority, but rather, they were enacting violence (probably through sermonic rhetoric) against the men in their congregations. Paul’s remarks do not forbid a woman “to teach or have authority”, but rather the Gk. word usage and construction of the sentence suggests he is forbidding women to “teach in such a way that oppresses men.” (my own paraphrase)

The Artemis Cult gives us the historical background to understand how this authoritative feminism might have arisen in their midst, and it gives us clear understanding of Paul’s subsequent response. The Ephesian women, through their cultural assumption of female superiority derived from Artemis, oppressed the men in their congregation. Paul responds with some statements regarding Adam and Eve – statements which have been taken to mean male leadership and female subordination. He says,

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”

Adam and Eve

Paul gives 2 reasons women shouldn’t dominate men through their sermonic rhetoric:

1. Adam was created first and Eve was created second
2. Eve was deceived while Adam wasn’t

Traditionally these two statements have been interpreted to eliminate the possibility of women becoming preachers or pastors. It has been suggested by many that 1. Men are superior to women because God created them first. And 2. Men are superior to women because women are easily deceived and men are intellectually superior.

These statements fall apart when we examine them in light of the Artemis Cult.

How do these 2 reasons fit into the Artemis hypothesis?

First, by maintaining that Adam was the first one created and Eve the second, Paul is not establishing patriarchy based on the order of creation as most biblical Complementarians assume. Rather, Paul is answering the objection of the Artemis Cult. The Artemis Cult assumed female superiority based on the fact that Artemis preceded here male counterpart Apollo. Paul, reorienting the mythology by which these people have ordered their lives, introduces Hebraic narrative as a way of subverting the female dominance. In other words: Paul counters Artemis with Adam, suggesting a new way of viewing the created order and power. He is not establishing male dominance so much as he is disestablishing female dominance. He’s saying, “Female superiority founded upon the Artemis philosophy does not work in this new community because in the new community, founded upon Hebraic narratives of Genesis 1, the male came first. Thus, your premise is really no foundation for the way you ladies are acting.”

Second, he suggests, female superiority in teaching roles cannot be assumed either. After all, it was Eve who was deceived, not Adam. (Where Paul gets this from Genesis I do not know.) The ultimate failure of your first mother is no basis for establishing female dominance – it simply doesn’t work. This explanation also gives us reasons as to why this theology is so foreign to the New Testament outside of this passage. In every other instance Paul blames the sin on Adam (Romans 5). Here, however, Eve is blamed for the Fall. Why the theological shift? Actually, there isn’t a theological shift. Paul is simply arguing that their mother Eve does not provide them with opportunity for female dominance. He is simply trying to get his point across.

Related to this second point, Eve’s deception was probably connected to Adam’s lack of teaching. That is, interpreters throughout the ages have read into the Genesis text that the serpent deceived Eve easily because Adam did a bad job of teaching. Though I have some questions about this interpretation, I do think it can work with my I Timothy 2 interpretation. All a woman in the Artemis cult needed to take leadership was an ecstatic experience. Discipleship was not a prerequisite. However, Paul will not have them transfer this assumption into the ecclesiastical community. Discipleship is essential, and one cannot teach if they have not undergone long term discipleship. The church has stricter standards than the pagan cults did.

In the end, whether this text was written by Paul or one of his disciples, we need to understand that this is not a proof-text for male dominance or solely male leadership in the ecclesiastical arena. Yes, this text IS bringing women down. However, it is not bringing them down from oppression to further oppression; it is bringing them down from a place of dominance to a place of equality with men.

Paul does not assume a gender based hierarchy in this text – or any other for that matter. I will argue over the next few weeks (months?) from each of Paul’s male/female relation texts that this is the case.

*I promised in my last post to comment on the ‘saved through childbearing’ aspect of this text. I would have done it in this post, but that would have made this post so long no one would want to read it. I am working on it, and it will be my next post.

During the next few posts I will seek your thoughts on a fresh interpretation of I Tim. 2 and the way Paul deals with women in this chapter. Some of the arguments will be stronger than others, but hopefully in the end my arguments will be articulated well. Far from being a proof-text for male-only-pastorates, this passage is in fact a text against female dominance! I will argue that the text is not forbidding women to pastor/preach, but is actually forbidding them to abuse their male counterparts.

Argument #1: the use of authentein.

I Timothy 2:12 – (NIV) “I do not permit a woman to teach of to have (authentein) over a man.”

The first issue I wish to deal with is the use of this Greek work authentein. Some important points concerning this word must be noted:

1. Authentein is a hapaxlegomena. For those of you not familiar with terminology of the biblical studies elites, hapaxlegomena is merely a fancy expression for a word that only appears in the New Testament a single time. The sole time it appears is here in 1 Tim. 2. Hapaxlegomena’s always pose difficulties for biblical translators and interpreters. They are forced to go outside of the biblical text to derive the words meanings and nuances. This becomes especially important for determining the meaning of this word.

2. While I noted that this word is a hapaxlegomena, I must also inform you that 2 cognates of this word appear in the deuterocanonical books. In both cases the context reveals the meaning of this word: In 3 Maccabees 2 the word was used in the context of slaves having their bodies “branded with fire.” Furthermore, the Wisdom of Solomon 12:6 uses authenta as a noun referring to the murder of children in child sacrifice ceremonies of the Canaanite peoples. So, from these two examples, we know that the word was used before the first century in a manner related to the physical oppression of other people.

3. The word was also used in Greek tragedies and was exclusively used in reference to suicide and murder. As we move further into the Hellenistic period we find that the word retains its meaning as “murderer” but it expands to include crimes of violence, master-mind of a crime, and perpetrator.

Since we know the meanings of words are fluid and they change with time, and we have seen that the meaning of this word was modified over time, the question becomes, how was the word used in the first and second centuries?

First, we must recognize there were many words Paul could have used if he merely wanted to denote authority. In fact, Paul uses these other words (especially exousia) throughout his other (non-disputed) letters. Since we know Paul uses these other words, and this word is only used by him once in all his extant writings, then this word must have a specific meaning in mind for ‘Paul’ that is relevant to the Ephesian context.

This is exactly what we find. Authentein is never used in the first or second century denoting simple authority. In the literature of this time this word was used in a similar way to those previously mentioned: to dominate, destroy, murder.

Interestingly enough, the history of translations of this passage is that the dominant translation of this word before WWII had to do with the violent treatment of men in the congregation – ‘usurping authority’ in the KJV is among the least obvious of these and even it has remnants of the idea.

What happened after WWII that shifted the translation to “authority” from something like “dominate”? The women left the home. Once the American/Western women began working outside their homes American patriarchy had to attempt to theologically keeping women ‘in their place.’ As the conservative translations of the Bible presupposed a woman should be in the home, they twisted this word in translation to justify their patriarchal bias.

In the end, what we have here is a word describing, not that women shouldn’t have authority, but women shouldn’t dominate men – implying they did have some rightful authority.

Next post – Toward an Egalitarian Ecclesia Part 2/6 – I Timothy 2 and the Artemis Cult – bringing historical context into our reading of an otherwise difficult passage. And yes, my analysis will eventually explain the ever intriguing “they shall be saved through childbearing.”