Archive | Women Ministry and the Gospel RSS feed for this section

Bock on 1 Timothy 2:12 in the NIV 2011

Commenting on places where he agrees and disagrees with the CBMW statement, Darrell Bock writes:

1 Timothy 2:12

This is a key example where the CBMW is correct. It may well be that this is the text that matters most to the CBMW. It is 1 Timothy 2:12. The NIV has “assume authority” “have authority” or “exercise authority” in its rendering of this verse. I think the statement’s complaint here is right and fair. There is no alternative in the margin, either. That is yet another unfortunate feature of the rendering. I suspect this rendering bothered the statement writers more than any other in their list.

So how to handle it? This is an example where I would continue to appeal for a revision on the principle that any translation has places where one can improve it. Of all the examples I will treat, this is the one that merits more reconsideration by the NIV committee than any other text.

Denny Burk is to be commended for his courageous work on this text, and his discussion of the changes from NIV 1984 through the TNIV to the NIV 2011 is especially worthy of attention. See his post, “The NIV on 1 Timothy 2:12,” for a nice chart tracking the progressive translation of the verse in the NIV.

Comments { 6 }

Is Eve a Type in 1 Timothy 2:15? Some Thoughts on Typology and Biblical Theology

A colleague asked me about Mary Kassian’s post “Women, Typology, and 1 Timothy 2:15,” which has now been reposted at the CBMW blog. My colleague’s concern was whether the appeal to typology was fanciful or legitimate. Here’s my response:

Earle Ellis (in the preface to Goppelt’s Typos) states that typology consists of historical correspondence and escalation. If I’m trying to determine whether there’s a typological relationship, I’m looking to see if the later biblical author is making a comparison with something earlier in the Bible by pointing out items of historical correspondence. From there I’m asking whether there is some escalation of significance, some kind of fulfillment, that the later biblical author is highlighting by reusing the earlier Scripture.

In 1 Tim 2:13–15 Paul is not pointing to a pattern of historical correspondence that is having its significance increased because of what is happening in the church at Ephesus. He’s giving a reason for the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12.

So Paul is not teaching that Eve is a type of the church in 1 Tim 2:15, though he may be assuming that she is. This assumption can, and I think does, inform what he says, and it’s these kinds of assumptions that biblical theology is seeking to uncover, exposit, and use to get at what the biblical authors meant.

Paul made a comparison between Eve and the church in Corinth in 2 Corinthians 11:3, “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” The typological connections in 2 Corinthians 11 include the church playing the role of Eve, while Satan’s servants play his role and disguise themselves as servants of righteousness the way he disguised himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14–15).

Paul’s point in 2 Corinthians 11:3 is that he doesn’t want the church in Corinth to fail the way that Eve did, and he is assuming they know the story from Genesis 3. So he makes these comparisons between Eve and the church and between Satan and his servants (historical correspondence), and the assumption is that by re-living the pattern the church will heed the gospel, stick with Paul rather than the “super-apostles,” and be saved. The escalation comes in the church’s experience of the realization of what was promised in Genesis 3:15.

In 1 Timothy 2, having just referenced Eve in verse 14 with the words “the woman, having been deceived, fell in transgression,” Paul continues first with a singular in verse 15, “but she shall be saved,” apparently referring to Eve, before switching to the plural in the next statement, “if they continue in faith . . .”

By maintaining the singular, “she shall be saved,” Paul keeps Eve in view, and I think this invokes the word about the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15, by whom Eve would be saved (if she embraced her role as a woman and gave birth to him). The switch to the plural indicates that what was true of Eve is true of all women. All women must embrace their role as women and bear children, and if they do so in faith they will be saved. The mention of salvation coming through childbearing may also invoke the OT theme of barren women giving birth to those who continue the line of promise.

Bottom line: while Paul isn’t teaching that Eve is a type fulfilled in the church, I do think (particularly on the basis of 2 Cor 11:3) that he is assuming that kind of relationship, and understanding that helps us see what he is saying.

And I agree with Schreiner and others on the point that Paul wants women to embrace what it means to be female, and he has chosen childbearing as an example of something that only women can do. This doesn’t mean that single women or barren women can’t be saved, but they should by faith embrace what it means for them to be women. If Eve and the other women in the line of promise had not borne children, the Messiah would not have come.

Comments { 44 }

Payne Alleges Censorship and Editorial Abuse of Privilege

Here are another couple of paragraphs omitted from my review of Payne’s book.

Those who disagree with Payne are accused of censorship, misrepresentation, blatant falsehood, and uncritical thinking: Payne suggests that when Douglas J. Moo, as editor of Trinity Journal, did not publish a particular egalitarian’s submission, Moo practiced “censorship” (120 n. 13, cf. 411 n. 50).[1] Thomas R. Schreiner is said to have “misrepresented the lexical evidence” and is described as “making . . . blatantly false statements” (122). Andreas J. Köstenberger is accused of misrepresenting Payne and keeping one of his papers from being published in JETS (356 n. 47). Blomberg has disputed Payne’s claim (356 n. 48) that he uncritically accepted Köstenberger’s anaylsis.[2]

These are all serious charges, but the allegations that Moo practiced censorship and that Köstenberger abused his position as editor of JETS are of particular concern. These are claims that one should not lightly lodge against brothers in Christ. Payne seems to be challenging the character of two editors with strong reputations for fair and careful scholarship. The refusal of a journal to publish an essay does not warrant charges of censorship and abuse of editorial privilege. Disagreeing with someone else’s interpretation does not mean one is asserting blatant falsehood, and the rejection of an argument does not necessarily reflect uncritical thinking.


[1] Page numbers in parentheses refer to Payne’s Man and Woman, One in Christ.

[2] Craig L. Blomberg, “Review of Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters,” Denver Journal, February 5, 2010, http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/man-and-woman-one-in-christ-an-exegetical-and-theological-study-of-pauls-letters/.

Comments { 1 }

How Payne Responds to His Critics

Here’s a paragraph that I cut from my review of Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ:

Payne typically answers his critics with argumentum verbosium or “proof by verbosity.” Craig Blomberg wrote a 2,200 word review of the book under review here,[1] and Payne posted a 3,600 word comment in response. Tom Schreiner reviewed the book in JBMW,[2] and in his response Payne ludicrously claims that Schreiner misrepresents him 81 times and makes 41 dubious assertions![3] These claims would only stand if viewed from Payne’s perspective. To those who do not view it from his perspective, Payne’s is the misrepresenting and dubious assertion, and there are more of them in his book than I would want to try and count. Peter Head presented a devastating argument against Payne’s thesis regarding the distigmai in Codex Vaticanus,[4] and Payne provided what Tommy Wasserman called “a long series of responses”[5] in addition to multiple iterations of a paper responding to Head’s presentation.[6]


[1] Craig L. Blomberg, “Review of Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters,” Denver Journal, February 5, 2010, http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/man-and-woman-one-in-christ-an-exegetical-and-theological-study-of-pauls-letters/.

[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Philip Payne on Familiar Ground,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 15, no. 1 (2010): 33–46.

[3] Philip B. Payne, “A Critique of Thomas R. Schreiner’s Review of Man and Woman, One in Christ,” Philip B. Payne, n.d., http://www.pbpayne.com/?p=456.

[4] See  Tommy Wasserman, “SBL New Orleans 2009 I: Peter Head Putting the Distigmai in the Right Place Pt. 1,” Evangelical Textual Criticism, November 21, 2009, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/11/sbl-new-orleans-2009-i-peter-head.html; Tommy Wasserman, “SBL New Orleans 2009 I: Peter Head Putting the Distigmai in the Right Place Pt. 2,” Evangelical Textual Criticism, November 22, 2009, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/11/sbl-new-orleans-2009-i-peter-head_22.html.

[5] Tommy Wasserman, “Color Images of Vaticanus Marginalia,” Evangelical Textual Criticism, May 3, 2010, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/05/color-images-of-vaticanus-marginalia.html.

[6] Tommy Wasserman, “Distigmai in Vaticanus: New Version of Payne’s Response,” Evangelical Textual Criticism, March 16, 2010, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/03/distigmai-in-vaticanus-new-version-of.html.

Comments { 5 }

HCSB Study Bible

The English language is blessed to have a variety of good translations of the Bible, and I think it’s good that in these translations we have something of a spectrum that moves from readability on one end to literalness on the other. As I think about it, the most literal translation is still the New American Standard. In former days I would have said that the most readable translation was the NIV, but now I think that the HCSB has every right to supercede the NIV. The HCSB is more current and more literal, while maintaining fluid readability.

Do you want a readable translation that you can trust? The HCSB is now the translation for you. And congratulations to B&H on the release of the HCSB Study Bible. I commend this handsome volume to you. It will help you understand the Bible. They’ve also produced a nice website where you can access the translation and study notes.

The translation has established itself in the top tier of English Bible translations, and the translation is now presented with a wealth of useful information in the HCSB Study Bible.

I commend the translation to you without reservation, and the Study Bible will be another resource to consult as you study. May the Word of God run in our generation.

Comments { 6 }

About This Time Thirteen Years Ago

It is 11am, September 17, 2010. About this time thirteen years ago, September 17, 1997, I was sitting in the dining hall on the campus of Dallas Theological Seminary, having lunch with my good friend Denny Burk. Up walked a young lady who began to converse with Denny, and my life was changed forever for the better.

I was soon–and remain–head over heels in love with that young lady, Jillian Ashley Harding. Just ten months later, July 25, 1998, her name would change (praise God!) to Jillian Ashley Hamilton. I am more privileged than I can feel or capture in words to have written the preceding sentences, to have them be true. I can only bless God for his mercy.

These Thirteen Years

These thirteen years I’ve known you now,
Have been my best by far.
I wish my words could show you how,
But O how weak words are.

Like roots in soil as days go by,
Our love has deeper grown.
To wake with you here at my side–
More joy I’ve never known.

Your smile, your laugh, your fiery zest,
So splendid in your ways,
That you are mine so swells my chest,
And I can only praise

The one from whom all blessings flow,
Giver of all good gifts,
Whose love our own does seek to show–
Your giving his praise lifts.

Comments { 4 }

The Latest Issue of JBMW

The latest issue of JBMW has appeared.

Tom Schreiner has an important review of Philip Barton Payne’s new book, and a sermon that I preached a few years ago at Northwestern College (Minneapolis, MN) in their Chapel has been published. Every item in the table of the contents looks like an interesting read:

Denny Burk Editorial

JBMW Odds & Ends

R. Albert Mohler Jr. Boys Wearing Skirts to School? What’s Going On?

Jason Hall and Peter R. Schemm Jr. Marriage as It Was Meant to Be Seen: Headship, Submission, and the Gospel

Rob Lister “Husbands, Love Your Wives . . .” A Practical Suggestion and Tool for Husbands to Use in Leading their Marriages for the Glory of God

Owen Strachan Whither Men? A Response to a Recent Barna Study on the Increase of Female Pastors in Protestant Churches

Wayne Walden Galatians 3:28: Grammar, Text, Context, and Translation

James M. Hamilton Jr. Godliness and Gender: Relating Appropriately to All (1 Timothy 2:9–12)

Thomas R. Schreiner Philip Payne on Familiar Ground

Ben Reaoch Two Egalitarian Paths toward the Same Destination

Heath Lambert A Lack of Balance

Owen Strachan Insightful but Flawed Look at Gospel Women

Phillip R. Bethancourt Fatherhood Is No Accident


Comments { 4 }