The Most Disputed Verse in the Bible!

This video is a clip from a longer lecture where Dr. Mike Bird continues his response to Mike Winger's arguments for Complementarianism, specifically, concerning 1 Tim 2.11-15. In this video, Bird analyzes 1 Tim 2.12, especially the meaning of the word authenteō.
Mike Winger's Channel: / @mikewinger
Check out:
/ @earlychristianhistory... The Channel
www.youtube.co... Birds of a Feather PlayList
• QandA on How I Became ... How I Became Egalitarian
• What is the Didache? The Didache
• Athanasius: The Bishop... Who was Athanasius?
Keep with Michael Bird on:
Twitter: mbird12
Threads: michael.bird.33
Substack: michaelfbird.substack.com
#church #gender #complementarian #egalitarian #apostlepaul #ephesus #artemis

[@earlychristianhistorywithm8684]

See the longer video where I explain how to understand 1 Tim 2:8-15 in light of the situation in Ephesus and critique the views of Mike Winger. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2qViGxvac53nNU

[@BibleHacking]

This is impressively good. Press on sir.

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

Thank you for sharing! We really appreciate your thoughts. This is all so important for people to know.

[@titianmom]

Thanks for this. What is sad is how people latch onto one verse and not take other passages into consideration to balance out meaning, even without being anauthority in Koine Greek.

[@ThePastorScholar]

Terrific video, Mike!

[@talktomeaboutlife]

The issue I always have with this kind of defence of the verse (that it connotes a negative kind of authority), is it it really creates a new question, which is why does Paul then feel the need to frame it in gendered terms? In other words, if the issue is that he does not wish to have women exercise abusive authority over men (or some authority that is negatively framed, as Michael goes to great lengths to support here), why is it gendered, and why is the gendering situated in the creation cycle? Does Paul therefore imply that men can exercise abusive authority over women? What kind of negative authority is ever appropriate? If the answer is "there is none", then why gender it at all and simply say "I do not permit people to exercise abusive/negative authority authority".

[@Norrin777Radd]

The unstated hermeneutical starting point is that here and indeed in many places in the Epistles, Paul is responding to questions or problems in specific congregations. So in this passage, in v. 8 he addresses men, but surely the exhortation to pray and the admonition to do it without anger or dispute applies to women also, even though not stated. In vv. 9-10, surely not only women are to dress with propriety and in a way not flaunting wealth or status, but only women are addressed directly. In vv. 11-12, the principle would apply to men also, but the party exhibiting the particular misbehavior is the party directly addressed.

[@brianpace3837]

Yep. You got it. I also wrote likewise on this one. He misses the scriptural reasons for this. Not the "don't be a bossy woman" reason.

[@alyssa_trulytree]

Perhaps because it was only certain wives abusing their authority? Hence, the gendered prescription for the Ephesian church. It's not a massive stretch to conclude at all. Paul's argument is a little odd because he says "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a sinner." But we KNOW that Adam was also deceived because he ate the fruit too. And Adam also sinned. So what is he trying to say then? Paul is helping Timothy remind domineering women that they are not the be all and end all, that they can mess up too, and so they should learn humility. Paul would have said the same thing to men and found a different analogy for them if abusive, domineering men had been the issue in Ephesus. But it clearly wasn't. Norrin777 makes a great point on this in a comment below.

[@talktomeaboutlife]

​@ I've never really found that convincing. Elsewhere in the Pauline epistles he's perfectly happy to either call groups out more directly or simply chastise the entire church for behaviours exhibited by a portion that would be sinful or negative regardless of who was doing term, if there were. Here, we have a behaviour that, for the reading to work, would be sinful if done by anyone regardless of gender, but Paul only makes the point in respect of one gender group, not all. He does not make a overriding principle out of it. Artemisian and similar readings at once ask us to take the author here as being at once specific enough that he's addressing specific pagan doctrines or other background issues, while also being vague enough that transcultural readings are the plainest ones. But in reality one has to be convinced of a specific construct of the Ephesian church before one cann even begiun to be convinced that this is reading is what the text actually says. In order to take this kind of reading, e.g., I also have to surmise that these domineering women were specifically ONLY using their negative authority towards men, and were NOT acting in the same way towards the women. Entities are then multiplied for which there is at best speculative evidence. If the authority in view is semantically a negative one, why not then say "I do not permit a woman to have authority αὐθεντεῖν", or "I do not permit a person to be an αὐθέντην" or even "I do not permit a person to have authority αὐθεντεῖν,, especially the women amongst you", which is at once much clearer and provides a clear moral principle. αὐθεντέω = bad, at least when it's mortals. Which theological college graduate would miss the opportunity to make the overarching broadly applicable point, and then zoom in to apply it to an example? A number of assumptions have to be sustained to get to what I think is a fairly tortured reading. And I've never shaken the feeling those are to support prior commitments to what the text *should* or *has to* say,, rather than what its early church writer thought.

[@tedroybal5231]

I went down the authenteo rabbit hole a few years ago. Incredibly rare word in the bible and elsewhere.

[@Frank.OKeeffe]

I’ve got a lot of time for Mike Bird. His books have been a blessing to my life. And the fact that he’s best friends with the Don Bradman of biblical scholarship is an extra bonus. But this is an example of making a lot of clutter for oneself.

[@calebmay3096]

Kinda helps to read the whole passage. Paul doesn’t root his argument in the culture of the time but in creation and the nature of men and women. I haven’t seen a meaningful difference in any church I’ve been to regarding this verse than what is espoused in the video. As far as this pertaining to if a woman can preach or not, like others are mentioning in the comments, this verse doesn’t address that topic. We must go elsewhere in scripture for that. Remember, when studying lexicons and Greek and what not, we don’t want to miss the forest for the trees. “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness-with good works. 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. Yet she will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

[@Norrin777Radd]

That's assuming Paul's reason for citing the Creation account is to "root" the theology. That would be exegetically silly, since the Creation accounts do not show hierarchy between man and woman. More likely Paul's point is along the lines of "Don't follow the example of Eve, who became deceived and in turn led Adam to sin."

[@jpsphoto-vision8803]

It helps to understand what occurred in the garden. Also to understand how this same (the actual occurrence) teaching is continued / shown through scriptures and in modern history... God continues to show this idea of one being in authority over the other as wrong... Yet we continue to try and gain authority over fellow humans... We were never meant to have authority over humans, that belongs to God. Here's what happened in the garden. God created the man (the male Adam) from the dust of the earth... This was prior to giving life to the earth and organizing the chaos and darkness. This was when the man was formed and what he was formed out of... In his flesh anyway. God breathed into him the breath of life... This word is the same as the name of Eve, keep that in mind. He becomes a living soul. Then he is placed in a garden planted by God... It's God's garden, this is where God creates and feeds life to the earth... It's a heaven. God gives the man (before the female is made) all the trees of the garden freely except one... Which the man was warned he would eat from and die.... But he shouldn't eat it because of this... In other words heed God's warning. God sees that alone the man is not complete, (truly made in his image)... It's not good, God creates the creatures of the earth from the earth just like he did the male Adam From the dust God forms all the animals and gives them life too and brings them to the man to name... This is an authorized by God authority over the creatures of the earth. They were brought to Adam because there was No suitable help that was found among them. God puts the man into a deep sleep and removes something that we have translated to rib but is a word meaning inner chamber... And fashioned that into a female Adam... As in the equal but opposite of the man.... It's my understanding that she formed from the life inside Adam and given flesh... Adam however saw only the flesh and determined that he had authority because he was given the authority over all flesh of the earth with the breath of life in it... This didn't include her, that's not what she is or was made by God to be... It's what man redefined her as when he named her in his own image. God created her as an EZER which is the same word used to describe the helper aspect of God in many locations in Scripture. Now you have to go back to the description of the trees in the middle of the garden and back to the command given to the man. In the midst of the garden was the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil... Man was told no to only one of these however it is described here to actually be two options for the same tree. We can understand this by the rest of Scripture, wisdom is a tree of life, desire wisdom, wisdom is more precious than anything... Get wisdom, though it will cost you everything you have get understanding... Okay what is eternal life, well eternal life is to know God and the one he sent. The woman was seen as belonging to the man, made in the image of man and subordinate to the man because he was first, made in God's image and she was made for the man. This is highly misunderstood and therefore leads to the fall. His pride here is already present and he leans on this idea of her being his own servant wife... He remembers the warning that he would eat from the tree and die... This is why she is given a command that is far more restricted than the command given to the man by his God... She was only allowed to eat and feed him from the fruits of the trees, not freely eat from the trees themselves (this was so the man could prevent her from feeding him from the tree and him not recognizing it) to ensure this an additional restriction was given for the tree itself, not to touch it... Only this isn't the only things changed about God's command, the name of the tree was removed. The serpent targets the female instead of Adam... Why? This is in the question. Did God really say that you couldn't freely eat from every tree of the garden.. Just a reminder, God actually said the opposite of that, he said that you could freely eat from every tree of the garden except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil... But this warning of death wasn't given to her by God, it was given by Adam... The godlike one, the one who had special council with God, God's special possession... All of these are the same word for God (Elohim) and this is important to understand the wisdom that she saw and sought when she ate... She realized that she didn't belong to man, she belonged to God... This tree was her way to be like the godlike one and have special council with God as his special possession. This is why we are informed that she saw the fruit as good and desired for wisdom... The question is why he ate... And the answer is different depending on the time, in this case however it's because the serpent seemed quite knowledgeable about the command, the tree, and gave an alternate purpose for the command which resembles the reason he gave her the command that she had. Why didn't Adam recognize that the serpent was actually referring to being like Adam? Why didn't Adam correct her, or confess so she wouldn't eat? Why didn't he eat first to save her? He let her eat because he humanized God in his mind and determined that God was keeping him from being like God but to be sure, he sacrificed the woman to see if she died like God said... By the way, God never claimed that she would die... She didn't die so he ate. Why did she give it to him? She found out who she was and thought he was simply ignorant of who she was too, so she wanted him to know her... This is the wrong reason to give him the tree, you should give him the tree to know God... But he already spoke to God and therefore couldn't righteously eat the fruit. Now where does the serpent come from and what is it? Where it comes from is inserting yourself as an authority over humans making an idol of God's creation to be seen as god.. trying to dethrone God by altering his command to give you authority over others and keep them from knowing God themselves... Deciding to alter the command of God even if you are doing it in order to save yourself, it is the embodiment of the deception of the authority of man over woman. This is the serpent that will forever be at odds with the woman who will have a seed that will finally get rid of the serpent and bring the truth to all of humanity, that they are all equal and authority over anyone is in God alone... We still fear this idea because we humanized God's ability to guide. Our only job is to subdue the earth for God by spreading the truth in faith and love because every knee will bend and everyone will confess that God is God... I hope this helps clear up some things

[@ndumisomahlaba9597]

What did Paul mean by saying she'll be saved through childbearing? Is it not having faith in Jesus that saves us? If she gets saved through childbearing, what about a woman who's infertile?

[@jpsphoto-vision8803]

@@ndumisomahlaba9597 you should read my comment above yours. It may help

[@gbwhatswotb2068]

The foundation of Paul’s teaching n this matter he directs our attention to the book of Genesis and the fall of man and Adams obeying his wife rather God .What all this means has to start here not to culture or the meaning of words even . When Mary at the wedding told Jesus they had no wine . Jesus replied “ ( not mother) Mother what hast thou to do with me seeing my time has not come “ Mary has Zthe mother of His flesh from the moment of the Lords baptism she had no authority over Him whatsoever . At the end of John it says “ Now my time has come … and more than once when men wouod take him at their will . Jesus wanted to make clear he did not come to do his mothers will or even “ Woman” but came to do the zFathers will . I would draw yiur attention that the first Adam was given the instruction of God as to what was good to eat and what was evil to eat and by that word they lived .He then to pass it on to zEve . In the Eve told him toneat of that fruit in effect has Adam obeying his wife rather than God and the whole order of Hod reversed . Food for thought .

[@grantbartley483]

So it basically means 'I don't allow women to dominate men'. Is that right? That doesn't seem to rule out women pastors. But it might rule out women bishops or archbishops.

[@brianpace3837]

Ok, so, it's not ok for women to be bossy, but it is ok for men to be bossy. Hmmm. You have missed the biblical reasons for this that Paul wrote. Looking at those biblical reasons, it is clear that only bossy women would want to teach in a church setting. Further, to "usurp" authority is by nature being bossy. So all of that research for that word is unnecessary. Here you go: "A woman is not allowed to teach in a church setting. To do so would be going against scriptures, and she should not be allowed to dominate over men like that". There you go. Looks good now.

[@Szpak-123]

A Judge could teach the scriptures and even execute. Deborah, Judges 4 and 5. This matter was settled in the Old Covenant.

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

Congratulations! With enough time and cognitive ability any text can be found innocent. The problem, as a simple atheist sees it, is this is a tiny problem in a big book full of problems. 1. I would be surprised if this was not interpreted differently in previous eras. 2. There aren't things the bible "tells us" that are radically at odds with most western Christian interpretations and we are just unaware of. Especially if you contend this verse has been misunderstood by 2000 years of Christians. As an Atheist, even if I was convinced about Jesus, I would be unsure about almost every aspect of the stories told about him, which have had 2000 years on muddling, meddling and manipulation by men. Of course it means what it says, it was written by (by today's standards) a misogynist.

[@alyssa_trulytree]

I was beginning to think that Paul was just a misogynist for a while too (in response to your last point). But then I realized I was doing what so many gender hierarchists also do--read what I wanted to see into a text. Honest and careful reading is much harder, but infinitely more rewarding.

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

​@@alyssa_trulytreeI wasn't calling him a misogynist, I was calling the writers misogynists, "by today's standards." It was very unlikely that they viewed women as equal to men, and if they did, they very obviously failed to unequivocally point it out. Let's face it, they were unlikely to hold modern views on what is inappropriate sexual behaviour by a man to a woman. I'll be honest, I didn't watch much of the video, for the reasons I made in my post. 1. He was probably going to interpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it probably meant to the vast majority of his co-religionists. 2. It's a drop in the ocean of a book strewn with error, ridiculous stories, and obvious flaws. No rational person, free from childhood indoctrination or its product, can take it seriously.

[@Szpak-123]

@@psychologicalprojectionist Paul's version of Christianity was hierarchical. Men over women. ALSO men over men. Totally at odds with the equality teachings of Jesus, and God making a woman, Deborah, a Judge over Israel. A Judge could execute. If a Judge did order an execution, there was no appeal. If a man's case was sent to the Judge and he simply refused to go, the penalty, according to scripture was death. I have a great deal more on this. My free informal essay on Deborah is one place to start.

[@tedtuttle6527]

Sounds pretty self expnatory, ask your husband if u have a question. That was the culture back then. He also said there is no male or female, so pick whatever side u want to be on depending on the culture u live in or were born.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

This is impressively bad.

[@alyssa_trulytree]

How so?