We hit near the end of 2023….so, they canceled Christmas in Bethlehem this year….
Just when you thought that the world was trying to get past the COVID pandemic, all sorts of other craziness breaks loose and gets worse. The Ukraine/Russia conflict drags on into its second year, and in recent months, the Israel/Palestinian crisis just explodes.
The horribly inhumane October 7 attacks by Hamas upon Israeli civilians shock us, while Israel’s efforts to eradicate Hamas from Gaza has led to thousands of deaths of Palestinian non-combatants. Has Israel really done enough to avoid civilian casualties? Has there not been some better way to protect children and hospitals? How should we respond to the reports of abuse of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails? What about attacks from Israelis against Palestinians who continue to build illegal settlements? Even the minority of Christians in Gaza have been targeted, caught in the crossfire, or at least confused with being Hamas. When we learn that 19 of the remaining 1,000 Christians in Gaza have been killed since the beginning of the war, it can not be good.
On the other hand, what do we make of the pro-Palestinian protests chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free?” Do people really understand what that even means? Are there really that many people who seriously want the complete destruction of Israel? Has anti-semitism all of a sudden shot off the scale?
Maybe so. A December article in the Economist shows the upsetting results of a recent poll: one in five young Americans (between the ages of 18 and 29) believe that the Jewish holocaust in World War II was a myth. Almost no one in my age group or older dismisses the Holocaust as a non-event, but apparently nearly a quarter of American young people today believe that “the Holocaust has been exaggerated.” Seriously ??! Simply mind-blowingly sad how we are raising a generation of youth today who have no adequate comprehension about basic historical facts. Look at the Economist survey for yourself.
We apparently live in very crazy times.
In the background behind these political debates stands the complex history of the land in the Ukraine, and in the Middle East, and how people read the Bible. I spent approximately two years (2014-2016) blogging about the Israel/Palestine situation, and I walked away from that with some changes to my thinking (BONUS LINK: Read about the history of how the name “Palestine” got attached to this Middle Eastern land area).
However, I have no real “silver bullet” solution to something like the current Gaza crisis. But this should not be used as a excuse to stick one’s head into the sand. It is frankly impossible to understand anything about the Israeli/Gaza crisis without digging deep into the Bible. Part of my passion in writing on the Veracity blog is to prod myself to better learn about history and think more deeply about the Bible, in hopes that others might do so as well.
2023 Book of the Year: Andrew Wilson’s Remaking the World: How 1776 Created the Post-Christian West.
Book of the Year: Andrew Wilson’s Remaking the World
Shifting gears….. let me write about something a bit more happy. I need to tell you about my favorite book of the year for 2023. London-based Bible-teacher Andrew Wilson has written a wonderful book Remaking the World: How 1776 Created the Post-Christian West. Andrew is a Teaching Pastor at King’s Church London and columnist for Christianity Today magazine. In Remaking the World, Andrew does what I think he does best, taking careful historical research and reading it through the lens of the Bible to construct a narrative that is equally edifying, challenging and entertaining, a delightful and thoughtful romp through history.
Andrew argues that the year 1776 was marked by seven major developments in Western thought and activity:
- Globalization
- The Enlightenment
- The Industrial Revolution
- The Great Enrichment
- The American Revolution
- The rise of post-Christianity
- The dawn of Romanticism
Andrew borrows from Jospeh Henrich’s acronym “WEIRD,” saying that the world since 1776 has become WEIRD and “WEIRDER”: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic, Ex-Christian, and Romantic. What is so extraordinarily helpful about Remaking the World is that in our increasingly shifting culture, Andrew explains why things do not feel right any more. If you are bewildered by the moral chaos over gender and the social justice “woke” movement, Remaking the World uncovers the historical roots that got us to our current cultural moment.
Andrew Wilson is a great story teller, weaving tales together about the development of James Watt’s steam engine, to Voltaire’s letter to Diderot asking for a meeting together, to the publishing of the first volume of Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, to James Cook’s third voyage with the Endeavour across the globe, events that all took place in 1776…. not to mention the signing of the American Declaration of Independence.
Andrew’s chapter on “Becoming Ex-Christian” is striking in that he records that the biographer James Boswell visited the philosopher David Hume, as Hume lay dying in the summer of 1776, only to learn that Hume did not believe in the afterlife. Hume’s skepticism about Christianity was well-known throughout Europe during his lifetime. Andrew Wilson notes the story told by Hume that just a few years prior to his death, Hume got his foot stuck in a bog in Edinburgh. When he asked for help, a fishwife refused to assist Hume until he promised to recite the Lord’s Prayer, as she immediately recognized him as “Hume the atheist.”
It is no secret that great luminaries of the late 18th century and 19th century, ranging from America’s Thomas Jefferson to France’s Napoleon Bonaparte keenly read Enlightenment philosophers like David Hume. Jefferson had originally drafted the Declaration of Independence to read “we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable.” In true Enlightenment style, Benjamin Franklin suggested that Jefferson change the phrase to read “we hold these truths to be self-evident,” and Jefferson accepted the change in June, 1776.
The shift towards an “Ex-Christian” world had its roots in 1776. Andrew’s comparison between Voltaire’s, Diderot’s, and Marquis de Sade’s competing post-Christian moral visions of the world was worth the price alone in reading Remaking the World.
Too many Christian books that analyze modern history amount to a kind of “hand wringing,” longing for a day long past of some supposedly Christian golden age in the Western world. Not so with Remaking the World. Andrew Wilson incisively critiques modernity from a biblical perspective while offering a more positive engagement with the changes in society today.
Remaking the World is less heady than Carl Trueman’s The Rise and Triumph of the Post-Modern Self (my “book of the year” from 2021), and is in many ways a Christian alternative to Jared Diamond’s sweeping Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies. My only regret about Remaking the World is that it did not mention Johann Jakob Griesbach’s synopsis of three gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, published in 1776, a landmark study signaling the beginning of the German school of higher criticism of the Bible, which raised many questions about traditional views of the Bible, thus challenging the role of the Bible in this new WEIRDER world. Griesbach’s work was the first attempt in Christian history to create a parallel synopsis of those three gospels, instead of producing a harmony of those gospels. Whether we know it or not, Christians have been living in the shadow of this anxiety about the Bible’s unity ever since 1776.
Check out Kenneth Berding’s review of Remaking the World, and even Andrew Wilson’s summary of the book. I devoured the whole book on a road trip out to the Midwest this year on Audible. Better yet, Andrew reads the book himself, all with his delightful British accent.
I have not dived into it yet, but Andrew and another U.K. friend/evangelist Glenn Scrivener started a podcast for The Gospel Coalition that discusses the whole matter of Christianity and culture, centered around the themes in Remaking the World. I am looking forward to it! Also, Preston Sprinkle did a great interview with Andrew Wilson about Remaking the World. Enjoy!
End of the Year Reflections
I had the most fun this year talking about the Bible with my pastor friend, Hunter Ruch, video recordings for the Williasmburg Community Chapel Institute. There were two sessions, one on “progressive Christianity” and “is there such a thing as ‘heresy’ anymore?” While Hunter and I had a great time together, the not-so-fun part was thinking about a shift going on in American evangelical Christianity over the past twenty-to-thirty years. It is no secret that the Protestant mainline which dominated the American Christian scene in the 20th century has been in steep decline over the last couple of decades. As a result, those who would once go to a liberal Protestant mainline church now are attending more conservative evangelical churches, but some are bringing their theological baggage with them. The good news about this trend is that as more evangelical churches go “back to the basics,” doing things like verse-by-verse exposition in their sermons, having a restored emphasis on healthy doctrine, etc., people are being encouraged to study the Bible more with renewed vigor and enthusiasm, and those type of disciplines will push back against tendencies towards deconstruction and deconversion from the faith.
This year I wrapped up a four-year study on the so-called “women in ministry” issue; otherwise known as the complementarian/egalitarian controversy. The culmination of all of this research was a summer-long exploration into 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, all about head coverings.
By the far the most interesting aspect was engaging an author from the U.K. Andrew Bartlett, about his book Men and Women in Christ, complete with my book review, a rejoinder by Andrew Bartlett and my response, and concluding with a last word by Andrew Bartlett. We go at it quite a bit, but I appreciate the challenges Andrew made to me as it forced me to dig deeper into Scripture. Andrew is in the process of putting out a second edition of his book, so my guess is that some of the thinking generated in our exchange might end up in his new book. Andrew and I have plenty of disagreements, but I wish him well with the work he is doing.
This is an issue that simply is not going away in the evangelical church. Popular YouTube apologist Mike Winger, part of his multi-year YouTube series on the issue, finally released a 11 1/2 hour video addressing what he describes as THE most controversial passage within the New Testament today, 1 Timothy 2:11-15…. That’s right, 11 1/2 hours! Mike says it is the longest video he has ever done or probably ever will do on one passage of the Bible. I do not agree with everything Mike says, for sure, as he overstates his arguments at several points. However, I appreciate the type of work he put into this topic, and a very sizable chunk, if not the vast majority, of his 11 1/2 hour critique is actually quite on the mark. I commend it to all complementarians and egalitarians who are looking for a deep-dive into the issue which is fairly easy to get into. For some commentary on Mike’s video, see the footnotes below: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Onto Other Topics??…Uh… What Is Happening in Rome??
The complementarian/egalitarian controversy is all really important and thoughtful stuff. But frankly, I am ready to move onto other topics…..
… Towards the end of 2023, Pope Francis has had everyone scratching their heads……as far as what is going on in Rome with Pope Francis, with same-sex blessings that are not affirming civil or same-sex unions, well, …. the whole recent controversy has simply gone up beyond my pay grade. Some say nothing has changed regarding Rome’s teaching on same-sex unions (I tend to agree), while others say no, that this is a semi(?)-radical departure from traditional church teachings. Technically, Fiducia supplicans reaffirms the historic orthodox Christian ethic of marriage exclusively between a man and a woman, but that at the same time it allows for “the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples.” … ?????….. It will be very, very interesting to see how Roman Catholic theologians will parse out the implications of the recent ruling by Francis in an effort to alleviate the confusion in the coming weeks….. you might even see a significant departure of Roman Catholics towards Eastern Orthodoxy!!!….. The most intelligent, insightful interpretation of Francis’ new document that I have seen comes from an Evangelical Anglican, Joshua Penduck.
Books and More Books…
Some of the more interesting books I have read this year have been Brent Strawn’s Lies My Preacher Told Me: An Honest Look at the Old Testament (book review) and Wolfram Kinzig’s Christian Persecution in Antiquity (book review), the latter being a history of persecution in the early church, which corrects a lot of misinformation I have had about the topic.
To scratch my itch for history, I listened to Bernard Cornwell’s dramatically told Waterloo: The History of Four Days, Three Armies, and Three Battles. This was the greatest defeat suffered by Napoleon, one of the most influential persons of the early 19th century, and the subject of the recent Ridley Scott film, Napoleon…… Many historians have panned the film, but the battle scenes are quite impressive.
Study Bibles…
Speaking of books, Matt Whitman over at the Ten Minute Bible Hour did a couple of videos (with his son!) reviewing some of the most popular study Bibles. It seems like Bible publishers keep pumping out newer study Bibles, but with different focuses, like apologetics, archaeology, church history, systematic theology…. it is hard to keep up with all that is out there these days. But check out Matt’s videos if you want to get the latest news on study Bibles….
I am still partial to my ESV Study Bible, as not only is there a print and Kindle version available, you can also get the study notes from Crossway’s website. My wife uses the online version all of the time. Crossway has done a fantastic job with making different kinds of study Bibles for the ESV translation. As noted in my review a few years ago, the standard ESV Study Bible is still my favorite.
The Zondervan NIV Study Bible is a close runner up, as noted in my review a few years ago. However, the one major downside to the Zondervan NIV Study Bible for Kindle is that it simply will not load on my Kindle!! Furthermore, you can not even buy the Kindle version any more!! Thankfully, I can read it on the Kindle Cloud Reader instead, or a Kindle app, so that makes up for the deficiency. I have no clue why Zondervan pulled support for the Kindle version, but perhaps this is because a newer version, the NIV Study Bible, Fully Revised Edition, came out in 2020, with Kindle support.
On the other hand, I have grown to really like the CSB Apologetics Study Bible, which features the Christian Standard Bible translation, as I reviewed a few years ago.
All in all, there are a lot of great study Bibles available now, with better access to top, notch commentary and scholarship than anything you could have dreamed about getting even 25 years ago. For basic Bible study, without a lot of commentary, my three “go-to” resources are still Biblegateway.com, the StepBible, and the NET translation online (Lumina).
The Forgery and Counterforgery Bart Ehrman Series
I started a bunch of other books, but I got totally drawn into Bart Ehrman’s Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics, Ehrman’s mammoth 600+ page exploration into the origins of the New Testament. I mean, it took me months to get through this academic book on Audible, as I was not content to simply read his popular-level, “man-on-the-street,” yet scandalous title on the same subject, Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. I wanted the detailed footnotes…. Along with other mainstream critical scholars, Ehrman is convinced that about half of the individual book titles, nearly 70% of our New Testament is made up of forgeries, documents written in the name of a famous person in order to deceptively advance some polemical agenda. This is not a minor issue, as the very integrity of the New Testament canon is at stake, and it greatly challenges the doctrine of sola scriptura held by Protestants like me. Sadly, a number of progressive Christians equivocate on this issue, and push their equivocation into otherwise evangelical settings.
As an evangelical Christian, I fail to find Ehrman’s thesis convincing, so I felt compelled to write a multi-post blog series, five installments in all, in order to address such a hugely important topic. The topic does raise certain questions as to how we got our New Testament, types of questions that are too often shoved under the rug in churches today. I have some data to back this up, in that the first three blog posts in this series (#1, #2, #3) remain some of the least read posts I have written for the Veracity blog for all of 2023. Perhaps most Christians do not care that much about this issue, but I find it strange. For if critics like Bart Ehrman are correct (and I do not believe they are), then Christians have a MAJOR intellectual credibility problem. I have a couple more blog post installments left in 2024 to finish out the series.
Times-Are-A-Changing
Alas, an era has (somewhat) come to an end with the Unbelievable podcast, coming out of the U.K…. Justin Brierley, the affable original host for this amazing apologetics program, well over a decade ago, has decided to move on towards other projects. Unbelievable started out as a radio-call-in show out of London, to having an online podcast, to now having a YouTube channel. What I appreciated about Justin was how he was able to engage in good faith conversations with people he had serious disagreements with, and still come across as generous and gracious. I have really admired that with Justin, and while I still fail at it quite a bit, I try to follow his model of making good conversation with very difficult topics. Justin is now promoting a new book about “The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God,” with a podcast to go with it. What is the evidence for Justin’s view that atheism is losing its appeal? For one thing, he cites the recent conversion to Christianity former Muslim and former atheist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Unbelievable has a new lineup of hosts, but what still makes Unbelievable an excellent platform is the high quality of conversation partners that are brought on board. I have not listened to this one yet, but here is an invigorating discussion between orthodox Jewish conservative political thinker, Ben Shapiro, and an Oxford philosopher and theology graduate, the atheist You Tuber Alex O’Connor, once known as “Cosmic Skeptic”. Their topic: “Is religion good or bad for society?”
The debate has received a lot of attention, with some thoughtful debate reviews, one on Capturing Christianity’s YouTube channel (with Josh Rasmussen and Michael Jones, of Inspiring Philosophy), and another one from my favorite Roman Catholic apologist, Trent Horn, on his The Counsel of Trent podcast. ….
…Losing Christian leaders like Tim Keller and Michael Heiser has made 2023 a pretty rough year. But it is good to see that a younger generation of Christian leaders are trying to step in and fill the gap.
Here is a good example: Gavin Ortlund…. It has been six years since Del Tackett came out and gave Young Earth Creationism a real boost with the film “Is Genesis History?,” now freely viewable on YouTube. Whether you agree with film or not, this is probably one of the best and most elegantly filmed documentaries which promotes Young Earth Creationism (I reviewed the film with three blog posts back in 2017). The film-makers a few months ago released a sequel, “Mountains After the Flood,” another beautifully made movie (here is the trailer). This new film will surely spark renewed interest in Young Earth Creationism.
But is Young Earth Creationism, at least in how “Is Genesis History?” presents it, enhancing the witness of the church, or is it causing unnecessary stumbling blocks for non-believers interested in the Christian faith? One of my favorite YouTubers, Gavin Ortlund, of Truth Unites, jumps into the discussion, with his friendly, irenic manner, which in my mind, is contagious!!
For more links to videos that really struck me as “must listen” from 2023, see my pre-summer blog post and my post-summer blog post.
What do I hope to do sometime during the Christmas / New Year season? Binge listen to the multi-part series on the assassination of John F. Kennedy at The Rest is History podcast (starting at the first one:. #2 , #3 , #4, #5, #6 , #7). Ever since Oliver Stone’s relentless dive into the world of conspiracy theories about JFK’s death, I have really wondered if there was any truth to such ideas. It has been 60 years since JFK’s death, and people are still pondering about what really happened…… and perhaps I will also binge on Dan Snow’s interviews with Napoleon historian, Andrew Roberts, about the real history of Napoleon: #1 , #2, #3, #4 .
All in all, Christmas this year is a mixture of tragedy and gratitude. While there is much tragedy, there are examples of gratitude, too. Exhibit A for 2023 would be the student revival at Asbury University. Perhaps there is a wonderful work of God going on with this new generation of students! So, I want to end on a note of gratitude, as we look forward in hope towards 2024: Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas season and a Happy New Year!
. . .
Notes (About Mike Winger 1 Timothy 2 Video):
1. In his massively long video about 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Mike Winger interacts with egalitarian scholars about the use of the singular indicative present tense use of word “permit” (Greek epitrepo ) at the 01:02:50 mark in the video. Mike expresses skepticism about an alternative translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 to read: “I am not now permitting a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,” which suggests that Paul’s non-permission of women teaching/exercising authority; i.e. being an elder/overseer in the church, is only referring to limited, local situation in the Ephesian church, and not something universal. Mike’s critique is lengthy and in many ways helpful, but he misses the strongest critique of the egalitarian argument. Nearly every egalitarian argument that I am familiar with, at least the best one’s suggest that the larger context of 1 Timothy indicates that the sense of “to teach or to exercise authority” is negative, as in Andrew Bartlett’s argument that there were women in the Ephesian church acting as false teachers, overpowering the men with their false teaching. But if you take such arguments, AND apply this sense of ” I am not now permitting” to the verse, it would imply that Paul is saying “I am not now permitting a woman to falsely teach and overpower a man, but in perhaps a different situation I might allow for it.” Such a style of reasoning is simply contradicts the better side of the egalitarian argument, rendering the whole framework non-sensical. Strangely, Mike Winger never adequately follows through with this critique, which in my view, is the more damaging to the whole egalitarian hermeneutic…. As to be expected, YouTube critiques of Mike Winger’s videos have begun to surface. I have not seen any videos from evangelical patriarchialists, i.e. those complementarians who will think Winger is being too “soft.” But there is at least one intelligent rebuttal video from the “In Philosopher’s Garb” channel, which tackles this issue about the word “permit” (Greek epitrepo ), at the 12:50 mark in the video. While the video offers some helpful critique of some of Mike Winger’s rhetoric at points, which does sometime get in the way of Mike’s efforts, the critic here falls pretty much into the same trap several times during the video. This particular Christian apologist, while admittedly having a number of helpful things to say, has been cited as being overly combative in his interaction with non-believers, and his similar rhetorical approach against Mike Winger takes away from the actually useful counter-arguments presented. The analogy Mike’s critic uses in this video is terribly wrong at one particular point : The critic is trying to show how the use of the first person indicative present tense can be identified in Scripture as specifying instances where Paul in exercising his apostolic authority is referencing a non-universal, limited instruction, and not a universal, binding one. But the analogy example he cites is seriously problematic: Starting around the 30:50 mark, this Christian apologist first draws attention to Galatians 5, in which Paul is telling the Galatian Gentiles that they are not to undergo circumcision (“I testify“) , for if they were to do so they would be obligated to keep the whole law, and even be severed from Christ, falling away from grace (Galatians 5:2-4). Then he asserts that this must be a non-universal, limited instruction, for Paul does something exceptional in Acts 16:3 by having Timothy circumcised. But this completely mangles what Paul is doing in both passages. In Galatians, Paul is not condemning the idea of Gentiles becoming circumcised per se. Rather, he is condemning the Judaizing false teaching that would suggest that one can not be a follower of Christ without accepting circumcision. For if someone accepts circumcision with that pretext, then this would completely undermine Paul’s Gospel. This aspect of Paul’s teaching is clearly universal, and not-limited to any particular cultural situation. If Paul were to interact with me today, he would be saying the same thing. What is happening in Acts 16:3 is something different, as Timothy’s circumcision is not some concession to the Judaizers, but rather, it was a way of trying to make peace with Jews who were suspicious of Paul’s ministry. Paul is not backing down on his opposition to the Judaizers by having Timothy circumcised. The issue is not circumcision itself, as Paul himself was a Jew AND circumcised. Rather, the issue for Paul was making circumcision a requirement for becoming a true follower of Jesus. I have tried to encourage this Christian apologist to take another tactic, but he never responded to this specific query. ↩
2. In Mike’s discussion about the cult of Artemis influence, Mike strongly attacks the relevance of these type of egalitarian arguments, which suggests that Paul had the influence of the cult of Artemis on the Christian women of Ephesus in view when writing 1 Timothy 2:11-15, starting at the 2:05:30 mark in the video. Mike starts off making a fine critique of previous egalitarian missteps in trying to make this cult of Artemis, such as Catherine Clark Kroeger’s erroneous view that Artemis was a fertility goddess, as well as Linda Bellville’s misleading argument that Artemis had a male consort. But then Mike tends to go too strong against more knowledgeable egalitarian perspectives, like that of Sandra Glahn. Mike dismisses Sandra Glahn’s argument about the Artemis story, namely that Artemis came first, and not Apollo, which was in contradiction with the biblical narrative, that Adam actually came before Eve. Mike says that the Artemis/Apollo story is not a creation story, whereas the Adam/Eve story is a creation story, therefore the parallels do not work. The problem with Mike’s analysis is that the Artemis/Apollo narrative need not be a “creation” narrative since the pagan religions do not have any exact parallel to the biblical creation narrative anyway. For example, Christian theology taught that the world was created ex nihilo, whereas most pagan thought believed that creation was always continuous with presence of the pagan gods. It is sufficient for Sandra Glahn to argue that the Artemis/Apollo story is simply an “origins” story, which explains the relationship between male and female, as a counterpoint to the Adam/Even story. Instead, the primary difficulty with Sandra Glahn’s argument, which is probably the best for egalitarianism, is that we have nothing definitive to establish the idea that Paul specifically had the cult of Artemis in mind when giving us 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Not even secular, critical scholars find Glahn’s argument to be at all persuasive, and they have no “skin in the game” regarding this intramural debate within the evangelical church. Without some specific reference to an early church teacher who recognized the cult of Artemis at work in Paul’s mind, or some other archaeological evidence; e.g. an inscription, to support the idea that Paul was consciously thinking about Artemis, we simply have a case where the circumstantial evidence is all we have, without any direct evidence to support the argument, when in fact the opposite is the case, namely, that the direct evidence we have for the tradition view of not having women serve as presbyters is well-established, on the basis of this passage, coupled with 1 Timothy 3. ↩
3. Appeals to the cult of Artemis is probably the strongest case made for egalitarianism, but other egalitarians try to make different cases for egalitarianism that do not work as well. For example, one critic of Mike Winger reads the passage without any need to appeal to Artemis by suggesting that there is an anaphoric reference derived from a feminine pronoun that refers back to a specific woman in the community who is “the” false teacher in the Ephesian Christian community who needs to be silenced.
10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through (the) childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
In this reading. all of the bolded references are the same, singular female false teacher. The “a woman” is a false teacher married to a silent husband, This woman is handing the forbidden fruit; i.e. her false teaching, to her undeceived , silent husband. However. she will be saved (future tense) IF the woman and her husband continue in the truth, abiding in the Fatih and love found in Christ Jesus, keeping form the stain of false teaching. Like Eve, this deceived woman in Ephesus is also important to God and will be saved by “the seed of the woman (Eve)”, the Messiah. While quite clever, this reading suffers from the problem that the context in verse 14 suggests that the “the woman” named there is NOT the false teacher woman of Ephesus, but rather this woman is “Eve,” as verse 14 parallels the prior verse 13. Despite the thoughtfulness of this perspective which in several ways solves some problems, many other egalitarians reject the reasoning. This reading is still therefore idiosyncratic.
↩
4. Mike Winger has a long discussion about the meaning of authenteo, the word typically translated as either to “have authority” or “assume authority” in many translations of 1 Timothy 2:12, starting around the 3:36:44 mark. A key to the egalitarian argument is that authenteo should be translated as something like “to murder”, or “to overpower” someone, which assumes a pejorative meaning of the term, based on the few uses of authenteo that can be found in certain Greek literature near the time of Paul, and perhaps a century or two before. This is fundamental to Andrew Bartlett’s case that authenteo means “to overpower” in his egalitarian reading of the text, in his Men and Women in Christ, based on my interaction with Andrew in previous Veracity blogs (see above). What Andrew Bartlett does not do is to fully interact with Al Wolters’ thesis in Women in the Church, which suggests that the “overpower” sense of authenteo belongs to a form of Classical Greek, which began to fade out of use just before the time of Paul, as the Koine Greek began to take over, which is the style of Greek that Paul uses in the New Testament. These writers who favored the older style of Classical Greek, the Atticists, tended to dislike the changes associated with Koine Greek, in which Wolters’ argues the latter changes the meaning of authenteo to have a non-pejorative sense of “authority.” Mike Winger likens this to people who like the language of the King James Version of the Bible, with the “thee’s” and “thou’s,” which we no longer use in modern English, where such words have either fallen out of use altogether, or which have gained different senses of meaning, as in “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want” (Psalm 23:1), where the word “want” means something completely different today than it meant in the early 17th century. Wolter’s explains it like this: “Here, however, we run into a problem that has caused much confusion in discussions of αὐθεντέω, namely, the fact that ancient Greek used αὐθέντης in two very different ways. On the one hand, it is a word that is primarily at home in the elevated language of classical Attic literature (fifth and fourth centuries BC) and has the rather specific meaning “kin-murderer,” someone guilty of killing his or her own flesh and blood. This usage occurs in later Greek as well but mainly in texts that aim for an elevated literary style emulating the Attic classics (a notable example is found in Wisd. of Sol. 12:6). The other use of αὐθέντης is very different. With one debated exception, it is found nowhere in Greek literature until the first century BC and then only in texts without literary pretensions. In this usage, αὐθέντης means not “murderer” but “master,” and it seems to have belonged to the colloquial register of the language. Because the two uses of αὐθέντης are so different, both ancient and modern scholars have repeatedly suggested that they have different etymologies. This would mean that αὐθέντης/“murderer” and αὐθέντης/“master” are in fact two different lexemes that are semantically quite distinct, like καρπός (“fruit”) and καρπός (“wrist”) in Greek, or like “ear” (of grain) and “ear” (of hearing) in English. Greek has many such homonyms, as do English and other languages…….. After all, no one thinks that an ear of grain has connotations of hearing” (Al Wolters, “The Meaning of Authenteo,” Women in the Church (Third Edition): An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15), p. 67-68). … This raises the question as to why Paul chose to use the word “authenteo” in the first place, as it is a “hapax legomenon,” a word that is used only one place in the entire Bible. The word “exousia” is most commonly used in the New Testament to signify “authority,” so it is strange as to why Paul would depart from this practice in 1 Timothy by using “authenteo” instead. Critical scholars who dismiss 1 Timothy as not being written by Paul cite this feature as evidence for why Paul could not have written 1 Timothy. However, a reasonable case can be made to suggest that Paul deliberately chose to use the word “authenteo” to signify that the “authority” associated with being an elder/overseer in the local church signals a different kind of authority, as compared to the “authority” given to other believers (see 1 Corinthians 8:9, Luke 10:19). It would therefore be wrong to say that only the elders of a local church possess spiritual authority. But it would be right to say that the kind of spiritual authority given to elders in a local church is of a different kind.
5 What Mike Winger says at about 6:07:30, is very interesting as Chrysostom is often cited as using a cognate of authenteo to ascribe a pejorative meaning to the word often translated as “authority,” which egalitarians will typically say suggests that authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12 has the negative, pejorative meaning of to “domineer,” or “overpower,” or “usurp authority [which does not properly belong to another person]”. Andrew Bartlett, in his interactions with me on the Veracity blog, showed me this very point, by referencing John Chrysostom’s commentary on Colossians 3:19. I had never seen this before, and was stumped by it, admittedly. I had been meaning to do some further research on this, but thankfully Mike Winger included the discussion in his video. This point about Chrysostom is brought forward by other egalitarians, such as Margaret Mowczko. She has a good summary of this view, shared by Bartlett: “For example, in his tenth homily on Colossians, Chrysostom comments on Colossians 3:19 (a verse addressed to husbands) and says that a husband should not authentei his wife. This is translated into English as “act the despot” in Volume 13 of The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (First series). ” (see guest blog post on Michael Bird’s blog). Mowczko also cites other examples for Chrysostom. Mowczko/Bartlett and others rightly show that Chrysostom ascribes a pejorative meaning to this cognate of authenteo. But as Mike Winger demonstrates in the video, such scholars fail to go ahead and show you what Chrysostom says about authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12, the disputed verse being analyzed. Winger quotes from Al Wolters who quotes from Chrysostom: ” ‘But I do not permit a woman to teach.’ But listen to what [Paul] added: ‘Nor to have authority [αὐθεντεῖν] over a man.’ For to men it is permitted to teach both men and women from on high; to women he permits the word of exhortation at home, but nowhere does he allow them to preside [προκαθῆσθαι], or does he let them hold an extended discourse. For this reason he added the words ‘nor to have authority [αὐθεντεῖν] over a man,’ ‘so that they can instruct’ (he says) ‘the young women.‘ (Wolters, Women in the Church, p. 87-8. See John Chrysostom, Hom. Tit. Homilia 4 (PG 62.683)). Whether one agrees with Chrysostom’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12 more generally or not, Chrysostom views authenteo at this pivotal verse as having a non-pejorative meaning. Wolters comments further: ‘In Chrysostom’s view, the addition of the words “nor to have authority over a man” further clarifies what the apostle meant by prohibiting women from teaching. What he meant was teaching that was done in public, was addressed to both men and women, was done “from on high” (ἄνωθεν), and could be characterized as “presiding” (προκαθῆσθαι). These last two features seem to describe what Chrysostom understood αὐθεντέω to mean. The striking qualification “from on high” probably means either “from the pulpit” or “from heaven,” and on either reading implies preaching authoritatively on God’s behalf. Similarly, the verb here translated “preside” (προκάθημαι) regularly means “to be in an office of leadership.” Clearly, Chrysostom’s understanding of αὐθεντέω is anything but pejorative. For him, it describes an aspect of the high and noble task of preaching God’s Word in the public worship service.’ (Wolters, Women in the Church. p. 88). It is therefore apparent that Chrysostom understood the two different meanings of authenteo, both pejorative and non-pejorative, but he specifically understands authenteo in a positive, non-pejorative sense in 1 Timothy 2:12, which is really the key idea. The fact that egalitarians like Mowczko and Bartlett do not acknowledge Chrysostom’s views of authenteo specifically in 1 Timothy 2:12 does not help their case.
6. At about the 7:54:20 mark, Mike makes the argument that many egalitarians are missing, namely that Mike is a “soft” complementarian and not a patriarchal complementarian, or “hard” complementarian. Mike is not saying that a woman can never teach or exercise authority in all and every case or cases. It is just that a woman may not do so as an elder, or functioning as an elder of a church. This is pretty close to my position. Yet oddly, a lot of Mike’s critics paint him as an extremist, saying that Mike is against women teaching in all cases, which is demonstrably false. Or they will say that Mike is against “women in ministry.” This is just sloppy thinking. For example, it would make no sense to say that Mike does not accept women as bible scholars, as some egalitarians are saying, when he explicitly supports women who are scholars here.
7. At about the 8 hour mark, Mike Winger jumps into the “Bunch of female false teachers” view. In Philosopher’s Garb channel responds to Mike here. This is essentially the view proposed by Craig Keener. One the primary arguments cited to support this view is the claim that what is being discussed in 1 Timothy 2:8-3:13 is not about church order, but rather, it is about addressing false teaching, which has permeated the church, including a large number of Christian women, which has led to Paul’s instruction to temporarily require that women should not be teaching/having-authority over men in the church in Ephesus. That is, the notion of “teaching/having-authority” is actually positive, but because of the persistent problems with false teaching in Ephesus, and its specific targeting of women, Paul is issuing a directive to keep women from teaching/having-authority in this limited situation in Ephesus, assuming that the women will eventually be properly theologically trained at some point, thus eventually enabling Paul to rescind his directive, and eventually allow women to teach/have-authority again in the church. Most Bible translations follow something along the lines of the ESV at 1 Timothy 3:14-15, “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth,” which suggests that Paul is instructing Timothy in how he should instruct the believers in the church to behave, particularly with respect to the worship service. However, many egalitarians say that the primary purpose of 1 Timothy, which would include 1 Timothy 2:8-3:13, is about stopping false teaching, which has run rampant in the church in Ephesus (see 1 Timothy 1:3-7), such as “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship[a] from God that is by faith” (v. 3-4). Mike Winger grants that Paul’s concern about false teaching is addressed in 1 Timothy, but not at the 1 Timothy 2:8-3:13 passage. Winger says this is primarily about church order, basing his argument from 1 Timothy 3:14-15, which concludes this section. However, In Philosopher’s Garb at 55:26 in his video, makes a very similar argument which Andrew Bartlett made against me in my interactions with Andrew Bartlett. Both are inclined to favor the reading found in the Common English Bible (CEB) for 1 Timothy 3:14-15: “I hope to come to you quickly. But I’m writing these things to you so that if I’m delayed, you’ll know how you should behave in God’s household. It is the church of the living God and the backbone and support of the truth.” Notice how the two translations differ in the bolded parts: the ESV emphasizes how “one ought to behave” (Christians generally) versus the CEB emphasizes “how you should behave“; that is, how Timothy is to behave, and not the church as a whole. This does change the sense of the passage. The controversy is over how the Greek word “dei” is to be translated, typically as “ought”, or “to be necessary”, with respect to the immediately surrounding grammar (see screen shot in In Philosopher’s Garb screenshot at 57:02 in his video). However, one of the most prominent egalitarians, Philip Towner, does not follow the idiosyncratic reading found in the CEB. Towner in his NICNT Timothy and Titus commentary reads: ”
But it is in case Paul is “delayed” (v. 15) that he sends Timothy in his place bearing the letter that sets out his function along with instructions for the community…. This in effect categorizes all of the instructions already given from 2:1–3:13 (and possibly those also still to come) as representative of the “conduct” appropriate to life in “God’s household.” And it injects the note of necessity or “oughtness” characteristic of Paul’s sense of God’s claim on the behavior of his people (1 Thess 4:1; 2 Thess 3:7)” (Towner, Kindle location 6139-6143). In other words, the instructions are not specifically to Timothy and his behavior, but rather the instructions are for the whole church, given through Paul’s emissary, Timothy. Bill Mounce interestingly acknowledges the other reading as a possibility, but rejects it as the least plausible: “
What is more problematic is the question of who or what is the implied subject of δεῖ. Some suggest that it is Timothy, who is the subject of the finite verb εἰδῇς, “you know,” and his behavior is important. However, the instructions in chaps. 2 and 3 are addressed to the church and not to him personally. It is therefore more likely that the subject is the indefinite “one” or perhaps “people.” Paul has been spelling out how the church as a whole should behave, specifically in its prayer life, worship, and leadership; now he tells them why this is important” (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Volume 45, Word Biblical Commentary, p. 219).
You get the sense that either reading is grammatically possible, but shifts based on whether or not the passage prior to this verse indicates church order instruction, or if one assumes false teaching is specifically in view in the preceding passage, which is where the controversial 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is located. Does the cart go first or the horse? Which is the cart and which is the horse? …. What is interesting is that Towner, an egalitarian, agrees with Mounce, a complementarian, over and against other egalitarians like Andrew Bartlett. This is what I find so maddening about many of the egalitarian approaches to this topic: at a very basic level, different egalitarian approaches, all have one thing in common, namely that women can indeed serve as elders. But in almost each and every approach by various egalitarians, the different approaches are often in conflict with one another, in very striking ways!
8. Mike Winger tackles the appeal to Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2:13-15 at the 9:14:32 mark in his video. In Philosopher’s Garb gets to the heart of his counter-argument at the 1:54:00 mark in his video. I follow the view that Adam precedes Eve speaks more to the preeminence of Adam, as opposed to a particular view of authority, which is echoed by the general scholarship which speaks of male headship (kephale) as being more in the sense of preeminence, but that does not necessarily take a strong view of authority (but that authority may be a part of that “preeminence” understanding). ↩
9. At the 9:20:44 mark in his video, Mike Winger specifically addresses the claim advanced by patriarchists (extreme or hard complementarians), that “women are more easily deceived than men.” Mike specifically rejects this teaching, and complementarians should be advised to follow Mike Winger here. His strongest argument is say that the claim that “women are more easily deceived than men” is nowhere taught elsewhere in the Bible. This is specifically about Eve’s deception, and not a general description about women. Examples of women not being deceived, while the men in their lives were deceived, are plentiful in Scripture: Abigail knew the truth about a situation, even though her husband was deceived. She knew what danger he was in, even though he was oblivious to it. (1 Samuel 25). Deborah was a good judge in Israel, when Barak was deceived by fear (Judges 4-5). Huldah the prophetess was trusted for her wisdom, when certain men around her were not (2 Kings 22:14-20). When Amnon sought to take advantage of Tamar, and rape her, Tamar was the one who was filled with wisdom and truth, while Amnon was so deceived by his sin that his love for Tamar was turned into hate for her (2 Samuel 13). When no one else knew what was really going on with Jesus, a woman anointed Jesus for burial (Matthew 26:6-13). The most absurd thing about the “women are more easily deceived than men” view is that it suggests that men are more likely to willfully disobey God than women. If that is the case, why would anyone, whether they be male or female, be entrusted as an elder in local church? The “women are more easily deceived than men” view favored in Christian patriarchy circles needs to be abandoned. ↩
10. Mike Winger deals with 1 Timothy 2:15 about women “being saved through childbirth,” a perplexing passage for everyone. I whole heartedly accept Mike’s interpretation that this passage is about women being saved through “the childbirth” of the Messiah. He effectively shows how the typical skeptical/progressive Christian reading, which suggests that women will be saved through the act of bearing of children, is a contradiction with what we know from the authentic Paul. But Mike does a good job to show how the “messianic” view of this verse actually makes the best sense of the text as a whole, and intertwines well with the rest of Paul’s theology. ↩
11. Towards the last half hour of his video, Mike addresses what he calls the “Elders Don’t Have Authority Anyways” view. ↩
12. Mike’s concluding remarks begin at the 11:04:18 portion of the YouTube video. This part is essentially the summary of the previous 11 hours, paired down to about 30 minutes. A few little tidbits: (a) Mike has a good explanation of “cognates” at 4:24:00. (b) Controversy with Linda Bellville about translation authenteo. (c) Perhaps the most controversial part of Mike’s discussion about the “bunch of female false teachers” view….. note the cat. …. WHAT I DISAGREE WITH MIKE ABOUT IN HIS VIDEO: As mentioned above, I largely agree with much, if not most of what Mike says in his video. However, I would like to register where Mike got some things wrongs, at least in some of the bigger issues: (a) Mike suggests that complementarianism is not just built on this one passage of Scripture. I see this as imprecise and misleading. With respect to men and women relate to one another, as husband and wife in marriage, Mike is surely right here, as there are passages in 1 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5, and Colossians 3 which do lay out a complementarian view of marriage, though 1 Corinthians 7 has an undeniably strong egalitarian thrust to it. However, with respect to women serving in the position/function of elder in a local church, the only passage(s) of Scripture in the Bible that teaches about it would be not just 1 Timothy 2:8-15, but including with it the following section, 1 Timothy 3:1-13. Titus 1 briefly touches on the subject, but our understanding of Titus 1:5-9 is dependent on how we read 1 Timothy. If we did not have the pastoral epistles in our Bible (namely, 1 Timothy, and secondarily, Titus), there would be nothing to build a case on to say that only men are to serve as elders in local church. However, the teaching about male elders serves as an application for the church the same basic principles we see in the New Testament laid out for marriage; which is why I see the concept of eldership to be sacramentarian in character, echoing the mystery of marriage: thus linking together the roles of men/women in the local church and in marriage, which all points to the deeper mysteries of faith revealed in Jesus; that is, Jesus ties all of the mysteries of faith together. This is why Paul mentions the “mystery of godliness” in 1 Timothy 3:14-16. The Greek word misterion, from which we get the Latin word “sacramentum” and the English word “mystery” is found here. Most scholars treat verse 16 as a hymn of the early church, celebrating the Gospel as a a great mystery. It seems fitting that Paul would sum up his teaching about church order with a reference to that great mystery, the Gospel. (b) Mike rightly rejects the argument for the cult of Artemis not playing a role in the promoting a disturbance of false teaching in the Ephesian church, which temporarily requires women to be kept for serving as local church elders, in teaching and having authority. However, Mike dismisses the argument too quickly. The cult of Artemis argument is actually the best argument that egalitarianism has in its favor to promote a re-reading of 1 Timothy 2:8-15. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to demonstrate that the cult of Artemis MIGHT be a work in the Ephesian church. However, the problem with the cult of Artemis argument is that we local direct evidence for Artemis being in the mind of Paul in 1 Timothy, with respect to 1 Timothy 2:8-15. There is nothing in the statements of Paul, or any early church writing, or any other inscription of any kind that lends support to the idea that the Artemis was in Paul’s head when he put together this teaching. I would therefore argue that if we were to find direct evidence about Artemis being in Paul’s mind here, this probably would change my view, thus showing my position to be wrong. For the Artemis connection would sufficiently explain why Paul makes an appeal to Genesis and creation in 1 Timothy 2:13-15, if such an Artemis connection actually existed, which has not been satisfactorily demonstrated yet . (c) Mike Winger says that the NIV 2011 reading of 1 Timothy 2:12 as “assuming authority” is not pejorative in meaning. Actually, the evidence for that could go either way. It can be read both in a complementarian and egalitarian way. (d) Mike Winger teaches that Paul’s appeal to the creation narrative in 1 Timothy 2:13-15 necessarily implies authority, but I see that the concept of “authority” should be seen to echo that of “preeminence” with respect to the Greek kephale (“head”) we find in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5. (e) Mike sees no real distinction between “elder” and “pastor.” However, this is incorrect in that while all elders need to be pastors, not all pastors are elders. Ephesians 4:11 is the only place in the New Testament where the term “pastor” (or “shepherd”) is used to describe someone other than Jesus, and yet there is not mention of gender/sex involved, and no mention of “elder/overseer” either. ↩
Veracity 
What do you think?