On the eve of Iowa and New Hampshire, "there is such silence."

(Tim) From John Knox's The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, this excerpt explaining why reformed pastors have nothing at all to say about the election of a woman to the presidency of these United States...

I am assured that God has revealed to some in this our age, that it is more than a monster in nature that a woman shall reign and have empire above man. And yet, with us all there is such silence, as if God therewith were nothing offended. I know the natural man, enemy to God, shall find many causes why no such doctrine ought to be published in these our dangerous days: first, for that it may seem to tend to sedition; secondarily, it shall be dangerous, not only to the writer or publisher, but also to all such as shall read the writings, or favour this truth spoken; and last, it shall not amend the chief offenders, partly because it shall never come to their ears, and partly because they will not be admonished in such cases.

I answer, if any of these be a sufficient reason, that a known truth shall be concealed, then were the ancient prophets of God very fools, who did not better provide for their own quietness, than to hazard their lives for rebuking of vices, and for the opening of such crimes as were not known to the world. And Christ Jesus did injury to his apostles, commanding them to preach repentance and remission of sins in his name to every realm and nation. And Paul did not understand his own liberty, when he cried, "Woe be to me, if I preach not the evangel!" (1 Cor. 9:16). If fear, I say, of persecution, of slander, or of any inconvenience before named, might have excused and discharged the servants of God from plainly rebuking the sins of the world, just cause had every one of them to have ceased from their office. For suddenly their doctrine was accused by terms of sedition, of new learning, and of treason. Persecution and vehement trouble did shortly come upon the professors with the preachers. Kings, princes, and worldly rulers did conspire against God, and against his anointed Christ Jesus (Matt. 26:57-68; Acts 18:12-16; 21:28-39; Ps. 2; Acts 4:1-33).

But what? Did any of these move the prophets and apostles to faint in their vocation [calling]? No. But by the resistance (which the devil made to them by his supporters) were they the more inflamed to publish the truth revealed unto them, and to witness with their blood, that grievous condemnation and God's heavy vengeance should follow the proud contempt of graces offered. The fidelity, bold courage, and constancy of those that are passed before us, ought to provoke us to follow in their footsteps, unless we look for another kingdom than Christ has promised to such as persevere in profession of his name to the end.

Comments

Hi Tim,

Not everyone in the reformed world is silent.

:)

Cheers,

Col

www.monstrousregiment.com

May I add that I believe Mr. Gunn's documentary on the regiment of women is so very excellent! Tim, I hope you've watched the copy I sent your way.

Got that for Christmas....excellent and highly recommended!

Colin,

I love your work and have been changed by it. Keep it up!!!

I find it of passing interest that the former SBC minister running for the other party's nomination hasn't been asked about this - at least I haven't seen anyone ask him about it.

Kamilla

P.S. I understand Knox's house in Edinburgh is open as a museum. I may have to shoehorn in a quick visit in April!

It strikes me as peculiar that a Church (PCUSA) that claims an ideological history with Knox allows women to be Pastors and celebrate "Scottish Heritage Sundays".

P.S.- I have linked the GodTube trailer of Colin's video.

There is absolutely nothing in God's Word that can be fashioned into a prohibition against women holding civil authority without careful and tedious workmanship on the legislator's part. This excerpt is mere bluster and slander from a weak and wicked cleric, who was diverted from the Gospel by a non-issue. As a minister, you would do well to find a more worthy hero.

>I understand Knox's house in Edinburgh is open as a museum. I may have to shoehorn in a quick visit in April!

It is and it is worth visiting. Not overwhelming but enjoyable and got a good book or two there over the years...

Here's my "careful" work that took all of thirty seconds:

OLD TESTAMENT:

"O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths" (Isaiah 3:12).

NEW TESTAMENT:

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (1Timothy 2:12-14).

As for this work being "tedious," not at all. The Holy Spirit causes those who belong to Jesus Christ to rejoice in the Word of God and all its truths.

For further interest, quote 1 Tim. 2:12 from the King James version and then read the sermons of Lancelot Andrewes who was the chief editor of the KJV and find out that a usurper was a criminal guilty of treason.

It would be interesting to read a little more nuanced exegesis. Authenteo did not mean "exercise authority" but the only contemporary example with the NT was to "compel" or "force" someone to do something.

Sue I think you should look at Henry Scott Baldwin's work on the word "Authenteo" in second edition of "Women in the Church". His exegesis is quite nuanced in the favor of Rev. Bayly's post.

So what are we going to do about it, then, remembering what Romans 13 says about submission to the civil powers?

Without necessarily agreeing with Eric, the material in 1 Tim 2 does not seem in any case to be aimed at the situation of the civil power.

Are you aware of how many of the quotes in the Baldwin study are contemporary to the NT? Two! Here they are,

1. BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): "I had my way with him [authenteō ] and he agreed to provide Calalytis the boatman with the full payment within the hour."

2. Philodemus, Rhetorica II Fragmenta Libri [V] fr IV line 14 (first century BC): "These orators ... even fight with powerful ( authenteō ) lords." (This is a hypothetical reconstruction of a fragmentary text.)

As is clear from this, the Philodemus fragment has a hypothetical reconstruction. In this hypothetical reconstruction auth..ais an... is reconstructed as powerful lords. However, the entire fragment is very hypothetical since this line is usually considered to be a quote from something several centuries earlier.

Baldwin found the phrase "have authority" at a different place in the paraphrased summary of the fragment. There is no translation of this fragment since there really is not enough there to translate.

...I have to consider (Baldwin's study) one of the best hoaxes perpetrated on unsuspecting believers in this generation.

[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: This is the first of many comments made by "Sue" that claim that English translations of Scripture are wrong in how they handle texts dealing with the relationship of man and woman.

"Sue" claims to be an expert in Greek after many years of study and she has many citations she uses to bolster her idiosyncratic views. But here is how one New Testament scholar with the Ph.D. from Cambridge University sums up "Sue's" own scholarship: "From what she has written here, I would not be able to say that "Sue" should be considered a reliable source of information for understanding Greek or for quoting other authors (like myself) fairly and with attention to context." The evidence support this statement is insurmountable.

During this past week, I've been traveling with my wife and mother taking our Aunt Elaine's body to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania for burial. And as we traveled, "Sue" piled up thousands of words promoting her unbiblical views.

But then "Sue" added to my tension (and exasperation, really) by telling us that she was an abused wife who bore on her body the inevitable marks of patriarchy.

Of course, I was not exasperated because "Sue" talked about her abuse publicly; healing requires fellowship and love from brothers and sisters in Christ. Rather, I was exasperated because "Sue" used her abuse as a weapon in her war against the plain meaning of the Word of God and I knew from long experience that her bringing up her victimhood, legitimate though it may be, would be a straitjacket it would be exceedingly difficult to escape in dealing with her deceptions and errors here, publicly.

So what to do?

Well, my wife, mother, and I are now back home, reunited with Lizzie and Taylor, and the hour of decision has arrived. Here's what I've decided to do.

I'm not going to allow "Sue's" attacks upon the plain meaning of Scripture to permanently stand here on our blog. They dishonor Christ and His Word and David and I have no obligation to provide them a public home. Yes, they'll still be able to be accessed through Google's caches, but that's not something David and I are responsible for.

Some may disagree saying that it's unfair to allow someone to post comments spending tons of time on those comments, and then pull them off the blog. I agree that this seems unfair, but I can't see my way clear to do anything else.

So, I'm pulling all of the parts of "Sue's" comments that lead readers astray concerning the Word of God, its translation and meaning. But I'm leaving up those parts of her comments where she reports being abused with the hope that she'll hear the ministry being offered her by our readers in these other areas.

If you think I'm wrong in my decision, God bless you. I have no doubt I've handled this badly, but I'm responsible for what lives on permanently on this blog, and I cannot reconcile my own conscience to "Sue's" idosyncratic attacks upon God's Word to have a permanent home here on the Baylyblog.

Would you please pray for David and me, that God will give us wisdom and grace in our stewardship of this publication? Would you also please pray for "Sue," that God will heal her heart and lead her into His Truth concerning sexuality? Thank you.]

Sue, if at first you don't succeed, try try again. Eventually, you'll get the lexicons to throw out the definitions you don't like. And then, every single pre-feminist Bible will be left high and dry as hoodwinked sheep in the pews buy new Bibles that keep up with the latest wording.

But of course, it will be much harder to get rid of Adam being created first, and then Eve; and of Eve being the one deceived. Then again, maybe "deceived" doesn't really mean "deceived." And maybe "first" means "second?" And maybe the whole passage is just "Paul being rabbinical?" And maybe it only applies to the church? And maybe only to the church at worship? And maybe only the church at worship in the ancient world? And maybe only the chuch, at worship, in the ancient world, at Ephesus?

Then again, maybe the time will come when men will again discover objective scholarship and simple intellectual honesty?

You know, hope springs eternal in this human pest.

And then, every single pre-feminist Bible will be left high and dry as hoodwinked sheep in the pews buy new Bibles that keep up with the latest wording.

Sorry, how shall the pre-feminist Bibles be left high and dry? I don't follow.

I am quite fond of the King James version in general, but the Vulgate had dominare and the 1560 English language Calvin Bible had "assume authority." That is similar to the TNIV, is it not? Beza, circa 1579 had "usurpare autoritatem".

[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: This is the another of many comments made by "Sue" that claim that English translations of Scripture are wrong in how they handle texts dealing with the relationship of man and woman. For an explanation of what's happened to those portions of "Sue's" comments, please see above.]

>I don't look forward to new research, I go in search of the past.

Precious souls, don't let this deceived woman deceive you and lead you into rebellion against the Word of God.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Thank you. I always appreciate it when the fruits of my research into the past are honoured. I have very much enjoyed becoming more familiar with different translations this year, Pagnini, Luther, Olivetan, and Calvin and it has furthered my understanding of reformation theology considerably.

I look forward to the day when Baldwin's study is better understood. A quick look at the original sources of his citations, which are all easily available on the internet these days, should clear things up.

What exactly is going on here? You post a reply then I reply to that and you pull your comment and replace it with a general appeal that others not be deceived by ME?

PS I am not trying to lead anyone into rebellion. I have a legitimate passtime of researching reformation Bibles.

Let me get this straight. The passage in I Timothy is supposed to be translated, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or [compel/force] a man [to do something], but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression"?

This rendering not only makes the argument less clear, but it does absolutely nothing to mitigate the un-feminist or patriarchal sense of the passage. You're saying that, since Eve was created second and was deceived, unlike Adam, the woman isn't supposed to force the man to do anything, but she can still hold authority over him? Since when does wielding authority not involve compelling people to do things they don't want to do? That kind of "authority" is impotence. Parents, police, teachers, bosses--all compel those under their charge to do things they don't naturally want to do.

Rather than proving anything, you only make a muddle of the verse. But I guess that's preferable to having people believe something you and Gloria Steinem have already decided to be wrong. Evangelical feminists are the worse kind, because they want people to think they've arrived at their position by objective study and scholarship of Scripture, when in reality an objective reading of the Bible permits no such interpretation. Feminism has at its root nothing more profound than a childish rebellion against what God has made.

Rather than proving anything, you only make a muddle of the verse

Since when are we called on to change what the original Greek says just because God's word looks like a "muddle" as you put it. Do you really not want to know what was in the reformation Bibles? That's okay. You don't need to read my comments.

You then assume that I have something in common with Gloria Steinem. Let me say "Gloria who?"

I do have a very serious question for you. You write,

Since when does wielding authority not involve compelling people to do things they don't want to do?

My understanding is that it is the position of this blog that men have authority over women. Exactly what methods are men to use to compel their wives to do things that they don't want to do? In your list "Parents, police, teachers, bosses" you leave out "husbands". Was this oversight or do you believe that husbands should not compel wives, as I believe wives should not compel husbands.

For me, it is clear, men are not told to compel or force their wives to do things, and wives should not behave in that manner to their husbands.

[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Here I've removed another portion of a comment made by "Sue." For an explanation of what's happened to those portions of "Sue's" comments, please see above.]

You can talk a lot about childish rebellion but I studied Greek 5 days a week from the age of 14 to 21, along with French, German, Latin and Hebrew. I committed the time then to reading these languages. Maybe you feel that women should not devote themselves to such study. And I did not. As a woman I stopped all theological study. But the damage had been done. It turned out that I never forgot how to read Greek.

As Rev. David said even with your rendering of the Greek it still is in no way promoting Female Ordination to Teaching Elder. Let us also not be so naive as to think 1 Tim 2:9-15 is the only source verse that precludes women from holding office in the Church, including 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and others. Calvin comments on 1 Tim 12:

12. But I permit not a woman to teach. Paul is not taking from women their duty to instruct their family, but is only excluding them from the office of teaching (a munere docendi), which God has committed exclusively to men. This is a subject we have already gone into in relation to I Corinthians. If anyone challenges this ruling by citing the case of Deborah and other women of whom we are told that God at one time appointed them to govern the people, the obvious answer is that God's extraordinary acts do not annul the ordinary rules by which He wishes us to be bound. Thus, if at some time women held the office of prophets and teachers and were led to do so by God's Spirit, He who is above all law might do this, but being an extraordinary case, it does not conflict with the constant and accustomed rule."

I would also look at the OPC's Q & A on this subject found here:

http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=104

and here:

http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=120

I am not Presbyterian so how this works out for you guys is of some interest but not authoritative for me. I simply want to make sure...

[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Here I've removed another portion of a comment made by "Sue." For an explanation of what's happened to those portions of "Sue's" comments, please see above.]

>My understanding is that it is the position of this blog that men have authority over women.

No, but that woman, by God's order of creation and command, is not to exercise authority over man.

As for your latest post, Sue; wrong, wrong, and wrong.

No, but that woman, by God's order of creation and command, is not to exercise authority over man.

[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Here I've removed another portion of a comment made by "Sue." For an explanation of what's happened to those portions of "Sue's" comments, please see above.]

Sue,

I would counsel you to think about the Christological formulation of Paul in Ephesians 5:22-33 when going down the road (from whence I have come) towards egalitarian formulations. Also the context of 1 Corinthians 7 (mutual authority over each other's body) quite clearly is referencing sexual intercourse, not the sharing of ecclesiastical authority.

It was not at all clear to me that this post was about ecclesiastical authority. It seems to shift from civic to ecclesiastical to marital authority.

I wanted to discuss the scriptures on which these ideas are based but you just shift from one scripture to another. I take it the basis for understanding the scriptures in question are not of interest to you. You don't mind the fact that Baldwin's study is based on fabrication.

I want to talk about the Bible and you want to talk about the woman's lack of authority.

Don't try to save me from egalitarian formulations. It was the physical assault of a male that taught me all I needed to know about male power and domination. It is indeed the curse of woman. I was taught the gender passages with fist and foot.

>I was taught the gender passages with fist and foot.

That would regrettably explain a failure to understand them.

That would regrettably explain a failure to understand them.

And this is exactly why I am so concerned with David L's statement here,

Since when does wielding authority not involve compelling people to do things they don't want to do?

What do you think he meant by that? Did he mean that men may compel women, but women may not compel men? It seems that there is a lack of clarity on how a man may treat a woman. Either a man may compel a woman or he may not. The scripture is clear that a woman may not compel a man.

[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Here I've removed another portion of a comment made by "Sue." For an explanation of what's happened to those portions of "Sue's" comments, please see above.]

I think I can speak for David L. and say that Spousal Abuse is not what he had in mind when he spoke of authority compelling people to do things they do not wish to do and to insinuate otherwise is unnecessary and rude. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. There is no Scriptural defense that can be made for striking your spouse regardless of the meaning of Authenteo. End of Story.

I still fail to see how any of the "Reformation" translations make the case for an Egalitarian worldview? It is also worth noting that we have better (and more) Greek and Hebrew manuscripts then the writers of the KJV and Geneva Bibles had at their time and none of these has changed the way we look at ecclesiastical authority in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Tim

I just have to know.

Eric argued, "There is absolutely nothing in God's Word that can be fashioned into a prohibition against women holding civil authority without careful and tedious workmanship on the legislator's part." In your response, you included this: "The Holy Spirit causes those who belong to Jesus Christ to rejoice in the Word of God and all its truths."

Now, it looks like you're saying, "My understanding of these passages is Spirit-inspired. Anyone who disagrees does not belong to Christ."

Is that what you intended to suggest?

Dear Stan,

***********************************

Here's what "Eric" wrote:

***********************************

"There is absolutely nothing in God's Word that can be fashioned into a prohibition against women holding civil authority without careful and tedious workmanship on the legislator's part. This excerpt is mere bluster and slander from a weak and wicked cleric, who was diverted from the Gospel by a non-issue. As a minister, you would do well to find a more worthy hero."

***********************************

This was my response to Eric:

***********************************

"Here's my 'careful' work that took all of thirty seconds:

OLD TESTAMENT:

'O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths" (Isaiah 3:12).

NEW TESTAMENT:

'But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression' (1Timothy 2:12-14).

As for this work being 'tedious,' not at all. The Holy Spirit causes those who belong to Jesus Christ to rejoice in the Word of God and all its truths."

***********************************

This, then, is my answer to your question:

***********************************

It seems clear to me that my response is to the use of the word 'tedious,' and that I'm saying I didn't (and don't) find teaching the Word of God tedious at all, but rather a joy. And that this is due to the work of the Holy Spirit in my heart, as in the heart of all believers, causing us to rejoice in His Truth.

So pressing your point, maybe you want me to answer another question: Namely, do I believe that those who deny the creation order God established between the sexes are Christians?

I answer that this rebellion against God wouldn't be proof positive of the absence of saving faith any more than submission to God's order would be proof positive of the presence of saving faith. But either one would certainly be useful for those discerning their own hearts or the hearts of those under their pastoral or familial care.

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (1Timothy 2:12-14).

Actually, wasn't Adam deceived by Eve? It seems there's this assumption that Adam would have never sinned. Eve just told him to eat the fruit, there's no indication she put a gun to his head sort to speak.

Also, I'm curious. If it were possible at some point in the future and our only two choices for candidates were a woman and a muslim...who would you rather subject yourself to?

Add new comment