The CBE Scroll

I have a question about the translation of 1 Timothy 2:12. Click here to view the interlinear reading of this verse.

At 2:12, there are three notable differences between the English interlinear underneath the Greek text, and the English translation on the right.

Difference 1: The English interlinear is in the present tense, as indicated by the words ‘I AM permittING NOT-YET.’ But in the English translation on the right, the sense of ‘NOT-YET’ is not carried over. It makes a sentence that appears to deal with a particular moment in time sound like a command for all time. Why was it translated this way?

Difference 2: The English interlinear translates authenein as ‘to be domineering’ but the English translation on the right translates it as ‘authority over.’ Why was it translated this way?

Difference 3: The English interlinear translates hesuchia as ‘quietness,’ but the English translation on the right translates it as ‘silence.’ Why was it translated this way?

Can anyone tell me what is going on here?

Why do some people say that there is no evidence kephale can mean ’source’ or ‘origin?’

The Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott Greek lexicon lists, among the possible meanings of the Greek word kephale (translated as ‘head’ in English), ‘source’ or ‘origin.’ This is the word translated ‘head’ in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (”Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”) and Ephesians 5:23 (”For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior”).

Here’s the reference from the lexicon, and a link to the same entry, here.

d. in pl., source of a river (Hdt. 4.91) (butsg., mouth, oida Gela potamou kephalêi epikeimenon astu Call.Aet.Oxy.2080.48 ): generally, source, origin, Zeus k. (v.l. arkhê), Zeus messa, Dios d’ ek panta teleitai tetuktai codd.) Orph.Fr.21a; starting-point, k. khronou Placit. 2.32.2 (kronou codd.), Lyd.Mens.3.4; k. mênos ib.12.

And yet, there are those who insist that there is no evidence that ‘source’ or ‘origin’ are acceptable meanings for the word. Why is this?

Mutuality is now accepting articles (and discussion surrounding the issue) for the Summer 2008 issue on ‘Resolving Conflicts.’

Topic ideas include, but are not limited to:

• How convictions about biblical equality and gender justice apply to resolving conflict
• Biblical alternatives to ‘the tie-breaking-vote’ model of conflict resolution by female submission to male headship
• The importance of prayer for resolving conflict
• Whether there is a ‘middle way’ between egalitarianism and male headship
• Appropriate and inappropriate anger
• Biblical reflections: examples of how Jesus handled conflict, Jacob and Esau’s reconciliation, rivalry between Sarah and Hagar, etc.
• Examples of Christians who are/were reconcilers as well as examples of Christians who refuse(d) to compromise on truth
• Practical tips and reflections on race and gender reconciliation in Christ

Please send specific ideas or proposals to mgreulich@cbeinternational.org.

‘If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty placed on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.’ (Deuteronomy 24:5)

This was actually the second instance of Scripture I noticed in my reading of Deuteronomy where allowance was made for the priority of marriage over the duties of a soldier (cf. Deuteronomy 20:7).

But, what strikes me particularly about this verse is the latter half. In a completely patriarchal society, one would expect for the exhortation to be ’so that his wife can bring him happiness’ - but instead, the opposite is being commanded. Why do you think this is the case?

To me, it reveals that the idea of marriage being created for the enjoyment of both husband and wife is not a new man-made (or ‘woman’-made) idea. I think the tendency in that society was for the men to live like it was all about them (If we read all the stories about the patriarchs/men of the Bible, it would seem that they made all the decisions - wise ones for their families and also not-so-wise-ones to save their own neck or to satisfy their desires and make themselves happy - even to take more than one woman (slave/concubine), even though that wasn’t how God wanted things.), so, in light of that, perhaps God needed to spell it out plainly that it was important to him that the husbands sought after bringing happiness to their own wives.

What do you think?

Several places in the New Testament, had ‘headship’ been God’s intention, it would have been stated and described. Rather, in those places we find no such direct statement and, in fact, other descriptions of marriage indicating full equality.

Two such places are as follow. In 1 Corinthians 7:3-4, when Paul states that the husband’s body belongs to his wife and and wife’s to her husband, no distinction is made between the two parties, in spite of the fact that the word ‘authority’ is used.

The second, 1 Corinthians 7:32-35, concerns itself with the value of staying single in the culture of the time. It talks about a married man being ‘anxious about the affairs of the world and how to please his wife’ (NRSV), and then the same words are used for a married woman wanting to please her husband, therefore being divided in interest rather than single-mindedly serving God. Paul states ‘I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.’

Surely these two sets of verses would have been ideal opportunities to state roles of husbands and wives if that had been Paul’s intention and belief. However, instead of even a hint of hierarchy, there is instead total mutuality and consideration.