I posted this thought at the Derek Webb forum, but I liked the way it came out so I’ve edited it into a blog post. It builds on some previoius thoughts I’ve had.

To do “apostolic succession” correctly, it would have to be done in accordance with the Apostle’s instructions. (I mean ‘correctly’ as in a fashion envisioned by the beginning of the chain.) Paul instructed Timothy to “entrust these things to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2Ti 2:2). The chain then could be broken by entrusting it to unfaithful men and those who couldn’t teach. The point is that the chain, while valid in so far as we see ordained people ordaining others, is not a perfect chain.

My next thought goes back a bit further historically. Who ordained the Apostles? Not the priests and scribes and lawyers, it was Jesus himself. The existing, ordained religious heirarchy didn’t ordain him, they murdered him. According to Hebrews 7, Jesus started a brand new chain, he was ordained according to the order of Melchizedek, not Levi. Of course God is able to reforge the chain as he sees fit. Apostolic succession then doesn’t extend unbrokenly (is that a word?) back to Abraham or Enoch or Adam. God realigns the chain as he desires. By this I am referring to only the laying on of hands from one generation to another. If we consider it in terms of those who hold to the truth of the gospel and tell others, then yes, the chain extends backward despite times in redemptive history when it looked the bleakest.

For me then, the lession is not the importance of a perfectly unbroken chain of hands being laid on but the imporance of “faithful men” who teach and pass on the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). What we need is not just a theological geneology of who ordained whom, history makes it clear that such a list doesn’t exist, what is needed is Semper Reformanda. We need to be constantly checking our doctrine and looking back across the ages to what our theolgical forefathers have taught. Where has time proven them right? We need to heed modern scholarship and the illumination they can shed on how best to wrestle though the difficult issues. Above all, we need to be heeding the work of the Holy Spirit as he illuminates his written word to us. Though teacher may be more or less faithful, though traditions may be more or less true, God’s word stands.

I recently received a comment on my original post about complementarianism that pointed me to a blog entry by Ben Witherington, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary. Apparently, Ben has a commentary on coming out on 1 Timothy.

I’ve finally had the time to read the blog entry and comment on it. I realize that this is not Ben’s full treatment of the issue and so this is no my full response to it either. Just a few observations.

1) the verb ‘authentein’ in vs. 12 occurs only once in the NT– just here. The verb is a strong one, and in my commentary which comes out in the fall I give instances of where it can be used to mean ‘to domineer’ ‘to usurp authority over’, but it also has the sense of ‘to exercise authority over’ as well.

True. So the meaning of the word is not disputed. The noun form of the word is authentes “master”. According to Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon, the word means “hold sovereign authority, act with authority”. A very strong word in deed!

Paul is not talking about occasions or instances where it is perfectly proper for women to teach or exercise authority over men, something he will mention elsewhere, for example in Rom. 16.

There is nothing in Romans 16 that teaches that.

The issue here in Ephesus is that there are some women who are seeking to teach or take authority over men, without first being quiet and learning about their faith. This is inappropriate of course.

How does Ben know this? Verse 11 say to “let a woman learn” there is nothing saying “first and then…” Much of the egalitarian argument on the interpretation of this verse is based on what they suppose is the situation in Ephesus but little is provided in the way of proof.

2) nothing is said here about women being subordinate to men. What vs. 11 speaks about is learning quietly and so being in submission to the teaching and what is being required of the listener…In short, 1 Tim. 2 is talking about silence and submission in the presence of authoritative teaching and teachers.

True enough. Just to be clear, I am not arguing for the subordination of women from this verse. I am simply saying that women may not hold the office of elder or pastor and may not teach men.

Clearly enough, he is correcting high status women who actually had fine clothes and jewels to wear, and could come to worship with high coiffed hair. It is these sorts of women he has in mind in 1 Tim. 23) the verb here is ‘I am not (now) permitting’. As Philip Payne has shown, there is not a single instance of the use of this verb in Greek literature where this form means ” I am permanently banning women from teaching etc.’ This is a verb which implies a ban for a specific period of time until the problem is remedied or the proper conditions are met for women having learned enough to be able to teach.

This simply is not the best way to handle verb tenses in Greek. There are too many exceptions to this type of a rule. The verbal aspect theory would say that Paul is using a present tense verb not to mean “not for now” but to emphasize it, to make it stand out. As Stanley Porter says “Greek tenses are not primarily temporally-based.” (Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Mood and Tense, 252.) In other words, a verb can be present tense and be stative. The “default” setting for a Greek verb is the Aorist. It is the most common verb tense used. Rarer is the present tense. When the less common verb tenses are used, they serve to draw attention to what is being said. The exact time reference of the verb must be taken from the context. That is why some Greek grammars speak of “future Aorists.”

Back to verse 12 where the verb is present active indicative. Though it can be a present, temporary state, it can also indicate a steady state. For example, in Matthew 3:9 John the Baptist warns the Jews not to say “We have (present active indicative) Abraham as our father” as assurance that they are acceptable to God. John does not say that they will stop being Abraham’s children, he says that God can raise children to Abraham out of the stones. Their state is fixed, but not helpful to them. It is the immediate context which must tell us about the temporal aspect of the verb and that is entirely missing in 1Ti 2. There is nothing indicating that it is only a temporary prohibition that Paul has in mind.

I guess I’ll have to wait to see Witherington’s fuller treatment of this verse in his forthcoming commentary but I didn’t find the blog entry particularly convincing.

Here are some builds of FireFox optimized for the Mac’s Power PC processor. I’m currently using Deer Park for the Power PC 7540. It renders very quickly, about the only thing I wait for is graphics to download. Impressive.

Beware! These are alpha releases, that is early working releases. Use at your own risk.

Couple that with the Adblock extension and Filterset.G filters and you got a pretty zippy web browsing experience.

(HT: Paulo)

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Following a series of regrettable public statements televangelist Pat Robertson recently lost his bid to be re-elected to the board of directors of the National Religious Broadcasters. Robertson was understandably upset. “A few poorly chosen phrases and I’m out.” A visibly saddened Robertson commented as he carried a cardboard box, presumably the contexts of his desk, out of the NRB headquarters.

Robertson’s most famous comment was that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be “taken out” and more recently he attributed Ariel Sharon’s stroke to God’s judgement upon the Israeli Prime Minister for releasing the Gaza strip to the Palestinians. “All I meant,” Robertson retorted before entering a waiting limousine, “was that Chavez needed a date and that Sharon…well, Sharon, you know, golfs.” Apparently implying that the stroke was a golf stroke.

In an attempt at solidarity, discredited Christian radio teacher Harold Camping welcomed Robertson. “I understand what it feels like.” Camping said on his radio program “Open Forum.” “Men like Pat and I are easily misunderstood and we’re too quickly rejected after some minor missteps” Camping explained.

In 1992 Camping published a book claiming that Jesus would return in September of 1994. When the Savior failed to meet Camping’s timetable he revised his numbers and claimed Jesus would instead return in 1995. When Christ missed that appointment also, Camping gave up and instead claimed that the Holy Spirit had left all Christian Churches and called believers everywhere to abandon them. They should instead support Christian ministries that are not “churches” but ones that might get the gospel out by some other means such as radio and are headed by older men with big ears and deep voices. Camping and his ministry have been rejected and condemned by Christians everywhere.

Sources claim that Camping has offered Robertson a position on the board of Family Radio. It was not immediately apparent whether Robertson would accept. A spokesman for the Christian Broadcasting Network, Robertson’s ministry and home of the 700 Club, said that they had no official announcement and that they could not comment on what might or might not happen. They immediately retracted that statement as it apparently violated Robertson’s own broadcasting standards.