This article was downloaded by permission of the author from www.RethinkingFaith.com, where other free articles are available on similar subjects.

Specious Questions
Responding to Grudem's Questions Three, Four, and Five
by Ruth Evans

I would like to suggest that Dr. Grudem's Six Questions are "specious" in nature -- i.e. apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false.  I offer for example my findings on three of the key questions he poses:

Question 3

With the help of a friend who is fairly sympathetic to the complementarian viewpoint and who has studied Hebrew and Greek, I did some research into the claims of this question, which says:. 

Some of you argue that the Greek word "h" shows that the preceding verses are a quotation from the Corinthian church which Paul denies...you tell us that "h," "or," is used in Greek to DENY what has just been said.

...in fact "h" is used in rhetorical questions to AFFIRM what has just been said, and we can find no examples where it is used to deny what has just been said. 

...if you cannot (show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word "or" (h) is used to show that the writer is denying what has just been said) then we suggest you have no factual basis for your interpretation of this key verse, and we respectfully ask that you stop writing and speaking as if you did etc.... 

During my brief foray I discovered that Strong's Exhaustive Concordance does not agree that "h" means "or'. Strong's claims that it may mean "or, and, but, either, except it be, else, rather, save than, that, what, yea." 

From Strong's we moved to Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. This lexicon claims that "h" can be used in the disjunctive form (and I quote) "separating opposites which are mutually exclusive."  It also claims that "h" can be used in an interrogative form (and I quote) "what?"  Either of these forms seem to make a valid case for using "h" to deny what went before. 

It appears that "h" may be properly used to DENY a rhetorical question AND it may be used to AFFIRM a rhetorical question. Whether or not THE READER CHOOSES to see it as affirming or denying seems to be where a specious quality of the question creeps in, because the interpretation will depend upon the mindset of the reader. 

Grudem suggests there "is no factual basis" for claiming that "h" may deny a rhetorical question. It seems clear he is mistaken and that "h" may be used to affirm or deny.  I suggest (with due respect of course) that Grudem refrain from stating his case as though he has a monopoly on the truth. 

By the way, my complementarian friend came to the same conclusion!

Question 4

Dr. Grudem writes:

Many of you claim that the word translated "have authority" (authentein) means "misuse authority" or "domineer"... in this sentence, so that Paul is not prohibiting women from having authority over men .... Whenever we have seen this verb occur, it takes a neutral sense, "have authority" or "exercise authority"... If you can show us one example (of "authentein" meaning "domineer" or "usurp authority"), we would be happy to consider your interpretation further etc., etc.... 

It is important to understand that this word "authentein," translated in 1 Timothy 2:12 as "have authority," is not used anywhere else in the New Testament and is not the usual Greek word for "authority" or "power." 

The Greek New Testament dictionary edited by Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger, and Wigren defines "authentein" as "domineer,  have authority over." 

In their grammatical analysis of the Greek New Testament, Zerwick and Grosvenor define "authentein" as "domineer." 

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines "authenteo" as "to act of oneself...dominate...usurp authority over." 

Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich repeat the refrain "have authority, domineer over someone," and give a list of classical references in which presumably this word may be found with the meanings they suggest. 

It seems clear then that it is not unreasonable to suggest that "authentein" may sometimes mean "domineer" or "usurp authority."   

 It seems clear that it is not unreasonable to suggest that "authentein" may sometimes mean "domineer" or "usurp authority."  Since it is the case that ALL of the reference books I checked admitted the possibility of such an interpretation for "authentein," I would suggest that Grudem cease claiming that he alone knows the truth in the matter.  It seems clear that the meaning is affected to some extent by the MINDSET of the reader. 

Another specious question from the "big six."

Question 5

Question five refers further to 1 Timothy 1:12. 

Grudem writes that "Regarding this verse, many of you tell us that the phrase "to teach or to have authority" means "to teach in a domineering way," or "to teach in a way that usurps authority." 

I addressed the meaning of the word "authentein" under Question 4.  Grudem has a "second problem" with this interpretation, a grammatical problem. He expresses it this way: 

...when we look at other examples of this Greek construction, in the form "neither + (verb 1) + nor + (verb 2)," only two patterns occur: (a) verb 1 and 2 are activities or concepts that are BOTH VIEWED POSITIVELY...or (b) verb 1 and 2 are activities that are BOTH VIEWED NEGATIVELY. 

Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where the pattern "neither + (verb 1) + nor + (verb 2)" is used to refer to one action that is viewed positively and one action that is viewed negatively? 

The first issue for us seems to be this. Can Grudem quote an egalitarian writer or teacher, who says that the pattern "neither + (verb 1) + nor + (verb 2) is used to refer to one action that is viewed positively and one action that is viewed negatively? If he cannot, then question five is mute. 

Let's take a further look at 1 Timothy 1:12. It appears that, courtesy of the negative context imputed by Paul's "I do not permit," each of the verbs in the sentence should be read as negative. The verb for "teach" should be read as negative. The verb for "domineer" should be read as negative. The negative "domineer' or "usurp authority" fits with the context created by Paul's "I do not permit." It DOES NOT FIT with Grudem's positive "teach." Grudem's grammatical rule does not prevent the interpretation of the verb "authente" as "usurp authority" or "domineer," providing "teach" is taken as a negative also. Contextually, it seems inappropriate for Grudem to interpret "teach" as a positive ... given the negative frame of the verb. 

The only way that Grudem can interpret the verb "to teach" as a positive in this sentence, is by detaching it from it's negative context.

Conclusion

There appears to be a general problem with Grudem's approach in the six questions. Each question requires of the reader/responder, "...will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek" literature except for question six which says, "...will you please show us one example in all of ancient literature.." 

By requiring the reader to provide an "example in all of ancient Greek" literature, Grudem appears to be claiming that the word he refers to can only have one meaning, the meaning he agrees with. He also appears to be falling into the error of insisting that the meaning of words used in scripture must be validated by literature outside of scripture. (The context within scripture is more important in determining the meaning of scripture, than any external parallel.) 

This one word/one meaning claim demonstrates a modern mindset that tends to believe that we must absolutize everything we read in scripture. Not only are Grudem and his supporters at war with the egalitarian movement and its teachings, they seem (consciously or not) to be defending a modern mindset that not only at odds with our culture but with the biblical culture as well.  It may be that Grudem is fighting for more than his gender view. He may be fighting for something he sees as the last bastion of Christian truth before the wicked, relativistic, postmodern tide sweeps in. Those of us who believe there are things either in the Bible or its interpretation that are culturally relative or that should be defined by context, are falsely perceived to be part of that roaring tide of postmodern wickedness. 

Another problem for Grudem may lie in the mindset that produced his list of questions. He demands that extrabiblical examples be provided to prove the validity of the egalitarian approach in interpreting proof texts in this debate. Yet even if one provides examples, they remain invalid to Grudem, because Grudem chooses to interpret them in a way that validates his own interpretation. He expects that no matter what proof an egalitarian provides, he will be able to refute it (and at that point himself operates as a postmodern). 

Grudem's approach in his questioning is unfortunate, for wherever he demands "Show us the proof!" we can but reply with a dose of his own medicine:

"Show us the biblical text which specifically and clearly commands that husbands are to lead, rule over or have authority over their wives and the church."

There are none. 

(c) Copyright 1999 Ruth Evans.  All rights reserved.  Used by permission.