Re: Defusing the 1 Timothy 2:12 Bomb

Introduction

A while ago, I received a response from someone linking to a 2014 article that attacks the idea that 1 Timothy 2:12 denies women church authority. The article is by Gail Wallace and is entitled Defusing the 1 Timothy 2:12 Bomb. As I wrote before, it attempts to present a counterargument to the use of 1 Timothy 2:12 as a prooftext against female preachers. I will give Ms. Wallace credit in that she has attempted to present a more coherent argument than the usual "You just don't get the context!" excuse that is often thrown haphazardly in Charismatic and liberal circles. I also give her credit for not simply jumping to Galatians 3:28 and erroneously using it against the passage, thereby quoting scripture against scripture. (I discuss why Galatians 3:28 is irrelevant to the discussion of gender roles in church leadership here.) Nonetheless, as we shall soon see, her article still presents problems in its line of thinking and method of argument.

As I often do, all sections quoted directly from the article will be in purple text.

The Meaning of the Word "Authority"

Ms. Wallace opens up the main portion of her article by honing in on the Greek word often translated as "authority."

Before we conclude that this passage is “clear” we must consider the limitations of our English translations. The most problematic issue is the rendering of the verb authentein as authority. This unusual Greek verb is found only once in scripture and rarely in extrabiblical texts, where it is usually associated with aggression. Authentein is translated as “domineer” in the Latin Vulgate and New English Bible and as “usurp authority” in the Geneva and King James Bibles.

A study of Paul’s letters shows that he regularly used a form of the Greek “exousia” when referring to the use of authority in the church (see 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 9:4-6, 9:12, 11:10, 2 Cor 2:8, 10:8, 13:10, Col. 1:13, 2 Thess 3:12, Rom 6:15, 9:21). So it is strange that some modern versions translate this simply as “authority”. Considering the context, it is likely that Paul was objecting to something other than the legitimate use of authority in 1 Timothy 2:12. [...]

In regards to the Greek word αὐθεντέω, it is true that the word is only once used in the New Testament (here, in this very verse), and rarely used outside of scripture, in other Greek sources. It is true that it's a word which, translated literally from its compound words, means "to unilaterally take up arms." That it is translated as "authority" is not necessarily an incorrect translation, since it refers to authority, albeit one which is taken by one's own accord. Greek scholar AT Robertson goes into detail on this in his commentary for the verse.:

The word auqentew is now cleared up by Kretschmer (Glotta, 1912, pp. 289ff.) and by Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary. See also Nageli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus and Deissmann, Light, etc., pp. 88f. Autodikew was the literary word for playing the master while auqentew was the vernacular term. It comes from aut-ente, a self-doer, a master, autocrat. It occurs in the papyri (substantive auqenth, master, verb auqentew, to domineer, adjective auqentiko, authoritative, "authentic"). Modern Greek has apente = Effendi = "Mr." [source]

Some supporters of Ms. Wallace have opined that AT Robertson is not a proper scholar to cite, as he was (according to them) dealing with a limited amount of knowledge regarding Greek in Paul's time. Despite this, even modern scholarly works on the Greek, such as the NET notes, explain the word, and its use, along similar lines:

According to BDAG 150 s.v. αὐθεντέω this Greek verb means “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to” (cf. JB “tell a man what to do”).

It's also weird that Ms. Wallace says "considering the context," given she hasn't yet offered any exegesis or verse-by-verse explanation of what Paul is speaking about. (We'll go over this briefly in a moment.)

There is also the possibility that the verb didaskein (to teach) is linked here to the verb authentein in what is called a hendiadys (two words joined by a conjunction to make a single point). “Don’t eat and run” would be a modern example. So a better interpretation might be “don’t teach in a domineering way”. [emphases in original]

The problem here is that Ms. Wallace plays word games by honing in on the word "teach," and connecting the two words together to form the phrase "teach in a domineering way." Even in the example she gives, such a construction wouldn't be conceivable - can one "eat in a running way," or "run in an eating way"? By ignoring the full wording of the verse, she's played fast and loose with the wording to get the verse to say what she'd prefer it to say, and in doing so has presented an incomprehensible argument.

In verse 12, Paul, shortly after saying that women should learn "with entire submissiveness" (v. 11), begins the new phrase with the Greek conjunction δέ. Although δέ can be used as a connective conjunction, it's being used here in a more contrastive way - in other words, Paul made a positive statement in verse 11 (women should learn), and is now presenting a contrast to it (women should not teach or exercise authority over men). In this contrastive statement, Paul first states διδάσκειν δέ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ("but a woman teaching I do not permit"); he then connects this via οὐδὲ (the conjunction "nor" or "neither") αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός ("taking authority over a man"). Therefore, while Paul does permit a woman to learn with entire submissiveness, he does not permit a woman to teach, nor to hold authority over a man.

This is probably why, in nearly every English translation of the Bible, the translators separate the "teaching" and "exercising authority." The only exception might be The Voice, which isn't even a translation, and which renders the verse "it's not my habit to allow women to teach in a way that wrenches authority from a man." The point is, the vast majority of scholarly translations have seen, in the verse, two separate points made by Paul: women are not to teach, and women are not to exercise authority over a man. None of them interpret it as Paul saying women shouldn't "teach in a domineering way"; neither does the original Greek even warrant such a translation.

Additionally, the grammar in this passage changes abruptly from the plural “women” in verses 9 and 10 to “a woman” in verses 11-15. Then it changes back to “women” in the next chapter, suggesting that Paul had a specific woman in mind, perhaps one that Timothy had written to him about. Furthermore, some scholars believe “I don’t permit” could also be accurately translated as “I am not currently permitting”. So while these verses are often used to defend male-only leadership, current scholarship suggests that the passage is anything BUT clear on the issue. [emphasis in original]

Two things to immediately note here:

First, Ms. Wallace appeals to "current scholarship" and "some scholars," and yet doesn't cite one single scholar on the issue. The funny thing is that, because of this, she received criticism in the comment section for the article, and some of her supporters had to come to her rescue by quoting scholars for her. Ms. Wallace quoted these supporters in a follow up post (hence quoting scholars from second-hand sources, something most academics advise you not to do).

Second, she argues in an appeal to vagueness rather than any coherent argument. Regarding the latter, what we mean here is that she argues something might "possibly" mean something, and that we aren't really "clear on the issue." This is ironic given the assurance given by her supporters in the previously cited follow up post. Like many liberal or post-modern arguments, the crux of it all seems to rely here on the idea of, "We can't really know what the word means, but we can know for sure that you're wrong."

More specifically, Ms. Wallace enters into speculation here based on a loose interpretation of the grammar: namely that Paul goes from the plural "women" to the singular "woman" between verses, hence "suggesting that Paul had a specific woman in mind." And yet Paul uses the singular "man" as well - did Paul have a specific person in mind for that? Was there a specific man the woman was usurping the authority of? Why would Paul not name her, or him? This is especially strange given that, in the previous chapter, Paul outright names Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he says he has "handed over to Satan" (1 Tim 1:20). In the next epistle to Timothy, Paul also names Phygelus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15). It is certainly true that Paul had used vague language for specific cases in the past (1 Cor 5:1), but he also gave enough details to let us know what specifically he was addressing, and that they were specific people he had in mind, even giving advice on how to handle the situation (1 Cor 5:2-5). We don't see that here, in this circumstance.

The fact is, the larger context of the epistle tells us what Paul is saying. He is sending Timothy pastoral advice on how to assist in the growth and running of the church, as he tells Timothy later on: "I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God" (1 Tim 3:15). This is seen throughout the epistle: 1 Timothy 2:1-8 deals with prayer, and who to pray for; 2:9-15 with how women are to behave; 3:1-7 with pastor qualifications; 3:8-13 with deacon qualifications; 4:1-16 with the minister's duty of defending the flock from false doctrine; 5:1-16 with the treatment of widows; 5:17-22 with the treatment of elders; and 6:1-19 with further instruction on ministry. Point being, the section dealing with women is meant to be seen regarding all women within the church, just as the other sections deal exclusively with elders, widows, deacons, etc.

Why then the change in number, from plural to singular? To simply speak about a subject on more specific, general terms, in a synechdoche sense, and via use of a generic noun. When George Patton said "No soldier ever won a war by dying for his country," he was speaking about all soldiers by using the singular on a more personal level; he was in no way implying that he had only one, solitary, specific soldier in mind. When we use the phrase "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," does that mean there's only one woman out there who will ever be scorned and react with fury, or that it only refers to a single woman?

This use is seen even in scripture. When Paul asked "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe?" (1 Cor 1:20), was Paul referring to a specific wise man and scribe? Did he have only one wise man or scribe in mind? Of course not - he was employing generic nouns in a synechdoche sense. Similarly here, Paul discusses the role of men and women in the church by using generic nouns: a woman cannot have authority over a man. He does this likewise to tie into the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve was deceived and fell with Adam, in essence presuming authority over him. Paul is saying that, just as it was wrong for Eve to presume authority over Adam, so too is it wrong for any woman to presume authority over any man within the church.

As for "some scholars" saying that Paul's words for "permit" should actually be "I am not currently permitting," it would be nice, once again, if Ms. Wallace could cite at least one scholar in that regard, or quote one. Daniel Wallace (no relation to our author), who is a scholar in New Testament Greek, and one of the foremost New Testament Greek scholars in our time, wrote on this very issue in great detail, and comprehensively refutes it:

If this were a descriptive present (as it is sometimes popularly taken), the idea might be that in the future the author would allow this: I do not presently permit... However, there are several arguments against this: (1) It is overly subtle. Without some temporal indicator, such as ἄρτι or perhaps νῦν, this view begs the question. (2) Were we to do this with other commands in the present tense, our resultant exegesis would be both capricious and ludicrous. Does μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ..., ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν Πνεύματιin Eph 5:18 mean "Do not for the moment be filled with wine, but be filled at the present time by the Spirit" with the implication that such a moral code might change in the future? The normal use of the present tense in didactic literature, especially when introducing an exhortation, is not descriptive, but a general precept that has gnomic implications. (3) Gramatically, the present tense is used with a generic object (γυναικὶ), suggesting that it should be taken as a gnomic present. (4) Contextually, the exhortation seems to be rooted in creation (note v. 13 and the introductory γάρ), rather than an address to a temporary situation. [pg. 525, Wallace]

There is nothing in the Greek to imply "This is something I'm only currently forbidding," unless one wishes to stretch the present indicative form well beyond what it means.

The Historical Context of the Letter

Ms. Wallace continues her response by discussing the context of Paul's epistle.

You’ve heard the real estate expression about property values, right? It’s all about “location, location, location”. Since the Bible is made up of a variety of genres (law, history, poetry and wisdom literature, prophetic messages, gospel accounts, letters), to interpret it correctly, we have to think about “context, context, context” . In the case of 1 Timothy, Paul was writing a personal letter instructing Timothy about how to deal with heresy being spread by false teachers in Ephesus. This is spelled out at the beginning of the letter:

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless geneaologies… They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm…” (1 Tim 1:3-4, -7).

Keener notes that while these false teachers were most likely men, much of the spreading of the false teaching was through women in the congregation. It is likely that most women in the Ephesian church had limited training in Christian theology and that their interest in false doctrine was proving to be dangerous. There is no evidence in the text that Paul was writing to establish a permanent restriction on all women for all time. [all emphases in the original]

Neither has anyone ever argued that the sole reason for Paul writing to Timothy was to dictate gender roles, therefore that's a straw man.

More important is the connection made by Ms. Wallace between the mention of false teachers at the beginning of the epistle, and the possibility that there may have been women spreading false doctrine among the congregation. Certainly some learned commentators (eg., John MacArthur) have suggested that Paul may have been inspired to mention female church teachers because of the possibility of it happening in Ephesus. Nonetheless, there are a few problems with Ms. Wallace's presentation here...

First, it contradicts Ms. Wallace's earlier point. She had harped on Paul's use of the singular "woman" to argue on the possibility that Paul was only attacking one woman, not collective women. Now, she's arguing there might have been more than one woman in Ephesus on Paul's mind. Which is it? One woman usurping a man's authority, or several women? This sort of argumentation is similar to heretics who support "Gay Christianity" by presenting a shotgun approach for passages that conflict their worldview, and not caring if any of the explanations, when paired up with one another, completely contradict. Either there was one woman in Ephesus Paul had in mind, hence his singular use of the word "woman," or there were more than one woman Paul had in mind, hence Ms. Wallace outright admits that her initial contention is completely erroneous. You can't have both.

Second, that women might have been embracing false doctrine would make Paul's point that women could not exercise authority over men meaningless, especially if the ones bearing authority (as Ms. Wallace cites Keener) were actually men, and the women were merely following those men, and spreading around what those men were saying. Even if one wished to argue the women were being used to spread that false doctrine allowing, following a false teacher is different than being that false teacher and using that teaching in an authoritative manner. When Paul attacked false doctrine, he generally targeted the teachers, rather than the lower echelon followers, in his attacks against authority (cf., 2 Cor 11; Titus 1:10).

Third, if Paul's main purpose in writing to Timothy was to help explain "how to deal with heresy being spread by false teachers in Ephesus," then a good chunk of the entire epistle would not make sense. We went over earlier on the various subjects covered by Paul throughout this epistle to Timothy, and while some of them do involve combating false doctrine or preaching truth, not all of them do. Ms. Wallace did not cover the entire context of 1 Timothy, and hence is just throwing out this argument in the hopes that it will be believed, whether by her or those who agree with her. This is especially ironic given she has argued that we should rely on context and the full purpose of a book.

Ms. Wallace continues:

Another interesting fact about 1 Timothy is that the myths and endless genealogies circulating in Ephesus included the idea that Eve was created before Adam and was superior to him. (Read this post for other facts about Ephesus and goddess worship and this one for detailed explanation of gnostic teachings about Adam and Eve.)

It is likely that Paul was writing to correct false notions that were circulating rather than suggesting that Eve’s deception should be the basis for banning women from teaching. This cultural context also helps us understand Paul’s mention of the creation order in verses 13 and 14 (more on Paul’s use of the creation narratives here).

This explanation would make Paul's point disjointed. We must remember that, shortly after saying women should not teach or exercise authority over a man, Paul opens up verse 13 with: "for it was Adam...", etc. The Greek word γάρ there is a conjunction which most often refers back to the precedent, hence its common translation of "for." Paul is connecting the story of Adam and Eve back to his command that women should not teach and have authority over men. In other words, Paul is not saying, "Don't teach or exercise authority. Oh yeah, and here's a funny belief some have about Adam and Eve..." Rather, Paul is saying, "Don't teach or exercise authority, for don't forget that Adam and Eve..."

This is seen further in verse 14, when he says that the woman "being deceived, fell into transgression," and then moves into women in general in verse 15. The Greek for "fell into transgression" is, according to the NET notes, literally "has come to be in transgression," and places "an emphasis on the continuing consequences of that fall." (Certainly Genesis 3:16 makes it clear that Eve's transgression would continue on to all women.) Again, Paul is clearly not speaking about a specific misunderstanding of Adam and Eve that some heretics might have had, but rather is continuing his train of thought from verses 11-13. (I refer back to my earlier quote of Daniel Wallace, who likewise affirms this.)

Therefore, Ms. Wallace's appeal to a speculative attack on Gnostic belief cuts up Paul's words and only adds further confusion to the text.

Matters of Interpretation

Ms. Wallace now attempts to present some rules about interpretation of scripture as some preliminary conclusions to her post.

Doctrine should not be built on a hapax legomenon (a word that occurs only once in an author’s writings or a text). When a word is only used once it is difficult, if not impossible, to infer the writer’s meaning, since there are no other examples of word usage to compare. The word “authentein” translated as authority in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a hapax legomenon. This fact alone is sufficient to suggest caution in using this text as a foundation for church doctrine.

And yet most scholars and commentators throughout the ages have had little problems attempting to understand what Paul was attempting to say in this verse, and with that language. Contrary to Ms. Wallace's statement, it is not "impossible" to infer what Paul was driving at here. The only time people started having troubles interpreting this verse, let alone with that word, was when those same people decided they wanted women to preach.

Likewise, the idea that "when a word is only used once it is difficult, if not impossible, to infer the writer’s meaning," and hence "doctrine should not be built" around such a passage, is a standard I doubt would be applied equally to other such moments in the New Testament. For example, another hapax legomena is found in this very same epistle, when Paul uses the word ἑδραίωμα in 1 Timothy 3:15. The word is translated either as "support" (NASB) or "foundation" (NIV; NLT), and though there is no other use of this word in the New Testament, there is likewise no misunderstanding of what Paul intended to say here (save for some abuses by Roman Catholics), nor has there been an outcry by many to avoid using this verse for church doctrine because of one single word in it alone.

Interpretation should be consistent with the rest of the passage under study. As Groothuis notes “It is inconsistent to regard the dress code in 1 Tim 2:9 as culturally relative, and therefore temporary, but the restriction on women’s ministry as universal and permanent. These instructions were part of the same paragraph and flow of thought.”

Similarly, if we insist that verse 12 is applicable today, to be consistent, that ruling should apply to the whole passage, including verse 15 (women shall be saved through childbearing). I find it concerning that most people who claim that 1 Timothy 2:12 is clear and applies today usually don’t have a clue as to what the verses that follow mean and how they should be applied.

I'm not aware of anyone arguing 1 Timothy 2:9 was only "culturally relative," though I won't deny such arguments may exist. Nonetheless, most people, I'm certain, would recognize Paul's command for women to dress humbly as hardly temporary. (Many Christian women today would do well to learn from that passage.)

As for the "women shall be saved through childbearing" section, while this has been a difficult passage for many to explain, and has led to much conjecture, all the same, this passage has been dealt with over time. It must first be noted that τεκνογονία, the word translated "bearing of children," refers to the entire process, and not merely the birthing itself.  The NET notes present a variety of options for interpretation, one of which I believe works best in the context:

“It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood” (Moo, 71). In this view τεκνογονία is seen as a synecdoche in which child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved. Thus, one evidence (though clearly not an essential evidence) of a woman’s salvation may be seen in her decision to function in this role.

John Chrysostom seems to be of the same opinion; in his commentary for this verse, he says of women:

Let her not however grieve. God hath given her no small consolation, that of childbearing. And if it be said that this is of nature, so is that also of nature; for not only that which is of nature has been granted, but also the bringing up of children. "If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety"; that is, if after childbearing, they keep them in charity and purity. By these means they will have no small reward on their account, because they have trained up wrestlers for the service of Christ. [source]

In other words, in contrast to the women attempting to usurp authority over men, and hence try to become men, just as Eve did, the women who accept their roles as women will be sanctified and blessed by God, and hence it is said they are "saved through child bearing." This makes sense in context to Paul's flow of thought from verse 12 into this section, discussing Adam's primacy in creation over Eve (v. 13), then Eve, and hence women, falling into transgression through her being deceived (v. 14), which resulted in the curse against her that added pain to childbirth (Gen 3:16).

Interpretation should not contradict the rest of the author’s teaching. For example, 1 Timothy 2:1-10 provides instructions for both men and women to follow when praying in public. And in 1 Corinthians there are instructions for women praying and prophesying in church. Paul gives many other instructions about corporate worship and spiritual gifts that are not restrictive of gender. He also commends a number of women serving in leadership positions (Romans 16). So Paul is generally supportive of women’s participation, which contradicts the idea that women must be silent.

The appeal to 1 Timothy 2:1-10 is a category error: praying corporately is not the same as exercising church authority.

Her appeal to 1 Corinthians is problematic. She is most likely referring to 1 Corinthians 11:5, where Paul says: "But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved." She also seems to have forgotten about 1 Corinthians 14, where Paul gives instructions on the order of worship in the Corinthian church (which includes praying and prophesying), and at the tail end of it writes:

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [1 Corinthians 14:34-35]

While some might suppose a contradiction here, John Calvin explains, from his commentary for 1 Corinthians 11:5:

It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses. [source]

Looking at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and comparing it with 1 Timothy 2:12, it seems more like it's Ms. Wallace who is contradicting what scripture teaches elsewhere, not her opponents.

As for Romans 16, Ms. Wallace goes into further detail about what she means in another follow up post.

We know from the rest of the New Testament that Priscilla instructed Apollos, Phoebe was a deacon and Paul’s emissary to Rome, and Lydia oversaw the church at Philippi. Junia is called an apostle and was imprisoned for her witness. It seems unlikely that these things could have been accomplished while being quiet in church or without any church authority.

Priscilla (Prisca in Romans 16:3) did instruct Apollos, although Ms. Wallace conveniently forgets to mention that she did this with her husband, and privately (Acts 18:26). Explaining something to another person privately with your husband is not the same thing as a woman holding a specifically outlined position of authority over men in a local church.

It is true that Phoebe is described as a "servant of the church which is at Cenchrea" (Rom 16:1), and the word the NASB translates as "servant" comes from the Greek διάκονον, whose root word is at times translated as "deacons" (cf. Php 1:1), and in this case (being in the feminine form) could be translated as "deaconess." However, this identity is not in and of itself certain. The root word simply means "servant," and is often translated as such throughout the New Testament in its other uses, which are clearly not referring to the position of deacon (cf. Matt 20:26; 23:11; John 2:5; etc.). In fact, Ms. Wallace seems to have missed that Timothy himself is called a διάκονος in this very epistle (1 Tim 4:6), yet it's quite obvious he's not in the position of deacon. Because of this, the verse has led to much historical debate about whether or not Phoebe was in fact a deaconess, or Paul was merely referring to her as a general servant of the church. Obviously this leads us to conclude that Romans 16:1 is not strong enough to be a sedes doctrinae for women serving in the deacon role; the NET notes say that "the evidence is not compelling either way," and that their translation of "servant" should not be "regarded as tentative." Even if we accepted, merely for the sake of argument, that Phoebe was a deaconess, then this would still be irrelevant to the discussion: deacons carried a serving function, not a leadership or teaching authority; it would therefore not contradict the traditional reading of 1 Timothy 2:12.

In regards to Lydia, there is no evidence that she oversaw the church at Philippi in a leadership function. She was an early convert, and permitted the apostles to stay at her home - that is all which is said about her in scripture (Acts 16:15-16). She "oversaw" the church in her hospitality and support, but this is not the same as carrying church leadership as ascribed to presbyters and overseers.

In regards to "Junia," most recognize that there has been great debate on whether or not Junia is a male or female name, let alone whether or not this was a proper name (Junia or Junias, etc.). There is also debate about whether or not Junias and Andronicus were "outstanding among the apostles" (NASB) or "well known to the apostles" (ESV). The NET notes go into greater detail about the word and grammar here:

The term ἐπίσημος (episēmos) is used either in an implied comparative sense (“prominent, outstanding”) or in an elative sense (“famous, well known”). The key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country“]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30). When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6). Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.”

Therefore, it is ironic that Ms. Wallace should demand we not base our doctrine on something that isn't quite clear in scripture, and yet, for her doctrine, appeals to a passage that has been a subject of much debate for a long time. Leftist interpretation seems to pick and choose which issues in scripture: they invent problems in passages which prove problematic to their worldview (eg., 1 Timothy 2:12), yet will seemingly ignore large debates for passages which they think prove their point (eg., Romans 16:1, 7). Certainly most people would recognize, even if there was an argument that Junia was a female, and indeed an apostle, there are two things to make citing her irrelevant to this discussion: 1) apostles were a temporal authority, not a permanent one as presbyters and overseers are; 2) the question over the identity and position of "Junias" in Romans 16:7 is enough for us to say that it cannot be a sedes doctrinae verse to bring up in regards to women in leadership. For feminists and leftists to continually bring up Romans 16:7 as an end-all-debate verse against the orthodox simply shows with how little seriousness they take sola scriptura.

Contrary to the claim that that Paul "commends a number of women serving in leadership positions," few, if any, of those women mentioned served any leadership positions, and those which supposedly did are connected to verses that have been the subject of even more interpretive debate than 1 Timothy 2:12.

Interpretation should not contradict the overall teaching in the New Testament, especially the example and teaching of Jesus. As Brauch notes, “Christ is the center – the Logos, the living Word, and Scripture must be viewed through the Christ filter. Jesus’ words and acts are normative and paradigmatic and should be a critical filter for interpreting scripture” (pp. 248-9). In the gospels Jesus never suggests that women’s roles were to be secondary or limited in the community of faith, even when he had the opportunity to do so.

Here Ms. Wallace argues from silence: Jesus never said women couldn't hold church authority, therefore you can't say they can't hold church authority. This is similar to leftists who fallaciously argue that, since Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality, Christians can't consider homosexuality a sin.  On the other hand, all of Christ's twelve disciples were men; yes, women traveled alongside them, but in a supporting function (Luke 8:1-3). On the other hand, one of Christ's own appointed men, the apostle Paul, penned the words seen in 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

Unless we're going to engage in Red Letterism, to hold such an extreme view is hardly nonsensical, and is definitely not sola scriptura.

Concluding Thoughts

Ms. Wallace offers her conclusion to her post:

Once these issues of translation, context, and interpretation have been considered, it seems that 1 Timothy 2:12 only prohibits women who do not have rightful authority to do so from teaching and assuming authority over men. [emphasis in original]

And so, after relying upon speculation and appealing to uncertainty, Ms. Wallace suddenly gives us certainty. (Or, to be more fair, a greater degree of certainty towards one argument than another.) Her conclusion is that 1 Timothy 2:12 only "prohibits women who do not have rightful authority to do so from teaching and assuming authority over men." How was this certainty of hers obtained?

1) By toying with the original Greek to reword the passage (Paul was saying "don't teach in a domineering way"), thereby proving the old saying, "A little Greek is a dangerous thing."

2) By providing an inconsistency about to whom it was Paul was referring. (A specific woman, later on a group of women.)

3) By reading Gnostic heresies into the passage, cutting up Paul's words and his clear flow of thought (something she accuses her opponents of doing).

4) By appealing to verses of great historical debate (eg., Rom 16:7) while attacking her opponents for appealing to verses of little historical debate (1 Tim 2:12).

When one reads the constant attacks against the clarity of orthodox thought, followed by a presumption of clarity in a historically new explanation, one is reminded of the devil in Genesis 3:1-5, and can hear the snake whispering in our ear, "Did God say a woman should not exercise authority over a man...?" When scripture is appealed to, the snake replies, "Oh, but that's not what God means..." Interesting how heresies and false beliefs often start out by questioning what God says, then add confusion and muddled thought into God's word.

Earlier I made mention of how those who advocate female pastors - be they Charismatics or liberals - usually just fall back on shallow arguments. Ms. Wallace's article shows why this is: when one does attempt to defend the doctrine in greater detail, their arguments cannot hold water under scrutiny. To the mind seeking a strong delusion, it may come across as an open-and-shut case, and yet to the careful mind, the inconsistencies and superficial nature will be plainly evident.

Certainly women are important in the church. Certainly women can serve and assist the church. Nonetheless, scripture is quite clear that, in offices of leadership, in particularly in regards to elders and overseers within the local church, this is not to be filled by women. If we seek to muddle the clear teaching of God's word, we should not be surprised when our own thinking comes out muddled as a result.

***

Works Cited

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. Print.

Lou Engle and Esther

Recently I saw Lou Engle's Twitter account posting tidbits on Esther. Soon after, people began using the #IAmEsther hashtag. I went to Lou Engle's website, and found an article that explained this new movement coming from his group. The article is entitled For Such a Time as This; the title is taken from Esther 4:14b, in which Mordecai says to Esther, "And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?" As I looked into it, I realized it was mishandling of scripture which may cause confusion, heartache, and exhaustion among its adherents, and so I felt compelled to write a response.

As I've done in the past, any direct quotations from the article will be colored purple for visual organization. I'll be quoting the article in full, albeit in chunks, but feel free to click on the link and read through the whole thing first.

The Story of Esther

Before we jump into the article, I think it's important to pause and discuss the story of Esther, and how it relates to believers.

The story of Esther takes place shortly after the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which was conquered by the Medes and Persians. The Jews are still in captivity. The king, Ahasuerus, after several days of drinking, sends for his wife Vashti to come before him to show off her beauty. Vashti refuses, causing the king to not only be angered, but his advisers to worry that this conduct will encourage other noblewomen in the empire to act similarly (Es 1:12-18). Therefore, the king calls for select virgins to be brought before him, and the one he likes best will become the new queen (Es 2:3-4). At the same time, there lives in the capital Mordecai, a Jew who is caring for his late uncle's daughter, Esther, a "young lady" who is "beautiful of form and face" (Es 2:7). Esther ends up being taken to the palace, where the king eventually falls in love with her, and appoints her queen (Es 2:17). Mordecai gains the king's favor after uncovering an assassination plot, and ends up increasing in rank as well (Es 2:21-23).

At this point enters Haman, a high-ranking Persian official. Haman gets into conflict with Mordecai, due to the latter's refusal to bow.

All the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate bowed down and paid homage to Haman; for so the king had commanded concerning him. But Mordecai neither bowed down nor paid homage. Then the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate said to Mordecai, “Why are you transgressing the king’s command?” Now it was when they had spoken daily to him and he would not listen to them, that they told Haman to see whether Mordecai’s reason would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew. When Haman saw that Mordecai neither bowed down nor paid homage to him, Haman was filled with rage. But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him who the people of Mordecai were; therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus. [Esther 3:2-6]

Haman's hatred towards Mordecai was not only based on pride, but most likely on ethnic lines as well, since he was ethnically an Amalekite (this may also explain why Mordecai refused to bow). Haman attempts to use his influence on the king to get revenge on Mordecai and his people.

Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people scattered and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from those of all other people and they do not observe the king’s laws, so it is not in the king’s interest to let them remain. If it is pleasing to the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who carry on the king’s business, to put into the king’s treasuries.” Then the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of the Jews. The king said to Haman, “The silver is yours, and the people also, to do with them as you please.” [Esther 3:8-11]

Haman plans a specific day by drawing a lot (or pur). News of the impending genocide reaches Mordecai's ears, and hence the Jewish population, and a general state of grieving begins (Es 4:1-3). Esther herself discovers the plot. She knows of a possibility to enter the king's inner court and plead their case, but also knows that anyone who enters unannounced will be executed for it, unless the king pardons them by extending his golden scepter - and, as the king has not summoned her for thirty days, there's a chance he doesn't like her as much, and may just have her killed off (Es 4:11). Mordecai rebukes her sharply:

Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, “Do not imagine that you in the king’s palace can escape any more than all the Jews. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?” [Esther 4:13-14]

Esther resolves to intercede on behalf of her people. Before doing so, she calls on Mordecai and the people to prepare for the day, so that all would go well.

“Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish.” [Esther 4:17]

As it so happens, the king doesn't kill Esther, and lets her touch his golden scepter. Esther in turn plans a banquet, which both the king and Haman will attend (Es 5:6-8). Meanwhile, Haman, feeling indignant towards Mordecai continued refusal to bow, builds a giant gallows to hang Mordecai from (Es 5:14). On the day of the banquet, Esther intercedes before the king for her people, begging them to be spared, and identifying Haman as the culprit (Es 7:3-6). Haman discovers that the king has turned against him, and goes to Esther to plead for mercy. The king, finding Haman with Esther, misinterprets it as attempted rape and orders Haman hung from the very gallows he had built for Mordecai (Es 7:7-10). Mordecai ends up with Haman's job, and Esther asks the king to rescind Haman's order, which he does (Es 8:1-8). The Jewish population celebrates, and turns on those who had planned their genocide; most are put to the sword, while Haman's ten sons are hung (Es 9:2-16). Mordecai orders further celebration on the anniversary of this victory, which to this day is the Purim ("Lots") festival in Judaism (Es 9:20-22).

Since Esther is both the titular and main character of the book, Esther (along with Ruth) has become a role model for women in the "You go girl!" sections of modern Evangelicalism. However, it carries far greater spiritual implications:

1) It demonstrates God's providential love over His people, by organizing situations to preserve them from complete annihilation. This is especially amazing, given that, within the book of Esther, there are no astounding acts of God like the parting of the Red Sea, nor any great displays of prophecy as is so often seen in the other history books - in fact, God is not even directly mentioned, nor does He directly speak to characters. Regarding all this, Matthew Henry wrote in his commentary:

But, though the name of God be not in it, the finger of God is, directing many minute events for the bringing about of his people’s deliverance. The particulars are not only surprising and very entertaining, but edifying and very encouraging to the faith and hope of God’s people in the most difficult and dangerous times. We cannot now expect such miracles to be wrought for us as were for Israel when they were brought out of Egypt, but we may expect that in such ways as God here took to defeat Haman’s plot he will still protect his people. [source]

2) It is a story of selfless, believing womanhood. Esther is ready to die for her people, for if she goes to the king and she does not hold his favor, she will be executed. Her words to Mordecai, "If I perish, I perish," are the words of a woman who loves her fellow believers more than even her own life. Esther was a proper woman of God who, unlike many other women, did not permit her rise to wealth and power to corrupt her moral life.

3) One could, in many ways, see shadows of Christ and our own redemption within the story. Esther, like Christ, intercedes for the people, and saves them from certain death. Some have associated the three days of fasting, followed by Esther going to the king and obtaining her people's salvation, to Christ's three days in the tomb, after which He rose again and secured the redemption of His people. One might compare Esther's torment over her potential death, but eventual acceptance of the possibility, with Christ's struggles in Gethsemane. Haman, with his intent to kill the Jews, is a proper symbol of the eternal enemies of the church, and his eventual demise, coupled with the complete and utter victory of the Jews at the zero hour, is a fine compliment to the last few chapters of Revelation, foretelling the complete victory of Christ and His church on the earth.

Lou Engle's Use of Esther

With the book of Esther and the narrative within it better understood, let's examine how Lou Engle applies it.

Esther said, “I and my young women will also fast as you do. Afterward, though it is against the law, I will go to the king…and if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16)

There are moments in history when a door for massive change opens. Great revolutions, either good or evil, spring up in the vacuum created by these openings. In such divine moments, key men, women and entire generations risk everything to become the hinge of history—the “pivot point” that determines which way the door will swing.

This is the exact same rhetoric Lou Engle employed with his Nazirite DNA presentation, and others he's done in the past: he precedes any call for action with revolutionary language, talking about how in dire moments throughout history, great men and women rise up to save the day. It's certainly a powerful image, and one that can easily rile up emotions, especially among the young or emotional. In this day and age when it looks like society as a whole is becoming more and more degenerate and hostile to the Christian worldview, this sort of language is seductive. It tells people who may be unguided, or may have untempered passions, to do something with their emotions. It takes a confused heart, battered about by the passions of the day, and tries to direct it down a clearer path. It presents a guiding hand to those who may otherwise feel blind.

The only problem is, in many situations, that guiding hand is owned by a false teacher, and hence it is literally the blind leading the blind (cf. Mt 15:14).

The Esther Hour

Esther is a prototype of history’s hinge—a courageous woman who humbly and artfully spoke truth to power. Facing witchcraft and dark conspiracies at the highest levels of Persia’s power base, Queen Esther found herself providentially positioned (right place, right time) to risk everything for the love of her people and their future. Armed with little more than her dignity and the secret arsenal of corporate prayer and fasting, her courageous actions spared an entire nation from annihilation.

Three years ago in a leaders summit in Fredericksburg Virginia our meeting was sovereignly hijacked as the Lord shifted our focus toward the hidden taproot of strength in the godly women of America. We began to envision something of a million women gathering on the mall in Washington DC, similar to the Promise Keepers gathering, that would be a last-stand breakthrough to hold back darkness in America. Those hours of corporate intercession were as strong and clear as any prophetic moment I have ever encountered in 30+ years of prayer, but at the time we could not see how it could be brought to pass. Habakkuk's statement seemed to be the counsel of the Lord to us, “Though the vision tarry wait for it, it will surely come.”

Note two things Lou Engle does here:

1) He introduces the notion of spiritual warfare: he says that Esther was "facing witchcraft and dark conspiracies at the highest levels of Persia’s power base." Read the book of Esther from beginning to end, and ask yourself this: is there any kind of "witchcraft" or spiritual "dark conspiracy" seen at the "highest levels" of Persia? There isn't. Where, then, is Engle getting this? We'll discover this answer later - for now, keep this fact in mind.

2) He takes an event in the Bible - namely, Esther's story, and specifically her fasting - and applies it to us and something we need to do right now. This is likewise something Lou Engle regularly does: he will take descriptive story, and turn it into a prescriptive call. Sadly, he will even do this for passages about Christ. For example, while teaching Dominionism, he took Isaiah 9:6, about the coming Messiah, and said that we have to raise sons to "bear the government upon their shoulder" (see my blog post here). In fact, in many of these New Apostolic Reformation movements, it's common to hear of a leader calling for a "[insert biblical character] fast," or a "[insert biblical character] anointing."

Is the story about Esther about an "Esther hour" or a special "Esther fast" that we need to do? Not at all. This was a particular fast, held during a particular time, and done by particular people. Does that mean we should never pray and fast? Not at all. I don't want the reader to misunderstand that I am saying prayer and fasting is foolhardy. I'm not saying Christians shouldn't pray and fast. The issue here is that Lou Engle is using a passage of scripture to spiritually compel people to do something, in return for a move from God. He's telling people (as we'll soon see) that there is "a cataclysmic battle for the soul of our nation," and this is our only answer.

What's more, as we shall soon see with greater clarity, he is abusing scripture, and teaching false theology, in the process.

The Truly Empowered Woman

That moment arrived January 21, 2017, the day after the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump, as hundreds of thousands of women took to the streets with the purported aim of “empowering women.” In the vacuum created by 1) the election, 2) historic women’s injustices, and 3) sadly, President Trump’s past hurtful statements towards women, a pretender movement seized the American stage. Like a false heiress to history, this alternate narrative sought to forcibly reframe our daughters’ and granddaughters’ identity and future. Even so, the truth was immediately plain for all to see: this was about power, not empowerment. To the degree that the Women’s March railed against injustice while refusing to acknowledge God’s exalted view of women and her glorious purpose, it was a misleading, even dangerous attempt, to swing the hinge of history away from God. Hundreds of thousands of women watching the March simply could not identify with the vitriol and radical ideology being shouted from the stage, claiming the right to define womanhood apart from the Bible. Deep in their hearts, women across the country declared, "This is not my revolution!”

Now, like Esther, those same women are rising “for such a time as this.” An instinctive, corporate yearning has gripped the nation for true empowered women to demonstrate how the meek (i.e. strength-filled humility) possess the earth. It’s time for this corporate Esther to frame a better, more hopeful, God-centered future for our nation by taking her place in the public square like never before. We need an entire generation—a movement—of grandmothers, mothers and daughters to be boldly visible, persistent in persuasion, and to demonstrate the humility of our national appeal to Heaven in prayer.

Here we see the connection Lou Engle is trying to make: just as Esther entered "the public square" to "frame a better, more hopeful, God-centered future" for her nation, so too must "an entire generation" of today's women do likewise, demonstrating "the humility of our national appeal to Heaven in prayer." This has to be done by a "corporate Esther." Like Esther, the women who take part in this are here "for such a time as this."

It gets into more detail in the next section.

Fasting through Purim

Shockingly, the Women’s March was only a first shot across the bow. In reality, an alliance of spiritual anarchy is presently being unveiled in full defiance of a “We The People” electoral result and biblical truths that undergird our nation. With a disturbing brazenness (and the consent of the media), the dark underbelly of anarchy issued a global summons to employ witchcraft and curses against President Trump, his cabinet, and those aligned with a biblical worldview. Like a veil being torn so a deeper secret could be revealed, suddenly, the public controversy was elevated to a global spiritual dimension. This made plain what we have known from the beginning: Spiritual battles cannot be won on the playing field of protests and political arguments. Only the Church has the answer to such an unprecedented manifestation of witchcraft. If we do not employ spiritual strategy to overcome this steely-eyed challenge of the powers, the days ahead will be dark days indeed.

Esther gives us clues. According to Derek Prince, the Persian advisor, Haman (the adversary in the Book of Esther), practiced divination through the casting of lots, thus clearly aligning himself with demonic spiritual powers in his plot to destroy the whole Jewish population in the earth. Esther’s response, a 3-day, no-food-no-water fast, was the nuclear option of her day. It was an act of desperate dependence on God, the only thing capable of breaking the dark powers being channeled by Haman’s witchcraft. “Esther and her handmaidens” led the whole nation in an intense period of fasting and prayer for three days leading up to Purim. Amazingly, dark schemes at the highest levels of government were exposed. Esther’s fast effectively reversed the curse and shifted the whole public policy of the Persian Empire in favor of the Jewish people. I cannot stress this enough: we are in a similar day and a cataclysmic battle for the soul of our nation. We cannot live the same way we lived yesterday.

Earlier we asked where Engle got the notion that there was spiritual warfare going on in the book of Esther. Here, after referencing the news story about witches planning to enact curses against Trump, he talks about Esther having to face "divination" from Haman and his channeling of "dark powers" against Esther and the Jews. To justify the idea that Haman was using dark powers, he cites Derek Prince, the late Biblical scholar, as arguing Haman "practiced divination through the casting of lots, thus clearly aligning himself with demonic spiritual powers." Since Engle himself doesn't tell us where Derek Prince said it, I actually went and found the original source.

This story has given rise to the feast which the Jews call Purim. Purim means "lots." The feast is so called because Haman cast lots to determine the day that should be appointed for the destruction of the Jews. Casting lots was a form of divination. Haman was seeking guidance from occult powers. He relied on unseen spiritual forces to direct him in exterminating the Jews. This placed the whole conflict on a spiritual plane. It was not just flesh against flesh; it was spirit against spirit. Through Haman, Satan was actually challenging the power of God Himself. Had he succeeded in the destruction of the Jews, it would have been an everlasting reproach to the name of the Lord.

But when the decree for the destruction of the Jews went out, Esther and her maidens accepted the challenge. They understood that the conflict was on the spiritual plane, and their response was on the same plane. They agreed to fast three days, night and day, neither eating nor drinking. They arranged with Mordecai that he would gather together all the Jews in Shushan, the capital city, to unite with them in fasting for the same period. (Notice in Esther 2:19 that once again, in the hour of crisis, we find God's people were "gathered together," just as in the days of Jehoshaphat.) Thus, all the Jews in Shushan, together with Esther and her maidens, fasted and prayed three days - seventy-two hours - without eating or drinking.

The outcome of their collective fasting and prayer is described in the succeeding chapters of the Book of Esther. We may summarize it briefly by saying that the whole policy of the Persian empire was completely changed, in favor of the Jews. Haman and his sons perished. The enemies of the Jews throughout the Persian empire suffered total defeat. Mordecai and Esther became the two most influential personalities in Persian politics. The Jews in every area experienced a unique measure of favor, peace, and prosperity. All this can be directly attributed to one cause: the collective fasting and prayer of God's people. [Prince]

It might be interesting to note that the cover of the book advertises a "foreword by Lou Engle of The Call." We probably shouldn't be surprised Lou Engle is harping on this as a source, then. I find it even more interesting that Lou Engle cites Derek Prince for what he is promoting as a uniquely all-women event, when Prince himself says, on at least two occasions, that this involved "all the Jews in Shushan." Yes, on the page for this event, there is a note at the bottom that "men are welcome and encouraged to join," but again, Engle is harping on the fast held by Esther and her maidens, and does not mention at all that the other Jews, men included, fasted and prayed.

In fact, refer back to the quotation of Esther 4:16, at the beginning of the article. It's not actually a full quotation - the verse actually says, in full:

"Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish."

Even the verse that Lou Engle refers to at the beginning of an article attempting to portray Esther's fast as a "woman only" thing says that "all the Jews" participated in the fast. Esther adds "I and my maidens also will fast in the same way." Yes, Esther and her maidens were fasting, but in conjunction with the rest of God's church in the area. She wasn't "leading the nation" so much as "joining in."

Either way, the reference to the lot, and hence Haman's use of "dark powers," is found shortly after Haman's anger against Mordecai:

In the first month, which is the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, Pur, that is the lot, was cast before Haman from day to day and from month to month, until the twelfth month, that is the month Adar. [Esther 3:17]

And again later on, in a recap:

For Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the adversary of all the Jews, had schemed against the Jews to destroy them and had cast Pur, that is the lot, to disturb them and destroy them. [Esther 9:24]

Most biblical commentators agree that this lot-casting, a common one in ancient eastern cultures, involved some form of pagan belief behind it. At the same time, it's worth noting there were lots used by the Jews as well (Num 26:55; Jos 7:14), and even by the apostles (Acts 1:26), albeit not with an appeal to pagan spirits. Scripture also teaches that every lot outcome proceeds from God's providence (cf. Pro 16:33), as often did happen in scripture, even with lots committed by the heathen (cf. Jon 1:7). No doubt here, God providentially used the lots to give enough time for Mordecai and Esther to discover the plot and unravel it.

Yet Esther 3:17 and 9:24 are the only mentions of lots in the book of Esther, and hence the only possible reference to any influence from spiritual powers. Furthermore, the only purpose it served was to determine the dating of Haman's planned genocide. This one momentary mention is exaggerated by Mr. Prince to say that "the whole conflict" was now "on a spiritual plane"; it is exaggerated even more by Mr. Engle, who says that Haman was "channeling" witchcraft, and that Esther had uncovered "dark schemes at the highest levels of government." In fact, Haman wasn't even targeting the entire Persian government, just God's church in Persia; for Mr. Engle to transform this into a need to pray for the United States as a whole is confusing ecclesiology with nationalism.

Jewish histories and traditions also seem absent of any serious kind of "witchcraft" on Haman's part. Rabbinical traditions speak of his use of astrology, but more in regards to symbolism than spiritual power.

Haman was also an astrologer, and when he was about to fix the time for the massacre of the Jews he first cast lots to ascertain which was the most auspicious day of the week for that purpose. Each day, however, proved to be under some influence favorable to the Jews. He then sought to fix the month, but found that the same was true of each month; thus, Nisan was favorable to the Jews because of the Passover sacrifice; Iyyar, because of the small Passover. But when he arrived at Adar he found that its zodiacal sign was Pisces, and he said, "Now I shall be able to swallow them as fish which swallow one another" (Esth. R. vii.; Targ. Sheni iii.) [Jewish Encyclopedia; source]

In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, when he speaks on the story of Esther (Book XI, 6), he doesn't mention the lots at all, let alone any sort of spiritual warfare.

What is especially amusing by Lou Engle's highlighting this is that he seems to forget that the King of Babylon was a pagan king, of a pagan nation, which probably regularly committed pagan acts of worship. If Esther's opine to the king had been, "Haman uses pagan rituals," the king probably would have shrugged and said, "So do I." That's not to say pagan rituals aren't false, or that Esther and Mordecai approved of them; only that Engle, Prince, and others are exaggerating the role that pagan rituals and practices held in this narrative. Haman briefly used one methodology to pick a date, and that was it; it's not like Haman was slaying virgins to summon demons to attack the Jews.

Given the truth on Haman's so-called "witchcraft," one might ask why Lou Engle is exaggerating the role pagan spirituality played in the story of Esther, and why is he emphasizing our need to combat it? Why does he need to rework the Esther story to say all this?

Here we enter into the stranger realm of Lou Engle's theology - namely, Lou Engle sincerely believes that non-Christian religions are able to release "spiritual power" into the atmosphere, and hence combat the church. If the church doesn't pray enough, they will "lose the heavens" and permit evil to gain more power. In case you think I'm exaggerating or unfairly representing his beliefs, here's a direct quote from him:

The Lord spoke to my heart out of this, that the church must become not just a prayer meeting - it must become a prayer culture if it's going to contend with the prayer culture of Islam. How can a prayer meeting that very few come to in the church can contend with a Muslim prayer meeting that's praying five times a day then fasts forty days in Ramadan that releases spiritual power into the atmosphere. [...] The will of God is being resisted by principalities and powers. Friends, there is only one people that can remove that kind of resistance. It's not politics, it's not education, it's the praying church. It is our responsibility that we lost the heavens because of our lack of prayer... [Transcribed from "Highlights to the Nationwide Call to Prayer Conference Call"; TheCall Official Podcast; emphases mine]

Those who are curious about this can likewise listen to my podcast on IHOP-KC and prayer power; I play a clip of Lou Engle talking about a dream he had where a Buddhist house of prayer was overcome by a Christian house of prayer because the Christian house of prayer prayed more. When he speaks of "spiritual warfare," he's not only speaking about the general idea of God versus Satan, except where God is sovereign over all conflict (as most orthodox Christians would understand it); Lou Engle literally means "warfare" in the sense that the forces of God and Satan are combating on equal terms. Therefore, when Lou Engle hears that witches are casting spells against Trump and the church, he sincerely believes that witches have the complete power to do that.

Lou Engle claims that God spoke to him about this, and hence we have to presume this notion of prayer power comes from God. Scripture testifies differently. In fact, scripture testifies that foreign religions, while being under the influence of demons, have no power. Those who worship idols and false gods do so without releasing "spiritual power" into the air.

Consider, for example, the long satire and mockery of pagan faiths by the prophet Isaiah:

Those who fashion a graven image are all of them futile, and their precious things are of no profit; even their own witnesses fail to see or know, so that they will be put to shame. Who has fashioned a god or cast an idol to no profit? Behold, all his companions will be put to shame, for the craftsmen themselves are mere men. Let them all assemble themselves, let them stand up, let them tremble, let them together be put to shame. The man shapes iron into a cutting tool and does his work over the coals, fashioning it with hammers and working it with his strong arm. He also gets hungry and his strength fails; he drinks no water and becomes weary. Another shapes wood, he extends a measuring line; he outlines it with red chalk. He works it with planes and outlines it with a compass, and makes it like the form of a man, like the beauty of man, so that it may sit in a house. Surely he cuts cedars for himself, and takes a cypress or an oak and raises it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a fir, and the rain makes it grow. Then it becomes something for a man to burn, so he takes one of them and warms himself; he also makes a fire to bake bread. He also makes a god and worships it; he makes it a graven image and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire; over this half he eats meat as he roasts a roast and is satisfied. He also warms himself and says, “Aha! I am warm, I have seen the fire.” But the rest of it he makes into a god, his graven image. He falls down before it and worships; he also prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god.” [Isaiah 44:9-17]

Consider likewise the words of the apostle Paul:

Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. [1 Corinthians 10:18-20]

There is no scriptural evidence for the idea that when Muslims pray during Ramadan (which isn't forty days, by the way), or when Hindus pray, or when Buddhists pray, they are "releasing spiritual power" that will swallow up the church if we don't pray enough.

In fact, is such a notion found within Esther itself? On the contrary. Let's look again at what Mordecai tells Esther:

"Do not imagine that you in the king’s palace can escape any more than all the Jews. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?" [Esther 4:13b-14]

Mordecai actually had faith that, even if he and the Jews of Susa perish, God's people within Persia would not perish in toto. Mordecai knew that God would keep His promise and preserve a remnant, even during the worst of struggles. His warning and advice to Esther was basically: "Your being the queen won't save you. God will preserve His people somewhere, somehow, but you're right there where the enemies of the Jews have the most power and influence, so you're the most likely to get killed, even if you don't intercede. Maybe God put you in this most precarious position precisely because you could intercede for your people?"

The point here is that Mordecai didn't hear about the problem and think, "Oh man, if we don't combat this spiritual power from Haman, we're all gonna die! We better pray and fast!" He knew God's people would persevere, even if in scattered parts of the empire, or from a source other than Esther. That didn't lessen the danger all the Jews were facing, of course - but Mordecai didn't think this was something that required fasting and praying or else.

Recently, two women contacted me and asked me to use my influence to call for a 3-day Esther Fast to answer this challenge. Immediately after, I experienced a life-changing dream where I saw a nation-wide Esther movement arising that alone could break a major spiritual power of death. I knew then that I was to take my place as a Mordecai and call for Esther and her handmaidens, even the entire nation, to boldly become the hinge which this hour of history requires. The Jewish holiday Purim celebrates God’s deliverance of the Jews through Esther’s fasting, sacrifice and courage. This year, Purim begins on Saturday evening, March 11th. Therefore, we are seizing this sudden moment for 3-day Esther Fast from sundown on Wednesday, March 8th through the evening of Saturday, March 11th to counter this witchcraft, pray for the President, and contend for this uprising of an Esther movement in America that will, among many things, reverse the decree of ‘73, Roe V. Wade, just as Haman’s decree was reversed and hold back the rising tide of anti-Semitism.

Let the women arise as Esthers for such a time as this and take their place in the courts of heaven and in the public courts of man to shape history in this hour. If your heart burns, mobilize this fast to all your connections. Blow the trumpet in Zion! Call a fast!

Lou Engle

Founder, TheCall, Inc.

I must say it's rather astounding that Lou Engle sees himself as a modern Mordecai, especially since he says that makes it his duty to "call for Esther and her handmaidens" - is he aware that it's actually Esther who calls for the fast, not Mordecai? Mordecai's only call for Esther was "to go in to the king to implore his favor and to plead with him for her people" (Es 4:8b). Therefore, shouldn't Lou Engle be calling "Esther and her handmaidens" not to fast and pray, but rather to "go in to the king to implore his favor"?

I'm also interested in how the "Esther movement" is supposed to "reverse" and "hold back" Roe vs. Wade, anti-Semitism, etc., when I was fairly certain that the Nazirite DNA and other "movements" Lou Engle has become involved in were likewise supposed to do that. It's not that I'm knocking Christian movements in general, even impassioned Christian movements; it's simply that it's rather interesting how all of these "do-or-die" spiritual movements seem to keep repeating their goals over and over again, with new names. How many times has Engle spoken of a "life-changing dream" where he was called by God to raise up a movement "that alone could break a major spiritual power of death"?

Concluding Thoughts

Let's try to remember a few key things about the fast called by Esther:

• Who was fasting? All the Jews in the city of Susa (Es 4:16).
• What brought about the fasting? Esther was preparing to confront the king, and there was a possibility she might die for her troubles (Es 4:11, 14).
• Why was Esther confronting the king? Because Haman was planning to kill all of God's people (Es 4:7-8).
• Why was Haman planning to kill off the Jews? Because of Mordecai's refusal to bow to him, and Haman's personal hatred of the Jews (Es 3:6).

This is what the text says regarding the fast. Engle avoids all of this by not addressing the context of what is being said. Instead, he hones in on the fact Esther and her handmaidens fasted prayed, avoids any real exegesis, instead falling back on what one commentator said regarding Haman. From all this, he presents to us a situation in which witchcraft and dark forces are taking over the Persian government, and this is only averted by the women praying and fasting. He makes it seem as if, because Esther and the women prayed, the "spiritual power" was pushed back and undone, and everything changed.

As we saw from our earlier review of the book, the narrative is a little more involved with that. The fasting was not to bring about the change directly, but rather to call upon God to make certain Esther's confrontation with the king would go well. It was her dealings with the king, and God's providence therein, that saved the Jewish people. Esther is a noble woman in the history of the church, yes. Esther has many traits Christian women could seek to emulate, yes. However, there is no command to fast and pray like Esther, and there is no evidence from scripture that Esther was locked in a giant spiritual struggle which was only defeated by fasting and prayer. No honest reading of the text could ever come to such a conclusion.

What's even more alarming is that Lou Engle uses, just as he has so many times in the past, strong spiritual language to add weighty authority to an abuse of scripture based on his heretical ideas on prayer. Some might contend here that he's never said, "You're not saved if you don't take part in this movement," or, "If you're a Christian, you need to get involved." Nonetheless, the wording he uses is quite clear: it is this movement "alone" which can "break a major spiritual power"; we literally "need" an "entire generation" of women to take part; if we don't "employ spiritual strategy" against this, then "the days ahead will be dark days indeed"; women must "take their place in the courts of heaven and in the public courts of man to shape history in this hour." This is spiritual manipulative language that is, in essence, placing a yoke upon others under the disguise of pious activity.

I've been told that Lou Engle's a nice guy in person, and I'm sure, deep down, he sincerely believes he's doing some good. The problem is he's constantly abusing the word of God, centering it around his personal dreams and visions. He uses these misrepresentations of God's word to command other Christians to commit acts in the hope that God will return the favor. This is especially sad given that, as stated earlier, the story of Esther is a beautiful one that can point to the church's preservation and even the cross. Instead, it's being pointed to in order to command, "Do." It takes a passage that should point us to God and His glory, and instead points it to us and places upon us a command and work.

With his reliance on dreams and his mishandling of scripture, Lou Engle is like those false prophets God warned of when He said:

"The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?" declares the Lord. [Jeremiah 23:28]

Things like an "Esther hour" or "Esther fast" are nothing more than spiritual straw. Let every Christian seek their answers from the word of God, and do their best to avoid it, or warn others about it. If we wish to fast and pray, even as a body, then let us fast and pray - but let's not mishandle scripture to compel others to do it, and let's not claim divinely inspired authority to make such claims.

God bless.

***

Work Cited

Prince, Derek. Shaping History Through Prayer and Fasting. New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 2002. Print.

God's Gift to Man

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." [Gen 2:18]

This passage of Genesis takes place in the second chapter, during the more specific account of the sixth day of creation. God creates Adam (v. 7), designs the Garden of Eden (v. 8-9), and then places Adam in the midst of the garden. There, Adam is given a duty: to tend the garden. He's then given an early form of the Law - he may eat of every tree except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (v. 15-17). For all intents and purposes, one would think the story was over.

Yet then the Lord, in divine contemplation, announces two things: 1) it is not good that man should be alone; 2) He will create a helper for him. The Lord is referring, of course, to woman, specifically the creation of Eve. The term "helper" does not mean a subordinate in every sense of the term, but moreso an indispensable companion (something even 18th century commentators recognize). The term translated "fit for" means literally "the opposite of", and perfectly summarizes the relationship between man and woman. Men and women serve different roles in a relationship, and compliment one another in different ways - anyone who denies this has never truly understood relationships.

It is interesting to note that, after saying this, the Lord does not immediately create Eve - in fact, He doesn't begin the creation of Eve until verse 21. Why the delay?

What must first happen, it seems, is that God must instill within the man the realization that he needs a helper. He takes the animals that were created from the ground and brings them to the man, permitting Adam to name them all (v. 19). It is interesting that at the very end of verse 20, after Adam has surveyed all of creation, he laments that "there was not a helper fit for him." While even domesticated animals can provide the simulation of companionship, man was not created to live in a house with forty cats, nor to live out in the woods with a dog and be settled with that. Dogs and cats can offer unconditional love, but they cannot offer the kind of love that a man truly needs from his partner.

Adam has now come to realize this very thing - he realizes, as God had realized before, that there is no helper suited for him. Nay, he needs a helper suitable for him. I've known many people - men and women - who lived a life of lonely monotony and believed they were content, only to reach an older age and realize that, in actuality, they were not. There comes a time when even the coldest of people desire companionship. As we see here, God early on instilled in us that kind of need.

With the need given to Adam, God causes a deep sleep to fall upon him, and while Adam is asleep, God takes one of his ribs and closes the flesh in place (v. 21). The original Hebrew which we translate as "rib" literally means "side," so that there was most likely a lot more taken from Adam than just a rib (hence the need for God to close the flesh up). God is literally taking part of Adam's side to make someone to be at his side. Matthew Henry gives a beautiful explanation of the immediate significance of this: God takes a piece not from Adam's head to rule him, nor from his feet to be trampled upon, but from his side; from his side to be equal, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.

A greater significance, of course, is that we can see here an early Messianic foreshadow. Out of Christ's own side, after it was pierced by a Roman spear, came blood and water (John 19:34). It was from this blood and water that God would secure and sanctify His bride, the church, who was bought for and purified by His blood (cf. Eph 5:25-26).

With this chunk of Adam, God fashions the woman Eve and brings her to the man (v. 22). Many commentators say that the language used in this verse is similar to language used of a father bringing his daughter to the groom. It's very fitting, given that God is now presenting Adam with his bride, Eve. Again, we have an early Messianic foreshadow: God brings Adam his wife, just as God gives to the Son His bride - those who are in the church (John 6:37).

Adam, upon awakening, is ecstatic over Eve - not for any special beauty or personality, but for the realization of what God has now given him. We see this with his immediate response: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (v. 23). Keep in mind this is not giving man complete sovereignty over woman in the same manner he did the animals in verse 19, to whom he also gave names. The name given to her is not simply for name's sake, but for a specific reason: she was taken out of man. She is literally "bone of his bones" and "flesh of his flesh" - no other living thing could have been talked about in such a fashion.

The order and place of man and woman within creation is seen in the rest of scripture. Most notably the apostle Paul writes: "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Cor 11:8-9). Some say this is sexism and misogyny, placing woman at a lower or secondary place than man and compelling her to submit to his authority. They seem to forget, however, the beauty of what this narrative teaches: woman is God's gift to man. She was made for him as a gift to complete and fulfill him. She is given to the man by God as a gift, so that the two can, as scripture goes on to say, "become one flesh" (v. 24).

Therefore, any man who dishonors his wife does not dishonor her, but dishonors the God who granted her to him as a gift. Any man who beats his wife, demeans her with psychological abuse, or plays the scoundrel against her and commits adultery, is spitting into the face of the Lord who granted her to him. Any man who by his own cause and want destroys that which no man should separate (cf. Matt 19:6) and does not repent of it is transgressing mightily against the Lord, and on the Day of Judgment he will have to give an answer for it.