Comments on Christianity: Doctrine and Ethics: A Matter of Concern in the PCA

I put a link to your post on my new female deacon/...

2008-05-09T13:47:00.000-07:00

I put a link to your post on my new female deacon/deaconess site...

http://www.waysidechurch.org/femdeacs/blogs.htm

I saw that I mistyped Eva Hasell's name. She start...

2008-02-20T22:19:00.000-08:00

I saw that I mistyped Eva Hasell's name. She started first a Sunday school mission, then a mission "for women by women", but as there was no male clergy in much of the area that this mission served, the women were given layreaders licenses to preach.

This is of special interest to me, since I have met some of those who were converted by these missionary women. One elderly man, a neighbour, died just this week.

Ron,I have politely allowed the conversation to pr...

2008-02-19T21:51:00.000-08:00

Ron,

I have politely allowed the conversation to progress from one thing to the next without moving ahead.

Now, in retrospect you dismiss me for lack of something you never asked about.

I can only ask out of curiosity why Junia, Nympha and Prisca were made into men by the scribes? Was it not because they were perceived as being in a leadership position? What about the "elect lady"?

And the leading women among the Greeks, and Phoebe? Do we know she was not a deacon or a temple leader, as prostatis might suggest?

We really don't know. We don't know of any slaves who became pastors either. In fact, we know the official titles of few men other than the apostles.

You seem to have plenty of time to blog about women staying in some imaginary and culturally created box. You should get to know a few women of history.

I should introduce you to Evas Hasell and the caravanners, women from England who came to British Columbia and traveled about the north, first hiking then on horseback and in jeeps. They trained as mechanics and traveled in twos, from farm to farm, in the days before the US military moved in and created the deluxe Alaska highway.

They were given lay reader licenses to baptize and preach in the churches.

Let me emphasize that these women did not need the US military to open the way for them to preach the gospel. They were leaders and not followers.

Do you believe that Christ will have his reprimands ready for these women of the gospel? Or do you presume to scold women whom Christ honours?

Are women only fit to preach on the frontier where they move ahead of men?

Suzanne,I'm off to another article. I'm done here,...

2008-02-19T21:05:00.000-08:00

Suzanne,
I'm off to another article. I'm done here, but in parting I would like to point out that in all your intellectual gymnastics you have not come up with one example of a female pastor or Elder. Lots of words, lots of circling around the topic, but very, very thin on pertinent examples. Clement is not Paul or Moses. He remains an extra-biblical source. In general, there is nothing wrong with citing an extra-biblical source; they can be quite helpful at times. Anyway, thanks for the conversation.

I see I missed putting in the link. I hope this wo...

2008-02-18T21:22:00.000-08:00

I see I missed putting in the link. I hope this works.

Here are a few examples.

Rom. 16:7

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. KJV (more literal)

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. ESV

Titus 2:4-5

That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. KJV

and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. ESV (more literal)

Col. 4:15

Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house KJV

Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. ESV (more accurate, except that brothers should read brothers and sisters!)

Psalm 68:11

The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it. KJV

The Lord gives the word;
the women who announce the news are a great host: ESV (more literal)

The question really is whether men, throughout church history have proven themselves to be faithful in terms of translating the scriptures for women. Or do women need to make their "voice" heard. Maybe that is not just a feminist construct but pragmatic need.

PS Have you had "and sisters" added to the pew Bibles in your church yet? ;-) Or or lexicons servants only and not masters?

They accepted the status quo power structures. I d...

2008-02-18T17:07:00.000-08:00

They accepted the status quo power structures. I don't doubt it.

I stand by this.

Consider the visible church as one body on earth, the absolute monarchy (do not touch the Lord's anointed, and so on) slavery, all these things.

And yet, here we are in country created by men who revolted against the monarchy, against the "church" and against the British empire, and a land that eventually set slaves free, although only after much difficulty.

Power structures were maintained and then one by one, these struactures have been made responsible and responsive. The bondage of personal life long obligatory obedience (24/7) has been done away with for men, but not for women.

Some women are still bound by a vow of obedience and some suffer the abridgment of their human rights, some women are not given the right by their "leader/husband" to vote for the candidate of their choice, or engage in further education.

Other women live their entire lives as the sole providers and protectors of their families and are never recognized as such by the church.

If you know a woman who supports her disabled husband and her children, do you believe that she is less worthy of authority than a man? Does one have to be biologically male and a provider to meet the standards of church leadership or just male. What does the male part contribute, if I may ask? Did not God talk about his female parts, doesn't God have a womb?

I am uneducated in feminism but I believe this is an accurate reference to God in the scriptures.

I was raised in a family where women reading Greek was passed down from one generation to the next. These women lived the gospel of the Reformation, passed down from woman to woman.

I am unimpressed by the fact that men have translated the Bible to their advantage from one generation to the next. That just shows one of the weaknesses of male only theology.

I invite you to read this post of mine. where I outline a very few of the simple biases of English Bible translation.

Each generation of men have their specific ways of introducing non literal phrases and translations into Bible versions to reduce the role of women. Think of Junia, Prisca, and Nympha, all of whom have been made into men at some point to avoid recognizing the leadership of women.

On the other hand, I don't remember reading a Bible translation that made a man into a woman - Paul into Paula for example. No, I think not!

The most disturbing bias introduced recently is in 2 Tim. 2:2 where the word "men" is used to indicate the male, when the Greek word is "anthropos." Compare with the German, would they get away with inserting "Manner" into this verse? I don't think so.

When are men going to give women basic fair treatment? A minmum of honesty? Up to now many men have used their position of authority to demote women and put them down. Some men nave not yet earned the trust of women.

Again, I appreciate the fact that you are allowing me to at least present a small part of my case.

Suzanne,"Yes, Clement, Chrysostom and other church...

2008-02-18T14:52:00.000-08:00

Suzanne,
"Yes, Clement, Chrysostom and other church fathers are all fully patriarchal, as are the Reformesr. They accepted the status quo power structures. I don't doubt it."
Wow. Is there an outside possibility that they were acting biblically and that those who disagree with their interpretation call them "patriarchal"?
Again, you are flying in the face of a long line of solid exegesis and hermeneutics. You're sounding more and more like a female version of N.T. Wright, discovering what St. Paul "really" said.

Interesting blog. While I find that doctrinally I ...

2008-02-17T19:00:00.000-08:00

Interesting blog. While I find that doctrinally I agree with the views, I'm disheartened by the tone. It is tough to see rough treatment toward brothers and sisters in the Lord. Particularly a better exchange with Ryan from the Missoula Project would have been good to see, IMHO.

Thank you Kyle for the interaction. We are indeed ...

2008-02-16T20:33:00.000-08:00

Thank you Kyle for the interaction. We are indeed at an impasse.

Good evening.

Suzanne,Unfortunately, I have nothing more to disc...

2008-02-16T20:10:00.000-08:00

Suzanne,

Unfortunately, I have nothing more to discuss with you. It is obvious we are at an impasse. And since you are prone to characterizing my position as tendentiously as you have, I have no desire to engage you further at this time.

I wish you well, and may God bless you.

Kyle,One cannot prove that authenteo is purely neg...

2008-02-16T19:46:00.000-08:00

Kyle,

One cannot prove that authenteo is purely negative. To me it appears clear that a negative use of authenteo is more likely than a positive use. The scriptures never tell men to authenteo. In fact, the context of those citations indicated that it was normally something that one ought not to do. In the one case, there was an invitation for one person to "take over" authority. Yes, but that again is not a right that women argue for.

The context of "master of slaves", "taking over power" from someone else, is simply not the same thing as what a male elder normally does as his function in the church. It is not the normal word for being a Christian leader.

In fact, the scriptures also never tell men to exousiazo another Christian except in a reciprocal relationship.

Therefore, all proof of male authority must derive from other scriptures or other words. Kephale likewise. Some later writers interpreted it as authority and others as origin/source.

There is simply no contemporary proof to establish one unique unambiguous meaning for either kephale or authenteo. I fault the studies because they give impression that the evidence is conclusive when it is not.

Yes, arche (plural) does have the meaning of "powers" but the singular was not used with the meaning "ruler". Adam was indeed our origin and if ruler, his rulership was not active. It is an interpretation, not the plain meaning of the text.

There is no way that I can disprove the patriarchal interpretation. However, I can say that a person can be a Bible believing Christian and understand that woman is of the same nature as man, and is to be treated as an equal.

There is nothing anti-Christian about treating a woman as an equal, or allowing her to lead and teach.

Over the centuries, the power of the church hierarchy has been reduced. We are no longer obligatory members of a territorial church because of our place of birth. We now have democratic government, with the right to vote on the govt. Do Christian men give up the right to vote? No. Do we uphold slavery because the scriptures teach it? No.

I do not believe that the subordination of women existed before the fall. I believe that women, redeemed by Christ are redeemed out of the bondage of obedience to men. They are rather to enter into a reciprocal and faithful monogamy as 1 Cor. 7 teaches.

There are many different ways to interpret scripture. The different denominations demonstrate this and baptism is a good example. If one possible interpretation is that women are equal, then why wouldn't a woman want to be treated as an equal. Women actually need to be protectors and providers of their family. They must bear equal responsibility as the men, so why should they not have equal authority to go along with the equal responsibility?

Don't forget that half of women are now single although this is not their choice. Many women in the scriptures were also single and supported families.

The teaching of male authority is more or less irrelevant to women who have to support their families. They may model submission to male authority in church but no male makes a sacrifice for them. They reap no benefit from male authority. It is not for their good.

If men claim that they derive spiritual authority from the fact that some men serve in the military and risk their lives, I can only ask if it isn't true that many more women risk their own life and health in childbirth. We give out of our complementarity, but it is not an excuse to subordinate one sex.

Is it simply impossible for men to think of treating a woman as a functional equal? Where will you all go if a woman leads the country?

Why not enter into kindly fellowship with women, instead of trying to subordinate them? Do you reject all the woman missionaries of the last few centuries, the one who preached to the sultan in the 17th century, those who evangelized my province of BC visiting farmhouses during the week and preaching and teaching on Sundays. What about those who were saved through women preaching? Will we see them in heaven?

Even if we grant, for argument's sake, that here i...

2008-02-16T16:44:00.000-08:00

Even if we grant, for argument's sake, that here it is definitely negative, we could say that this is regarding something to which she has no right at all in the first place, which meaning could just as well work in I Tim. 2 and maintain the traditional reading. Indeed, Paul certainly is not suggesting that it is legitimate for women to auqentein men; he is expressly prohibiting it. I will come back again to this below.

I did say I would come back to this. Let's go a bit further and allow, for arguments' sake, that auqentein in I Tim. 2:12 is purely negative, and that Paul thinks that there is legitimate place in the church for women to exercise authority over men. Then what on earth does his reasoning in the next two verses mean?

Greg,I must take issue with yours, and Dr. Grudem'...

2008-02-16T16:41:00.000-08:00

Greg,

I must take issue with yours, and Dr. Grudem's thesis that the Apostle is reaffirming a generalized Old Testament stricture which silences women.

What I do see Paul doing in these passages however, is soundly refuting the Talmudic Judaizers who had crept into the Corinthian congregation.

So, his refutation of the Talmudic Judaizers is to prohibit women from speaking in church, as in all the churches of the saints, because it would be disgraceful for them to do so? Please, expand upon your interpretation, because at the moment I can make head nor tail of it.

Suzanne,I didn't rule out the other 79 citations. ...

2008-02-16T16:39:00.000-08:00

Suzanne,

I didn't rule out the other 79 citations. Others have.

You are the one who said, "To me it lists 79 irrelevant citations" and "Perhaps people feel that a study with 82 examples is significant but, in fact, only three are relevant." It may be you aren't the only one, but it seems to be the case that you yourself dismiss Baldwin's 79 other citations. But let's get on with the show, shall we?

Page 680

[6th century AD]PLond 1708

Translation: my own (Baldwin's)

"acted on his own authority"

However, if you read the context, it clearly means that this man defrauded his family of money. It is not about someone who has authority, but someone who cheats. It is a very negative use of the word, but it is made to look better by Baldwin's translation.

One can misuse legitimate authority. So the sense of auqentew here is not necessarily negative. Baldwin notes, "Preisigke lists this reference, along with PMasp 67151.174 below, under 'verfügungsberechtigt sein' ('having legitimate authority to dispose' [of something])."

The same note applies, therefore, to your next example:

page 681

[6th century AD] Jeanne Maspero

"have authority in any fashion to detach outright goods of any kind from any manner of my estate."

Once again, Baldwin has provided his own translation, thus creating the English phrase "have authority" where anyone else coming on this sentence might say that the wife is not to "defraud the husband in any fashion" by detaching goods from his estate.

And frankly, I cannot see how one must look at auqentew as being purely negative. The husband is not granting his wife the right to take his goods to herself. Even if we grant, for argument's sake, that here it is definitely negative, we could say that this is regarding something to which she has no right at all in the first place, which meaning could just as well work in I Tim. 2 and maintain the traditional reading. Indeed, Paul certainly is not suggesting that it is legitimate for women to auqentein men; he is expressly prohibiting it. I will come back again to this below.

Next, "assume authority" in F. Schubert might more easily be translated as "take over."

Maybe, but it's quite evident the speaker is requesting (!) that his hearer take authority, or assume jurisdiction, in the matter before them, to bring it to a resolution. How is this "negative"?

page 682

"Inhuman masters will have legal authority over their servants"

Obviously a very negative use of the word. The translation "have legal authority" was created by Baldwin.

No, not obviously. Baldwin gives a cogent explanation of his translation in the footnote. His argument is that the sense of auqentew is itself neutral. It's like saying that white slaveholders had legal authority over their black slaves. The expression, "had legal authority," is itself neutral.

Almost every time the word is used as an action of a human, it denotes a very negative use, either defrauding or compelling or taking over.

I don't think that there are many cases of a human as the subject of the verb authenteo that show a worthy or rightful use of authority, in a positive sense.

A good example is on pg. 684, the second quotation from Basil's Letters:

"It seemed to us advisable in the circumstances, moreover, to write to the bishop of Rome, that he may examine into the state of affairs here, and give us his opinion, so that, as it is difficult to send men to Rome by a general synodical decree, he may himself exercise full authority in this matter, by selecting men capable of enduring the hardships of a journey."

And this is a good two centuries earlier than the citations which you've said are purely negative.

The second citation from Chrysostom on pg. 685 is also rather telling: "Because she once exercised authority wrongly." "Wrongly" is actually in the Greek, kakws modifying auqentew. Or we can see Chrysostom on pg. 686 in his Homily on Psalm 92: "Just like the sunbeam I toil—but not like God do I reign." The sense of auqentew here is certainly not negative, or else God would be impugned by analogy. Still further, Chrysostom again, pg. 687, in his Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles: "For observe, there were an hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body: with good right, as having been put in charge of them." This is said with referrence to Peter. And the same golden-mouthed preacher on pg. 689, from About Martha, Mary, and Lazarus: "Elijah raised the dead, but nevertheless he did not reign." (Although it must be admitted, most of these are Baldwin's own translation.)

I could go on, as Baldwin provides many other citations, and it cannot be argued that these are all purely negative with referrence to human subjects of auqentew.

Look at page 686, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew 57.239.50

About Christ it is written,

"Neither doth he work all things as one who acted by His own power"

So of Christ on earth is is said that he did not authenteo. This is extremely important. No human being can ever rightly authenteo, not even Christ.

It does not says that Christ flatly did not auqentew. It says that Christ did not work all things in this manner. Otherwise, "nor doth He all things with prayer" means that Christ did not pray, and that would make nonsense of the passage. Your theological deduction is therefore without basis.

On arche, ruler is not one of the meanings of arche,

Can it not have this meaning, at least in the plural? E.g., Col. 1:16.

nor do I suppose that Adam is our ruler. Do you see Adam as our ruler?

In a sense, although being dead he can hardly auqentew. ;) But yes, Adam is the covenantal head of humanity. This is why Adam is rebuked for listening to his wife" when he ought to have exercised his appropriate authority over her to prevent her from eating the fruit of the tree. But Adam sinned, and so all humanity in him God regards as having sinned, by Adam's headship over humanity. For this reason a new Head is required for those who wish to escape condemnation, and that is Christ.

As for the rest, you characterize my position in the most tendentious way. I can hardly continue a discussion with you at this rate.

For Kyle on 1 Cor. 14:34,I must take issue with yo...

2008-02-16T14:51:00.000-08:00

For Kyle on 1 Cor. 14:34,

I must take issue with yours, and Dr. Grudem's thesis that the Apostle is reaffirming a generalized Old Testament stricture which silences women.

What I do see Paul doing in these passages however, is soundly refuting the Talmudic Judaizers who had crept into the Corinthian congregation.

Until you or Dr. Grudem can come up with the actual goods in the way of scripture which silences women in the assembly of believers, I shall remain unconvinced that Paul is muzzling Godly women in any shape or fashion.

The scriptures can be cultural and uphold the powe...

2008-02-15T22:42:00.000-08:00

The scriptures can be cultural and uphold the power of one human over another, or they can be counter cultural, and lift up those without power and give them equal dignity.

The scriptures can be used to support cultural structures or tear them down. What did the reformers and the abolitionists do?

Yes, Clement, Chrysostom and other church fathers ...

2008-02-15T22:37:00.000-08:00

Yes, Clement, Chrysostom and other church fathers are all fully patriarchal, as are the Reformesr. They accepted the status quo power structures. I don't doubt it. But we see, running parallel to this, the fact that the Greek language does not have one unique patriarchal meaning. The patriarvhy is interpretation.

For Clement, the husband had authority since that is the way his society was structured. But the Greek words do not "militate" that the husband must have such power.

Do we uphold the doctrine of the church as one body on earth? No. Do we uphold the power of the Roman emperor, or the divine right of kings? No. Do we uphold the power of slave owners? No. But you could find support for most of these things in the church fathers.

The scriptures can be cultural and uphold the power of one human over another, or they can be counter cultural, and lift up those without power and give them equal dignity.

Suzanne,I'll try to follow up with your latest com...

2008-02-15T22:33:00.000-08:00

Suzanne,

I'll try to follow up with your latest comments tomorrow. For now, I must to bed! Good night.

Clement's Stromata, in Greek. (LARGE PDF!)

2008-02-15T22:31:00.000-08:00

Clement's Stromata, in Greek. (LARGE PDF!)

Kyle,I didn't rule out the other 79 citations. Oth...

2008-02-15T22:28:00.000-08:00

Kyle,

I didn't rule out the other 79 citations. Others have.

Let's look at a couple of the other citations that Baldwin supplies. I am gong to assume that you can follow all this in the pdf. That is what I am using.

Page 680

[6th century AD]PLond 1708

Translation: my own (Baldwin's)

"acted on his own authority"

However, if you read the context, it clearly means that this man defrauded his family of money. It is not about someone who has authority, but someone who cheats. It is a very negative use of the word, but it is made to look better by Baldwin's translation.

page 681

[6th century AD] Jeanne Maspero

"have authority in any fashion to detach outright goods of any kind from any manner of my estate."

Once again, Baldwin has provided his own translation, thus creating the English phrase "have authority" where anyone else coming on this sentence might say that the wife is not to "defraud the husband in any fashion" by detaching goods from his estate.

These two citations show a very negative meaning for authenteo, basically cheating, but Baldwin has provided his own translation of "have authority."

Next, "assume authority" in F. Schubert might more easily be translated as "take over."

page 682

"Inhuman masters will have legal authority over their servants"

Obviously a very negative use of the word. The translation "have legal authority" was created by Baldwin.

Next it is used of God having rightful power.

page 683

- God as the administrator of judgment
- not instigating unrighteousness
- compels

Almost every time the word is used as an action of a human, it denotes a very negative use, either defrauding or compelling or taking over.

I don't think that there are many cases of a human as the subject of the verb authenteo that show a worthy or rightful use of authority, in a positive sense.

Look at page 686, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew 57.239.50

About Christ it is written,

"Neither doth he work all things as one who acted by His own power"

So of Christ on earth is is said that he did not authenteo. This is extremely important. No human being can ever rightly authenteo, not even Christ. This word means "to act on one's own authority" rather than on authority derived from God. That is why no human should ever authenteo (take charge of) another.

I have no difficulty using the complete study of Baldwin. The vast weight of the evidence is that authenteo reflects the negative use of power in human hands. It means to act as if you were God to other human beings. It is the illegitimate use of power.

--------

On arche, ruler is not one of the meanings of arche, nor do I suppose that Adam is our ruler. Do you see Adam as our ruler?

_______

Now the real issue is this. God is always the ruler and the one with absolute power.

However, when Christ became human and gave up power, he then became the second Adam and the head of man, but not until then.

Christ had all power, but when he died and sacrificed himself, he became the head of the church.

If being head was about power, then the scriptures would simply say that as God is to humans so is a husband to his wife. But the scriptures say that husband is to wife as Christ (in human form and surrendering his life) is to the church. Man is to woman, as the second Adam is to man in Christ, the origin of all humans, as the first Adam was to all humans.

If Christ had not died then man could have absolute power over woman. Then woman would be bound to obey her absolute human lord. But God came as the dying one, the one who gave up power, and man stands to woman as the one who imitates Christ.

Otherwise woman would be the footstool of man. That is the subordination of woman.

But Christ has redeemed us, his work buys us out of bondage, both male and female. He redeems woman, not so she can be at the beck and call of capricious man, but so she can recognize that woman is of the same species as man and respect man as the one who shares his nature with her.

I simply don't believe that the best women get our of Christianity is that they are to be dominari by men.

How I wish for some brotherhood or communion that crosses over from man to woman. Do men really treat women the way that they wish to be treated? Can't a man ever look at a woman and think of how he would want to treated f he were a woman. Is there to be no "sympathy" between men and women.

I wish we could discuss what Christ really is to us, and what he became in his life on earth. Christ made himself equal to humans to save them. Men need to deprive themselves of power over women.

There is no reason why the wife of an unenlightened man should be deprived by her husband of further education or developing her gifts through work or hobby. But if the life of every woman is put under the authority of her husband, many women will not have the free will to do very simple things in life. This may be absurd, but sadly true. Should we not attempt to ameliorate these things? Should we not interact with each other as those who share a common human nature?

By the way, the Greek in back of Clement is as fol...

2008-02-15T22:24:00.000-08:00

By the way, the Greek in back of Clement is as follows:

kefalh toinun to hgemonikon. ei de kurios kefalh tou andros, kefalh de gunaikos o anhr, kurios o anhr ths gunaikos, eikwn kai doca qeou uparxwn. dio kai en th pros Efesious grafei, upotassomenoi allhlois en fobw qeou, ai gunaikes tois idiois andrasin ws to kurio, oti anhr esti kefalh ths gunaikos ws kai o xristos kefalh ths ekklhsias, autos o sothr tou swmatos. all os h ekklhsia upotassetai tw xristw, outws kai ai gunaikes tois andrasin en panti. oi andres, agapate tas gunaikas, kaqws kai o xristos hgaphsen thn ekklhsian. outws kai oi andres ofeilousin agapan tas eautwn gunaikas ws ta eautwn swmata. o agapwn thn eautou gunaika eauton agapa: oudeis gar pote thn eautou sarka emishsen.

[The] head, therefore, [is] the leader. And if "[the] Lord [is the] head of the man, and [the] head of [the] woman [is] the man," the man [is] lord of the woman, "being [the] image and glory of God." For this reason also in the [letter] to [the] Ephesians [it] is written, "submitting to one another in [the] fear of God," "the women [are to be subject] to their own men as to the Lord, since man is [the] head of the woman as even (the) Christ [is the] head of the church, Himself the savior of that body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so even the women [are to be the same way] to their men in all [things]. The men are to love their women, just as even (the) Christ loved the church." "So also the men ought to love their women as [they love] their own bodies. The one who loves his woman loves himself: for no one ever hated his own flesh."

Suzanne,Regarding Cyril, how is this passage "rele...

2008-02-15T21:02:00.000-08:00

Suzanne,

Regarding Cyril, how is this passage "relevant" as to the meaning of kefalh in the biblical text? If you think it's relevant, you need to reconsider your dismissal of Baldwin's 79 other citations of auqentew. Even so, not having access to Cyril's larger argument, I can hardly say if you are properly understanding what he's saying. It may very well be that he intends "ruler" or "power" by arxh.

But to provide a countercitation, let's read Clement of Alexandria, writing in the second century A.D., in his Stromata 4:8:

The ruling power is therefore the head. And if "the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman," the man, "being the image and glory of God," is lord of the woman. Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, "Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Saviour of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh."

This doesn't necessarily have much to do with how "head" in Eph. 5. There we see,

head to body
sacrifice to submission
love to respect

I do not see authority mentioned, nor does the use of the word submission entail authority on the part of anyone involved.

This is why I've asked you the basic theological question of whether the Lord Jesus has authority over His church? Does the Father have authority over His Son? And you'll surely recognize the implication for the marital relationship.

I have explained that I would not discuss doctrine without Ron's invitation. I willingly accept Ron's questions and directives here, both as blog owner and elder.

I can't speak for Ron, but my impression is that he welcomes the presentation of actual arguments.

I have no idea who you are but if this is the way you usually talk to women, it comes across as out of place. Is this what you mean by the subjection of women?

I requested that you provide an exposition of I Cor. 11, since you find mine to be fallacious, and since you apparently have great knowledge of Koine Greek than I. How this comes across as "out of place," I haven't the foggiest. In terms of this particular discussion, I couldn't care less whether you are male or female. Evidently it matters a great deal to you that I am a male? I don't know what deductions you make from that fact, but if we are going to discuss the doctrine expressed in the Greek, it's not going to advance the discussion in the least.

Grudem is the one who agrees that the use of authenteo in the BGU 1208 means "compel". On page 680, in the footnotes, Grudem writes about BGU 1208,

"However, the meaning of 'compel' does seem appropriate."

Do you have the book to check this?

I don't possess Grudem's book in hard copy, but I don't doubt your citation of him. What I wanted to know is why "compel" should be considered a superior rendering to Werner's "exercise authority." (And how, exactly, does "compel" work in I Tim. 2?)

Authenteo probably means exactly what the translators of the Vulgate thought it meant - "dominare."

I don't see how this is helpful for your case. The Latin verb dominari means "to master, rule, control." It is related to the noun dominus meaning "lord, master, ruler." Now, of course these can be used in a negative sense ("despot," "tyrant,"), but does not the Vulgate refer to our Lord as Dominus?

Here is how Jerome translates Prov. 19:10:

non decent stultum deliciae nec servum dominari principibus

In the ESV this is, "It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury, much less for a slave to rule over princes."

Do you really suppose that Jerome did not think that princes ought to "rule over" slaves?

It is worth keeping in view that Chrysostom gave men explicit instructions that they were not to "authenteo" their wives.

So Chrysostom, who preached three centuries after Paul wrote, is relevant for our understanding of auqentew? I thought you'd already ruled him out, since he made up some of the 79 other Baldwin citations.

Kyle,Let's look at one or two things. This is a pa...

2008-02-15T19:12:00.000-08:00

Kyle,

Let's look at one or two things.
This is a passage from Cyril of Alexandria, (died AD 444), De Recte Fide ad Pulch. 2.3, 268.

"Therefore of our race he become first head (κεφαλη), which is the αρχη, and was of the earth and earthy (Adam). Since Christ was named the second Adam, he has been placed as head, which is αρχη, of those who through him have been formed anew unto him unto immortality through sanctification in the spirit. Therefore he himself our αρχη, which is head, has appeared as a human being: indeed, he, being by nature God, has a head, the Father in heaven. For, being by nature God the Word, he has been begotten from Him. Because head means αρχη, He established the truth for those who are wavering in their mind that man is the head of woman, for she was taken out of him. Therefore one Christ and Son and Lord, the one having as head the Father in heaven, being God by nature, became for us a “head” accordingly because of his kinship according to the flesh."

The word αρχη you may recognize as the word "beginning" used in John 1:1. This is its most common meaning - beginning or origin. It had a secondary meaning of "power" but this is not nearly as common.

Read this carefully and think of how Christ became our head. He became our head because of "his kinship with us according to the flesh." Man is head of woman means that man has kinship with woman, just as Christ has kinship with us by becoming the second Adam (earthy).

In this passage, you can either see Adam as our origin or source, or as our ruler. I do not see ruler as a permissible translation for αρχη. I do accept origin or source as a possible translation.

It is important to recognize that this is an orthodox way to understand "head", and likely had no relationship to egalitarian teaching. It was a general teaching about the nature of Christ's relationship to us.

This doesn't necessarily have much to do with how "head" in Eph. 5. There we see,

head to body
sacrifice to submission
love to respect

I do not see authority mentioned, nor does the use of the word submission entail authority on the part of anyone involved.

I doubt we can discuss 1 Cor. 11 much further, as any understanding of it is an interpretation. It only refers to the subjection of women, if one feels that this is already proven by the use of the word head.

You write,

Then please, give an exposition of I Cor. 11:2-16.

I have explained that I would not discuss doctrine without Ron's invitation. I willingly accept Ron's questions and directives here, both as blog owner and elder. I have no idea who you are but if this is the way you usually talk to women, it comes across as out of place. Is this what you mean by the subjection of women?

Likely you did not realize how it would come across.

Back to Baldwin.

Grudem agrees that these are the only three citations that fall within the right time period. (The use of authenteo in later literature is usually more negative than in the earlier.)

However, of the three, only the BGU 1208 is relevant. (BGU is the Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden)

Grudem is the one who agrees that the use of authenteo in the BGU 1208 means "compel". On page 680, in the footnotes, Grudem writes about BGU 1208,

"However, the meaning of 'compel' does seem appropriate."

Do you have the book to check this?

I know it is hard to believe that the entire study could come up with only this one quote. I am to a certain extent sympathetic with complementarians, who would rightly feel cheated by Baldwin's study. Even if you don't know Greek, I believe that it is possible to ascertain the emptiness of the study(except for the inclusion of the Philodemus fragment, which was an error.)

Authenteo probably means exactly what the translators of the Vulgate thought it meant - "dominare." It is worth keeping in view that Chrysostom gave men explicit instructions that they were not to "authenteo" their wives.

But the idea that the traditional teaching makes it impossible for a woman to "have a voice" until she is bruised and battered is absurd.

One may call this absurd and I am sure it is, but for the women involved it is a tragedy.

Suzanne,What you write sounds as logical to me as ...

2008-02-15T18:21:00.000-08:00

Suzanne,

What you write sounds as logical to me as if I wrote, "man is the foot of woman".

But Paul did write that man is the head of woman. Now if you wish to take kefalh as meaning "source" (as some egalitarians do), then I should like to know what, exactly, you make of Eph. 5:22-24, in which as Christ as kefalh is submitted to by the church, so likewise women are to submit to men (or, more precisely, wives to husbands).

It is the direct opposite of what I read in the text.

Then please, give an exposition of I Cor. 11:2-16.

There are those who support the interpretation you propose but it is an interpretation. It is without precedent in the Greek language that authority could mean subjection.

I have not said that ecousia means "subjection." It means "authority" or "power," and in I Cor. 11:10 it is connected to the wearing of a veil, which Paul argues that women are to wear because the man is the head of woman and woman is the glory of man, made from man, and created for man. Although I think it simple enough to draw from this passage that women are to be in subjection to men, the position is further strengthened by other passages with similar exhortations to women, especially in their relationship with men, in Paul's letters. Some of these I have looked at above. So, I believe that when Paul writes, dia touto ofeilei h gunh ecousian exein epi ths kefalhs, the "authority" of which he speaks is the man's authority, which the woman is to "have upon her head" (symbolically) by the wearing of a veil. And this of course all comports very well with the related doctrines that Christ, as the Son, is subject to the Father, and the church is is subject to Christ.

Perhaps people feel that a study with 82 examples is significant but, in fact, only three are relevant. Do you see the meaning "exercize authority" supported outside of Werner's translation for BGU 1208? (Werner produced this translation for the study.)

As I said, I am a layman. I don't have access to each of the sources there cited. If you feel only three of the citations are relevant (one of which is a hypothetical reconstruction of a fragment and the other a referrence to astronomy), what is demonstrably incorrect about Werner's translation? Why should we prefer "compelled" or "had my way"? And if these three citations are not particularly helpful, why are the citations from later dates to be ruled completely irrelevant if we do not have auqentew appearing elsewhere in Greek literature in closer proximity to I Tim.? Are you of the opinion that we can have no actual understanding of what auqentew means in I Tim.?

If you think we should leave the issue of abuse out of the discussion I am happy to do so.

I think we should leave it out, because the issue here is not whether abuse occurs and how to address it. The issue here is whether the biblical teaching is that women are to be subject to men. (That abuse occurs is unquestionable, and abusers should certainly be punished. But the idea that the traditional teaching makes it impossible for a woman to "have a voice" until she is bruised and battered is absurd.)

Wordsmith said:QUOTE:I guess it has to be put in b...

2008-02-15T09:25:00.000-08:00

Wordsmith said:
QUOTE:
I guess it has to be put in black and white:

1 Tim 2:12--And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

(Why? If we continue, we discover why--)

1 Tim 2:13--For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

The fall certainly changed things, but the primary point is that because Adam was created first, he was the head - not the woman. He bears the greater responsibility in the home, and in the church as well.ENDQUOTE

I'm sure you will agree that we need to stick with what the Scripture says:

1 Tim 2:13 for Adam was first formed, then Eve, 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,

"Adam was not deceived"

"not deceived" does not translate into "innocent":

Job 31:33
"Have I covered my transgressions like Adam,By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,"

Hosea 6:7
But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant;There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

Gen 3:22-24 describes who was expelled from the garden. Only Adam was expelled. Eve fulfilled the prophetic utterance of God in Gen 3:16 when she chose to follow him out of the Garden :(

Now what?
Are all women doomed to fulfill the pain of Genesis 3:16 without mercy, redemption, or restoration? I don't think so, and I think Paul is preaching HOPE and RESTORATION in 1 Tim 2:11-15

1 Timothy 2:15 She can be restored through “the child-bearing”?

-> restored to her position beside Adam in dominion over creation per Genesis 1:26-28
-> restored to her inheritance as a joint heir with Christ
-> restored to intimacy with the LORD which was severed by Eve when she left the Garden.