Craig @111
You said:

“Exercise authority” sounds fine. I may be wrong but “taking authority” may have some negative connotations that aren’t necessary to the point being made.

My apologies. I am so used to saying “taking authority” because I have asked many times where authority is given by God to the husband and neither Mark nor any other comp has show the giving of this authority in Scripture so my use of “taking” corresponds to exercising authority that has not been specifically given. I could well have just said “exercising authority”.

You said “I would like to see how someone can show how authority is exercised as a humble servant in his act of service. Thoughts?”
I remember that some don’t believe that parents have authority over children. My understanding at present is that they do. What do you think? A parent can exercise authority humbly, for the good of the child, and at great sacrificial cost to the parent.

I can grant this to you. While authority is not something that is specifically given to a parent, the parents are specifically given a responsibility over a child to temporarily look after a child, make decisions for the child until the child is mature enough to make their own decisions and to discipline a child during the years that he/she is coming to maturity. However is that what Jesus is talking about?

I do not believe that Jesus was specifically talking about parental “authority” when He said that it is not to be so “among you”.

Matthew 20:25–26 (NAS)
25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
26 “It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,

Here Jesus is talking about greatness in the body of Christ and among peers. Is Jesus saying that there is already an authority of one over another? No. With Jesus in their midst, no disciple had an authority over the other. Jesus said that it is (right now) not this way among His disciples and in the future whoever wishes to become great (the meaning is to be superior in importance) should strive to become great through being a servant to all.

Mark 10:44 (NAS)
44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.

This was such an important matter that three of gospels quote Jesus’ words about the conduct of those who want to be great in the body of Christ. Instead of teaching them how to “exercise authority”, Jesus taught them that they had to become “like” the youngest…

Luke 22:26 (NAS)
26 “But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.

…and they should be be last of all.

Mark 9:35 (NAS)
35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”

“Like the youngest” and “last of all” are not terms of “exercising authority”. They are terms of humility and love to view one’s importance in the privilege of being a slave to lift up and help the others because of the great value of the rest of the body.

Kristen,
Thank you for taking the time to communicate with Mark exactly what he did that was offensive and how he could have changed the offense into a simple disagreement. I believe that taking this time for a brother in Christ shows that you are respectful and caring and that you are seeking to have a mutual understanding. I too thought that Mark overstepped the line. I also believe that Mark is young enough to learn good communication so that he can properly represent Christ to the world and in love, to the members of the church.

Dave,

I think that what others see as “authority” would be the “parent trump card”. It is the thing that gives you the right and the power to makes decisions that may override our children’s will. If your children want to do something that you do not want them to do, you can negotiate with them and work towards an agreement, but in the end if you still disagree, you can take out your “parent trump card” and overrule their will. The thing about the “parent trump card” is that it has an expiry date. This is where your point #1 comes in:

1 – My children have been entrusted to me for a short time. During this time I have responsibility in preparing them to be fully functioning adults when the time comes.

The responsibility that you have been entrusted with is to provide guidance for your children so that when you ease out of the use of the “parent trump card” and eventually they are on their own, they will be fully functioning adults with their own ability to choose what is right and wrong. At that time your will and your good advice will no longer trump their will as it is God’s will for them to be mature and to make their own decisions eventually.

The other thing that can be seen as an “authority” is the fact that you are given the responsibility to discipline your children. This would be the “parent discipline card” that is given you for a short period of time while they are growing up. Eventually it is God’s will that you no longer have this card as they are expected to be mature and to be disciplined.

Now it is interesting that neither of these forms of “authority” is given to the husband to be used with his wife. He does not have God’s permission to “discipline her” as if he is her parent. It is also not his responsibility to grow her up to be a fully functioning adult. Her discipline is in the hands of our common Heavenly Father and the growing up process is carried on by our Lord Jesus through the Holy Spirit.

If the husband were to do these things to his own wife, he would be taking a “trump card” that has not been given to him. It would be replacing the work of the Holy Spirit in her life with his own wisdom and his own source of discipline. It is a usurping of what belongs to God alone.

Mark,
Can you provide me with another email address so I can get the answers to your personal challenges sent to you. Or should I assume that you don’t care to hear answers on the other subject (outside of women in ministry)?

So you are not sorry for what you said? For one thing, I don’t think that calling a person a self righteous Pharisee is a cultural issue. I would think that it is rude in any culture to judge one’s heart and to use an example of Jesus’ judgment to say that the other person is like that judged person. If you don’t think so, then I would think that it is a problem not of culture, but of your own value system.

Secondly I think that it is a great value for you to be here. Quite a few of us have voiced that. In other words it is a value for us although you may not see it as a value to you. You said:

I say one thing, you disagree…you say one thing, i disagree.

When we disagree we tell you why we disagree so you have the opportunity to show us where our objections should not be valid objections. But it seems to me that you don’t really care about trying to persuade us of anything but that you may be using the discussion to try to keep yourself in the complementarian mindset. Why do I say that? Because for the most part you have not argued for our benefit as if you really cared but the argument has been given in a way that shows disdain for our position. Thus you are unwilling to stay here for our benefit since it appears that your own benefit is what is important to you. This is the very thing that Jesus talked about when He told us to submit to one another.

What we do in the body is supposed to be for the other person’s benefit and we should care enough about them to lay aside our own welfare to serve them. Yet you have made it clear that you do not submit to anyone who does not have authority over you. You won’t submit to anyone here and you won’t submit to 99.99% of people in the body of Christ because your position is that you are only required to submit to those in authority over you. Is it possible for you to catch a glimpse of the attitude that we see coming through? If you are constantly only interested in what will benefit you and you will not lay aside what benefits you to benefit others, then how can you convince anyone that your complementarian lifestyle is anything at all that is Christlike?

Craig, for example, has admitted that his own marriage with him not “exercising authority” over his wife would be no different if he were to become an egalitarian and live out his marriage as an egalitarian. I believe him. The attitude of caring comes through Craig and he has apologized for things that others have misunderstood from his position. He went above and beyond what was expected to make sure that he would say things that don’t hurt and when he said things that we misunderstood, he was quick to apologize. I, for one, can hear Craig and hear his concerns and questions, because I can hear his love for those who are not exactly like him. Also to live out the caring lifestyle for the other person and putting them ahead of our own selves as Jesus taught us to do should make the comp marriage look exactly the same as an egalitarian one. The reason is that to believe that one had the authority to pull out “a male trump card” but to set aside that authority to work together in unity and love, is just as sacrificial a lifestyle as any egalitarian marriage. But pulling out the “male trump card” is anything but unselfish.

Think of it this way. If a husband and a wife disagree on an issue and they cannot resolve the matter and the husband takes out his “male trump card” to exercise his authority to make the final decision, what are the chances that he will use his “male trump card” to decide her way? If you are really honest with yourself, you would have to admit that the answer is zero chance. A trump card that is pulled out will always favor the male and will never sacrifice his own desires. “Soft” comps don’t need to pull out their trump cards because they genuinely believe that working out these situations for a mutual decision (and an opportunity to pray for a mutual decision) is of far more value than overriding another person’s will. Mark, I think you may be interested in my next post which will bring out a seldom heard part of the nature of God that may be key to our understanding of relationships.

I have to run now. Will be back as I can.

Mark, you are cared for no matter how offensive and combative you have been. You are our brother in Christ and we care enough to tell you the truth, but in love and with respect.

You said:

Can it be “having authority” rather than “taking authority”?

I think it has to be more than “having” authority. We could substitute “exercising authority” rather than “taking authority” but merely “having” an authority without the use of such an authority is quite meaningless.

Could it be that he tells them how to exercise authority by saying that it needs to be in totally the opposite way to what the world does- through “humble, sacrificial, loving service”- and not “lording it over”.
He is either saying “there is no authority” or He is saying “there is authority, but it is exercised through servanthood.” Do authority and servanthood need to be opposites in the kingdom of God? They are in the world, but God’s Kingdom is not of this world.

That is a great question, Craig!

First of all, I think that we can agree that the simple meaning of what Jesus said can be that the disciples were not to take authority over the others but instead act as servants. The question that you are asking is whether Jesus’ admonish to be a servant could possibly mean that they were to take authority or exercise authority with a humble attitude. I don’t see how we could fit the two together.

Let’s look at Jesus’ example of being a servant to the disciples. He put on a servant’s attire with a towel and took a bowl and stooped down to wash their feet. How would one exercise authority in such a position? Did Jesus exercise authority when he was acting as a servant washing their feet? I don’t see any evidence of His exercising authority. Jesus did not lovingly force the disciples to accept His foot-washing. He did not authoritatively command them to come to Him. No, instead he stooped down to come to them and to serve them. The place of exercising authority just does not work on one’s knees. This is the place of humble servanthood and just as in the world, so in the church – a servant has no authority over the one that he serves.

If this is not true, then I would like to see how someone can show how authority is exercised as a humble servant in his act of service. Thoughts?

Kristen, you said to Mark:

Yes, I argue that the New Testament is silent about men having authority over women based on their gender alone. It seems to me that silence is a very good argument here. If you want to add male authority to the mix, you are doing so in spite of the silence of the Bible on this issue.

Your point is well taken. In this instance silence is important. If we can add “authority” into passages that are silent about the authority, then we could be tempted to add into the passage anything we want. That would not be safe. Authority is not something that can be assumed. It must be given and if God doesn’t give it (i.e. He is silent) then it is a highly important silence.

Mara, #10 said:

And it is our culture, not God, that demands someone be the leader in a marriage. It is our culture that looks at two people, not a group, just two people, and determines… one MUST be the leader and the other the follower, there can be no partnership.

I am so amazed at this mindset. I don’t understand how one can take the symbiotic nature of the body and replace it with a leader and follower metaphor. How many body parts are supposed to be the bosses and how many body parts are the followers? It seems to me to be clearly changing metaphors and it just doesn’t fit.

I will be going back through some of the comments and responding as I have time. I am also working on a new post so I want to get it up as soon as I can.

Mark said in comment #5 to Kay:

So why are we warned about not lording it over- this would seem irrelevant if authority was not an expectation for church leaders. We are warned because of the corrupting nature of authority, not to show it doesn’t exist.

Mark’s point seems to be that the warning to not be “lording it over” others proves that taking authority over others was an expectation for church leaders. If this was the case, one would expect that Jesus would have told the disciples how to take authority without lording it over others. But He didn’t do that. He gave a totally different expectation. The expectation was that the one who wants to be great would be a servant. The expectation then is stated as servanthood not authority over others. If one wants to transfer authority into Jesus’ statement about being a servant, Jesus’ point would seem to be lost. After all a servant would be one who had no authority at all.

Mark,
Last set of comments:

I’m bowing out…iv’e enjoyed the dialogue but must insist as a brother in Christ that you look at your own motives, look at the scriptures, look at the facts. I’ll pray for you all, and i hope you do the same for me.

That would be great if you would pray for all of us.

And to everyone here, I would ask that you put Mark on your prayer list. God did not bring him here for nothing. I believe that God can help Mark in areas that Mark isn’t even aware that he needs help. I believe in prayer. Let’s take Mark up on this one and pray for him and his family. Pray in whatever way that God lays on your heart.

the glory of Christ is at stake here.

It isn’t just the glory of Christ, but the consistency of His word and the call to unity in the body of Christ. All are very important matters.

A challenge for us all, should be to keep Christ and His glory as THE foundation of all these discussions, any thing less is dishonourable.

That is why I asked you to apologize my friend. It is for the glory of the Lord by respecting His body as you respect yourself.

But that said, i am convinced that you all have a commitment to scripture and a commitment to Jesus our Lord.

Yeah! Wonderful! Thanks Mark for saying this!

I look forward to worshipping Him with you all in the new heavens and earth, where perfection reigns, sin is no more, and where the glory of God gives light for the day.

AMEN!

Mark,
You said:

I do not have time for it, nor do i have an interest in it, when simple facts cannot even be agreed on.

Mark, my friend, is it really “simple” and are there “facts” that we deny? I honestly think that you do a lot of skimming and that you don’t really read the comments here because you miss a lot. Dave brought out the difference between what he actually said and what you quoted him saying. I do not think that you mean to do this. I just think that you have an opinion that is so set in stone that you can’t really pay close enough attention to the opinions of others. I am of the strong opinion that if what one believes is truth, it does not hurt to actually understand the opposition first in order to respond. I believe that if one takes the opposing person’s position and works hard to understand, then one can either know how best to correct the other person in love or one’s own eyes may well be opened. But if one can’t really hear what the opposition is saying, one is in a difficult place to do any good. Remember that all of us have our eyes blinded to something. If we are willing to hear both sides with an open heart, I believe that God can help us in areas where we may be wrong and don’t even know it.

It would sure be nice if you stuck around. There is no one who has brought so much heat, yet who has been so loved as a brother as you are. You are honestly special. How could you even think of leaving this special group of brothers and sisters in Christ?

Also I resent my answers to you on that private matter that we have been discussing and I still haven’t heard back from you whether you got the resent emails of not. **Mark** are you going to leave me hanging on that one too? **Sniff**

Mark,

You said:

First, i have said nothing attackingly or aggresively over the kephale discussion.

Mate, you have definitely overstated your case. While I am sure that you don’t think that you were attacking or aggressive, you were. May I remind you that you labeled me as a self-righteous Pharisee and the judgment and pressure that you put on Suzanne actually made me see red and honestly I rarely see red. I asked you to apologize both times and you did not. What you said both times was inappropriate and if you think it was not, well, I can only say that there may be a few issues that need to be dealt with in your life towards those who you call brethren in Christ. While you may not have meant it the way it came out, knowing that you were offensive should have prompted an apology and an opportunity to ask for forgiveness. All that you should have needed was to know that you offended your sisters in Christ whether you understood the offense of not.

Now I am quite surprised that you have decided to bow out. It seemed to me that awhile back you said you would stay in the discussion no matter how hot it got and you weren’t the kind to bail out. In fact, you have been the most persistent complementarian ever on this blog. Don’t you remember that I gave you the privilege of writing a post here and no other complementarian has had that much freedom before on this blog? It takes the work of a feisty complementarian to get us going and we would surely miss you if you no longer post. You are special. How about reconsidering, our complementarian bloke?

Thus lies the problem in blogging- it’s hard to communicate effectively.

It is harder since one cannot see body language and the look on one’s face, but it is doable if one works hard to add commendation once in a while to affirm the person even while you are disagreeing. We are called to a ministry of reconciliation and what better place to see this in action then in discussions on women in ministry and submission and authority in marriage? Can we have love for each other while hotly debating these issues? I believe we can and I do think that these issues can have worth as we each discuss our point of view.

If i have come across too strong, it has not been out of hate or anger for any-please believe that!

That is explaining yourself and that’s good. But it needs to go with an apology. Saying “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to come across in a way that hurt you” can go a long way to treat one another in a way that is required of us by the Lord Jesus. It honors Him when we speak with love, even if it is picking up the pieces to an unintended critical word.

Craig #71,

Thank you so much for such good words about my DVDs! You said:

1. Your strong view on the the bible and that you work hard to understand its true meaning. Your arguments are from scripture, not the world’s latest thinking. Also, you don’t shy away from the difficult passages, you tackle them head on.

I felt very strongly that God had called me to work hard on the Scriptures that seemed to support the complementarian position. We can play Scriptural pingpong all day long without any resolution. The problem is not that we do not have support for our position but that we have not made the effort to understand the Scriptures that the opposition uses. When the key Scriptures that complementarians use becomes a strong argument for our own side, then having answered the challenge, our own strong Scriptures then become a powerful position.

2. Your gracious approach to those who have a different view.

Thank you! I believe that I heard the Lord speak very clearly to me that I was not to rip at the sheep. My approach had to be with gentleness and respect.

4. You present the opposing view accurately and in their own words- you are not arguing against “straw men”.

One complementarian pastor who was giving us feedback in the editing stage advised me not to use the audio clips but only have someone read out the quotes. I disagreed. I believe that it was very valuable for people to hear the quotes from the original author with their own inflexion. That way it is not me that is putting an “attitude” into the quote that is not there in the original. Everyone can hear for themselves what is said in the way it is said by the original author.

The DVDs gave us lots of answers but also opened up a whole new set of questions as we look further into the subject.

Wonderful! I am glad that they were a catalyst for you for go beyond what was covered in the DVDs.

The lay out was excellent. I wonder though whether having you speaking from a pulpit may be a bit provocative for some, depending on where they are at in their thinking.

Actually it was a podium in a lecture hall, not actually a pulpit in a church. But you are correct in that a podium can look like a pulpit. We weren’t worried about the podium, but about having a woman speaking. If a person was offended by a woman speaking, then they wouldn’t even get as far as the part with the podium. They would have shut the DVD off long before that time.

After prayer and time for consideration we decided that I was the one who could present the real passion to this topic since I was the one who felt called to do the research and the one who wrote the script. If a man would not listen to the arguments from a woman, then he is not likely to be reached anyway. The ones that I can reach are those who have an open heart to listen to both sides.

You also made this suggestion:

A contents on the cover to make it easier to know which passages are dealt with and which DVD they are on would make it easier to find things for future study.

Yes, this would have been helpful. The concern that our ministry partner hard, though, was that some would just turn to the passage that they were interested in without seeing the passages in order. She has written several movie scripts that were produced through Jeremiah Films, and she is good at knowing what “flows”. She took my script and put it into an order that she said was best for a “flow” and she wanted people follow the flow from one section to another. But I do agree that it would have been more helpful to some to label them as to what topics were on each disk.

Overall excellent and thank you.

I am honored by your review.

One last word for tonight to Craig.

Craig,
I really appreciate you and your wife following the blog and asking questions and working hard to learn the truth from the text itself. There are so many who have made up their minds in advance that it is so refreshing to actually hear from those who are in a place where they are open enough to test both sides. Thanks for just being here!

I do have one question for you, though. You mentioned that you watched my DVDs set “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” What did you think? Did they help you at all? Were they able to give you some answers or did you have more questions after watching them then you did before? I appreciate any feedback that you can give me. One of the projects that I am working on right now is the research part of another DVD series. If you have any comments on the way that WIM was laid out that was good or bad that would be helpful for me in my next project.

I don’t have time to reply to everything that has been said here. My time has been taken up much more than I had expected so I was off line a lot while you folks were giving your thoughtful opinions. Gengwall, Sue, Kristen, Kay, TL, pinklight, Carig and Susanna have all contributed here with clarity. (Hope I didn’t miss anyone. If so please accept my deepest apologies.) Mark also has popped in from time to time to stir up the water, but that’s a good thing for the most part. As long as we keep our eyes on the subject at hand and not attribute motives that we can’t see to our opponents. Mark has also had some good challenging questions that have kept us going but there is much that he hasn’t answered. I will assume that it is due to a lack of time rather than an inability to even consider the questions.

Sue has been pushed on the Greek and for the most part that is good. Sue is an excellent Greek scholar, but I don’t think that she claims to be an experienced exegete. She just knows that the words mean and then tries hard to apply that to the text. I give her a lot of credit for that.

What I would like to do is remind everyone that this issue of authority and submission to authority instead of submission because of our Christian duty and our love of Christ is an important one. The reason is because we are told as Christians that we are not to have lord over others.

Paul said:

2 Corinthians 1:24 (NAS)
24 Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy; for in your faith you are standing firm.

The Greek term here is kyrieuo and it means to rule. Paul said that even the apostles are not ruling over every one’s faith but are workers with them.

Peter says the same thing:

1 Peter 5:2–3 (NAS)
2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;
3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.

Those who were to protect the flock were to “exercise oversight” which means they were to “care for” the flock. They were not to “lord over” the flock. The Greek term here means to rule over.

The last witness or the required two or three witnesses has been used several times here already. It is the witness of Jesus.

Luke 22:25–26 (NAS)
25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’
26 “But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.

What is it that they were not to do? Look at the word used by Jesus:

They were not to exercise dominion or have authoritative rule over the church. Instead they were to be servants working for the good of the church instead of acting as rulers who took an authoritative stand with the church.

Kay,
You said:

“2. Do Church leaders have authority?”

It’s not their own personal authority obtained from God. It is the authority of God’s Word. The authority is God’s. Paul didn’t take authority over people, but rather authority over error and false doctrine.

That is such an important point. To one who was to be a watchman to protect the sheep was told to take authority over them. The authority was to identify false doctrine and to speak forth God’s word (1 Peter 4:10, 11) But the sheep were to submit to the protection for the reason that the watchman on the wall did not have personal power or authority over them. If the church did not listen to the warning, there is nothing that the watchman could do to force them.

Suzanne,
On the previous comment thread, you said:

There is no case in Greek literature prior to the NT, where the word kephale was used for a person in order to indicate that he was the authority over his own wife, family, house, tribe or nation, – other than Jephthah. Even then, he wasn’t leader of his own clan, but brought in for a certain reason.

Good point!

pinklight,
On the previous comment thread you said:

Just because Christ has authority doesn’t mean husbands do.

Just because husbands don;’t have authority doesn’t mean that Christ doesn’t.

Amen!

Mark,
On the previous part #2 of this topic you said:

Read 2 Peter 2, where Paul explicitly links false teachers with despising authority.

This has nothing to do with “authority” in the church. The Greek term is “lordship” and what they were despising is the lordship of Jesus.

The False Teachers despised the power and majesty of the Lord.
Bigg, C. (1901). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (279).

54 Mark,

You said:

I appreciate your stance on Biblical authority- i really do. However, the problem with your position by rejecting the meaning of biblical words, is that you are giving your ‘own’ meanings to those biblical words.
To ‘really’ understand the passages we must understand the Biblical words, so that we interpret the passage correctly.

Let’s see if you measure up to your own advice. Can you admit that the Hebrew equivalent of kephale, the Hebrew word rosh, can mean source or beginning?

So if the literal “head” in Hebrew can mean source, there is no reason why Paul could not have used the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew rosh which is kephale to mean the source, beginning or capstone. After all if Jesus is the capstone of the church, is not the husband the capstone of the wife? It is the beginning stone where everything else is built upon. It is the foundation, not the ruler.

The Hebrew word for the literal “head” is rosh and this corresponds to the Greek kephale. It would be important to see if the Hebrew word that corresponds to kephale can mean source. This is even more important than the LXX since the LXX is a translation of the original inspired Word. So going back to the original Hebrew words, what does the original mean?

The Hebrew word for “head” can mean “source”. Here is a screen print:

Mark,
Suzanne said to you:

I don’t think you should speak to me with such a coercive tone.

I agree. Your tone has gone very aggressive against Suzanne and that is very inappropriate. You are treating her as if she is trying to con people. I would think that an apology is in order.

Now that I created a new and fresh post to continue the comment thread, I have run out of time once again to comment myself. Go ahead and continue your discussions and I have an easier day tomorrow and should be able to drop in during the day to comment. Finally! My schedule has been way too hectic of late. See y’all in a bit. 😉

I just got started in reading the comments and received wise advice from Craig to shift the comments over to a new post so that we don’t lose the comments once again. I have started a discussion post #3 here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/06/15/eph-5-22-post-3/ I will shortly disable comments on this post so please move over to the new post with your comments. I will keep doing this every four hundred or so comments so that I keep the blog software happy. Thanks folks!

Craig,
I value your questions and I think that others do as well. The difference between you and some others who come here is that you appear to be genuinely interested in seeing both sides and you ask questions to understand and not to condemn. Thank you for your patience with us all as we too work through these passages. Others come here to push us with questions that appear to many of us as “traps” meant to trip us up and gain the upper hand as if we are all so foolish to ever believe that men and women are spiritually equal and equal rulers of the world. When we carefully and respectfully answer questions and challenges many of the challengers will either move on or ignore the answers to mock us in other ways. Sometimes it gets tiring because we are doing our best to live as Christ wants us to live in love for the body no matter how they believe on these secondary matters, but the unloving responses and sometimes downright mockery that we get back sometime wears on us. I personally have been attacked and my name smeared because I would dare to produce DVDs on women in ministry when I should know that my place is to “be silent”. I consider it a honor to suffer for doing what I have been called to do, but honestly it stings and downright hurts when the mockery is coming from those who should be our brothers in Christ and who are also called to love those who do not believe as they do on this secondary issue. So if I or anyone else here gets a little testy at times (and I try really hard to lead out with a good example of grace under pressure but I too am human) it is because our patience is worn thin at times and we are waiting for our next infusion of grace ourselves so that we can continue to love those who disagree with us.

Now most here know that I have resisted dealing with the Scriptures on marriage because it is not a direct connection to women in ministry. However even though I resisted for a long period of time, I felt the gentle push of the Lord Jesus to go where I didn’t want to, hence the last few posts on my blog about women and submission and there will likely be a few more posts that will cover this issue. I think that if it is important to the Lord that we understand these passages and if He wants it done here as is apparent to me, then my resistance needs to go. Gengwall knows all about that resistance because he has tried to push me a number of times. So, Craig, know that I too am working through these issues myself.

My reason for thinking that “head” in “head over all things” (Eph 1:22) was not the anatomical head of the metaphor is because if “all things” means “all things of this world” I have never seen an anatomical head attached to that!

Count me in too! That’s how I see it. I understand that the body of Christ is also in the verse but “head over all things” doesn’t appear to apply to the “body” since what Christ is head over is not said to be the church in that instance and what is put under Christ is also put under our feet since we are His feet too as part of the body. I noticed that the Scripture didn’t say that “all things” were put under Christ’s head but put under His feet. I think that this makes a big difference. If all things were put under His “head”, then all things would be His body but that isn’t so. And if “head” were used as if it meant authority, then we should expect that all things would be placed under His head(ship). Instead we find that all things are placed under His feet. There is a big difference between our English meaning and the meaning in Greek when it comes to a metaphorical meaning of “head”.

I really appreciate Suzanne’s scholarship and her language skills that allows her to read and search through other the use in the term kephale in classical and Hellenistic Greek. Here is her latest blog post on kephale as authority http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2010/06/not-slam-dunk.html Suzanne as usual does a great job in showing that the meaning of “authority” is not listed as “head” in the classical Greek lexicons.

More to come when I am awake enough. I am going back to bed. 🙂

Kristen,
Excellent work! Oh boy, with all of the special, smart and godly people here who are willing to answer questions in a gentle and respectful way to challengers, I am so happy that I am not needed to be here every time to answer. That is a great load off of my shoulders as my level of busyness has really increased. Night before last I spent four hours answering an email from a gentleman who was pushing me for answers on another apologetic issue. I finished at four a.m. just in time to catch a couple hours of sleep. It will be nice when my schedule goes back to normal (whatever that is!)

Anyways, I appreciate you all and your wisdom amazes me!

Well, folks there are a lot of good comments here, some that I haven’t even had time to fully read yet or digest, but I will try to catch up sometime tomorrow. It is another full day for me but hopefully I can quit a little bit earlier to devote some time to my blog.

325 Mark,

You said:

A while ago you stated that i did not have authority over my wife because i did not ‘take’ it. Now you have just said regarding Christ…

” He never took an authority to demand love but as the perfect example of husbandly love, He initiated the sacrifice, initiated the cherishing and initiated the clinging to or joining Himself with her.”

So according to your train of thought, Christ did not ‘take’ authority. Does he therefore also NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY? This appears like a fallacy in your critiques…inconsistencies. Again…

No, it isn’t an inconsistency. We all know that Christ as ALL authority, so He can choose to take authority or not to take authority as God. But also as a human, He takes a human bride and this has been the issue that we have been talking about. As far as a husband’s authority, it is not given. Christ’s is given. Think about that. Christ is God, yet as a human He had to be given all authority. He didn’t assume authority. He waited until it was given to Him. But husbands cannot say that like God, they have authority. They are human just as Christ is human and they cannot take an authority that has not been given to them.

Since power over their wives is not in their hands from God, it can only belong to them if their wives turn over this power over them to their husbands. This is why not taking authority over their wives is just another proof that they do not have authority that resides within them. If their wives do not turn over authority over their person, husbands have no authority whatsoever to take from her what she has not freely given to him. If he does take it, it isn’t an authority that he has. It is a nasty four letter word that can result in a jail sentence in our country.

Think also about this. The Bible says in 1 Cor. 7:4 that the husband has authority over his wife’s body and she has authority over his. Does this mean that they can take authority over the other person’s body? No. It means that the wife cannot rightfully give her sexuality to another man because only her husband has that authority or right to her body. And he cannot give himself to another woman because she has authority over his sexuality. But in the marriage, authority doesn’t mean taking that authority when the spouse is unwilling to freely give.

Does this make sense?

As far as the authority on kephale, I bow to Suzanne for her amazing work. She is a true scholar in the Greek.

It’s been a long day for me but I’ll try to get through some of the comments and questions here before bed.

Mark #324, you said:

2 metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent. 2A of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife. 2B of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church. 2C of things: the corner stone.

Note point 2 which deals with the metaphor. Are we dealing with people or things- this is important, contra Cheryl’s above argument.

While a “corner stone” is normally a “thing”, the Bible often uses the metaphor of things for Jesus. Jesus is the corner stone but He is also “the door” and “the vine”, etc.

Here is the basic thesis as i see it: In Eph 5, it cannot be authoritative since authority is not explicitly mentioned. In Eph 1 and Col, authority is not in view because it is not directly over the Church. In 1 Cor 11, the metaphor is not in view, so thus a meaning of ‘source or pre-eminance’ is employed to remove the authority otherwise prevelant.

Authority is not “removed”. It is just not added into the passage. Authority is a very serious thing and it cannot be assumed. If it isn’t given, it is not to be taken.

My question is why would any Christian want to take authority over another Christian anyway? Any thoughts?

2 side points, if anyone wishes to answer for me…
1. Is Christ in authority over the Church at all?
2. Do Church leaders have authority?

1. Christ as God has all authority. As husband of the body, Christ shares His authority over creation with His bride who is His co-ruler.
2. Church leaders have authority to use their gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ. They do have authority to identify and deal with false doctrine, but they do not have authority over individuals. It is the entire church who is to carry out discipline of unrepentant sinners.

Once again it is important to understand that Jesus has all authority and no one can have His authority unless it has been given to them. If it is “assumed” authority, it isn’t true authority.