Craig

“4. Why would a group of women be allowed to follow Jesus around (at least one was married) and support him financially if this was not their ‘role’.”
Do most comps have a problem with this? The ones I know have a problem with women being an overseer, but no problem with women following Jesus or giving money.

“3. If authority is meant in the ‘head’ passages then why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire clear authority words to the author’s? There are several to choose from that would clearly communicate it is an authority, chain of command stance.”
I agree with you regarding the ones I have studied most. I still have to do a bit more work with some of the passages.

“2. Would God actually put a human authority layer between Jesus Christ and married women? What would be the function of the Holy Spirit in a married woman’s life, if that is the case?”
I am not sure about this one. I know many comps, women included, who would not see this as an issue.
Does having someone in authority over me really put a layer between me and Jesus and prevent the Holy Spirit from functioning? I think this language is too strong. I know some have questioned this, but I still believe that as a child, my parents had authority over me, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit still worked wonderfully in me. Likewise I believe the government has authority over me and doesn’t create any “layers” that hinder my relationship with God. I think the issue is whether the husband has really been given authority by God. I can understand when comps aren’t convinced by this, but maybe I just don’t understand the argument properly.

Lydia,
It is some of these “big picture” issues that I find most convincing regarding the egal position. But if it is true, then the smaller details should fit nicely in with it also.
There are so many issues involved, and I feel a bit like my “head” 🙂 is in a spin trying to sort them all out. To take your list for example:
“1. Why is there nothing in the OT against women teaching men? But now, in the NT, there is? Why more legalism in the NT? Why would the OT allow women such as Huldah and Deborah? Was that sin? Why would someone like Abigail be considered wise for going against her husband?”
I think this point is a major point for egals. The point that male authority is never clearly instituted by God but has to be implied until we get to Paul and Peter would seem strange. Even some comps seem to acknowledge that they would not get the hierarchy from the O.T. without the teaching of the new. I have read some replies to this from comps but I think I favour egals on this one. I don’t like calling it “legalism” as you do. I am not sure that it is accurate and possibly clouds rather than clarifies the issue.

Thanks Dave for clarifying. I can understand where you are coming from.

Dave @79,
You said “I find it frustrating that this has degenerated to a discussion centred around word meanings.”
I am not sure what you mean by this, or if it is directed at me at all, but if it is any encouragement to you, I am new to all this and don’t believe it has “degenerated ” at all. I am genuinely interested in the debate on word meanings. It seems that determining Paul’s meaning of words like “head” and “submission” are critical. The information I have been reading has been helpful, even if it has been to realise that it is not an easy issue. It makes sense to me that if Paul really meant something, the meanings given to the words should blend with the context in a natural way and should be consistent with the range of meanings at the time of writing.
I think I am satisfied that “submission” doesn’t require one to be under authority, but I am still thinking through the “head” passages. I can see how Eph 4 and Eph 5 fit well with non-authoritative concepts, but I still have some questions on Eph 1 and the input from others has been helpful.

Another question on Eph 1:22 if I may. I am quite ignorant of Greek unfortunately. I was wondering if anyone may know if in “head over all things” “over” can only mean “over” and not mean “of”. Source or origin “of” all (good) things to the church makes good and simple sense to me, but if it must be “over” then preeminent one or authority would seem to me to make more sense. Thanks.

Cheryl,
We found the DVD’s very helpful and well produced. Things that impressed us:
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.
2. Your gracious approach to those who have a different view.
3. God has gifted you in teaching the bible and presenting things in a way that is clear, logical and easy to undertstand. (Well as much as it can be!)
4. You present the opposing view accurately and in their own words- you are not arguing against “straw men”.

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

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.
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.
Overall excellent and thank you.

Gengwall,
Apology accepted. “No worries mate” – as we say in Australia. I appreciate your well thought out comments here and I have read some good things on your own blog also. Thanks.

Cheryl,
I am no computer expert, but I remember looking for some comments one time and they were no longer there because there were too many or something. Just a friendly reminder that we are up to 370 (and I am probably not helping!) :).

TL,
@330 you said concerning Eph 1:22
“Rather when we consider that Jesus is the source of everything to the Body, we then see the greatness of what Jesus did. After all, if Christ had not died on the cross we would not have salvation and would not be part of His Body. In this way ‘head over all things’ shows His preeminence, shows Christ as origin of all, shows Christ as the one through whom all things are provided, and the one who has everything we need.”

Are you saying that “head over all things to the church” means that Jesus is “the source of everything wonderful to the church”? So rather than “all things” meaning “the world” it means “everything wonderful”(like salvation)? This would make sense, but it would mean “all things” under his feet at the beginning of the verse would be a different “all things” that he is head over at the end of the verse. Any comments?

Thanks for your help and your kind words. I do understand the difficulties of long threads and the pressures placed by those with differing viewpoints. One of the things that has caught my attention and caused me to spend time here is the godly and loving tone of the discussions- even when there is strong disagreement. I appreciate the emphasis that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ sharpening each other on a secondary issue of the faith. My wife and I have several times said to each other that the attitudes portrayed attracts us and encourages us to investigate what you are saying. Keep up the good work!

Gengwall @335,
You quoted
“In “Head over all things”, “head” is not being used in any metaphor so we look at the context and possible meanings of “kephale” (like authority, source, origin) to determine its meaning.”
You then said
“I missed this part – thanks TL for bringing it up.
Mark – are you purposely playing ignorant of the next verse? How can you claim “head over all things” is not part of a head/body metaphor when the very next phrase is “to the church, (v. 23) Which is his body…”?”

I (Craig) just thought something should be corrected. Mark didn’t write this, I did. I also wrote it to ask if I was correct, not to make a statement of fact. Unlike most of you here I am quite new to this subject so I may say some stupid things that don’t make sense to you. I am certainly not “playing ignorant” as you asked of Mark- my questions are from genuine ignorance! I have watched Cheryl’s DVDs and read some of the posts and comments. I can see a lot of positive points in favour of the Egal position but I still have many questions.
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! However, I can see that “head” of v 22 and “body” of v23 is the metaphor so “head” seemed to be being used in two different ways in the one passage. Hence my confusion and asking for help. BTW, this whole discussion has been very helpful, but I feel as though I will have to reread it a few times to digest things properly.

Thanks Cheryl for all the time you give to help others.
Can I check something. Is it correct that Paul uses “head” in two different ways in this one passage Eph 1:22,23.
In “Head over all things”, “head” is not being used in any metaphor so we look at the context and possible meanings of “kephale” (like authority, source, origin) to determine its meaning.
In this same passage though, he uses the head/body metaphor and to determine the meaning of this we look at the way heads and bodies work together, the context and what is being taught by the analogy.
The two meanings can be entirely different, so that “head over all things” can have everything to do with authority, but the head/body metaphor has nothing to do with authority of the head over the body. Rather, the body joins the head in having authority over “all things”.
Thus Paul can be using “head” in a context of authority in Eph 1:22 but can use “head” in the head /body analogy entirely differently in the same passage and the rest of the letter.

Gengwall @305,
“In the final analysis, the question that needs to be asked is – “is the authority in Eph 1 being expressed within the head/body metaphor, creating a hierarchy, or outside of it creating a symbiosis that benefits and joins in that authority”. What say you Craig?”
I think I can understand what you are saying in that the head (Jesus) and the body (church) are working together with authority over everything else. The head’s authority is not over the body.
But I am still a bit confused. In Eph 1:22 the NASB says “gave Him as head over all things”. The “all things” is not the church, his body, but “head over” seems to equate with “authority over” in this context. Do you agree?
Why did he say “head over” and not “authority over”? If he had said “authority over” I wouldn’t be confused. Is Paul using “head” in two different ways in the same passage- one toward the world as “authority over” and one toward his body as “united in a symbiotic relationship” and together having authority over all things.

Gengwall @215,
“Craig – I’m not sure you can get directly to “serve” from the Greek for “submit” but you are on the right track.
Would you mind expanding on this if you have time? Are there better words for submit that would accurately convey its meaning?
One thing I find helpful in understanding a passage is to try and say it in my own words, like an expanded paraphrase. If anyone here would like to do this for the “difficult passages” I would really find it helpful and I think many others would too.
Gengwall, you also said @215 “I would note that the Eph 5 verses to husbands certainly contain the idea of service to the wife, wouldn’t you agree? Christ does serve us as well as we serving Him so the biblical concept is not lost.”
I do agree that the husband is to “serve” his wife in sacrificial love and that this is an example of mutual submission from v21.

Gengwall@305 and 306,
“I would also refer you to the other post that is going on at the smae time as this one. Cheryl points out that authority from God is always directly and obviously granted, and that is certainly true in Eph 1. Going back to Eph 5, one needs to see if authority is directly granted to the husband. I think you will see that not only is it not granted in Eph 5, it is not even part of the discussion.”
Thanks Gengwall. I have been reading the other post also, and I can see that no authority is ever clearly and directly granted to the husband in Eph 5 or anywhere in the bible. It has to be assumed or read back into passages from particular understandings of other passages. This is a strong point for the Egal position.
The use of “head” is one of those “particular understandings” and I am still seeking a better understanding of its use and how it relates to the whole subject. Thanks very much for your detailed explanation @305. It is just the sort of material I am after. I will need to spend some time on this one.

Lydia@308,
“The Holy Spirit did Inspire a clear authority word in Greek when describing the relationship of husband/wife in 1 Corin 7. And they BOTH have this authority over the other.”
Thanks Lydia. I agree that 1 Cor 7 is a significant passage in favour of the egal view. Here Paul had a perfect opportunity to show how comp authority could work in practice but he spoke of both having authority over each other.
I can see many strong arguments for an egal view, but there are still some questions I have about some passages.

I have another question (if you don’t mind) while I continue to think about Ephesians 5.
I can understand the concept of mutual submission from Eph 5:21 and how the the husband submits to his wife by loving her sacrificially.
I can understand that “submit” doesn’t imply that there is authority.
My question regards the meaning of “head” in this passage. If I use the context to work out the meaning of the head/body metaphor the head loves, feeds, cares for the body and is united as one with the body. There is no mention of authority. But if I go back to Eph 1:20-23 the head/body metaphor seems to be associated with authority. Is Paul using the metaphor in different ways within the one letter? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
TIA.

My wife and I have been following the recent discussion on authority, submission and Ephesians 5 with interest. Thank you to everyone for your comments. There has been much food for thought.
I wanted to check if we are on the right track. Any feedback would be welcome.
In Eph 5, wives are to submit to their husbands because he is the head of the wife. The church is to submit to Christ because He is the head of the church.
This can mean either:
Wife/church submit (obey) because husband/Christ is head (authoritative ruler) of wife/church OR
Wife/church submit (serve) because husband/Christ is head (loves, cares for) wife/church
The latter does seem to fit the context better and is a biblical concept- we serve Christ because he loves us so much and gave his life for us. The context is not that we serve Christ because he is the authoritative ruler of the church. So in the same way, wives are to serve their husbands who are to love and care for them, not because he rules with authority over them.

Thanks very much Cheryl for your prompt reply. It was indeed very helpful. Do you have any comments on Titus 1:5-9. Paul seems to have men in view when discussing eldership. No mention of women is made here. Our church teaches that elders/pastors should be men and I am finding your material helpful in rethinking these issues. I have ordered your DVD’s.

I was wondering if anyone has any comments on 1 Timothy 3:11 and its relationship to this topic. When Paul says “Women, likewise….” it would seem that he has had men in mind in his previous comments in verses 1-10 and now turns to the women.
He says “The overseer must be…..” vs 1-7
“Deacons likewise…..” vs 8-10
“Women likewise…..” vs 11
I have found this site very helpful in thinking through these issues but I haven’t found any comments yet on this verse.
Thank you
Craig