Craig

Thanks for the discussion Frank. I am just thinking aloud as usual, and I could well be wrong, so you or anyone can feel free to shoot me down in flames if you think so.
Pinklight asked you “In this analogy Paul provides in 1 Cor 12, who, as a particular member, acts as head of Christ’s body?”
You replied

“ Strictly speaking, no one, man or woman, can or should. For Christ alone ……………… is the Head of the Body and should be acknowledged as such.”

This was in answer to Pinklight’s question about 1 Cor 12. I may have missed it, but I can’t find anywhere that Paul says that Christ is the head of the body that he is talking about in 1 Cor 12. Can you?
Just thought I would clarify my thinking a bit and see if you agree or not.
In 1 Cor 12:27 Paul says that “you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” He doesn’t say “Christ is the head of the body, and you are from the neck down to the feet!” Thinking in these terms seems to make the passage very confusing. For instance, aren’t the eyes and the ears and the nose that he refers to part of the head, and yet these seem to be referring to Christians as part of the body.
If I consider my body, I am not just the head of it, I am the whole body. It is all me. This is how I understand what Paul means in 1 Cor 12. Christ is the whole of his body, not just the part above the neck. We are all parts of his body, including the head.
Do you or others agree with these thoughts or am I on the wrong track?

In v22ff Paul seems to be indicating that some people do see such parts as the eye and the head as more valuable, but this is not the way we should think.

Yes Pinklight. I think I see 1 Cor 12:21 along similar lines. There doesn’t seem to be any indication from the text that the head is any different in value to the body than the eye, or hand or feet. Paul seems to be saying that all are special, all are valuable to the body. The head is not more special than the other parts of the body. Paul seems to me to be trying to make a point, and he could have made the same point by using the stomach, or knee or some other part of the body rather than the head. He is not making a special point just about the head.

Hi Frank,
Thanks for your attempts to clarify, but I am sorry to say that I am still a bit confused.
@#9 you said

I certainly don’t understand kephale, as hierarchists do, to mean only “authority over,” nor was I seeking to validate their view of hierarchy of authority in the Church.

But @#7 you said

“only the Head has the right to tell the hand to begin or to stop. The place of the eye is never to usurp the rule of the Head,

Having the right to tell someone what to do, when to begin, when to stop, and having “rule” that others can’t usurp sounds like “having authority” to me. Am I missing something?

Hi Elastigirl,
Thanks so much for your enthusiastic and encouraging reply! I feel as though I have gained much more from everyone here than I have given. It is encouraging to hear that some of my ramblings and questioning is also a help to others. 🙂
I would like to think that my explanation @#1 is a reasonable alternative/possibility for what Paul could be saying. I am glad you can see what I am suggesting. I know there are other ways of reading the passage. I would like to know if any others see any “holes” in it or good things about it before I suggest this with my comp friends. Thanks.

Hi Frank,
Are you sure you are not giving the “head” some functions that Paul may have attributed more to the “heart”? Did Paul really see the “head” functioning as ruling and telling the other parts of the body what to do? In Paul’s day, did they really understand the human body working in the way you have described?

Hi everyone,
Just thinking a bit more about 1 Tim 3:11 and how it relates to the chapter as a whole.
Also about how deacons may relate to overseers. Could “deacon” be a more general term and an “overseer” be one type of deacon?
So could the chapter read
1-7 Overseers must be….
8-10 Likewise, anyone who wants to be a godly servant in any leadership task in the church, not just overseers must be……
11 Just in case you didn’t think women could be involved in these sort of tasks, they definitely can be, and likewise must be……
12,13 All servants in the church must be…..
As an illustration, I believe there have been times in past history when it was deemed inappropriate for women to play sport.
v1-7 If anyone wants to play tennis, he must be…
v8-10 Likewise if anyone wants to play any sport, he must be….
v11 Just in case you thought I wasn’t including women, and that women shouldn’t play sport, they definitely can, and to do so they likewise must be…..
v12,13 Continuing on, anyone who plays sport must be…..
Any thoughts? Thanks.

I am sorry ladies

Goodbye ladies.

I wonder if Heidi realizes this is a public forum and there are men listening in? Does this involve her in teaching men? Or is she purposely just addressing the women so that I won’t read it and be taught anything? I wonder………..

Thanks again Cheryl for helping me to clarify this.

Thanks again Cheryl for your comments and encouragement.
This is what is now in my head.
1 “I am not permitting” is an indication that Paul was addressing a local situation (as in 1 Cor 7:6-8, 25-40.) rather than stating a universal law that could be written in the sky for all people for all time.
2 But “I am not permitting” does not necessarily mean “I am … temporarily, just for the moment, due to the current situation which will hopefully change …. not permitting”.
(I have understood some egals to be saying this – but I may well have misunderstood! This is what led to my question, because if authentein is bad why would Paul only temporarily prohibit it?)
3 If “I am not permitting” does not necessarily mean “I am only temporarily not permitting ”, then I can understand that
4 Authentein is negative.
This makes sense to me. Does it sound on the right track?

Hi everyone. Just thinking about the “I do not presently permit” argument that egals discuss from 1 Tim 2:12.
Some egals say how “I do not permit” does not mean “I forever do not permit” but rather “I at the present time do not permit”. This is used to emphasize that Paul is not giving a universal law, but is rather addressing a particular situation.
So he is saying that after she has learned correct doctrine she will be able to teach. But if “authentein” is something that is always bad, then it would be strange for Paul to be saying “at the moment, I am not permitting her to teach or authentein, but later on, once she has learned true Christian teaching, she will be able to teach or authentein.
It would seem that if the “I do not presently permit” argument is to really work well, then it works better with a more positive view of “authentein”, so that after learning, it will be OK for her to teach or authentein.
Any thoughts to help with my confusion? Thanks.

Hi Gengwall,
@73 you said Moffet presents “Childbirth” as a verb but the actual text is “the childbirth” – a definite noun.
I agree with your thoughts and Cheryl’s that Paul is referring to the birth of Christ in 1 Tim 2:15, but in Moffet’s translation isn’t “childbirth” a noun? I admit that English grammar is not my strong point, and I am happy to learn, but how is childbirth a verb in Moffat’s translation?

I think your explanation of v5,6 is the most satisfactory that I have ever heard. Thanks Cheryl for taking the time to serve me and everyone else here with the gifts God has given you.

Truthseeker @85
I just finished reading through the comments and found them very interesting. It is a subject I haven’t thought a lot about, and am a bit undecided, because everyone seemed to be making such good points.

some of the very things that Cheryl and Geng are holding fast have become the things comps use, logically, against egal or eternal subordination, etc., type of thinking.

It is certainly a concern that people use things that we say against us. But that should not determine our thinking if they are misusing what we say. It should only affect out thinking on a matter if they are correctly understanding and applying what we say. I am not sure that this is the case. Do you think they are correctly understanding Cheryl and Gengwall?

Thanks so much Cheryl for such a thorough explanation of v 7. That really helps to bring the bring meaning and practicality to what Peter said.

Regarding v5,6.
I can see what you mean that Gen 18:12 is when we are told that Sarah called Abraham “lord” (master, sir – term of respect). If Peter’s comment is confined to this incident I can see how it would remove the practical problem of a wife being told to submit to her husband, even when he says to do something unwise or sinful. (I can’t really see how that could be consistent with the rest of scripture.)
I would like to think that that is the explanation, but I have some questions still. In what sense is this is incident an example of Sarah “obeying” Abraham? Also, could Sarah calling Abraham “lord” at this one time just be an indication that it was her general term for him? Also, if Peter is discussing the difficult times of being a Christian, like when an unbelieving husband wants his wife to do something bad, I can see how it would tie in with Peter’s discussion of slaves and persecution. I am just trying to follow what Peter is really saying and why he said it. Thanks again.

Just thinking about 1 Peter 2,3 at the moment. Sorry if these things have been dealt with and I have missed it, but 2 questions
1. In 3:7 “Weaker partner”is often thought to refer to physical strength. If it means “powerless container” I was wondering if it may refer to something different. In that culture, I have heard that all the power was centered in the patriarch. A widow in that society had a difficult time and that is why there is special consideration of her needs in the bible. Could it have something to do with the woman’s lack of power in that culture?
2. Peter seems to be encouraging a woman to submit to her husband even when he wants her to do something dodgy, because this is what Sarah did for Abraham. I can see how this may show submission and support, but has problems with the rest of scripture.
Any thoughts? Thanks.

Thanks so much again Cheryl for your help. Wonderful to have you around!

An egal friend of mine thinks that Abraham is said to submit (hupotasso) to Sarah in the Septuagint translation somewhere. I can’t find this anywhere. Does anyone know if this is true or not? Thanks.

I am just now looking at Gal 2:5 as a verse that may have some relevance as to whether hupotasso is only to an authority. Is hupotage the same thing?
Paul and Titus did not submit to the Judaizers demands that Titus be circumcised. Did the Judaizers have any authority over Paul and Titus? No. Presumably they didn’t submit because the Judaizers were demanding something that was wrong.
What if the Judaizers were actually demanding something else that happened to be a good and godly thing to do. Paul and Titus would presumably then have “submitted”.
According to my logic, submission can thus be done to someone who doesn’t have authority and can therefore be done to one another.
Does this sound correct? Have I got the word right or would comps argue that hupotage is different?

Thanks Cheryl. I have included some of your thoughts in my reply to him. I wonder how the variant reading arose if there were not some similarities in concept?
My friend sees submission as only to an authority, and quite different to humility, love and servanthood. I have written a fair bit in reply to him from things I have learnt here. Hopefully he will begin to see that he doesn’t have all the answers.

In a discussion with a comp friend on the subject of mutual submission, I mentioned 1 Peter 5:5. In the King James Version it says
“Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility”
So this version explicitly states “submit (or be subject) to one another”, but in more recent translations it is not so clear.
The textus receptus seems to have the” hupotasso one another” bit but other Greek bibles leave out the hupotasso word. Is there anyone who can confirm this or knows anything about it.
My friend wrote to me today,
“You mention 1 Peter 5:5 but I think someone has led you astray there. That verse only refers to young men submitting to elders (specific and one sided and another example of a hierarchical relationship). The ‘one another’ does not use the submission verb (hupotasso) but instead refers to clothing yourself in humility towards one another. That is not submission.”
Sounds like another textual variant to me. Can anyone help who knows a bit of Greek or has any thoughts on this verse and if it is any help on the subject of mutual submission? Thanks.

Hi Gengwall,
You may be having a similar problem with definitions to what I had a few months ago. Please correct me if I am wrong Kristen, but I think you would see a universal, general command or principle as one that could be written by Paul to any church throughout history, without any personal knowledge of the church or situation or time they existed. For example, “serve one another in love” is a universal command. However “wash one another’s feet” is a particular command to a particular time and situation based on the universal command.
If v12 was a universal command, it would mean that to teach or authentein is something bad only for women to do, and not for men. It could also mean that women universally have a problem with this, but men never do. Paul would not address every church this way unless the command only applied to women.
For egals to assert that to teach or authentein is always something bad for both men and women to do, Paul must have spoken in terms of “a woman” because there was a specific problem occurring in that specific church involving a woman.
So egals are saying that the command is specific to the situation at Ephesus, and not universal, because Paul only applies it to women. This is the same with the commands of v8-10.

Hi Jeremy,

There is a lot of reading into Scripture and sloppy word study to argue the egalitarian position.

Sorry Jeremy, I know you believe this to be true and may disagree with what I say, but I have personally found the reverse to be true. In my experience, egals have been more careful to see what is actually stated in scripture rather than reading into passages what they think is there. For example, comps want to see authority given to Adam over Eve in Gen 1,2 but it is not there. It has to be “read into it”. Comps can’t read the story of Deborah, 1 Cor 7:1-5, Rom 16 and many other passages in the normal way because they have to fit them in with their particular way of interpreting 1 Tim 2:11-15. A view of 1 Tim 2 that has many problems becomes the basis for interpreting the rest of scripture. Other passages can’t be allowed to speak for themselves. So I think this criticism of egals is a bit unfair.
Thanks though for your comment to Kristen that you do “appreciate that you are trying to be faithful to God’s Word”.
Thanks Jeremy for the discussion. May God bless you.

Hi Lydia,
You wrote,

In fact, we know that John Chrysostom wrote later that men are NOT to “autheneto” their wives.

These are 2 comments from our discussion on Sola Panel last year.

Sue09/12/2010 04:42 PM
Chrysostom told husbands to never authentein their wives. It seems that it did not mean to lead in a positive way.
Teri King10/12/2010 02:48 AM
Sue, that would be great to have a reference for Chrysostom saying that….

I never did see an answer to Teri’s question. Do you have a reference Lydia or is anyone else familiar with this?
Thanks.

Hi Jeremy,

I’ve looked on the site and haven’t seen a good explanation of any of these verses.

I’ve done my homework and read the egalitarian arguments.

If you have thoroughly looked over the site, and read the egalitarian arguments, and don’t see any good evidence, then you have had a different reaction to me. It was due to problems with the comp exegesis of the bible that I decided to investigate the egal position. Both positions have godly evangelical advocates and it is not an easy issue to decide on. I can honestly still see why comps believe what they do, but generally I find the egal arguments more persuasive. The questions I still have over egalitarianism are “smaller”.
For instance, with 1 Tim 2, I agree with you that the prohibition of v 12 is related to “the creation order and Eve’s deception”. Often comps however don’t seem to acknowledge how much they are assuming. There is a very real question over what Paul meant by “teach or exercise authority over”, and there is a very real question that Paul would want men to do whatever he is saying for “a woman” not to do. There are other possibilities that seem more likely to me than the usual comp answers.

Hi Jeremy

I am a complemenatarian because I don’t see any other way to understand God’s Word on this issue.

I can relate to what you say here. Up until 12 months ago I would have said the same thing, but the people here on this site have been very helpful to me in investigating the egalitarian position.

I’d love to hear your view on this.

I hope Cheryl doesn’t mind me poking my nose in here and recommending her DVD set. On it she discusses at length the so-called “difficult passages’ for egalitarianism such as the ones you mention- 1 Cor 14:33-36 and 1 Tim 2:11-15. If you go right to the top of this page and click on “DVD” it tells you all about it. I found it very informative and helped me to see that there is truly a very strong case for the egalitarian position while still holding a very high view of God’s Word as you do.
Also there are many posts and comments by Cheryl on this blog, and many comments by others if you look around on this site. If you go to the top of this page, on the right hand side, and scroll down you will see bible passages and topics that may interest you. Hope this helps.

Hi Kristen,
Mark has just written that he has been busy on Sola Panel but is pulling back from that and hopes to have more time to reply to us shortly.
I think you make some great points in #254 in a very “speaking the truth in love” kinda-way. I would be surprised if Mark or anyone could take any offense at your tone whatsoever. You come across to me as polite, calm and considerate while still making your points clearly and with conviction.

Hi Kristen,
Just checking if this bit

Ok, this last section is pretty volatile. I hope it doesn’t make Mark terribly angry– but he was blunt and direct about what he said about the egalitarian position, and I must in honest rebuttal, do the same.

was intended just for our benefit or would you like me to pass this on to Mark also.
Thanks again for your willingness to pass on all your research, wisdom and knowledge for the benefit of others.

Thanks again Kristen for such a wonderfully clear explanation of the overall teaching of scripture on this subject. I’ll pass it on to Mark for you.
Congratulations on 23 years married to your best friend! I had my 28th just a few days ago – likewise to without doubt my best friend and “strong aid who stands face to face with me”. Praise God for His goodness and grace toward us!

Thanks so much Kristen for all your work and such excellent comments. I will send them on to Mark. I hope they are helpful for Mark. They certainly have been for me and I am sure everyone else who visits here.