Mark

Dave,

“The conditional clause is not that she will only be saved if they both continue in faith (is does not say this…but you are insisting that it does).”

Please define a conditional clause Dave and see if you are correct. Here is Cheryl’s own definition

“Next Paul says that “she will be saved…if” The “if” is an adverbial conditional conjunction which introduces a condition that must occur before another action or event can occur.”

So the condition must occur (BOTH remain in faith, love, sanctification, self control) before the action or event can occur (salvation).

So actually i am not insisting anything beyond what the conditional clause is, nor beyond Cheryl’s own definition. If the condition is not met, the action or event cannot occur.

Sorry, Dave but your ignoring the force of the clause.

So no, i don’t think Cheryl’s exegesis is flawless. Perhaps if we ever find some evidence to support the exegesis i would then consider it. But with what we have so far, there are better alternatives that correspond to the grammar, are supported by the early Church’s actions and teachings and are not based on guessing that such a person existed in the Ephesian Church when Timothy was leading. Plus we are only actually dealing with verse 15 here and not the other verses.

Have a look at what Kostenberger saids about this verse here…http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/roles_kostenberger.pdf

Once this is read, it is easy to see the complications with this verse which never appear to be discussed here. I continue to find it amazing that people on this blog are so confident on this interpretation.

Anyways, nice chatting. How is Ryde Pressie? Do you have much to do with Ryde Congregational?

Craig,

Just thinking again about your hypothetical.

Cornelius’ salvation is conditional on Peter’s obedience.

Wife’s salvation is conditional on her faith and actions plus her husband’s faith and actions.

So the parellel would not be the same unless cornelius was also having to do the same as Peter…see what i mean?

Craig,

Good question, but it’s a hypothetical one so hardly relevant for the discussion i would have thought.

Now don’t here me wrong, i have stated and agreed that what we do, does and will effect people and potentially there decision to accept Christ- this is a common Christian understanding for God working in and through us. It is a common acknowledgement that we must obey God’s commands to take the gospel to all nations.

But is that the same as what appears in 1 Tim 2:15?

I might just wait to see what Cheryl saids since it is her exegesis we are dealing with. I’m hoping she can engage better with what i have raised and help me to understand more how she understands this verse.
I truly do not think it is enough though, just to say this (husband) is needed to bring the woman out of deception. It seems very forced into the verse (because we have faith, sanctification, love and self control as the conditions) and in my opinion weakens the conditional clause.

Final point Craig also, consider that the conditional clause in verse 15 saids “if they remain in faith”, so we are dealing here with more than ‘works’ or ‘influence’ or ‘obedience’. We are dealing with the ‘they’ (whoever that is) faith also. This throws a spanner into the works, and intensifies the conditional clause since it is about more that the (husband) obeying or doing something to help his wife- it is also about his faith (pistis). It is not uncommon for Paul to link ‘faith’ and salvation’ as i’m sure your aware.

Now since Cheryl is arguing for an ‘eternal salvation’ meaning for ‘sozo’ you would have to assume that the ‘faith’ is that which enables one to be saved, rather than a translation of ‘faithfulness’ or the like which some might argue for.

Anyway, i’ll let Cheryl respond when she has time. Hopefully she is considering my critiques and can offer an acceptable answer.

Let me ask you Craig, are you comfortable with the hermeneutical approach taken with this exegesis?

Pinklight,

“Yes, it is dependent upon what she and her husband continue to do, but I don’t see the contradiction. Where’s the rub? “What if she remains in faith and he doesn’t?” I can only guess.”

The rub is clear, no longer is salvation by grace through faith, but by grace through faith (plus) the husbands faith and works…big contradiction. As to your guess, again the same issue applies- this is a conditional clause, meaning that if the condition is not met, salvation falls. This is the reality of a conditional clause.

What you are actually proposing is that this woman’s salvation is conditional on what both her and her husband believe and do. This is not inline with other clear biblical teaching and therefore must be rejected. It undermines the gospel and salvation and the promise of nothing separating us from God. It undermines the very heart of the gospel.
Many of your comments pinklight follow in line with Cheryl’s claim that the husband was to help bring the woman out of deception. But this is not in the text, dismisses what sozo means, and undermines the conditional clause. We are talking about eternal salvation (accepting Cheryls definition for this) in the context of a conditional clause. You cannot just substitute that for coming out of deception with a little help from hubby. It actually ignores the grammar which this interpretation claims as so strong in it’s favour.

You said, “Yes, a person’s salvation can be dependent upon someone else’s actions.” How so and what biblical proof do you have for this? The way the protestant reformers saw salvation was by their OWN personal faith and trust in Jesus. This is the biblically accepeted position of evangelicals.

Let me just put one of your comments up alongside Dave’s and see if you do actually agree

Pinklight- “Yes, a person’s salvation can be dependent upon someone else’s actions”
Dave- ““In regards to her salvation I am sure Paul would say that it is only, ultimately, resting on her faith in Christ…the childbirth, and the new life that springs from that.”

I can’t see how you are actually agreeing, and also remember pinklight that the husband remaining in faith is also conditional not just his actions. You say salvation can be dependent on another person’s actions. Dave saids it rests on HER faith in Christ. Maybe you can reconcile the apparent difference, but as i see it, you are all saying different things and no one is actually dealing with the condtional cause and thus the condition that must be met for this woman to be saved in the future.

Dave,

I agree with this

“In regards to her salvation I am sure Paul would say that it is only, ultimately, resting on her faith in Christ…the childbirth, and the new life that springs from that.”

But what i think you are watering down is the conditional clause. If the above statement is true then how do you reconcile the conditional clause? How can the wife’s salvation (sozo) be conditional on her husband’s faith and works? I think it is actually you who is making Paul say more than he is by inserting “only’ into the mix. You are assuming that Paul is saying both will be saved if both do x, y, z and not “only” the wife. The problem is in this interpretation the wife’s salvation is conditional on something, and according to you all, it is conditional on both her and her husband. This is the reality of a conditional clause.

Now to answer your questions
*You have come here not to discuss or answer our questions, but to try and show holes in Cheryl’s exegesis. Yes. I don’t think Cheryl’s exegesis is as flawless as portayed. So i am offering my opinions on her exegesis not pushing for acceptance of mine.

*You will not offer your own interpretation. Yes, been through all this before

*You take exception to Greg’s comments about the importance of Pauline writings, and yet you ask Cheryl to back up her exegesis from external documents, without which you willl not accept her interpretation. Not sure i understand the reference to Greg. Regarding external evidence i have discussed that. Any purely internal hermeneutic should be taken cautiously since the only thing it relies on, is one person’s interpretation of grammar. Why is it that the early greek speaking Church never understood Paul’s grammar the way proposed here? This should at least keep us discerning. That’s all!

*You place greater weight on historical church writings than interpreting the grammar that is there in Scripture. No, but historical evidence at least helps us understand how the natural speakers of this language understood the grammar. In terms of interpreting the grammar, who saids Cheryl is the only one who knows how to do it? IF it was that simple, then this verse would not cause the discussion it does. The reality is, the grammar is complex and thus anyone who saids that they have it nailed is either overly confident or ignorant of the difficulties of this verse. After all, i could argue that it was her brother not her husband…who knows? That is the problem with this approach
…it’s purely a guess on grammar.

*You develop arguments that rely on suggesting Paul is saying something that he clearly has not said, for example, that the womans salvation is dependant on the other person/s involved in verse 15. I am trying to take Cheryl’s exegesis and see where it leads so as to see if it actually stands up. I have not suggested anything contrary to the grammar and Cheryl’s own agreement that this is a conditional clause. Therefore we must take it as a conditional clause which is making the salvation (sozo) conditional on what is said in the sub clause. It is not good enough just to say (he) is helping her come out of deception because this is not what the verse saids, nor does it actually do justice to the conditional clause. This is basic grammatical rules. A conditional clause is a conditional clause. A is conditional on B in this case both the woman’s and the husbands faith and works (if we accept this to be husband and wife). So no i am not saying something wrong. I am taking the conditonal clause to be a conditional clause and applying that to Cheryls exegesis which she has not done.

Thanks

TL,

Thanks for your thoughts. However i am seeing a common thread with most of these comments which is associated with the conditional clause. You said

“Secondly, it is possible that the husband contributed somehow to the wife’s behaviour”

I agree that we influence others with our behaviour, but according to Cheryl’s interpretation we are not dealing with behaviour- we are dealing with eternal salvation (sozo). Now if the conditional clause is going to carry the weight that it should, i cannot see how one can divert that Cheryl’s interpretation inevitably leads to the wife’s salvation being (conditional) on the faith and actions of not only her but also her husband. This is a conditional clause remember! If the condition is not met, salvation is gone. See Cheryl’s own definition of a conditional clause in the main post.

Lydia,

I’m not sure where your going since i haven’t offered my own interpretation nor am i aware of what CBMW say on this. My assumption would be that there are numerous interpretations on what this verse means.

Greg,

Thanks for clearing that up, but i’m still not sure what you are then trying to say. I agree that there are essentials, one of which is justification by faith on a personal level, that is why the conditional clause in this particular interpretation is troublesome.

Sorry pinklight, that was addressed to you, not TL.

TL,

I am glad you see what i have asked, much appreciated.

There is a massive theological problem with what you are proposing. If we take sozo to mean salvation in the normal Pauline sense we are dealing with eternal personal salvation. Salvation from sin and the consequence of punishment and eternal hell.

Now if the woman’s salvation (her personal salvation from her own sin and restoration into a right relationship with God) is dependent upon what her husband does, how can we possibly reconcile that with the rest of the New Testament. What if she remains in faith and he doesn’t?

Take your own life for example and i will assume your married. Do you believe that your salvation from sin and hell is conditional upon what your husband/wife (i don’t know what sex you are sorry) does/believes, or is your salvation dependent upon your own faith and trust in the atoneing work of Christ?

There is a difference between saying a spouse can influence your life/decisions etc and saying that their faith, love, sanctification and sobriety are all required for you to be saved. Can you see the difference?

If this hypothetical wife cannot be assured of her salvation unless her husband remains in faith etc, what does that say for us? How can we know we will ever be saved if it is conditional on our spouse?

This theological position, if we are understanding each other correctly is radically unbiblical and completely undermines personal reconciliation with the Father.

I’d love to here your response to see if we understand each other. Are you actually proposing that this woman in Ephesus who is false teaching ( in ignorance) will only be saved if both her and her husband remain in faith, love etc… is one person’s salvation really dependent upon someone else’s actions that you have no control over?
If this is what you believe…well let’s cross that bridge if we get to it! Hopefully not. I do not think 1 Tim 2:15 is proposing this, it is a contradiction with the rest of the NT.

Final thought,

I would have thought that an exegesis based on one’s own un supported grammtical interpretation would be a hole to begin with…a major hole.

However, in the future we may uncover new documents which show a decieved false teacher existed in Ephesus which would the help validate your interpretation.

But as for now in 2010, i’m very hesitant to accept this interpretation which is based solely on your own assumptions and greek interpretation. Can i ask if any other scholars have recognised your interpretation as possible, either egalitarian or comp. Only if you feel comfortable sharing.

Thanks

By the way i never recieved that email, and i’m not going to go open a new account elsewhere. Thanks anyway for the discussions on John 6, they were helpful.

Cheryl,

What do you understand as a conditional clause?

I’m trying to follow your exegesis here and see where it leads logically.

The way i read you, her future salvation is conditional on several things (faith, love etc) which is fine and i think biblically since elsewhere salvation is portrayed as futuristic like this aswell, e.g those who persevere will be saved.

Where your exegesis becomes troublesome is when you appeal that the ‘they’ is husband and wife, since then it inevitably means that the future salvation of the wife is not only dependant on certain things but also on several people. Her salvation is conditional on not only her, but also on him remaining in faith etc.

I do not think your statement “I already told you. She is fully deceived. She is not coming out of her deception without help. Do you need more help to understand this?” solves the problem of your exegesis. This is becasue we are not just talking about ‘coming out of her deception’, we are talking about her eternal salvation which is what you take sozo to mean. I’ve asked this a few times now. If you can’t answer, that is fine, just admit that this is a exegetical hole in your argument.

Finally, i stated from the beginning that i’m not here to engage in more battles over and over. I simply wanted to comment on your exegesis, that’s all. You often ask for people to critique it so this is what i offer. I’m not going to engage in an exegetical argument back and forth between your view and mine- we have been there unsuccessfully.

I do admit that this verse is hard. But so does everybody else. It is not a weakness to admit that you don’t understand a certain verse. Since this is the case, we ought to be very cautious of people who think they have a flawless exegesis of this passage. History should tell us otherwise.

If you do not wish to answer any further on my comments that is fine, but please stop asking me to show you my proof or my exegesis etc-i’m not here for that. And frankly to try and throw it back onto me doesn’t help your cause in defending your case, it makes it look as if you would just rather attack the opposition than defend the fort.

I hope you are willing to answer why and how the woman’s salvation can be conditional on her husband’s faith, love, sobriety and sanctification. I hope you can offer a stronger case for your position.

God bless.

P.S i would think that Paul is a good example of a decieved false teacher being named? Isn’t this obvious considering your exegesis relies heavily on Paul’s personal refelction in chapter 1. But of course that is based on the assumption that this passage IS dealing with false teaching, which is truly an assumption with no other evidence to support it.

Greg,

I have to respectfully disagree because i believe that Paul’s writings are authoratative, part of the canon and therefore God inspired.

Take one example if you will.

The great reformed doctrine of justification by faith? Did this come from the lips of Christ or the apostle Paul?

I don’t think it is fair to pick and choose whic h parts of the New Testament we allow to be authoratative.

If i have misunderstood you, let me know.

Thanks

Cheryl,

Family is great, baby is healthy happy and very smily now which is nice.

NIce try skirting around her abnormal hermeutical approach, but for anyone versed in biblical exegesis and hermeneutics would realise that such an interpretation needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

The basic issue is this as i see it. Your presupposition is that this text is addressed to a specific false female teacher and presumably her husband. Yet, there is no internal biblical evidence to support the ‘theory’ that such a false teacher existed. Paul is not in the habit of keeping these decievers ‘anonymous’ and the only false teachers mentioned are men.
Second, there is no external extra biblical evidence to support your exegesis, for example other early documents ect.

So the only think your exegesis is based on, is Cheryl Schatz’s interpretation of the grammar. This is a hermeneutical approach which is not popular.

Now the weight of evidence against your interpretation is the writings of church leaders, exegetes theologians throughout the history of Christianity. Now of course this is not infallible, but when one weighs up the evidence, the proper hermeneutic should always lean on the latter.

Also you in no way answered my critiques of your exegesis. For example i said,

“If this text is dealing with a specific woman and her husband you should at least be consistent with your grammatical approach and say that ‘love’, ’sanctification’ and ’sobriety’ are all required elements for this ‘they’ to be ’saved’, since these are all part of the ‘conditional’ clause.”

And you answered,

“The conditional clause is set up only for her salvation. The Scripture doesn’t say “they will be saved…if…” I believe that Paul said what he meant and meant what he said. It was only her salvation that was in question.”

Please answer the critique. Let me modify the question just so you know what i am asking.

The conditional clause saids that ‘they’ (husband and wife according to you) must “remain in faith’ aswell as ‘love, sanctification and sobriety’. Now since this is a conditional clause it would appear that if the husband did not remain in faith, the ‘she’ forfeits her future salvation. That is her or ‘she’ salvation is conditional not only on her faith. love ect, but on their/they faith, love ect. How do you reconcile this?

Final example to show you not adequately answering the questions..

“Is her salvation conditional on his remaining in faith aswell.”

You responded…
“If he follows the lie, it will be very unlikely that she will have any motivation to work at unlearning the false doctrine and learning the truth. ”

You switched the conditional clause to a ‘very unlikely’ scenario, which of course squashes the force of the conditonal clause. PLease answer the challanges.

By the way. i don’t have an answer to this text and i openly admit that. It is a difficult verse, but as i stated before, your interpretation is no clearer or better than the traditonal one. Thus i will continue to lean on the traditional view since it actually has evidence to support it.

Thanks

Cheryl,

First, i am not here to continue in a long discussion. I would just like to offer a few comments for your readers and for you.

1. You break the rules of hermeneutics. Your whole interpretation is based on a ‘hypothetical’ false teacher that as yet, we have no evidence for. There is no ‘external’ evidence to support your case, so your exegesis needs to be taken with caution as any solely ‘internal’ exegesis does. This hermeneutical approach is not a good one as i’m sure you are aware. It’s basically a ‘guess’ on the grammar with no coroborating evidence, let’s at least be honest about that.

2. Why is the woman not already saved, when it appears she already has faith. We know this because the ‘if’ clause states according to YLT ‘remains in faith.’ You would assume to remain in faith, one would already have faith and to have faith is to be saved!

3. Why do ‘they’ need to remain in faith ect, for ‘she’ to be saved? Is this hypothetical husband contributing to his wife’s salvation. Is her salvation conditional on his remaining in faith aswell. This is what your exegesis misses and which leads to a drastically contradictory personal salvation that the Bible portrays. You attempt to solve this tension saying that we need others to direct our teaching ect, but this is not what the verse saids. It saids, ‘if they remain in faith’.

4. If this text is dealing with a specific woman and her husband you should at least be consistent with your grammatical approach and say that ‘love’, ‘sanctification’ and ‘sobriety’ are all required elements for this ‘they’ to be ‘saved’, since these are all part of the ‘conditional’ clause.

As you clearly state, this is a difficult verse to understand, however i don’t think your exegesis adequately solves the issue. There are just as many holes and problems with your exegesis as there is with any other.

Thanks for your time.
Cheerio

To all,

Re apologies…I’m not sure how this works. Of course i am sorry that people were offended, however i am not sorry for what i wrote, because it was not written maliciously or anything like that. I am thoroughly convinced after all our discussions, that there are cultural issues between us. When i say something you get offended, when that was not my intent. Anyway, i am sorry for any offense caused.

Kristen, i stand by what i said. As i see it, i cannot see what you define kephale as. It’s obviously not what i believe it to mean. Suzanne has shown her dislike for source and she is egalitarian, and a very good scholar. So thus, i don’t see how you are giving the proper meaning to kephale.

Cheryl,
I don’t see the benefit of me sticking around. Dave rightly pointed out that we are just going around in circles. We have discussed all passages i think aswell as many other things. I say one thing, you disagree…you say one thing, i disagree.
I never did recieve your email either…must be my hotmail.

To all,

First, i have said nothing attackingly or aggresively over the kephale discussion. We are dealing with pure facts here and not theology. Thus lies the problem in blogging- it’s hard to communicate effectively. If i have come across too strong, it has not been out of hate or anger for any-please believe that!

Second, Dave you are right in some regards. Discussion here has gone from one of insight, into one of trying to defend the truth of the Bible. This is not my blog, and as such i have no need or interest to answer every question. I do not have time for it, nor do i have an interest in it, when simple facts cannot even be agreed on. For example, many want to hold onto a ‘source’ teaching for kephale, without a shred of evidence. None pre-NT, none of the NT, none after. The closest comes from 400-500AD and is ambiguous and can actually equally support authority. How many texts other than the NT are there for my position…50 or so! Therefore, why should i be heading off into other discussions ATM when we can’t even agree here. Regarding synonyms- you overstate it. Beginning and source are not synonymous. Thus why Greek scholars seperate them. For example, my oldest son is the ‘beginning’ of my sons, but he is not the ‘source’ of my sons. That is why Grudem’s research is accurate and correct and he corrects his findings when appropriate. Just explain why source is used only in plural external texts, but you insist on it for singular uses in the NT? Please do keep praying for me, i’d appreciate that and i’ll do the same. Just be prepared to be challenged on your position and deal with facts. The way i see it, it doesn’t appear you are looking either for the truth…you seem very set in your position. Anyway, i might pop into your blog some time and say gday…i’ve followed your discussions with Steve Coxhead just so you know! Maybe i’ll pop into Ryde pressie one day too!

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. There is much at stake in these issues and i’m glad none take it lightly- the glory of Christ is at stake here. 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. If you look at your own motive before God privately, and are still convinced of your position, there is nothing i can say or do. We will all stand before God on the day to give an account- nothing is hidden from Him. This should make us all (including me) shudder!

I’ll be honest and say i’m very disappointed at much of the theology that has come from this blog from all contributors. But that said, i am convinced that you all have a commitment to scripture and a commitment to Jesus our Lord. 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.

God bless!

Kristen,

“This is why I don’t focus my main arguments on the meaning of Greek words.”

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.

I agree that the ‘whole’ meaning of a passage is not based on the words alone. Thus, why i disagree fundamentally with some interpretations that focus on ‘universal’ language as the focal point. All relevant data needs to be understood in a passage, aswell as what the ‘words mean’ in a normal context.

Sue,

I appreciate your interaction very much. BUt let me straighten a few things out. First, you quoted Cyril and asked me to give you evidence for my position…not vice versa. This i have done. You now ask me for pre-NT data? I thought that we covered this one…i.e the LXX. There IS evidence in the LXX for my position, and there IS NOT evidence in the LXX for a ‘source’ meaning.

I think thought that you have hit a nail on the head. Much of your research has been to disprove a comp theology, yet you cannot offer anyone an alternative. Although i disagree that your research proves as much as other people state, i wonder why you cannot offer an alternative understanding. Can you please inform this blog and it’s followers that ‘source’ is clearly NOT an appropriate alternative and thus, all interpretations that argue for such, a simply unsupportable. If people here were truly interested in your research they would except your conclusions on this!

If we could at least all agree on this, we could proceed in the discussion. For me, it seems like a waste of time to argue for a ‘source’ meaning for the NT when there is no extrabiblical evidence for such a meaning of kephale. I wont argue for my position, i’d rather work through the ‘possible’ meanings first, but we need to agree that source is not factually supported. Are people willing to admit that?

It is so important for you all to realise that the best proof Sue can offer for a ‘source’ meaning is first of all ambiguous, and could legitimately translate authority. Second, now that you all wish to narrow the focus, you have shot yourselves in the foot, since your only proof falls outside of the time frame you demand.

I’m rather shocked everyone…you simply follow Sue’s suggestion that Chrysostom is irrelevant.

Let’s be honest about this. Claims were made that outside the NT, kephale never means authority. I have shown this easily false, so now the argument slims down to a closer period around the NT. I’m happy with that but let’s re-examine the information then.

Sue- please inform all readers when your ‘proof’ for ‘source’ was written? Please put it in perspective for everyone. I know when it was written but maybe others do not. That way we can all see how accurate your research is, and how relevant it is to the NT. Since you reject Chrysostom, please explain how Cyril is relevant.

However, i do agree that Chrysostom is not proof that kephale meant authority in the NT- but that was not my primary interest. My interest was to show Sue’s challenge false. Please give a relevant time field therefore to see what kephale means. Is 100BC-200AD relevant or is that too broad?

Last point- Sue why therefore do you think that Liddell Scott is a good lexicon. It goes against the whole argument you just brought up. You think Chrysostom is irrelavent proof, yet you put most reliance on a lexicon that covers a 1500year period of Greek? This sort of reasoning gets out of control and completely inconsistent- am i the only one that sees this?

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.

Sue,

Then i hope your comments that no where outside of the NT is kephale used to mean authority, are subtracted. I’ve given you specific examples and you still wish to ignore them as evidence.

Does your focus only narrow on pre-NT times?

Again, i’m not pushing Chrysostom here or his theology. What he said is irrelevant for this argument, it’s his use of kephale, and it’s direct relation to authority that is my interest. They are clear examples that kephale IS used in non-biblical texts to denote authority. It’s the word ‘kephale’ that i’m focusing on.

Sue,

I’m not advocating Chrysostom’s theology…i used him to support non biblical uses of head to mean authority. That is what i wanted you to deal with.

I’ll wait for your other examples

It is also good to point out that the Cyril text cited must not be divorced from it’s literary and historical context. Even if we took on ‘source’ as the meaning, authority is still not excluded in the passage nor the historical context in which it was written- the trinitarian controversies.

Sue,

You’ve lost me again. Let me begin by saying that BDAG in my opinion is a useful resource on this topic. Under point 2 for kephale, BDAG seperates between ‘people’ and things. Under people they give ‘superior rank’, under ‘things’ they give ‘uppermost part, extremity, end point.

As regards engaging with you…here you go. You cite Cyril, but fail to mention that arche also means authority aswell as source. So when kephale/arche are in view, authority is not an excluded possibility. Likewise, source is a possible option, however the unambiguous nature still looms over this text.
It is interesting that you are following in the footsteps of Kroeger who used this same text, and had the same points told to her. What you and her need to do is give a non-ambiguous citation.

In favour of the comp position is this point…numerous texts that are unambigous. For example Chrysostom
Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians
” Husband as head and ruler. Consider nevertheless that she is a woman, the weaker vessel, whereas thou art a man. For therefore wert thou ordained to be ruler; and wert assigned to her in place of a head (kephale) that thou mightest bear with the weakness of her that is set under thee.”

Again…
Homily 3 on Ephesians
” Christ as head of the body, ruling over it, and head (kephale) of all things. “Which is His Body.” In order then that when you hear of the Head (Kephale) you may not conceive the notion of supremacy only, but also of consolidation, and that you may behold Him not as supreme Ruler only, but as Head of a body. “The fulness
of Him that filleth all in all” he says… . Let us reverence our Head, let us reflect of what a Head we are the body,—a Head, to whom all things are put in subjection”

There are several other citations for unambiguous use of kephale linked in with subjection, ruler, authority with Chrysostom alone, let alone other texts.

Please continue to show me unambiguous citations to support your position.

Kristen,

Your whole argument is an argument from silence. The reality is, egalitarianism has just stripped authority away- that is all.

Look for example at what you said compared to others regarding the Titus reference. You don’t seem to have a problem that Church leaders are in authority, yet Kay and Cheryl say something different- the authority was in the word not in them.

So for some even Titus isn’t refering to authority of Church leaders, but for some it is. Likewise Eph 5 some say yes, some say no. So it’s not a matter of what someone did or didn’t say, it’s a matter of biblical interpretation.

Ok i am going to stop for a while, because everyone is posting at the same time and it is getting confusing.

Kay,

What i said was not an attack at you at all. My point is simple- to reject servant leadership is to reject the model of Jesus himself. Jesus was both leader and servant!

Sue,

We are not really getting anywhere here, and we are getting off topic quite a bit.
History is helpful to help us in this instance to see how the fathers understood the NT teaching, and thus how they understood the NT grammar and words. Doesn’t necessarily mean they are right, but it at least sheds light on the proper interpretation of words.

That said, how can you as a greek scholar continualy maintain that what comps are arguing for in regards to kephale is not correct?

First, you don’t trust lexicons, nor do you put any weight to history- how can you possibly be trusted to give a clear understanding into the meaning of kephale? How can you offer us a proper meaning for kephale if you ignore the experts of the past and present, aswell the very people who spoke the language and drew their theological conclusions from it? What then do you base your interpretation upon? Your pre-conceived guidelines on what is morally right and wrong.

I’m not sure how much time you’ve spent in thinking about an alternative meaning, but i’d love to know what it is. It isn’t source and it isn’t authority- what is it? Most of what i’ve read from you focuses so heavily on disproving Grudem, that an alternative has not been mentioned. Maybe i’ve missed it somewhere?

that was for Kay sorry

You’ve lost me on the above comment. My post was about the appropriateness of BDAG’s definition for kephale- i don’t see how your comment is relevant.

P.S- where does Paul say in Eph that he is writing to people in arranged marriages- are you assuming that into the text? I’m astonished that the very arguments you are all chucking at me, you guys equally do? Hypocrisy in the midst!