Sue

I am actually both relieved and surprised to find so many others that have suffered at the hands of an abusive leader. In so many ways he is a godly man that I respect and admire. In addition to pastoring the church, he has gone on missions trips to help people in third world countries. He is uncompromising in his sermons. He has a good marriage with a lovely wife. I have gone twice in twenty years to
speak directly with him in his office about some legitimate concerns I had about a certain ministry I felt the Lord is calling me to. Twice he has stated that if it is Gods will for me then I should follow my heart. Then, a couple weeks later, he rebuked the ministry from the pulpit in such a way that everyone in the church had to know he was talking about me. How in the world can a man who says he knows the bible start to finish think that this is right? I could name several scriptures to contradict what he did, starting with “If your brother offends you, go to him in private…….”. I went to him in private, shared my concerns, was assured that all was well, and then, out of nowhere comes this public rebuke. If that were the only thing over all these years I would overlook it. But I could name dozens of similar things done at the hands of this man. He has also hurt other sincere Christians who don’t seem to fit his “standard”. He does not tolerate well anyone who steps out of the boat in any way. I know that he is doing all he can to keep me from using the gifts God has given me, mainly because I don’t have a certain last name or unending bank account. Forgive me if I go on. I could never tell anyone else in leadership about this because they all back each other up and love to use the issue of “submission” to keep people in line. But I can tell that being able to read similar accounts of others who are in the same position as me helps me know that I am not just “imagining” this. Thank you!

“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.”

Mark,

I did find the mention of arche as meaning both beginning and origin to be quite presuasive. I don’t have all the answers. I do feel that any exegesis which prevents a Christian from treating other Christians as they would be treated, to be offensive.

So, I have to express my doubts and state where my own research is unclear. But I also have to say that I simply cannot condone the subordination of women as anything other than barbarism. I do know that Bruce Ware asks men to use a “firm hand” with a “warm smile.” But I can honestly say that I am sickened by hia mention of the “firm hand.”

Coercion, belittlement, or force, either phyisical or spiritual, have no place in a marriage relationship. If this was not a common experience among Christian women, our blogging community would not be what it is.

I wish you well.

To continue, both “leader” and “source” are found in the commentary of the early church fathers, as interpretations of kephale. To my mind, they stand as equally possible interpretations if kephale is essentially regarded as metaphor.

It is true that I researched this particular topic to argue against it. However, unlike Grudem and others of his persuasion, I studied Greek for many years before I ever attempted exegesis of any kind. Usually this is the other way around for most theologians. They have certain ideas about exegesis in mind, and as they study Greek, they build up their knowledge of the language around their exegetical notions.

Mark,

This is the way I see it.

First, one cannot demonstrate that kephale means “leader” in native Greek preceding or at the time of the NT. One can also not demonstrate that kephale means “source” at the time of or preceding the NT.

It is true that kephale is used for Jephthah to translate rosh, and this appears to mean leader or something like it. This is unusual and since it is the only case, I don’t think that Paul would honour it. It is very odd that this is the only person ever called kephale over a group of people.

I do think that kephale meant “head” and somehow, there is a complex metaphorical language built up in the scriptures first for the “body” of Christ, and then encorporating “head” and “body.” This is not found in the LXX.

I see this as interacting with the notion of the church as “one body.” Some people see this one body as a single visible hiearchical entity like the Roman Catholic church. Others see the one body as organic and mutually supportive but not a single organizational entity. I am of the latter. I am not Catholic and do not support hierarchical organizations except inasmuch as they enable constituent members to function better. They should not function to subordinate member churches.

I am trying to be honest, and not give the impression that I know more than I do. Frankly, I think it would be better if more theologians were this honest, comps or egals. But that is just my opinion. I don’t think you should speak to me with such a coercive tone. It is becoming a little uncomfortable.

“I do see scripture as 100% consistent.”

I realize that. I want to be fair to Mark, however, and admit that I personally really don’t have a watertight answer. I don’t want him to misunderstand my position.

I am completely convinced, however, that the complementarian position, is not clear and obvious and indisputable. In fact, I think it would seem very odd to Paul, just as modern egalitarianism also would. I really believe he more or less took women as they came, in all ages, single, married, mothers, sisters, etc, and didn’t make it his mission to subordinate women.

I appreciate your vote of confidence, but the more I study this, the less I understand it. I definitely read 1 Cor. 11 in the light of both 1 Cor. 7, relational mutuality, and 1 Cor. 15,

“39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.”

In some way, God and Christ are of the same essence, as a human Christ is of the same essence as mankind, and as humans men and women share the same essence. This is unique to Christianity, the link between God and humans.

But in some ways, Paul seems very influenced in his language by certain presuppositions. Woman is for man, but then again, man is of woman. He backtracks and reshapes. I don’t see scripture as one hundred per cent consistent. I would have to say that most scholars don’t.

“Please give a relevant time field therefore to see what kephale means. Is 100BC-200AD relevant or is that too broad?”

That is the kind of restriction Grudem and Kostenberger impose in order to exclude negative meanings for authenteo. Shouldn’t we use a similar standard for kephale?

I use the Liddell Scott lexicon and the BDAG as a resource from which to consider the different occurrences of a word, and then look up the references and read the word in context.

Mark,

Let me be clear. I don’t think that I have proof for “source.” I just mentioned Cyril after you mentioned Chrysostom. I am simply showing how diverse and inexact the evidence is. Of course, it is later than Chrysostom, who is later than the Shepherd of Hermas, who is later than the NT, and so on. But where is the evidence that kephale means “authority” preceding the NT?

I honestly don’t have the answer, but I don’t think you have the answer either. What if neither of us have the answer? What if this is one of those things like baptism, or speaking in tongues, where there are different interpretations? How should we then live? Should we not honour the law of Christ?

Chrysostom, on the other hand, did tell a husband not to be a tyrant, that is not to authenteo.

I believe that the head – body metaphor should be interpreted to mean that God shares his nature with Christ, man with woman, and Christ with man. This is Paul’s cosmology. We share a common nature.

The very first thing that a man should offer a woman is to treat her as “of the same flesh,” (1 Cor. 15) as equally human in every way.

Mark,

If I give evidence from Chrysostom that authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 means “to be a tyrant” then that is considered by complementarians, like Grudem and Kostenberger, to be too late to rate as evidence. It is complementarian scholars like Grudem who have stated clearly that they will not accept such an example as this from Chrysostom as evidence for 1 Tim. 2:12. So I play by their rules as to what counts as evidence. (Fortunately there is no evidence from the era of the NT that authentein meant to have authority.)

This is what I meant by “not a slam dunk.” There is evidence for kephale, but it is not clear, not established. There is no evidence at the time of the NT or preceding, that “authority” is one of the meanings of kephale. This is how it is usually assessed.

I do understand how you could think that Chrysostom is evidence, and it is evidence of what Chrysostom thought. But it is not evidence of what the word meant for Paul.

The truth is that there is little to no evidence for kephale and authentein, at the time of the NT, as used outside of the NT, that “authority over” was part of their meaning.

It is not obvious. That is what I have meant. One can argue that it is so, and others argue that it is not. “Authority over” is not the clear and obvious only contender for the meaning of kephale and authentein. You have to persuade people that your understanding of the scriptures is better than any other interpretation. These are all things which depend on interpretation.

How can you defend your interpretation, that kephale means authority? How can you argue that the subordination of women is a better interpretation of the scripture than treating women as your neighbour? If both are possible interpretations, why is the subordination of women a BETTER interpretation?

“i used him to support non biblical uses of head to mean authority. That is what i wanted you to deal with.”

Typically, one starts with examples that predate the text in question. If there are no examples of kephale meaning authority which predate the NT, then we have to ask if we now for sure that this is what Paul meant.

I am not surprised that this is what Chrysostom taught. It seems to me to be natural that all men want to be in authority over women. It is like children wanting candy, natural but not healthy.

“Under people they give ’superior rank’,”

Yes, that is what I have been discussing. This is supported by the example from Shepherd of Hermas, 2nd century AD. But this is a very isolated example, and following the NT. It also could be influenced by Latin. There is no example in typical native Greek of kephale as “superior rank.”

“You cite Cyril, but fail to mention that arche also means authority aswell as source.” Do you have some evidence that arche means authority. The passage stresses kinship rather than authority.

“What you and her need to do is give a non-ambiguous citation.”

I am not trying to prove that source is the meaning. I am simply indicating that the church fathers are not monolithic. I disagree with Chrysostom.

It is simple. He thought that women were naturally weaker, and that it was self evident that women were under the husband as ruler. But he also taught many other things about marriage, that obedience on the part of the wife, was balanced by desire on the part of the husband, that this created a balance between the two, a mutuality. I am not sure that he is right on that.

I don’t think either of us can prove our position. I do know that the notion of male authority is in contradiction to the law of Christ, and needs to be examined rather seriously. I also think that compassion alone should motivate men to treat women as fellow human beings. This is not something that I have met very often in the church, but more often from non-Christians.

Mark,

If we take this up again, you will need to cite something as the basis of your discussion. You can’t just say, out of the blue, that you disagree with me. You have to be willing to engage with the evidence. Does this make sense?

Mark,

Sadly you have not missed something. It took me a long time to realize that many of the citations in support of the subordination of women are not accurate. That really was a lot of work. I am a detail person.

I don’t disregard lexicons, but I read them in such a different way than you do. If we take this conversation up again, I would like you to cite a line, quote something from a lexicon or a page or something, and then we can talk about a specific detail. Right now, I really do not know what you are referring to.

It is true that men have been preeminent over women, in general for a long time. And this has lead to many bad things. There have been no laws to protect women from marital rape or other violence until very recently, and the Bible does not provide these laws either. We cannot simply say that the way things were was altogether good.

I don’t actually ignore the church fathers. For example, this is Cyril of Alexandria, referring to Adam,

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

The church fathers do not have one single interpretation for kephale. In this passage, kehpale seems to mean “source.” It is possible that Paul meant “source.” But really, I don’t know the answer, I just know that if gender is put before Biblical morality, we are in deep trouble.

Mark,

I am truly confused. I have searched this entire thread and I cannot find where you refer to the entry in the BDAG for kephale. With regard to hupotasso, I have indicated that according to BDAG, Eph. 5:21 falls under voluntary yielding in love, as in 1 Clement, submitting to a neighbour.

I do regard BDAG as very useful, but somehow I am not sure what information you are getting out of BDAG. It would help if you would cite a part of the entry in BDAG, and then we can discuss that entry.

Mark,

I have to confess that I cannot find the word “authority” in the entry for kephale in the BDAG. I do see “superior rank” so I assume that this is what you referring to.

“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.”

Mark,

You will need to cite the reference in the BDAG that you are referring to. I just assumed that you had something specific in mind. The only evidence that I see in the BDAG is HS 7, 3. What is it that you have in mind?

Mark,

If a woman is “under authority” then she does not relate to the moral guidelines contained in God’s word in the same way as a man does. There is always a man to tell her what the morals taught in the Bible are.

I am simply saying that a woman has the same responsibility and authority to follow morality as taught in God’s word as a man does. A man must care for his family, so must a woman, and so on. A woman can never ever compromise what is best for her family because her husband has some kind of authority over her on the basis of his gender. That is wrong.

Since men are not more moral than women, sometimes the wife does see a situation in a different moral light than her husband and she needs to follow that. It may relate to the health and safety of the children, to their well being, it may relate to obligations to others. A woman has exactly the same moral responsibility before God that a man does.

If you simply mean that in situations that have no moral component, a man should have his way, I do not see any justification for this. It seems a rather selfish way for men to organise life, but less harmful that having a man supersede moral decisions.

Regarding lexicons, when you read BDAG, you see the words “of the father as head of the family” Hs 7, 3 and you trust that. But I have read Shepherd of Hermas (Hs) in Greek, so I have to think about whether this is an example which informs us as to Paul’s intent. In my opinion, it is not. As I said on my blog, “it is not a slam dunk.”

Regarding those who duck and twist, complementarian scholars equal in every way all other interpreters. As you know, Dr. Grudem has made the claim that God is subordinate to man in the moment in which he helps man. This is in the interest of proving that woman as the ezer kenegdo, the “help meet” is subordinate to man. That is a duck with a quack!

If you would like a list of complementarian inconsistencies, I would very much like to tell you when it will be published but it would be a book of 600 pages at least! I can’t really say that egals are much better.

I do not regard history as much help. It was not until the 1980’s that the law regarded marital rape as a crime. Does that mean that the weight of history demonstrates a greater morality? Hardly!

However, I definitely believe that in the law of Christ we have a firm foundation. It is the most repeated commandment in the scripture, to love the Lord your God, and treat fellow humans as you would be treated. It seems so simple to me, so straightforward.

I remember crying when I realized that a “neighbour” could refer to a woman also. I was 50 years old before that concept had ever occurred to me. I had never had that thought before, that I as a woman, should be treated as a fellow human being by a man.

When I say “want to live” I don’t mean that I want to go out on the town or have a career. I mean that I want to be able to get out of bed each day, to have basic physical health, to stay alive and care for my children.

Mark,

I find it kind of funny that you find wanting to live to be an “agenda!” I wonder if men could ever understand that a husband having authority over his wife is also an “agenda” – quite the agenda, in fact. Whew.

“I can’t know any more than you can know. I make decisions guided moral guidelines, not on a gendered line of command. I believe that this is healthier and leads to less harm and more righteousness.”

This is a typo. I meant to say,

“I can’t know any more than you can know. I make decisions guided BY moral guidelines, not on a gendered line of command. I believe that this is healthier and leads to less harm and more righteousness.”

“How can you know? And what if your wrong- what then?”

I can’t know any more than you can know. I make decisions guided my moral guidelines, not on a gendered line of command. I believe that this is healthier and leads to less harm and more righteousness.

If I am wrong, I have simply modeled that it is best to make a decision based on sound moral judgement, rather than on the basis of gender. Maleness is no more moral than femaleness, so I don’t need to worry about being morally compromised because I am a woman.

Regarding lexicons, I don’t really trust any lexicons. I am just trying to discuss what is in them. The basic component of a lexicon is not the meanings listed, but the evidence or corroborating examples. There are no examples in the Liddell Scott or Woodhouse indicating that kephale meant “authority.” In the BDAG and the TDNT the examples given to denote superior rank are mostly from the NT. That is using something to prove itself so we have to set them aside.

In BDAG, the example listed as Hs. is Shepherd of Hermas, and follows the NT, and could be influenced by Latin, since it was published in Rome, written at the same time in Latin. Caput did mean “head of the household” in Latin, but does not normally mean that in Greek. Kephale, as head of a household, occurs only once in all of Greek literature in Hermas, as cited in BDAG. Is that what you were referring to? It is the very oddity of this expression in Greek, the fact that it is not natural Greek that makes it stand out.

The truth is that to me the scriptures are not always clear. This is acknowledged by Dr. Grudem who believes that they are interpreted by the spirit. Really, who can test the spirit of someone else. For some people it is in their interest to invest superior authority in men, there is so much at stake. For others, it is important that each person has equal moral authority, and takes equal responsibility for their own actions, for the way they care for their own family. I stand with that, that each of us has both equal responsibility before God, and equal authority.

Hi Mark,

I have never said that kehpale means “source.”

The instances in the LXX for kehpale are problematic in that kephale is the literal translation of rosh and many passages in the Hebrew are very difficult to translate in any way at all except literally, since they are metaphorical passages.

Of course, I am biased. My life was not worth living under male authority. I want to live. But likewise, every male is also biased. That is just the way it is. We are all biased. And most certainly lexicons are biased.

The least biased are likely those that do not related directly to NT material.

IMO, we need to look at the core and repeated principles of the Bible, that we should love our neighbour as ourselves, that we should defer to each other and put others first. Unless, of course, they are contentious, ie prone to fighting. Then one should walk away.

“As regards lexicons, i’m rather stunned at your claims that kephale never has authority attached to it. Have you overstated your case here? I find it much more reliable to listen to experts in this regard, especially one’s who publish prior to the whole comp/egal debate in recent decades. Was it you who also said BDAG is unreliable in this regard?”

Mark,

Are you serious about pursuing this. If you are then please follow my blog. I can show you all the relevant passages in the different lexicons.

The places where kephale is listed as having authority are only those places in the NT that are under discussion. However, in order to establish the meaning of the word from other contexts, we should look at the meaning of kephale in literature outside of the NT.

First, apart from the LXX, there is no evidence prior to the NT that kephale meant leader or authority, or anything of the kind. Second, in the LXX, in the fvast majority of cases, the Hebrew word for “head” that is rosh, was translated by one of the usual Greek words for leader. Only in the highly anomolous case of Jephthah do we see the word kephale being used. This is a much debated passage.

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.

Just saying ….

Craig,

The reality is that wives care for their husbands. Women provide and protect their parents, husbands, children and other relatives. Women simply do fill this function as a matter of fact. In the NT women did this as well. In the social context of the NT, women were often dependent on husbands or other male members of the family for legal representation. But this no longer pertains.

“She teaches them that i am the head of our house and that they are to respect and obey that. This is radically different to our culture and why the Bible gives such a beautiful picture of our relationship with Christ. Let me say that the normal picture should reflect Christ and the Bible- an egalitarian model does not do that.”

I did not criticize the fact that your wife asks the children to respect their father. I do say that IF the father does not reciprocate in a completely mutual way and teach the children equal respect for the mother, the result is chaos. I am saying that it is not enough for children to respect and obey their father. Instruction in the Bible is for children to respect their parents. This is essential. I am shocked at anything less. I suspect that you must teach the children to respect their mother, but perhaps you have not thought about it that way. Perhaps you do model equal respect for both mother and father. Perhaps your family is normal in this way.

Then let us admit that equal respect for both parents is normal, and putting one parent over the other causes serious dysfunction, since one parent cannot function as a parent.

Although I believe that “authoritarianism” is bad for children, I am the head of an orderly and respectful household. My children to respect me. I think you would find my home a peaceful and respectful place.

“If both my wife and i are present and one of my children asks to hop down from the table, my wife will always tell the kids that they need to ask me, even if they have asked her first.”

In a normal houshold, if the children ask their father if they can leave the table, the father is supposed to tell the children to ask their mother also. This indicates to the chiklren that both mother and father are due equal respect. It also happens to be logical and useful, since the mother has been with the children all day, and is tuned into their eating needs and what has happened with the child all day.

In a normal healthy household, the father would not override the mother at the supper table. If the mother is overridden by the father, she may eventually take her supper to the bedroom and eat in there, as I did for a while.

If men simply take and accept respect but do not offer it in equal measure, they may end up in their later years living on their own. It is a sorry business.

Why don’t Christian men draw lots and then the half which lose must commit themselves to live a life of slavery, some of them until they die. When half of all Christian men surrender their freedom and become slaves, then they have established the foundation for a conversation with women. I am referring to a lifetime, till death. I am asking one Christian man to surrender his freedom until the day he die, and become subject night and day, to a human master.

Would you be willing to do that now – to give up your freedom to some other human being to make decisions for you until you die?

Mark,

Sorry I completely forgot that you said you would look into it. It seems that you then put that aside to retain your original assumption. When the BDAG says “subject oneself, or be subjected” it then offers the range of meaning

– to an ordered structure
– to husbands, masters, parents, secular authorities
– to church officials, the will of God
– of submission in the sense of voluntary yielding in love

The sense of “to an authority” is not part of the meaning of hupotasso, but is contained within the word that the person is subject to. The Christian is to submit to his neighbour, and we are to submit to each other. This is mutual.

Not only does Clement interpret Christian submission as to a neighbour, without authority, but we have an instance where a king submitted to the Jews. You dismissed this with a little casuistry.

I suggest that if Christian men do not want to live within a democracy, if they do not want a government that must submit to the people, then, when Christian men have given up their vote and surrendered their democratic rights, they may then talk about their experience of living in a non-democratic society.

We are commanded as Christians to love our neighbour as ourselves. My question has always been why some Christian men do not regard women as neighbours. I don’t understand why there is one standard for men, and another for women. Why don’t men request a non-democratic imperial government. W