Sue

“The words use when instructing wives is in the middle voice, typically indicating a voluntary submission on the part of the person in other instances of NT use” to be more exactingly careful in my statement. ”

Help me, NN, I have no idea what evidence you are referring to. None at all. Can you provide even one example.

“All evidence indicates that Paul was extremely well educated within Greek society and would have been very familiar with the various uses and nuances of Greek words both in the current Koine and the literature of earlier dialects such as Attic and and Ionic. As to Ephesus – its cultural history was primarily Greek, it started as a Greek colony and never quite lost its Grecian roots despite its multicultural blending.”

Then you will heartily uphold the notion that authenteo means “to murder?”

NN,

You wrote,

“The words use when instructing wives is in the middle voice, indicating a voluntary submission on the part of the person.”

You are here making a claim that the middle voice INDICATES that the action is undertaken voluntarily. But later you say,

“I would entirely agree about the vagueness of the particular usage of the Greek voices. I simply note that here the verb is in the middle voice, and if you look throughout the NT, the middle voice for this verb is most typically associated with a voluntary submission on the part of the subject.”

Are you claiming that the middle voice indicates that the verb is voluntary or not? And can you provide evidence for this?

I meant ” in the second the verb is in the passive voice.”

NN,

28And(A) do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him(B) who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Mat. 10:28

“5But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him(A) who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell.[a] Yes, I tell you, fear him!” Luke 12:4

In the first of these verses, the verb phobeo is in the middle voice, and in the second, the verb is in the passive verse.

Would you care to explain how they differ in meaning?

Carl Conrad is a retired professor of classical Greek who has studied the Middle voice for many years. Just a few weeks ago in the B Greek list he wrote,

“The simple fact of the matter is (I think) that everybody is aware that there simply is no adequate “doctrine” of Greek verbal voice and that terminology and understanding of the phenomena are much too vague to be grasped with sufficient clarity to talk/write intelligently or intelligibly about it.

My apologies to any out there who thinks that there really does exist an adequate “doctrine” of Greek verbal voice, and my earnest request that they come forward with it.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)”

NN,

There is no connection between the Middle voice and an action being undertaken voluntarily. I don’t know where that came from.

IMO, the husband governs the wife on the same ethical basis as he is also a slaveowner. This is rather clear from the text. IMO, Paul did not articulate a clear policy on either slavery or marriage.

The whole thing is beyond considering.

Women are not to be sent by men to be crucified either physically or psychologically. The entire notion of the subordination of women must be treated as a pathology, a wrongful concept, and one that people need to recover from.

We need to discuss the rehabilitation of men and women who have been hurt by the notion that women are to suffer for the sins of the world.

“The Son is NEVER said to send the Father, adn it is heretical to think the Father was crucified on the cross.”

I think Augustine says that the godhead sent the Son, he was sent in a sense by himself.

However, I get the distinct impression that complementarians see the husband as having the sending authority of the Father, and the wife as having the privilege of following the path of suffering of Christ and being crucified on the cross. Why is it a sacrilege to think of the Father on the cross, but not a sacrilege to think of woman on the cross?

I guess slaves were not really men and women. Slave women were not allowed to wear head coverings. They couldn’t be married either. Somehow the scriptures really just uphold culture and disregard essential masculinity and femininity. The sexuality of slaves belonged to their master or mistress.

Mark,

Thank you. I got that.

“However i cannot see how one can claim for a ’source’ interpretation and yet hold to this being about husbands/wives.”

Perhaps I gave the impression that I thought this passage was about husbands and wives. Personally I do not think that. I think it means clearly that God is the first cause of Christ, Christ of man, and man of woman. That is, this is a cosmological discussion about origins.

The passage is quite clear that woman came from man, so this reinforces the view that it is about origins. I do find Ephesians quite different since there we find a head and body metaphor.

I don’t believe the evidence supports an authority interpretation for kephale.

However, I do see how others can interpret kephale in this way. Both seem to be reasonable human conclusions as you have said about your view.

In this impasse, we must consider other things. We have to ask why slavery is not held in honour, why not monarchy, and why not the one and only Catholic church. Why do we submit our leaders to election and make them responsible to the people? Because of the opportunity for abuse.

We have deliberately chosen a democracy to avoid the abuses caused by sinful and selfish wielding of power. If men have chosen democracy for the form of government most suited to them, why then do they subject women to what can be only hell on earth for those who fall under the authority of men who abuse power. Why are women not counted worthy of living in a democracy as men are?

I confess that I have no understanding whatsoever of why men think that women need to be under authority, and men need to live in a democracy. Why cannot men understand that women are first and foremost fellow human beings?

Mark,

If you are the same Mark who is waiting for me to post on kephale on the LXX I am sorry but I am so busy with family right now. Such a distraction!!

But I have time for a more off the cuff response here. Not only does Cyril demonstrate that kephale is not uniformly understood as authority, but also Chrysostom and Augustine deny an authority submission relationship in the Godhead.

Chrysostom says that Christ cannot be “head of the Gentiles” because the Gentiles are not the body of Christ. Does he mean specifically that kephale cannot be related to the use in the LXX where David is the “Kephale to the Gentiles.” And what did that mean anyway. But the Gentiles are never the David’s people. This use of kephale is not comparable.

C. also says that the kephale relationship is not the same in the three pairs. He believes that man is an authority for his wife because of sin. Sin dictates that one person must have authority to avoid contention, so he must believe that male authority is the product of the fall. He also believes that women are inferior in some ways to men. But we don’t believe this anymore, I hope.

So C. said that God was the first cause of Christ and that kephale meant unity and like passions. Although C. believed in the submissive role of women he had a complex theology which does not support the notion that the Godhead is an authority and submission relationship.

Augustine also was clear absolutely clear that the Son was not unequal in authority to the Father.

So, what references are there to kephale referring to person a being the authority over person b. There is only David, the kephale to the Gentiles, which occurs in a passage of poetic Hebrew in which many words are translated overliterally. It is not native Greek.

And what else? There is Rezin the ruler of Damascus the capital of Syria. Perhaps the translator wished to preserve the rosh rosh parallelism of Hebrew poetry, in shich ruler and capital city can both be called rosh (head) but of course, this cannot be done in Greek, normally.

There is also Jephthah. These references are few and far between and do not reflect the normal pattern of translation from Hebrew to Greek, which was to use archon for rosh or some other word.

I propose that the phrase so often used in Orphic rituals refering to Zeus mught be a hint. He was the head, the middle and the end. It seem to mean beginning, origin or source.

Even if it were a choice, that we could see either source or authority, why then chose authority. We are not obligated, it is just a proposal, a human idea and suggested interpretation, don’t you think. It certainly cannot be proven, but must only be deduced from a knowledge that women are naturally not capable of authority. This might prove your case.

I messed up on the first point. But perhaps the other points are more interesting. 🙂

First, wou seem to agree that these phrases support the interpretation of source?

“woman is FROM man…but all things are FROM God (verses 12, 8).

Then the interpretation of authority must be derived from some other phrase. What would that be?

Second, you agree that with regard to the body, masculinity and femininity entail mutual authority. But in worship this mutuality is cancelled out. Why would this be? Is our masculinity and femininity essentially different in the body and in the spirit?

Third, wearing a covering was not only a sign of marriage but also respectability and of not being a slave. I would be interested in what F. F. Bruce said about this.

Fourth, it seems that Paul is saying that being single is the ideal, so I would be surprised if this was not in his thoughts.

I do find this passage very difficult and I think the best exegetes are stumped. However, in sum, I find that the complementarian interpretation has many difficulties and is not an obligatory interpretation, but it is an interpretation which is chosed by some in spite of the many problems that it poses exegetically.

So, I would ask if you think it would be valid for the wife to simply chose not to accept the complementarian interpretation if she did not read it that way. Shouldn’t the interpretation of this text be at the moral discretion of each Christian, since it is not clear what the meaning is?

Mark,

I have been blogging on this topic also so perhaps you will allow me some questions.

First, it appears that you are saying,

1. This passage is about husbands and wives.
2. The husband is not the source of the wife.

But then you write,

“But I do not think this supports the ‘source’ hypothesis over hierarchy, rather it gives ‘source’ as the basis for the authoritative teaching.”

So I can’t tell if you think that kephale means authority and not source, or source as the basis of authority.

Second, I would have to say that I think the view that this passage is talking primarily about husbands having authority over wives seems to contradict chapter 7 where the basis of sexual relations is mutual and reciprocal relationships of authority. It appears in chapter 7 as if sexual differentiation, that is masculinity and femininity, are the basis of a reciprocal relationship of authority.

How would you explain the shift from chapter 7 where gender entails mutual authority, and chapter 11 where you claim gender entails the authority of husband over wife. It our gender a two tiered affair?

Third, Paul suggests in chapter 7 that it is better not to marry. This implies to me that he does not see marital relations as being central to our understanding of how men and women participate in the church. For Paul it is not a part of his view of femininity that women need to be married and therefore in a submission relationship.

Wouldn’t unmarried women be functionally equivalent to men as they are not under authority?

Fourth, prophecy might perhaps be a greater gift that teaching. A prophet was a position of authority in the Hebrew Bible. It is hard to discern the spiritual difference between prophet and teacher. Old Testament prophets were teachers.

Perhaps I should not put down so many questions at once, but this chapter is difficult and the issues are intertwined.

In fact, the guy from Sydney is a nice enough bloke and it appears that he lets his wife be the head of the house in his own home. But he is careful to preach the sucmission of women. Perhaps he thinks he won’t get to heaven otherwise.

The minister of my former church came from Australia and brought the eternal subordination of Christ and women with him. There are no longer any women in the pulpit of our church. Preaching on submission and zero resources or thought of abused women.

The diocese of Sydney is one of the strongest generators of the teaching of the submission of women.

The last I heard of my minister he was preaching beside Bruce Ware at a local pastoral training conference which was to ensure that all the pastors in our local area taught correctly the fact that God never submits and Jesus always submits and all human relationships ought to reflect this truth.

I couldn’t quite read the entire thread however … a few points.

First, there is not such word as “buttle” or “rebuttle.” If this is just a little more Aussie humour then, forgive me, mate.

Kephale does not actually mean “authority” or “origin” but has been interpreted as metaphorically representing one or the other.

There is only one example of a person who is the kephale of his people in the LXX and that is Jephthah. I don’t find it a realistic example of how the word would normally be used in Greek literature. Why was no other leader called the kephale of his family, tribe or nation? There isn’t one.

Perhaps, Mark, if you provided some examples of kephale used to mean “leader” or “authority” that would help to start the conversation.

Well, I haven’t much more to say, except that Paul mingled with quite a few woman who appear to be free agents. I don’t know why God would want women to live contrary to their created nature, which is, with respect to personal authority, identical to that of the male.

On page 500, of Recovering B. M and W. Grudem writes that Eph. 5:21 should be paraphrased, “those who are under authority should be subject to others among you who have authority over them.”

In Pastoral Leadership for Manhood and Womanhood, Grudem writes, page 205,

“Marriage is intended to be a reflection of the divine order in that submission by the wife in marraige reflects the submission of the church to Christ. Hlep her to see that in neither case is the submission mutual. Christ does not submit to the church, but vice versa, and likewise the husband does not submit to the wife. These roles are not open to redefinition, reinterpretation, or adjustment. Any change represents a deviation from the divine purpose, rendering a marriage no longer a reflection of the relationship between Christ and hte church.”

Mike has been very open to dialogue in the past. I think it is best to include people in dialogue if at all possible. Some turn down dialogue of course, but I am not sure that Mike would.

I reloaded my previous comment because I forgot to enter the anti-spam word. That explains the odd backslashes.

If you use the KJV no one will suggest that it is biased or influenced by feminism. It tends to be very literal and gender neutral in that when it says “any man” it is clear that it is referring to any person. The preface does not say “when it says ‘man’ it means male.”

Also 1 Tim. 2:12 uses the phrase “usurp authority” instead of “exercise authority.” This is consistent what we know about the word authentein. In 1 Cor. 11:10 a woman is to have “power on her head” rather than a symbol of authority. Phoebe offers succour and Junia is an apostle. I think it offers women more dignity.

However, there is one verse which is mistranslated in the KJV.

To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. KJV Titus 2:5

5to be self-controlled,(A) pure,(B) working at home, kind, and(C) submissive to their own husbands,(D) that the word of God may not be reviled. ESV

Perhaps it is simply best to think of one’s ideal audience. It is very unfortunate that we don’t have one translation that is considered authoritative across denominations.

I believe that the KJV is a very woman friendly Bible and is the only one that crosses boundaries and has wide acceptance. I would be pleased to see more women’s materials use the KJV.

Junia is the most logical translation of the name, taking into account The Principle of the Preponderance of Scripture. The feminine Junias is, IMO, the wrong application.

I assume that you mean that Junias is the most logical translation. This is the masculine form. Or do you mean Junia, feminine?

David Jones cites Origen and Epiphanius as evidence for Junias. However, we know that the masculine Junias appeared in one 12th century manuscript of a Latin translation of Origen and Epiphanius thought that Priscilla was a man also.

Not that it matters to me, but I dislike the implication that citations like this are useful.

God generally (not always) uses males to start a thing (probably because we possess the need to cast the seed – another discussion) – I’ve seen women start a thing, but more often than not its a male – but once the thing is up and running, again IMHO, all bets are off – everybody is needed and has a place.

Women are to initiate childbirth. They invite and the man acquiesces. Consider Rachel, Ruth, Hannah, Tamar and many more. Women equally cast their seed, as Sarah does in Hebrews 11. But men are needed once the pregnancy is off and running. Funny how intercourse looks from a different perspective. The scripture pattern is that women invite and men respond.

http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/07/anti-judaism.html

Um, how should I post a link?

http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/07/anti-judaism.html

Cheryl,

I want to thank you for your persistence on this issue. It certainly is a strong encouragement to me. I was happy this past week to study with a Jewish woman rabbi and hear her take on things. I have written about http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/07/anti-judaism.html”>some related thoughts here.

Don,

Thanks very much for your support on Denny’s blog and thanks to Ruud for pointing it out.

Thank you for the show of solidarity but I would like to clear something up. I do not believe that I was asked to be quiet because I am a woman. In fact, I notice that many women comment on that blog. Rather, I was asked to be quiet because they disagreed with what I was saying. Quite frankly this is within their rights.

It has been a good lesson for me in learning to submit without actually feeling that by submitting I am therefore of lower rank than men in either essence or function. I have agreed to certain conditions. Although I am not exactly sure if I have kept them all, they have allowed me to continue to post. I appreciate that.

I am very interested in how your debate unfolds here but I will watch only. I am not an expert in the history of the church’s view on hierarchy in the trinity. To me it seems a very complex matter.

I hope you understand that I was not trying to say anything about how relations were in the garden of Eden, but only about the enormous variety that is found in historic interpretation.