TL

it sounds like he is saying that unless she is in physical danger, a wife should be willing to suffer abusive treatment including abusive/unkind language from her husband for an inspecified amount of time. He is definitely IMO implying a kind of lordship of the husband to which the wife must approach differences with a bended knee kind of approach.

His laughter is indeed troubling. This follow’s Ware and Pattersons attitude that the reputation of the husband is more important than the suffering of the wife.

I’m not sure if it was ever produced. I never saw it. Even if something from the publisher were produced, it is still from the publisher and not the original scholars who authored the book.

When leaders teach that women cannot judge prophesy (or teachings), the end result is that women must believe what only men tell them. They cannot or are forbidden from thinking for themselves in the area of divine truths. This is the danger of such teachings. IMO it is an effort to dumb down their women which is unhealthy for the women, and lift up their men which leads to arrogance and is unhealthy for the men.

As a new Christian I lived through the Shepherding Movement and experienced this teaching personally. It is insidious. It shifts women’s focus from God to males.

I am sorry if my language in this statement is offensive, but I lived this. And do not recommend any women believe such a teaching.

“The Greek OT is the Septuagint, the translation Paul and the early church would be most familiar with; and thus, contemporary with Paul. By then kephale had taken on the meaning “authority over’.”

The Grudemites want to claim everything is about authority over. To my knowledge kephale was not used in the sense of authority. That had to be supplied with other words.

They erroneously do the same thing with authentein in 1 Tim. 2. They want to claim that by then the strong dominating and injurious meanings of authenteo had settled into the meaning of simple authority over. But of course, if that were really so, Paul would have used exousia, which mean’s authority and would have added ‘over’. While the meaning of authentein had settled some it still carried the strong message of wresting authority from another, more like wrongly dominating.

Sue McCarthy has some good articles about Grudem’s claims on her website. http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/index-cbmw-grudem-kephale.html

Oh and Liddel and Scott’s first edition was published in 1889, so it is unlikely that Grudem consulted with the authors. This is likely why he doesn’t want to produce any supposed letters with the publishers, and why the publishers aren’t concerned about explaining. Publishers really care only for sales. Frankly I think it is dishonest to change the words of books you didn’t write, even older ones.

Kay, no one knows the validity of the claim, because the letter has never been produced. Nor has Liddel and Scott seen fit to comment publicly. All of it is coming from those who wish to deny the meaning. Spurious at best IMO.

At any rate, how does one print something that doesn’t exist anyway. IMO Grudem put pressure upon the publishers and they responded. It does not mean they agreed. It surely does not mean that the scholars who inserted the reference now deny it as Grudem would like us to believe.

I have a 1909 copy of a Schofield Bible. In Genesis 17, they have a rather long and very strong statement in a footnote about the meaning of El Shaddai being from the Heb. word shad, which is breast. God is referred to as the breasted one for very solid Biblical reasons. And yes, it does give validity to the value of feminine. But the newer copies of the Schofield have omitted this. This does not mean that Schofield changed his mind. 🙂 Once an author dies, publishers do take liberties. And publishers don’t care about the facts, only sales.

“But, why bother to leave any Scriptures for us, if God makes us do everything by His Will anyway???”

If women were created for submission and following men as some actually teach, they would as you say do it naturally.

God gave us dogs for that. My dog (gone now) used to follow me every where and would have gone with me every where I went if I’d let him. He never tired of my company, nor of responding to my wishes. Great dog as far as dogs go. 🙂

Good ‘wonderings’ Frank. The difference is that submission is not obedience even though it can look like it at times. Submission chooses at ones own discretion, rather than another’s. Submission will take into consideration other considerations such as laws (laws are not perfect and can go against God’s Truths). When we choose to submit to a law we are obeying it. Obedience is about a required response. It doesn’t matter if it is willing or not, it is something we must do at another’s insistence.

But even that has interesting nuances. When we choose to obey something we haven’t been commanded, we have (in the Greek & Hebrew thinking) heard and responded on the strength of what we have heard. IOW we have heard something so powerful or truthful that to our understanding it requires our positive response. Or we understand the consequences to be distasteful if we don’t obey or submit.

The only thing that isn’t hazy about it all is the idea that wives should obey every request of their husbands. Such a powerful authority over another’s adult life should never ever been given. It is akin to absolute slavery to be wielded solely at the discretion of the holder. Some like the idea but will wield this power benignly. Others will use it to the hilt. To think that this creates a holy unity means one doesn’t understand holy and godly unity.

But submission in the Grk. understanding is something that anyone can do and all should do. We should all have the attitude that we want to get under and lift one another up and profit one another’s life. In fact, this attitude should be the first requirement of those who want to serve in ministries.

OK…. sorry for the rambling. I just got up. Not fully awake. :^)

Frank, trying to find the correct English word to represent the Grk. is not all that easy. In Grk. hupotassomai (passive) has nothing to do with yielding to authority. Rather it is about arranging oneself under another. Whether that arranging is done voluntarily depends upon whether one is doing so at one’s own discretion (passive) or at the requests of another. Even if at the request of another, it does not indicate the authority of the other. That must be supplied by other words.

Good point. That is probably why those who promote gender hierarchalism flat out refuse to really consider what kephale actually means in context and ignore completely any meaning to Paul’s deliberate shift from plural to singular.

What Mike is doing is what I call helicopter theology or cut and paste. He is not reading Scripture in context or according to how it was written. He is lifting out these 8 Greek words and allowing them to mean whatever fits his thinking.

But if we read in context following the flow of context of the author, we have to acknowledge first the whole thought in that instance which was that Timothy was to let the woman learn. Then we need to back up into chapter one and see that Paul was concerned about those who were trying to teach, but really didn’t know the Scriptures. They were involved in fables, endless geneologies, and debates instead of loving from a pure heart. They were likely legalists since Paul reprimanded them about the law being for sinners if used rightly. (which should give pause in this subject). He then goes on to admonish all to pray instead of fighting – inferred by lifting the hands without wrath)

And so on……

We also need to take into consideration the fact that within a very short time of this epistle Paul has said that women should consider whether to pray and prophesy (prophesy was also considered to include teaching – not mystical speaking only as we do today) with their head covered or not. He also praised Prisca for her teaching, Phoebe for her leading, and other women for their leadership.

To think that Paul flip flopped back and forth on the subject is sloppy thinking IMO.

Also, we have to take into consideration the whole of Scripture. The whole of Scripture has Deborah teaching the Torah in the course of her administration of Judge over Israel, of which she was appointed by God. God does not flip flop back and forth over whether or not He will use women in speaking forth His Word.

There is so much more to show that it simply is not feasible to think that Paul could possibly set down a new law that women cannot teach men or exercise authority over them. And then the really crazy part is when people interpret an order of creation (Adam was created before Eve) to mean men can teach/lead and women cannot. LOL besides being absolutely contrary to how God does things, to believe that, means that for 4000 years God forgot that’s what He meant by creating the male first and went ahead and used women to teach and lead. ?????

All one has to do is to learn to read Scripture in context instead of helicoptering verses and pieces of verses out of their flow of thought and out of their relationship to the whole scheme of things.

🙂

WOW! M. Seaver. I’m really rather shocked to read you comparing women teaching men to be comparable to men having sexual relationships with one another.

Would you please explain how women can teach truth and be in sin. Also, at what point does a woman become sinful in teaching this truth. How does that work? If you say it is when a man listens to her, then it is the man who is sinning by listening and not the woman who speaks truth. Then how does one judge what is being taught if it is sinful to hear a woman’s voice teaching. Or you could perhaps seek out a verse where it is sin for a woman to speak in the presence of men. After all if they learned something from her, they would be in sin as well as her …. IMO that is the confusion of this stance.

This sounds very much like an old oral teaching of the Rabbi’s where they claimed that it was an abomination to hear a woman’s voice read the Torah. And that is just preferential bias at work.

All in all , this is not good exegesis. Good exegesis starts with reading something in context. To find the context in the 1 Tim. 2 verse, one needs to read in chapter one where the foundation is laid. …. and so on. 🙂

excuse me Cheryl, but I’m trying to find your posts in here where you quote Ware. I’m having a discussion elsewhere that I could use them and your points as well about them.

you can email me if you like….

Very good “pictology”. And you didn’t beat around but got right to it. > I call this the chronological listing of honorific orgins. 🙂

Excellent exegesis and application. A real break through.

Sorry to hear about Buddy. I had a dog friend like that, Akamai. When he died, that was the last dog I had. Although I have thought about getting another one some day. It’s hard to explain how a person can be so bonded with an animal. They are very special.

hugs,
TL

“Evangelical feminists are not necessarily lost? Perhaps some of them can be saved? It is just so sad to hear Dr. Moore state that those who hold to the egalitarian argument are holding to a belief that seems right to them because they are shaking their fists in the face of authority. He says that lives are at stake. He says that the gospel is at stake.”

This is the same stand that Jehovah Witnesses take against Christians.

I think he is correct that it is a spiritual battle, but it is not egals that are siding with the enemy of our souls it is they who would so dare to accuse the brethren falsely.

How nice that we are looking in the same direction. It is great to share discoveries and insight about our wonderful Lord and God. 🙂

Wish you were closer. Bet we could have some great fellowship in person.

Do you have any kind of fondness for Gods furry creatures. 🙂 🙂

Thank you. 🙂

It is my observation that making Christ’s relationship with the body to be solely about authority is also greatly missing the message of salvation. Christ came to bring us life, true life in the Spirit. If it were only about the authority and right of God to tell us, His creation, what and how to live, we would still be in the old covenent. But God in His great wisdom crafted a plan that would first give us direction as a child under the tutorship of His Word, and then give us the power to live it, by the giving of His very life into us for our ultimate benefit and to His greatest joy.

And one of our responses to this is to receive His gifts and live life to the fullest, becoming and blossoming forth into the unique creations that we were meant to be. And of course showering Him with praise, honor, and glory for His goodness.

In this respect the meaning of the word kephale, usually translated as “head” (and interpretated as authority), has been missed. All words in every language have a range of meanings that lean in different angles according to context and usage. ESPECIALLY when a word is used metaphorically we must lean heavily on the whole metaphor and context to determine the “flavor” of
the word in the metaphor.

I look forward to reading your research on this and to any future DVD’s.

Blessings IN Christ,
TL

You are in Canada, correct. I’ve some very dear friends there. In fact, wish I could visit there. Maybe someday.

Aloha nui 🙂

Regarding CBMW it is a sad observation that they have not responded forthrightly with others in the past. I do commend you on your efforts to communicate with them.

And I look forward to reading your take on 1 Cor. 11.

Aloha 🙂

Hello again Cheryl. I’m really enjoying reading your stuff.

Regarding headship, I completely agree with what you have said about attitudes of husband and wife. I however, have noted some other things. Most people center on the husband being “head of†the wife and interpret it as “head over†and then build a proper response of the wife into that. But that is only half of the metaphor. The whole metaphor is that the husband is to be considered BY HIS WIFE as her head; and the wife is to be considered BY HER HUSBAND as his body. Thus in order to get the full picture that Paul is painting one must hold both parts of the metaphor in conjunction with one another. Head and body joined together are crucial to fullness of life. This to me, is a picture of giving ones strengths to your spouse and also depending upon their support: interdependency and interconnectivity. And the attitudes would end up as you described.

I would like to comment on this discussion.

There are two questions I believe we must ask of 1 Cor. 11:1-2. First what is the meaning of kephale (translated “head”) in this metaphorical usage. And second what kind of an ordering is Paul outlining. Also note that it is “kephale” OF, not kephale over.

If one looks carefully, you can see that it is NOT an hierarchical ordering. An hierarchical ordering is a ladder with items placed meticulously one over another. Such an ordering would be implying that God the father is higher and of more prominence and authority than Christ which scripture does not support. Such an ordering would also include the Holy Spirit and children. And if it were an hierarchical ordering then Paul placed them out of order. Since this involves only three points, these three points need to fit in the exact order they are written. Paul was not a sloppy writer. He had specific points in mind in exactly that order.

In my opinion Paul is addressing certain events it in chronological order.

1. Christ is the head of man. (as a source of Adam, Gen.) the first humans were created through Christ.
2. man is the head of woman (as a source of woman, later on in Gen.) woman was brought forth from the man.
3. God is the source of Christ. (as a source of Christ as he came to a human body … much later on) Christ was born by/through God’s direct intervention.

Paul is addressing certain events in chronological order. With this in mind we can approach the question of glories or esteems more logically.