TL

Craig,

for huper Thayer’s lists the following

1. in behalf of, for the sake of
2. over, beyond, more than
3. more, beyond, over

“…things are noted in Genesis, one woman was made from “man” not “Adam”, the human). Adam said that she was taken from “man” (male human).”

Pinklight, 36

I’ve often wondered though if Adam, the human, was male before God created the woman and brought gender into the picture. Referring to ‘the human’, is not a reference noting gender. And it does seem that was a deliberate difference in wording.

“In Genesis, comps interpret that Adam was created first to mean that he had authority over Eve ONLY because of the way they interpret Paul in 1 Tim 2.”

Pinklight, 39
So, for a few thousand years men were left up to their own devices to create a reason to dominate women. 🙂 They don’t appear to have had any trouble coming up with reasons. For them it was the old concepts of the stronger rule the weaker. It is just that that will no longer fly. So godly hierarchalists have to think up a ‘godly’ reasoning in order to continue that tradition.

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

OOOOO good find. However, that IS still 300 years later than it’s usage in the NT. But the thing about that is that earlier, before the NT, it is my recollection that the word had even darker meanings. So, between however many years before Paul wrote it to Chrysostom we have the word authenteo changing into something less than what it used to be up to the meaning of tyrant.

Mark #4

Chrysostom was born 300 years later. By then the use of kephale could have morphed some. IF it is even true that Chrysostom used kephale in a sense of meaning authority, which no one has provided any examples of, it would be interesting. But it wouldn’t matter in determining the use of kephale at the time of the NT writings.

“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. “

This is an excellent point, Sue. This has happened frequently to women taught male authority. And we’ve seen that the results can be catastrophic for wife and children. One very public one was a woman who was taught and told that she had to keep having children even though she was having a medical problem that was affecting her phychologically. She ended up killing her children. In her mind she was helping them. Her husband knew she wasn’t doing well, but wouldn’t authorize her to stop having children.

”Now tell me, why the same paradigm doesn’t work for a husband? WHy do you assume it has to be his authority that he takes? Have you perhaps given false labels to comp theology?”

Mark, 385

It cannot be the same model because
1. a husband is not the Lord’s servant to minister to the Lord’s Body.
2. A husband is to be one with his own wife, his own body.
3. A leader is not in a ‘one body’ relationship with the body of Christ, but is part of the Body of Christ just like all believers.

“Tit 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.”
Does Titus have authority here over the congregation? Paul says don’t let anyone disregard him. Maybe you should consider if you are disregarding your church leaders?”

Mark 374,

I agree that leaders do not hold authority over a congregation. However, yes, they should indeed rebuke, correct, admonish, encourage, exhort the believers in, with, and through The Word of God. There is a difference. Yes, they exercise an authority which is given by the Holy Spirit. It is an authority to train and direct the people of God to honor God. They do this as servants of the Lord. There authority is not to or for themselves, but to and for the Lord as the Lord directs.

”Are you saying that “head over all things to the church” means that Jesus is “the source of everything wonderful to the church”? So rather than “all things” meaning “the world” it means “everything wonderful”(like salvation)? This would make sense, but it would mean “all things” under his feet at the beginning of the verse would be a different “all things” that he is head over at the end of the verse. Any comments?”
Craig, 368
”22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.”

In preceding verses (sentences) Paul does appear to be addressing Christ’s stand before the world. Remembering that verses and their ‘breaks’ were not in the original language, it seems that as you said, putting all things under His feet, is indeed different (and part of the preceding sentences) to Christ being head over all things to the church which is His body. Christ being the source, or preeminent over all things TO THE CHURCH is relevant as God’s special relationship with believers.

” Since all but one lexicon and other greek sources identify authority with kephale from what i’ve read,”

Mark,

First I don’t think that is accurate. Secondly, we must take note of how they are listing their definitions. Most of them do NOT go into cultural uses of the era. That takes a lot of research. Most lexicons simply list how it is often translated in the Bible. And of course we know they are also not exhaustive in their research there either but simply choose the couple most popular translations. That method is not accurately researching the language usage. Liddell & Scott and and at least one other source look at the common usage of the word in the original language and list those instances instead of just what Bible scholars have chosen.

”The whole argument falls to pieces regarding the LXX, since there are instances when kephale is used to mean authority or leader- you may dismiss them, but they are there.”

If you take each instance on their own context, you’ll see that any authority noted is found in the context and not the word itself. And then let’s say there are two instances where it is questionable. Do you think that two out of 180 uses sets a precedence?

”WHy should we believe you that your research is not biased more so than others?”

Sue is not by any stretch of the imagination the only Christian who studies languages (or the only non Christian) that is aware of the discrepancies that Sue has noted. Several Christian authors have written on this subject.

“since generic singular has never been morphed into a generic plural ever before by God’s word”

Cheryl, you made this statement elsewhere regarding the 1 Tim. 2:15 verse. How did you figure that out?

“So according to your train of thought, Christ did not ‘take’ authority. Does he therefore also NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY? “

Mark,
Christ as the God/Human is far above and beyond human ideas of authority. He is the originator of it. Christ always had and has all authority and power beyond anything we can imagine. But Christ did not choose to manifest authority (as we think of it) while among us. He became as one of us, so that He could save and heal us in order to bring us into Himself. He wants us to become part of Him. And as part of Him sitting with Him in the heavenlies we will be able to judge the angels.

Whose first, whose second, who get’s to decide or initiate, who get’s the glory or preeminence, are all worldly thoughts far below the sight and insight that God would have for us.

“The use of the head/body metaphor seems, IMO, to be quite intentionally an effort to avoid worldly ideas, about husbands and wives. Paul’s frequent and exclusive use of this and other “mutually benefiting relationship” metaphors when speaking of marriage, whether Adam and Eve’s marriage, yours and my marriage, or Christ and the Church’s marriage, is, I believe, his direct attempt to undo the hierarchialist, patriarchal, ruler/husband-property/wife paradigm wrought by the fall and propegated by the world.”

Very well said, gengwall.

God’s idea/concept of marriage was always superior to what the world has come up with. Paul is attempting to steer us back toward the perfection God had in mind in the beginning. The world’s example’s are far from perfect.

“In “Head over all things”, “head” is not being used in any metaphor so we look at the context and possible meanings of “kephale” (like authority, source, origin) to determine its meaning.”

In my estimation Paul is seeking to show an endless power in the passage. Authority is a weak power. Rather when we consider that Jesus is the source of everything to the Body, we then see the greatness of what Jesus did. After all, if Christ had not died on the cross we would not have salvation and would not be part of His Body. In this way ‘head over all things’ shows His preeminence, shows Christ as origin of all, shows Christ as the one through whom all things are provided, and the one who has everything we need.

Generally speaking (not directing this at anyone) IMO this human lust for seeing authority every where and being an authority is just trying vainly to provide a kind of selfish strength we can control rather than relying wholeheartedly upon God for everything we need to do the things of God and the works of God.

There is an ‘authority’ in Scriptures for believers. It is a spiritual ability or strength to do and be Christlike and help others do and be Christlike. We see this authority in leaders and those who regularly manifest a gifting of the Holy Spirit as a ministering service to the Body of Christ…. such as the five fold ministries. I really don’t think it is beneficial for us to seek for any other kind of authority, especially anything similar to the kinds of authorities the world needs to operate in because of sin.

Craig,
Any word can be used differently within it’s range of meanings in different places. One can use the same word in two sentences using a different meaning for it. Context is hugely important.

It is good that you do understand that almost every word has a range of meanings in how its used.

In the New Covenent Commentary Series on Ephesians, author Lynn H. Cohick makes some interesting statements.

“With its call for believers to submit to each other, the verb in 5:21 governs 5:22 and its instructions for wives to submit to their own husbands as to the Lord. Note that Paul qualifies ‘submit’ in both verses’ in 5:21 with the phrase ‘out of reverence for Christ’ and in 5:22 as ‘to the Lord’. Paul pictures each believer as submitting to Christ, and that is shown by submitting to the other members of Christ’s body. This participle can be interpreted as either middle or passive (being submissive or submitting yourselves), which affects the interpretation. The passive voice would imply that the person instructed has little say in the matter, while the middle implies some agency. This latter sense is preferred, as it matches the other active participles’ voice and it fits Paul’s point that believers should not act as though drunk (passively under the influence of another source) but actively make choices following the Spirit’s leading.” pg’s 136-137

“I have investigated other occurrences of hupotasso in the passive voice.
Question: The hupotasso verb below is also in the passive voice (different tense but passive voice)”

Who is doing the subjecting (tense) does make a difference. When we are to subject ourselves (in the passive 🙂 ) it is different than a situation where another controls our subjection.

If you ever watched the stepford wives it has a real kink to the story. The men perpetuated it by means of a leader who turned out to be a robot created by a woman who just liked all the prettiness and neatness and the predictable male.

“How come it is that when lotsa people are confronted with arguments they cannot reply to with their own salvos, they call in an airstrike from C.S. Lewis?”

Perhaps, they just don’t want to actually THINK about it. The danger is that we might have a point and then someone might have to adjust their belief system somewhat.

FWIW I’ve adjusted my belief system many times as I learn more about God and His Word.

“It may be an easy way out for a woman who isn’t used to making decisions, but how will she learn? Not by giving over her responsibility.”

This is a key point. I remember my great aunt having a sweet marriage where the husband made all the decisions about everything he considered important, without discussing it with his wife. He ran the finances, buying and selling, trip arrangements and so forth. She busied herself with entertainment, cooking and home stuff. She felt she needed to be frilly and girly to please him. When he died she knew nothing about their finances, even tax stuff. She immediately began to make really bad decisions and lost a lot of the money he had saved up for her. One of them was a simple mistake to the tune of $50,000. She didn’t know how to take care of the house, yard, car and so forth. And even in her old age she continued to dote on men and be girly in order to impress.

Sadly, she could have been and done so much more as underneath it all she was really an insightful woman. But few saw that side of her. I did. She was my favorite relative. But she had been so brainwashed that the only way to please men was to be helpless, that I couldn’t get her to grow beyond that. What a loss to many.

“I think it’s obvious that whatever “authority” the husband has is simply what the wife allows him to have. And it’s not so much authority as his “participation”. I just prefer to call it what it is rather than what it’s not.”

Elastigirl,
great scene. Thanks for sharing it. In many cases you are correct. It is just a way of gaining the husbands participation WHEN HE HAS THE IDEA THAT HE MUST BE THE INSTIGATOR. 🙂 If he didn’t think he needed to be the instigator than such staging wouldn’t be necessary.

However, we also know that many men take it beyond that and decide they must have all control.

“They have designed the perfect Control Paradigm – since to even question it makes a woman guilty of unsubmissiveness, if not worse.”

Further, in living among comp/hierarchalists, some men will not lower themselves to discussing it with a woman who disagrees. Such a woman who does not choose to inordinately adore the men in the church deferring everything of seeming importance to them and every doctrinal question to their decision, is seen as a rebellious unchristian-like woman. That is one way to ‘control’ the dissidents. Many men do not feel they need to qualify their beliefs on this issue to a woman who disagrees.

When there was a group of men in our church who applauded the book “Wild at Heart”, they started going around calling the women ‘beauties’. I made a few remarks that women were not just beauties or ornaments and I disliked the way the author characterized the women, I was viewed pitifully as if I didn’t understand the great gift I was being given by being viewed that way. But no one was willing to discuss it. 🙂

pinklight #112

Yes, CBMW is heading more toward the concept that men are lords of the earth, and women are to be confined to caring for the castles of the men.

I know that sounds a bit pessimistic. But there is a long time supporter of the leaders of CBMW that teaches that very thing in Five Aspects.org

What is interesting in this last turn of conversation is that it shows me that motivation can make all the difference. Both male authority minded and those mutuality minded can do the same things but for different reasons. I propose that the reasons we do things can sometimes (but not always) influence how they are experienced by some.

“This was the norm in our house. It may get old and tiring for the kids, but they are not in charge. I guess I have no problem with parental authority, which is what I believe Mark’s example shows. I do not see any inherent male authority in it.”

Gengwall, 186

LOL I’ve no problem with parental authority either. My brain just saw something else at work there. And the age of the children makes a difference also. Requiring children to sit through a meal and engage in conversation is not a bad thing in itself. If one starts young enough, later on the rules can be slowly released as the children have learned respect for others. For many other reasons, it just wasn’t a good experience for me in my childhood. It’s the other reasons that were in play in my head.

Sorry about the misunderstanding there.

I will leave it all in your capable judgement Cheryl. If you think both of my last opinions on this were unacceptable or sidetracking, then please remove. If you esteem they are useful for conversation, then leave them. I willingly defer to your judgement in this.

blessings, 🙂

“I doubt Mark’s wife is cowering in the corner and engaging in “excessive honor to the husband” to avoid a beating, which is what I read implied in your comments.”

Nope that wasn’t implied. In fact, it didn’t even occur to me.

gengwall, 181

If you think that was too harsh, then I will yield to you on that and ….

Cheryl, will you please remove my comment #177 and this one as well.

Perhaps, you may think my following comment #182 is harsh also, but it may give you an idea of why I saw what I saw in Mark’s comment.

“Mark – I like your example because it is simple and common. But it does not prove any of your points.
For one, your wife’s submission to you in this particular example does not establish in any way that you are in authority over her”

Gengwall, actually I disagree. Maybe because I have lived that picture before, I understand what leads up to that. Plus, note Mark’s statements describing it.
1. likely the children are not allowed to leave because father has commanded it. This could be one reason why wife defers to husband for children to ask permission. Or she could be deferring everything she can to husband, which is also the sign of a humbled wife.
2. The fact that wife always defers to husband is not innocent of influence. Wife may have learned that life is easier if she does this. I’ve seen this often enough.
3. An atmosphere in which no one is allowed to leave the table until everyone is through eating and father is in charge of when anyone can leave, is very authoritative.

Mark describes himself as head and leader. He believes his wife defers to him in order to show that “Father” leads the home. It appears that Mark takes some pride in the fact that he doesn’t have to command his wife to defer to him, but that she does so voluntarily in order to show his authority. All of this describes an atmosphere of authority and submission. Quite true.

However, you may have noted that a wife can defer to a husband without it being about the husband’s authority. And a husband can defer to his wife without it being about her authority. Quite true. But would you actually take pride in not allowing anyone to leave the dinner table until everyone had finished eating? Maybe you might do that for a particular dinner, but my guess is not as a required routine. That could get really old and tiring. IMO the whole atmosphere of authority submission get’s old and tiring. It IS INDEED role playing as the French call it. I’ve lived a bit of that in my youth, and some of it as a spouse.

But then I concede that some people enjoy being boss and some people enjoy being bossed. It is their choice.

The end line though is that type of living is not prescribed in Scripture. Everyone is really allowed to organize their marriage however they choose with minimal guidelines. How anyone can get an authority submission marital paradigm out of Ephesians is an interesting mystery.

NN, #173

I skimmed through your Narnia dialogue. I always loved Narnia. However, I must say that without your input to it, I’ve no idea what spoke to you in those sections of the story. Just quoting the story doesn’t tell me what you make of it.