The CBE Scroll

Comment by MlleNichole

July 19, 2006 @ 1:32 pm

I’m thinking this verse had something to do with the man-as-spiritual-leader concept forming:

I Corinthians 14:35
If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

The conclusion drawn is that the husband should be the educated one, the expert and guide, to whom the wife turns.

Comment by Kathryn

July 19, 2006 @ 1:50 pm

I’m glad to see a blog on this particular subject. Does the Bible really teach that the husband is the “spiritual leader” of his wife? No, it does not! The Bible says that the Holy Spirit, not a husband, is to “guide you into all truth.” The Word teaches that we are all priests before God, with only one High Priest between us, and His name is Jesus. This insidious doctrine of “husband-leadership” is responsible for much of the prejudice against women, and it puts an impossible burden on men because they cannot always be spiritually superior to their wives, yet are encouraged to take the place of the Holy Spirit in a woman’s life. This is idolatry. So then, what is the meaning of “head?” The more accurate meaning is “source” or “origin,” and it refers to Eve being made from a bone in Adam’s side (Genesis 2:22), Adam being the “origin”. Of course, Christ is also the “origin” of the church (Eph. 5:23). Then, God put the man and woman back together, and now he submits himself to his wife for the same reason: she is “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh!” (Eph. 5:21, 25-31) Only God could have thought of that. For a more in-depth discussion on this, I highly recommend two books, Woman Be Free, and Heirs Together, both by Patricia Gundry.

Comment by TeriLynn

July 19, 2006 @ 6:05 pm

This comment is from Angie Lewis as the responsibilities of a spiritual leader:
“3. Making major decisions for the home, but not before discussing your decision with your wife, unless for some reason she is unable to interact with you and the decision needs to be made immediately.

4. Discussing all minor decisions with the wife, and coming to a spiritually based conclusion, even if the wife has to compromise with her husband.

I don’t know either where they got these ideas from — certainly not the Bible.

Most women do not appreciate the major decisions being made for them even if the husband is kind enough to tell her what he has decided to do. And the presumption that likely the wife will be the one compromising is highly demeaning to women. The description is one of lording, exercising rulership which one can only hope is benevolent, but in which one is expected to yield to regardless.

This is exactly what Christ spoke against in Matt. 20:

25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” TNIV

Comment by P.S.

July 20, 2006 @ 12:10 pm

I have a booklet commemorating Luther’s Small Catechism, which was apparently written or published in 1529. The booklet is from 1979.

It says, “But he always focused the teaching on the family circle. The earliest editions already bore the heading, “To the heads of the family so that they may teach their household.”

And “Luther stresses the obligations of being a member of the family and of the community. He charges the head of the household with bringing his children and spouse to an obedient and loving fear of the Lord, along with all others of the community, especially those who help him work his land and bring in his crops. …Nor does one ever graduate from catechismal truth. The toddler needs to heed the catechism, and so does the graybeard.”

This seems to assume that the man is the head of the family, but the language leaves open the possibility, in the first quote, that a woman could be the head, or the head if the man is gone.

Although I’m definitely an egalitarian, I’ve seen far too many households where the father leaves all the spiritual formation, or lack of it, up to the mother. I like the idea of the father being charged with taking the reins, or at least one of the reins, in this area. That is actually more egalitarian then it would be to hand the whole thing over to the mother.

Comment by Kathryn

July 20, 2006 @ 1:52 pm

Yes, fathers can take one of the reins of spiritual leadership in the home, but the Bible tells us in Proverbs 1:8 to “forsake not the law of thy mother.” The whole teaching in Proverbs 31 is that of a mother to her son, King Lemuel. Timothy was taught by his mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois. Why should a family only have one spiritual leader? It doesn’t make good scriptural sense to me.

Comment by phred

July 20, 2006 @ 8:30 pm

All,
I sure like this blog, and think it’s important for more to join in. I have done a lot of thinking about Ephesians 5 and the whole headship idea. I basically follow Rebecca Merril Groothuis on this.

a. Ephesians 5: v22 ties into v 21’s mutual submission syntactically. There is no verb “submit” in v 22.

b. Husbands are called the head of their wife 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” The debate of course is all about “head”… kephale. Does it mean “noggin” as it usually does? Is it a metaphor (yes), and if so, how so? “Head” as authority? Or “Head” as source/origin? And so you have the usual looking up of every place in Greek literature about the use of the word “kephale” which is all fine and well. Grudem is right I think, the word kephale never means “source” in the Septuagint, and rarely means “source” in ancient literature. The major lexicons testify to his research. 2336 examples of kephale from a wide range of ancient greek lit. and no conspicuous example of kephale meaning “source”. (although how else are we to take it in 1 Cor 11? Another conversation for another post) However, the purpose of his research is to prove kephale doesn’t mean “source”. Interestingly, he also states that only 2% of those 2336 mean metaphorically “person of authority or rank, or ruler, or ruling part”. Therefore, 2287 instances of kephale do not mean authority/rule at all, rather it means your noggin. This is why some think Paul is painting a picture of a “head”, literally, a physical head. (See Sarah Sumner, Men and Women in the Church, p 150ff, and this is a book all should read. I am not necessarily persuaded of her argument but it’s interesting.)

c. Now, what do we do with “head”? 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” Why not ask the simple question, (and BTW, I think we should ask this same question of 1 Tim 2:13-15, as in where else does Paul refer to Gen 2 when teaching) how else does Paul use this metaphor of “head” specifically when talking about Christ being the head of the church?

We look to Ephesians 4:15-16 :“Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work”

Or, Colossians 2:19: “He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.”

Do you think “the head” as the supplier of life to the body is the sense in which Paul speaks of Christ as the head of the church? I think the case is pretty good, and begs the question: should this be the controller of how we understand “head” in Ephesians 5? So is Paul referring to the husband as the head of the wife in the sense that the husband is to give life to his wife by loving her and laying down his own life for her sake, even as Christ did for his body, the church? I believe “meaning is use”, and to ask how this author uses this word metaphorically within the same book, and in parallel passages is certainly a solid hermeneutic. The complete absence in Paul’s writings of rule or authority over a wife as a duty of the husband must be noted. Self sacrifice, unswerving loyalty, personal intimacy, and sexual satisfaction are the extent of the responsibilities Paul lists for the husband.

d. We evangelical feminists need to admit that nowhere in this passage of Eph 5 are husbands told to submit to their wives explicitly, as the wife is told to do in v23, 24, (and in Col 3, Titus 2, and 1 Peter 3) although laying down one’s life as Christ did for the church is an act of submission last time I checked. Nonetheless, when this passage narrows to speak of husbands and wives, Paul tells only wives to be submissive. What does submission mean? A voluntary act of deferring to the wishes of an equal. In all 4 passages when wives are told to submit to husbands the middle voice of hypotasso is used, i.e. “to place oneself under”. This is why I think translations that use the line “be subject to” go too far. I think the notion of “putting the interests of another ahead of one’s own interests” is the basic idea. (see Linda Belleville, Woman Leaders in the Church, p 117ff).

e. Complimentarians need to admit that all of the applications of this are culturally contrived and pretty much not in the text. “Tie breaking authority?” Not in the text. The husband is the “spiritual leader”? Nowhere in Scripture is a husband told to lead his wife. Paul doesn’t’ say it, Jesus doesn’t say it, Peter, nor John. The words “lead, leader, servant leader, spiritual leader” cannot be found in any Bible passage on marriage. Granted this can be derived from Christ being head of the church, but see “c” above, and also, the specific application we ARE given, is one of laying down our lives.

If we take this to mean that we are to emulate Christ as He is the Head = absolute authority of the church, does this mean men are the authority of their wives in the exact same way? Do any contemporary complimentarian marriages actually work that way? No, complimentarians have to make a zillion qualifications, and therefore I believe their view dies the death of a zillion qualifications.

Another discussion altogether: why would Paul leave the text with such ambiguity and tension. There you can branch off into the “trajectory” arguments of I. Howard Marshall, John Stackhouse, and perhaps more radically William Webb….

Comment by sally

July 21, 2006 @ 2:45 am

“…popular references on the internet:
It’s Not Too Late To Be The Spiritual Leader In Your Home< ,/em> by Angie Lewis”

Too bad if the wife ‘rebels,’ hey? According to one of the other articles, she is designed to want her husband to be the leader. So if she doesn’t want that, then is she being sinful? It’s an easy way to manipulate power.

Comment by P.S.

July 21, 2006 @ 9:22 am

Regarding my comments in #4 and the response in #5: my personal view is that, yes, when both parents take part in the spiritual teaching in the home, there is a better result. I think that a lot of fathers, even a lot of good Christian fathers, take less initiative in this area than they could or should.

So if churches promoted family devotions, and taught fathers especially about this, family spiritual life might be strengthened.

My comments assume that women tend to go to church more often, go to Bible studies more often, teach Sunday School more often, and help with Bible school more often than men do, so they may be a step ahead when it comes to providing spiritual nourishment to their children.

Comment by JasonOliver

July 21, 2006 @ 9:50 am

Phred:

Part b. of your commentary was so funny and true! I have read Sarah Sumner’s Bridging Ephesians 5 divide column on Christianity Today online. She brings a real look at the text in its context. Paul really seems to paint a beautiful picture of the one flesh model- Husband being the head of the wife and the wife being the body of the husband as Christ is the Head of the Church and the Church is the Body of Christ. What an interesting picture. I do believe the Scripture neither teaches a complementarian model of marriage nor egalitarian. It teaches marriage as a covenant of selfless, sacrificial unity of two people who have the same authority as believers given by Christ himself. It is interesting to note as we as the Body of Christ are in this present betrothal period before to Lord comes, He has given us all authority over the works of the enemy and has given us the keys to the kingdom. Everything that the Father has is His, and We are His and we are in Him, so Everything that the Father has is ours. Isn’t it the Father’s good pleasure to give us the kingdom (Luke 12:32)? Wow, What as Husband! Christ Jesus is who I want to be like in every area of my life!!!

Comment by Kathryn

July 21, 2006 @ 8:42 pm

As was stated in comment #6, the word “submit” does not appear in the instruction to wives. The manner of submission, with the right spirit, is the subject under discussion for wives, not submission itself. The “headship” is a picture of Genesis 2:22. As to comment # 8, thank you for clearing that up. My apologies if I misconstrued your remarks. Comment #9: Thank you for bringing out the fact that it is the Father’s good pleasure to give us the Kingdom. All of His children.

Comment by TeriLynn

July 22, 2006 @ 2:54 pm

Jason, re: post #9

Good word. And when there are more believers like you, the church will explode upon the world. The world will finally see that the body of Christ is a people who are learning how to truly love one another according to God’s Ways.

Comment by JasonOliver

July 23, 2006 @ 11:52 pm

Blessings to all,

I would like to share with you what I’ve learned recently. I had a copy of New Testament scholar complementarian Andreas Kostenberger’s response to Ausssie theologian Kevin Giles’ critique of Kostenberger et al. work “Women in the Church”. I must say that Dr. Kostenberger did an excellent job defending his position against Giles’ seemingly dastardly critique of his ‘painstaking’ work. While I was in college, I learned to be a active reader. So I grabbed my pen and started underlining some of Kostenberger’s comments on 1 Timothy 2:9-15. He believes that Paul bases ‘women’s submission to men’s ultimate leadership in the church’ by stating the following: “For as Paul contends in v. 14, it is precisely because the fall resulted from Eve’s transgression of proper creational boundaries that Christian women ought to respect the parameters set by the Creator with regard to their churchly activities.”

I had to underline that statement. The rhetoric stood out to me as interesting. So I read the creation account in Genesis chapters 1-3, and I started to see something different than what the good professor stated. In Genesis chapter 1, the Bible clearly says that God created “man” as male and female in his image. It also says that the Lord God blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply and subdue it and have dominion over the birds, the fish, and the creatures on the earth.

Chapter 2 gives us the account of how God created the male from the dust of the earth, set him in the Garden, gave him the instruction of tending it and guarding it. The Lord stated that it wasn’t good that the man should be alone so God said he would make a “Power face-to-face, or corresponding to him” - Hebrew: ezer kenegdo. Complementarians tend to use the simple ’suitable helper’ portraying the woman as a loving helpful assistant to the man while he is lovingly exercising authority over her and the animals. However, the Scripture does not say that. The man names the animals. Praise God! The man did not found a power corresponding to him. Now when the man is put to sleep, the good Lord takes a rib out of the man and forms the woman. Hallelujah! He sets the woman before the man and the man says ‘bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh, this is woman (isha) taken from man (ish). To God be the glory! Now if the man by calling the creature ‘woman’ was made to have authority over her because of his, the Scripture would have said so. Yet, the Bible tells us that God told both the man and woman to have authority over the rest of the creation, not the man over the woman because he called her woman and that she was taken from man. Now to the good stuff! Bear with me.

The enemy knew that the serpent was the ’slickest’ thing around. So he uses the serpent to converse with the woman. With the exception of the rattlesnake, you’ll never know when a snake strikes you until after you’re bitten. The serpent questions the woman about what God commanded. The woman responds with a ‘paraphrased’ answer. The serpent assures her that she wouldn’t die, that God knows that if she and her husband would eat of the tree they would be like God. Now God already made them in His image, they were like Him without knowing good and evil. Now the rest I’m sure y’all know- notice how the text says that Adam was with her. This makes perfect sense, Adam is the head of Eve, and Eve is the ‘body’ of Adam (one flesh) How can two walk together except they be agreed? What’s my point? Adam and Eve were given authority over the creatures of the field including the snake. Eve stepped out of ‘creational boundaries’ by listening to something that was lower than her. She along with her husband was ruler over the serpent. If she needed clarification on the command, she had free access to the One who gave the command. When she disobeyed her Creator’s command of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, she abdicated her position of authority. Adam/Eve’s authority was transferred to the enemy. The woman was deceived about what God commanded and became a transgressor. Complementarians tend to believe that ‘Eve stepped out of place’ in regards to not submitting to the leadership of her husband. This is very disturbing because the Bible does not expressly state that Adam was Eve’s leader. God had direct conversation with his children. What or who did Adam have to lead? Eve disobeyed God, not Adam. Adam was instructed to tend and keep (guard) the garden. Besides that there isn’t one iota of biblical evidence that God told Adam to lead and rule his wife before the Fall. Division was brought between them. Adam, though Eve would have a desire (turning, according to scholarship of the late Katherine Bushnell) for him, Adam will rule over her.

We really need, just like big brother John the revelator warned, to “try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1).

When biblical scholars begin to actually look at the text of 1 Timothy 2:8-10 and 11-15, we will read that Paul changes thought. Verse 11, Paul addresses a specific woman, gune, not women. I believe in the KJV, woman really means wife in the text and the man means husband. Why? because of Paul’s use of the typology of Adam and Eve, one man and one woman. Granted woman can also be metonymic for women in general. Paul says in v. 11 the wife learn with all quietness and submissiveness. These attitudes should be the characteristics found in all disciples of Christ. Be quiet, listen, and learn. He repeats the quietness part in v.12. Well this makes sense. How can women teach someone about something when they are in need to be taught that thing themselves? Praise God for Paul. Paul knew that it was against the social traditions in his era for women to learn anything, especially spiritual matters like the Scripture.

Paul says that Adam was formed first. I agree. Who wouldn’t? ‘Formed’ in the Greek can mean created, or formed in a social sense of being molded intellectually. God did instruct Adam not to eat tree of knowledge of good and evil first. Eve was created from Adam’s rib. She was his equal and bears God’s image. Then Eve was ‘formed’. Yet she was deceived, not Adam. Some complementarians claim it is inherent in female’s nature to be more prone to deception than a male’s but that does not hold to the whole counsel of the Scripture. Other complementarians believed Eve was deceived because she stepped out of place by not consulting her spiritual leader and authority, Adam. Again, Scripture does not say that. She stepped out of place by not consulting her true spiritual leader, God Almighty. To use this as a reason for excluding women from authoritative teaching, preaching, and pastoral ministry withers under the light of Scripture.

We as believers have the Spirit of Truth indwelling us. He is that inner witness that ’sounds the alarm’ when we hear a false teaching, even when it sounds Christianese. Nor can others use ‘male headship’ to argue for a woman not to hold authority in the church. I must parenthetically add that the current evangelical doctrine of male headship is a gross misinterpretation and misappropriation of the Scripture. If this is a rule, God himself broke it in regards to Deborah the prophet and judge over Israel, and she was married! God did not consider male headship when he sent Gabriel to tell Mary that God was gonna be born through her. I didn’t see her checking with her betrothed husband for the ‘final decision in the home’ in the text. She simply said, “God, I’m your maidservant, let it be unto me according to your Word!.”

The Greek word authenteo, as found in only once in the NT in 1 Timothy, means to domineer, lord it over, and to usurp authority over. Pastors don’t exercise authority over anyone. They are given the authority by God to tend to the spiritual maturity of God’s people. They are gifted and qualified by God to do that — nothing more, nothing less. The double-standard hermeneutic for male intrinsically leading and female intrinsically following or submitting has no basis in Scripture. This sounds like more like ‘Leave it to Beaver’ than the Word. The equipping gifts are gifts distributed by the Spirit as he wills. Notice if you study the gifts they all represent an aspect or attribute of Jesus Christ. He was the Sent One, the Prophet, the Preacher of Good Tidings, the Good Shepherd and the Rabbi.

“Normativity” does not mean godliness. Sin is normative in the world, but that doesn’t make it an ethic to live by. Also it is a strawman fallacy to use the argument, “There is no biblical record or precedent for women shepherding men.” This trumps the occasional nature of Pauline epistles. The Bible does not give an exhaustive record of what happened in the early church. Plus godly mothers shepherd men all the time even into their adulthood. Can I get a witness?

The Aaronic priesthood was exclusively male, yes. In the New Covenant, all God’s children are priests and sons of God. The Old Testament tribes were led by men. Wonderful, Praise God! This is a biblical fact. The fact that tribes were ruled by men as God regulated civil and familial order does not prove patriarchy as a divine ethic anymore than the regulation of polygamy and slavery. Patriarchy existed before God called Abraham out of Ur. Under God’s law, patriarchy was regulated so that God’s women were not mistreated — unlike the women in the pagan lands. It’s wonderful how God gave the first wife certain privileges over the rest of other wives in a man’s harem (Exodus 21:7-10).

Now the childbearing bit is interesting to me. Childbearing is a metonym for maternal duties. Paul says the woman will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith love and holiness and sobriety. I believe it is important to learn that the word ’saved’ does not always pertain to salvation. Saved in this passage can mean ‘to be kept safe and sound’. I believe he is stating- “The woman will be kept safe and sound even through the duties of being a mother if she will continue in faith, holiness, love, and sobriety.” So what is Paul stating that the woman will be kept safe and sound from? Well the whole letter deals with false teachings. It is sad that we limit the position of mothering to bearing and raising children. Deborah arose as a mother in Israel. We need the spirit of mothers and fathers in the land and in the churches of God. We in the assembly first are brothers and sisters in Christ. We have only one Father. Pastors are brothers and sisters to the congregation.

To use 1 Timothy 3 and similar passages to exclude women from being bishops or elders is quite misleading. Paul like may biblical authors always gave job descriptions from an andocentric perspective. Even God himself used such language in Exodus 20:17, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” Now if complementarians believe in the ‘plain, simple meaning of Scripture’, then women are free to covet. Of course this would be offensive to a complementarian because the underlying principle is not coveting. Well, the underlying principle of pastoring is shepherding God’s flock to maturity in Christ. Pastoring is a spiritual gift. There is nothing inherently male or female about it. Paul recognizes that there are those in the church of Ephesus who have this gift within them. Paul gives some character qualifications to fill such a powerful equipping ministry.

I tend not to label myself as an egalitarian or conservative or an evangelical for matter. The first two words scream more about political ideologies than theological or biblical matters. I am a Christian African American of the Baptist and Pentecostal persuasions. I didn’t hear the term evangelical until I meet some white believers in college. I know that ‘evangelical’ is derived from the Greek word for good news — to me, I personally don’t ascribe myself to that label. I’m just glad to be saved and to know the Lord Jesus. The whole notion of ‘gender roles’ used in the evangelical debate is a chimera. It’s not that we humans are not male and female, biologically and psychologically. We are complementary. We need to be to reproduce after our own kind. A father cannot be a mother and vice versa. When it comes to the Church, we are joined by the Spirit. We don’t stop being male and female. Our differences don’t stop. The inherent flaw in the complementarian message is to impute a ‘following/submission’ trait in femaleness and to impute ‘leadership’ in maleness. The message says “God can use a woman, but not in a position of authority over a man or leading a man because that trumps male headship and degrades a man’s inherent leadership trait.” They really have no Scriptural or statistical evidence to prove such a statement. That is an erroneous conjecture at best and a flat out lie at worst and reeks with bias and elitism. True male headship is for marriage, not the church. Christ is the only Head of the Church, not men, let alone pastors. And who the Divine Husband chooses to shepherd his Bride to is up to Him, not us. A female pastor has authority given by God Himself. The Church is a community of the Spirit and the Word. Spirit-filled and led people know the pastoral calling of a woman or a man’s life and affirm that calling. It’s time to stop using liberal feminists and queer theologians as a sign of a hermeneutical downward spiral or slippery slope against devout Christian women called to ministerial leadership by the Lord himself. This is a scare tactic.

Wesleyan/Holiness and Pentecostal women have been preaching and pastoring for over a century and have not strayed from biblical authority as some like to argue. It goes to show the bias in the complementarian position. Most complementarians represent traditions who do not believe in using experience as an interpreting tool of the Scripture. They rely on cognitive and rationalistic models. It’s not that Pentecostals or Holiness people are against the historical-critical method of interpretation, their experiences of the Holy Spirit are different than most conservative evangelicals. Conservative evangelicalism experiences the Spirit of regeneration and justification. Classical Pentecostal and Holiness experience the Spirit beyond that and know Him also as the Spirit of sanctification, prophecy and dynamic miraculous power. Complementarians would agree with my statement, but would interject that the Holy Spirit doesn’t contradict Scripture. I also would agree. So the weight relies on our reading and understanding of whole counsel of the Scripture in regards to marital relationships and relationships between men and women in general.

Some would appeal to the historic view of the Church. But that is not so clear cut. The Historic view of the Church has different reasons why women would not hold a bishopric role. But most of that is rooted in Catholic/Orthodox theology, not the Scripture itself. The early Church Fathers had some disturbing views of women that complementarians themselves would have heart attacks if one would accuse them with aligning with such crazy views from certain Church Fathers.

As a Pentecostal in experience and theology, God’s Spirit is poured out on all flesh in these last days. I’ve seen children as young as ages of 6-9 preach the Gospel. Grown men and women were convicted and their lives transformed by the preaching of the Word and the power of the Holy Spirit. These kids didn’t need ordinations, they have the anointing. Now if God can anoint and will children which he promised in his Word to do his will to save souls and to glorify his name, what right do we have to limit what God can do? Complementarians best be careful not to ascribe the work of the Holy Spirit to sin at best or the work of the devil at worst. I believe it is unfortunate that certain Pentecostals and Holiness groups are letting go of their biblical and theological distinctiveness to fit in with mainstream evangelicalism.

Another problem in our general Christian rationality is that we have exalted and deified the ‘office’ of pastor for too long in the Body of Christ. A pastor is a servant of the Lord called to serve His people. A pastor shepherds the Master’s flock. A pastor does not own the flock. We as Christians really need to study the Word for ourselves and seek the counsel of the Holy Spirit. We also need to grow in our faith to know that our Father will not give us a stone if we ask in for a piece of bread. I’m certain that a complementarian believer would not deny that hearing the authority/power of God in Beth Moore and Anne Graham Lotz preaching and teaching trump ‘male headship’. Well Brother Jason, you say, they’re not preachers. I beg to differ. Well Jay, they’re not pastors either. Well my complementarian brother and sister, you’re right, I have to agree with you there! But remember, a teacher and an evangelist are of the five equipping gifts for the edification of the saints along with pastor, apostle, and prophet.

I have a cousin who does not believe in female pastors. I know that in her journey with the Lord she has stood firm in that conviction and I respect her for it! We love each other deeply and respect each other for having our convictions. I wish that evangelical complementarians and biblical egalitarians would talk to each other and listen and respect, humble ourselves (wow, did I just confess I’m an evangelical!) and LOVE each other and drop the arrogance that would destroy the great witness of the whole evangelical movement in America and around the world.

Comment by Kathryn

July 24, 2006 @ 2:52 pm

Yes and amen. The only thing is, the complementarians want to take us back to the old patriarchal mode. That is the central thing that makes dialogue impossible.

Comment by Lori

July 25, 2006 @ 8:25 am

Re: #12

You made some really excellent points, Jason. I’ll just comment on a few of them.

When biblical scholars begin to actually look at the text of 1 Timothy 2:8-10 and 11-15, we will read that Paul changes thought. Verse 11, Paul addresses a specific woman, gune, not women.

In their book Why Not Women?, Hamilton and Cunningham use this point to illustrate why they don’t think women are barred from church leadership. I highly recommend their book.

Even God himself used such language in Exodus 20:17, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” Now if complementarians believe in the ‘plain, simple meaning of Scripture’, then women are free to covet.

Great point! I love it. :)

Most complementarians represent traditions who do not believe in using experience as an interpreting tool of the Scripture.

Ah, yes. Where have I heard this before? When I mention that I’ve known many godly women ministers, “but that was just your experience, though. That doesn’t make it right.”

They were also virulently anti-Semitic. In addition, the Church has endorsed racism and slavery during various parts of its history. That’s why the argument regarding women in leadership that “The Church has always done it that way” doesn’t cut it for me.

Comment by TeriLynn

July 25, 2006 @ 11:57 pm

re: post #14

Actually, there is a statement in Hebrew 13 that tells us we must view the outcome of our leaders belief system; the implication being to test what is being said against real life, in order to not be led about by strange doctrines.

7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by the eating of ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who observe such rituals. TNIV

Comment by Lori

July 26, 2006 @ 12:09 pm

When I got married several years ago, the only model for marriage I knew was the comp. one. Therefore, I told my fiancé I wanted him to be the spiritual head of our home. I had no clue what that meant, but hey, that’s what people said the husband had to be, so it sounded good to me. :)

Now, though, I don’t agree with the concept. I mean, Luther led the Reformation so that people could go to God themselves, and not have to go through a human mediator. Doesn’t this modern concept of women needing a spiritual head seem to contradict that?

Comment by Craighton

July 27, 2006 @ 9:28 am

re: comment #15
I’m not sure I’ve ever honed in on those verses in quite this way. Note that they say to imitate our leaders’ faith and to be strengthened by any grace that they show, but to examine critically the way they live — what the practical implications are from what they believe. Hierarchicalism has already showed its bankrupt nature. Will putting a thin veneer of soft sheep clothing over it make it any better?

Comment by TeriLynn

July 27, 2006 @ 1:32 pm

Re: post #17

Craighton:

I’m not sure I’ve ever honed in on those verses in quite this way. Note that they say to imitate our leaders’ faith and to be strengthened by any grace that they show, but to examine critically the way they live — what the practical implications are from what they believe. Hierarchicalism has already showed its bankrupt nature. Will putting a thin veneer of soft sheep clothing over it make it any better?

First I’m not getting what you meant about putting a thin veneer of sheep clothing?

As to the rest, well, I was much too brief. Let me see if I can better explain what I was thinking.

Chapter 13 is an interesting chapter. It reminds the reader to look, observe, remember, and apply good proper behavior to one’s life. Verses 7-9 and 17-18 are tied together, perhaps book-ending what is in-between, somewhat defining how we approach and apply what we are observing and remembering.

Verse 7 tells us to remember those who lead us in teaching the Scriptures. Remembering has already been admonished in verse 3 as part of letting brotherly love continue, which is closed with verse 5’s admonition to let our conduct by without covetousness. So, remembering has already been tied with observing so as to adjust our own behavior towards godliness.

OK, so the implications are that we are to remember and observe our leaders, but we are not to follow their teachings (further defined in verse 9) until we consider the outcome of their conduct. In other words we must observe how they live out their teachings, consider their ramifications before wholeheartedly taking them into our own behavior. This carefulness in following what our leaders teach is emphasized by mentioning that Christ (who is Truth embodied) is the same and does not change, AND that we must not be carried away by strange teachings. Our hearts must be established on grace, we must eat the spiritual foods that profit our soul. One way to see that is by observing how teachings (and we must agree that the body of Christ has many diverse teachings) flesh out in the lives of those who teach and believe them.

Then in verse 17 we have an interesting word that had it been translated better (difficult word though) I believe it would read: “be willing to be persuaded by your leaders and be submissive …..”. The Greek word for “obey” (upakouo) is not there. Instead we have peithomai or a derivative.

The Greek word (3982) “peitho” means:

1) persuade
a) to persuade, that is, to induce one by words to believe
b) to make friends of, to win one’s favor, to gain one’s good will, or to seek to win one, to strive to please one
c) to tranquilize
d) to persuade unto, that is, to move or induce one to persuasion to do something
2) be persuaded
a) to be persuaded, to suffer oneself to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith (in a thing)
1) to believe
2) to be persuaded of a thing concerning a person
b) to listen to, to obey, to yield to, to comply with
3) to trust, to have confidence, to be confident

In Classical Greek students were taught that the fundamental meaning of the word pietho was to persuade (in the active voice), or be persuaded (in the passive, or middle voice).This is not claiming that this verb can never be translated obey, but is saying that even in those cases, the word likely has overtones of doing such and such BECAUSE one is persuaded. In the New Testament the idea of persuasion and related ideas are frequently present when the verb is used, as in the very next verse, Hebrews 13:18, with the idea of confidence (because one is persuaded).

Thus, we have this whole section closing with the idea of being willing, allowing for the possibility of, being persuaded of what is being taught by our leaders. And how do we allow them to persuade us, by observing and remembering how they live out their beliefs. This is further drummed in by verse 18 which says that we are to pray for the author(s) of the epistle (implying leaders and teachers perhaps) because they are living honorably in a good conscience.

It is unfortunate that many have helicoptered verse 7 and 17 out of the context of this chapter and used it to demand that the laity give somewhat blind obedience to their clergy rather than properly separating honor and respect from blind obedience. We are to honor and respect those who have dedicated their lives to serve the body of Christ but we are to follow what proves to be truth, both by searching the Scriptures (Acts 17:10-12) and by observing how they live what they teach.

So, this is why I said what I said: “the implication being to test what is being said against real life (the real life of the leaders living out their beliefs) , in order to not be led about by strange doctrines.” Sometimes, it’s difficult to tell what our leaders really mean until we see how they apply it in their lives. This of course does not mean I’m implying that we ONLY follow our leaders, and do not read Scripture and through prayer and research figure things out for ourselves.

Comment by TeriLynn

July 27, 2006 @ 1:35 pm

P.S. The above was not implying that wives are to treat husbands in the same way we treat our leaders. Wives are not the laity of the husband. I was strictly discussing the verse in Hebrews. Sometimes, my horse blinders are on and I forget which track I’m in. :)

Comment by Lori

July 28, 2006 @ 10:38 am

Re: #6

b. Is it a metaphor (yes), and if so, how so? “Head” as authority? Or “Head” as source/origin? And so you have the usual looking up of every place in Greek literature about the use of the word “kephale” which is all fine and well. Grudem is right I think, the word kephale never means “source” in the Septuagint, and rarely means “source” in ancient literature….

Unfortunately, Grudem is not entirely accurate in his assertions. You see, the early church fathers believed that “head” meant “source.” The following is from God’s Word to Women. There are several fathers quoted, but I’m going to mention just one.

John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (A.D. 347-407) commenting on 1 Cor.11:3 said the head metaphor does not mean that one has authority over another or one is under subjection to another. Dr. Joe E. Trull, editor of Christian Ethics Today, quotes Chrysostom: “If you think ‘head’ means ‘chief’ or ‘boss,’ you skew the godhead!”[27] Dr. Catherine Clark Kroeger, adjunct Professor of Classical and Ministry Studies at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, confirms that Chrysostom interprets the metaphor to mean “source” or “point of origin” and declared as a heretic anyone who proclaimed that “head” in this context denoted superior power or authority![28]

I say that Grudem is not accurate in his assertions because of the paragraph that follows on GWTW.

In critiquing Dr. Kroeger’s article on “Head”, Dr. Wayne Grudem,…says: “Concerns will also be raised about the level of care and accuracy with which evidence has been quoted” and that “the article is troubling at its core, not only for what is claims, but for the model of scholarly work that it puts forth.[29] Grudem says: “But Chrysostom does not say this all. Rather he assumes that kephale does mean ‘authority over.’”[30] Grudem further claims that Chrysostom agrees with the heretics that kephale means “authority over” because “the Son is obedient to the Father” and “is also subject to the Father.”[31] Grudem totally misrepresents what Chrysostom actually said and meant! He bases his argument on pure assumptions. If anyone is guilty of exhibiting a lack of scholastic integrity it is Grudem alone, not Dr. Kroeger. Grudem fails to include specific comments that prove Chrysostom does not agree with the heretics’ claims that Christ is “under subjection.”

The article then goes on to enumerate several quotes from Chrysostom that disprove Grudem’s assertions.

(although how else are we to take it in 1 Cor 11? Another conversation for another post)

As I pointed out under “Women and Education,” there are numerous difficulties with trying to make “head” mean “authority over” I Cor 11:3.

Do you think “the head” as the supplier of life to the body is the sense in which Paul speaks of Christ as the head of the church?

In Col 1:16-18, Paul writes

16For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

This image of kephale meaning “source” is repeated throughout Paul’s writings. That’s why I believe kephale should be translated as “source” in I Cor 11. Does it also apply to Eph 5? I don’t know, but I think that’s an interesting theory you put forth that it does.

Comment by Rachel

November 9, 2006 @ 3:11 pm

Hey all. I am currently doing some research on the subordination doctrine (or heresy) espoused by Grudem and others, and I am particularly looking for information on Grudem’s word study on “kephale”. I understand that Bilezikien and Cervin wrote a response to this, and that Grudem has since responded to their critiques. I am thoroughly confused. Could I get a play-by-play recall of this hermeneutical feud, and who is currently winning it (meaning who has the most recently published material?). Thanks for your help.

Comment by Laura

November 8, 2008 @ 1:04 pm

I have seen many women leading their family in worship and initiating the spiritual tone of the home. while on the sidelines the husband reads and studies (for himself) and never seems to really care about the direction his future (wife and children) is taking in regards to their journey towards the Truth. I belive that a husband’s role is to be the spiritual leader of the home. If he is truly seeking G-d with all of his heart then he will not be drawn to the world and its way of thinking. Why bless your daughters to be like Sarah? Was it because of her own relationship with G-d that she was promised a son?
No man on his own can live up to the challenge of being the spiritual head of the home unless he 1st seeks G-d with all of his heart. His wife should not feel torn between following G-d or her husband. It should be one and the same. He should be there to encourage his wife to seek after G-d and do His bidding. As a wife we should not make it hard for our husbands to follow after G-d, we are there to encourage them.
If I am being legalistic about the whole thing it just shows others that I have no real relationship with G-d or my spouse.

Comment by Wesley

November 12, 2008 @ 6:57 am

You have no idea how much of a breath of fresh air this is to read! As a single, 29-year-old male, I get single women throwing “spiritual leader” in my face like it’s part of the beatitudes, when it’s not even in the Bible!

The impression I get is that some of these women want to abdicate any spiritual responsibility. Or, when they say “spiritual leader,” they want a “good Christian,” which is essentially the same standards they hold themselves to.

And it’s such a relief to see all this intelligent discussion over the terms, and not simply a blind acceptance of what has become a huge buzzword in Christian marriage circles in the last 20 years or so.

So, when a woman says she’s looking for a spiritual leader, I’ve come to accept it as her choice, and explain why to her (like if I were to ever get married, I would CHOOSE to have a wife who appreciates the arts, as I’m a musician).

Here’s an example for you: my parents. My mom and dad are both dedicated Christians, both know God wants them together, and have been married for 37 years. So, because their marriage worked with their faith in God means of course is because my mother was looking for her “spiritual leader”? Absolutely not. She’d never even HEARD the term.

There’s an earlier verse in Ephesians 5: “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.” If people took that one as seriously as they took 5:22, we should all be singing to each other! As a musician, I get a kick out of that.

Comment by Liz

November 12, 2008 @ 8:06 am

And what a breath of fresh air your comments are Wesley!

I was just saying to my husband tonight “Why is it that so many people just accept all this headship teaching and don’t feel uncomfortable with it?”

You have proved that there are people out there who are not happy with the whole ’spiritual leader’ idea.
Thanks for sharing and from one musician to another…may God lead you to share with many more people your experience of freedom in Christ.

Comment by Michael

November 27, 2008 @ 12:08 pm

I find myself troubled over this subject every time it comes up, all the more reading through these comments. We of the faith seem to struggle against God’s word regarding the roles of husbands and wives just as much as the world struggles against God’s word regarding salvation through Christ Jesus alone.

The idea of “the spiritual leader” seems no doubt to have come from a weakening of scripture in order to appeal to our own reasoning, and now even that is under attack here. The Bible never offers this narrow interpretation. It does, no matter how offensive, say the wife is to the husband as the Son is to the Father. (1 Cor. 11:3) What we seem to be doing is finding new ways to “logically” deny this, all of which appeal to our sensibilities, and applauding each other for the effort. An entire volume could be written, but only a few examples starting at the top of this thread should be sufficient to initiate discussion.

The question is rhetorically presented, “Does the Bible really teach that the husband is the ’spiritual leader’ of his wife? No, it does not!” While I absolutely agree (see Eph. 5:24 for what it DOES say), it certainly teaches the husband is to wash his wife in the word (Eph. 5:26) and the wife is to question and learn from her husband. (1 Cor. 14:35)

However, instead of using the understanding that the answer is “no” to come to a better awareness, the response is to abandon God’s word completely.

“The Bible says that the Holy Spirit, not a husband, is to ‘guide you into all truth.’” Absolutely again, at least a portion of that statement is a quote, yet as Paul reminds us, it is the woman who was deceived. (1 Tim. 2:14) Therefore, and because of that, Paul speaking scripture has turned her toward the man to be taught. Knowing these verses have likely pushed several “hot buttons,” let’s move on quickly and briefly.

From the standpoint of the misrepresentations just presented, we are taken to the obvious point that husbands “cannot always be spiritually superior to their wives.” No where does scripture suggest superiority. It dictates, from God’s perspective, responsibility. It also assures us assistance. (Mark 10:27) Does anyone else see the intellectual dishonesty we exhibit when we first declare the Holy Spirit will lead us in all truth and then immediately deny His ability (or willingness?) to do so?

Now that we are fully engaged down this anti-scriptural path, it is not a big jump to state husbands are being “encouraged to take the place of the Holy Spirit.” (In fact, no where is this ever presented within the text either, but if you do find it within scripture, it came from God Himself.) Finally then, following these missteps one by one, we are told following what scripture clearly does teach is therefore “idolatry”!

If we have readily accepted this much, there is no stopping us in our mad search for an understanding that we can agree with. “My thoughts and ways are not your thoughts and ways” is much too far back in scripture to come to mind now. (Isa. 55:8-9)

“So then, what is the meaning of ‘head?’” the thread continues, going on to give us an incredible spiritual “interpretation” showing God’s greatness!

“Only God could have thought of that.” And isn’t the symbology beautiful! Yet where is the truth?

The word “head” in Ephesians 5:23 and 1 Corinthians 11:3 is the Greek word “kephale.” Look it up in Strong’s. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “source.” Nor any of the other suggested interpretations that continue throughout this thread.

The Father never conferred with Jesus and got His agreement before deciding. “I do always what pleases Him,” Jesus said. (John 8:29) “If there be any other way,” we could also paraphrase Him, “nevertheless not My will but Thy will.” (Mark 14:36) As hard as these things may be to conider in relation to marriage, recognize also Sarah was not commended for calling Abraham “Rabbi.” (1 Pet. 3:5-6)

Now, if any woman thinks this is easy for a man to say and believe, you are not thinking from the perspective of a Christian man! If we take all of scripture seriously, we don’t like it any better than you do!

Husbands, there is a reason why, while wives were told to submit (Col. 3:18), we were told to love! (Col. 3:19) Could it be according to our roles? Could it be to keep us from abusing? Could it be to honor the “help” man needed who was given to him by God Himself?

Yes, we are told, “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church,” remembering always that love is not a feeling but rather an act! (John 3:16, 15:13, 1 John 3:18, 5:3, Matt. 5:44, and on and on) Let’s give up our selfishness, serve them, protect them, provide for them, and yes, teach them, too. Let’s be faithful to prepare them to meet God “without blemish.” Let’s not have to answer both for our wives and ourselves by failing to keep His word!

I know this is a difficult topic. Over and over I hear pastors struggle to teach it, softening the message more and more as we cater to the world’s view of right, fair and just. Why did God create lucifer knowing what would come? Why does God allow so much evil in the world? Why does God use men to further the gospel? Why is He so willing to delay now yet not forever? Why did He set up what is often called a “chain of command” that so clearly violates what we want to believe?

Maybe you know. I don’t. What I do know is we will not find it struggling to redefine every word until we are finally “comfortable.”

Instead, let’s read what God has revealed simply, adding and taking away nothing. He has set up authorities and responsibilities, not I agree easy to understand and accept, yest certainly easy to abuse. Still we know, those authorities and responsibilities must be perfect for those who strive to stay close to the Lord and obey Him.

Grace and peace…

Comment by jlp

November 28, 2008 @ 12:38 am

I see what I consider a lot of biblical errors in what you have written. I’m not sure if I should put the time and effort into pointing out to you where I feel you are making mistakes. Should I?

Comment by jlp

November 28, 2008 @ 12:54 am

Michael,

You said:

It does, no matter how offensive, say the wife is to the husband as the Son is to the Father. (1 Cor. 11:3)

I disagree with your interpretation of this verse.

Comment by jlp

November 28, 2008 @ 1:10 am

Michael,

1) 1 Cor 3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

I disagee with your interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3, it does not say the wife is to the husband as the Son is to the Father. It’s simply not there.

2) Additionally, you should look at the Liddell Scott Greek English lexicon where kephale (head in 1 Cor 11:13 and Eph. 5:23 has a possible meaning of “source.” Here’s the link. Scroll down to II d.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2356992

Are you willing to check it out even though it disagrees with what you believe kephale means?

3) Where in the Bible does it say there is a chain of command?

4) You say “Instead, let’s read what God has revealed simply, adding and taking away nothing.” But it seems to me that you are adding things into scripture that aren’t actually there.

Comment by faith

November 28, 2008 @ 12:57 pm

Michael, your beginning assumptions or presuppositions lead you to specific conclusions. Have you ever questioned your assumptions or presuppositions?

Complimentarian assumptions begin with their understanding of original sin in Genesis 3.(the woman usurped the leadership role of the man and led the world into sin, she was deceived outside of the headship of the man and the man followed. Eve having once taught and led is not premitted again to teach or lead). Then redemption is to restore headship placing the woman under proper authority and alignment and the man under the authority of God. (heirarchy)

I question those assumptions. I believe the man and the woman were present when the serpent tempted them. Together they represent all humans who are confronted with alligience to God or the gods of this world. (as represented by the serpent). Sin is disobedience to God. Such sin then led to sinful human structures and a sin tainted world. Redemption is liberty from sin through the work of Christ and a restored relationship with God in which full allegience is once again given to God and lived out in love for others.

Michael, we will not find unity because our assumptions are different about what happened in the garden.

Comment by Michael

November 28, 2008 @ 6:30 pm

I will do my best to respond to all of the comments above.

JLP:

Absolutely, respond and allow me to pray and study! Let me review some of your comments first.

Michael,

1) 1 Cor 3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

“I disagee with your interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3, it does not say the wife is to the husband as the Son is to the Father. It’s simply not there.”

I am somewhat “baffled” at this comment. The parallels Paul expresses are absolutely clear and unmistakable. Looking at the Greek (I prefer and use the “Majority Text”), there are no mitigating words at all. Any conclusion you draw for the man you must draw for the woman. Any conclusion you draw for the woman you must draw for Christ. To answer your 3rd point, this is exactly where I find what I would call a “chain of command.” The order given I need not explain, of course, but it shows (looking to the end of the verse) Christ headed by “God” (which is clearly expressed throughout scripture), the man headed by Christ, and the wife headed by the husband.

Back to your 2nd point, to suggest this word means “source” would be to suggest that the source of Christ is God. I know there are cults who teach that thought, but scripture is clear that Jesus is God, has always been God, and will always be God. Beyond that, and despite the beautiful metaphor referenced in my original note, there is no justification or support for that (at least that I know of!) within the text. For example,

Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Here again we see the word “kephale.” If we are to accept the word as meaning “source” (and not “authority”) we end up with what could rightfully be called “nonsense.” We must then insist that Christ is the “source of the church” rather than its authority. How do we reconcile that with “putting all things under His feet”? The two thoughts which once supported each other now are dissonant and confusing. Meanwhile, just as in accepting the meaning of “source” in 1 Cor. 11:3 (for God is not the source of Jesus), we end up in a dilemma. We should note as well this is the same author as Eph. 5 and 1 Cor., using the same word regarding the same Christ. We can very easily show Jesus’ assumption of a submissive role to the Father, but we cannot show the Father as His source. Just as easily, we can well support the concept of Jesus being the authority over the church. To change the meaning of this word in any one place would require us to consider the same change everywhere, which simply cannot be supported.

As for your 4th point, while you will never get me to admit it (you’re supposed to laugh here!), it is certainly possible that I could be adding to the text and, in my conviction blinded to that fact. However, through these points at least I see nothing (yet?) except understanding a single word as is most likely and most consistent with the surrounding verses and overall with the entirety of scripture. If you see something else, please continue. I really do appreciate the chance to consider, reflect and dialogue with my family!

Hi Faith! Similarly to you I would say thank you for engaging me!

Regarding your comment, where did I introduce that version of “original sin”? I just reread all I wrote and see no mention of it whatsoever. If I missed it, and all the more if I missed that I have confirmed the version you placed in your response, I will apologize because I do not believe, at least as far as what I gather from your statement, those assumptions either and therefore I misspoke! If on the other hand you wish to attribute to me things I never even hinted at, and then correct those things, I am at a distinct disadvantage. But let me relate those events to the ones we are mentioning.

I don’t know how near or far Adam was when Eve accepted satan’s lie and gave in to the fleshly reasons she had for disobedience. (We might do well to consider where she even heard of the injunction since scripture is clear who told Adam but we are left to guess who told Eve.) We absolutely know she was deceived, and must therefore have believed satan. It does seem to have been an indpendent decision since nowhere do we read that she conferred with Adam and we would have no reason to make that up.

Adam then, perhaps even seeing the change in her but who knows, willfully disobeyed God knowing the truth. Who then has the greater sin? If I am allowed to speculate a little myself, I sometimes wonder if that is the very reason for the “chain of command” put forth in 1 Cor. 11:3.

The woman required deception to disobey, the man required nothing but his own flesh. I suspect God, having to choose, was willing to allow the woman to be “one step away” but not the man. Knowing his propensity to sin, God wanted Him at Christ’s side constantly and totally. Perhaps we will one day know for sure when we no longer “see darkly”?

Looking just a second longer at the events of that day, there is a verse which I admit (just like 1 Tim. 2:15) I am not at all confident I understand correctly.

Gen. 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

I have heard varying teachings on this, sometimes suggesting God was referencing the woman’s reluctance to allow the husband to be the “head.” If that was not the case, God clearly missed an opportunity to warn us all because that is very much what has happened.

Now, I will keep an eye on this and continue to respond as best I am able and I promise to be thoughtful (at least as far as my maleness will allow! lol). I meant what I wrote earlier in saying this is not easy for a Christian man, either. Knowing we have been commanded to offer Christ-like love to our wives is not a standard I welcome no matter my desire to do just that! Every wife now has the absolute right to expect it and no man I know of can completely accomplish it.

Grace and peace,
Michael

Comment by Steve Brogan

November 28, 2008 @ 9:49 pm

I think Kathryn made some good points. In a lot of households headed by women it is the mother who gives the children religious instruction.
The injunction for the man to be the spiritual leader causes lot of problems and ends a lot of times (I think )in total giving up of the religion. I know in my family my father died young and my mother became the leader of the family obviously. What’s odd is that when my mother died my sister tried to assume spiritual leadership.This is why I think so many males leave religion because they don’t want to just sit there and be preached to and be taught by their sisters what they are supposed to be thinking. This really is the reason males separate and join together in bars etc., to get away from nagging women, women who turn into street preachers in the home.

Comment by jlp

November 28, 2008 @ 11:21 pm

Michael,

I’ve read your second post and there’s so much I disagree with I don’t know where to start. I don’t agree your translation of the Biblical texts. I think you start from a point of male power over the female and interpret texts from that point. In otherwords, I don’t think you interpret them objectively.

Comment by Cheryl

November 28, 2008 @ 11:21 pm

Michael,

You said: “Back to your 2nd point, to suggest this word means “source” would be to suggest that the source of Christ is God. I know there are cults who teach that thought, but scripture is clear that Jesus is God, has always been God, and will always be God. Beyond that, and despite the beautiful metaphor referenced in my original note, there is no justification or support for that (at least that I know of!) within the text.”

The “source” is that of Christ - his humanity not of his Deity. Christ is not an eternity past term. It is a term for the humanity of Christ and certainly God is the source of the humanity of Christ.

You said: “We can very easily show Jesus’ assumption of a submissive role to the Father, but we cannot show the Father as His source.”

This isn’t true at all. Jesus clearly taught his disciples that he came from the Father. This is Jesus the man coming from the Father. Hebrews 10:5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says “Sacrifice and offering you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me”

The body was indeed prepared for him by the Father and God is his source of his humanity.

You said: “Here again we see the word “kephale.” If we are to accept the word as meaning “source” (and not “authority”) we end up with what could rightfully be called “nonsense.” We must then insist that Christ is the “source of the church” rather than its authority. How do we reconcile that with “putting all things under His feet”?”

The scriptures are clear that Jesus is the source of the church and he nourishes the church and causes her to grow. When the bible says that all things are put under his feet, Ephesians 1:22, 23 says God gave Him as head over all things to the church which is His body…, it is “to” the church. The scripture doesn’t say that he puts the church under his feet. We are the body of Christ and just as he has chosen to have us rule and reign with him, all things are put under the feet of the church as the body and bride of Christ.

The problem of seeing 1 Cor. 11:3 as an “authority over”, as many have stated this is about the Trinity, is that one then must make the Father as having a higher authority than the Son and this is not sustainable in the OT. There is no instance of the LORD of hosts as being subordinated to the LORD God in the OT. There is no difference in authority in the Trinity and any subjection is related to the humanity of Christ alone.

I have placed an 8 minute clip on youtube concerning the errors of those who try to force a hierarchal difference of authority in the Trinity. It is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLe-qF2nptA

Comment by Michael

November 29, 2008 @ 10:21 am

Hi again, JLP,

I can

Comment by Michael

November 29, 2008 @ 10:22 am

Hi Cheryl,

A new player! God bless you! Let me start at the beginning of your post…

“Christ is not an eternity past term.”

Isa. 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Here we see YHVH, I AM, Jesus Himself speaking and calling Himself the one and only “Christ,” albeit in the Hebrew.

Eph. 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Here we see our place in Christ determined even before creation.

Re 22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

This is the last verse of the Bible, describing the Son who is back with the Father, sitting on the throne, and just like He is 9 other times within the final book, called “Christ.”

So then, was the idea of “becoming flesh” (John 1:14) and “do always those things that please Him” (John 8:29) something “new” to the Son? Did He not know about it until just before Mary was caused to be pregnant? Could we have interrupted a conversation that went something like this,

“Son, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what’s going on down on earth. What do you think about going down there, becoming flesh, and being submissive to Me for a little while?”

Once more it seems we strain to make a point. You state that “Christ is a term for the humanity of Christ,” yet that cannot be found in the scripture and indeed, from before the beginning of creation into eternity, He has been and always will be “Christ” according to what we just read.

“This isn’t true at all. Jesus clearly taught his disciples that he came from the Father.”

This statement is almost true. (I once counted for a high school boys Bible study how many times Jesus said He came from the Father, and now I’ve forgotten!) However, in the context, was He saying the Father was His “source” or something else? Let’s look at but a few examples.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

John 7:29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

What I see is the word “sent.” Indeed, I see “sent not to do My will but His will” if you will allow me to paraphrase the second example. No where ever do we see this in the context of “source.” Since I have mentioned that word, please allow me once more to refer back to the analogy that was used to earlier.

The suggestion was made that the word “kephale” actually referred to the fact that the woman came out of the man, from his own parts. Skipping over the untenable parallels, the author made what appeared to be a beautiful metaphor “only God could have thought of.” Indeed!

Then, and I will agree many who know me might readily accept this, my source is not God but dirt! Hmmm… so what are you all trying to say about me? ;))) Now back to your post.

Regarding Hebrews 10:5 you make a very good point. As we read but a chapter earlier, “Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin.” (Heb. 9:22) Indeed, a perfect sacrifice was needed and God prepared the body for that purpose inside Mary. But where is the contextual connection to “kephale”? I’m sorry, but the stretch is much too far for me when, within the very thought, we have the clear context of “authority” in all the examples we have reviewed.

“The scriptures are clear that Jesus is the source of the church…”

Indeed again, I believe He told Peter, “On this rock I will build My church.” (Matt. 16:18) Once more, however, we reach back to tie something to the verses in question that is not at all related while continuing to ignore what is.

When Paul writes, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” (Eph. 5:22), what is he referring to? Here goes a button again, but the word “hupotasso” means to obey or be in obedience to. Within that context, Paul then gives us the reason.

Eph. 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Is the reason for submission that the “source” of woman is man (and of man it is dirt)? Is the context one of “sourceness” or of authority? Looking but one verse further, we find the following.

Eph. 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Once more we see the word “hupotasso,” this time translated “subject unto.” Paul is not writing about the source, he is writing about Christ’s authority (after He is back in heaven, glorified with His Father!) over the church and drawing an exact parallel to wives with their husbands. (“…as the church…so let the wives be…”)

The world will tell us not to believe it, but isn’t that the same lie we first see satan guilty of? (Gen. 3:4) Isn’t that the same liar that deceived woman then? My value, your value, does not come from what the world sees nor from our authority. Our value comes from God, from our Creator, and our value to Him is evident in the extent of His willingness to suffer that we might have eternal life! Similarly, our power does not come from our authority, it comes from God, equally, always, without respect to persons! But let me move on before I close without addressing everything you wrote and leaving you thinking there is no other explanation.

“When the bible says that all things are put under his feet, Ephesians 1:22, 23 says God gave Him as head over all things to the church which is His body…, it is ‘to’ the church.”

I did not mean to say the church is “under Jesus’ feet,” though I could very well make that point if I imagine where His throne is. My focus again is on the word “kephale.” (You make a point of the word “to” and I am not offended by that, but my KJV states that word was added by the translators.) Therefore, let’s see what the Greek actually says. Here is a word for word of that section of the text.

“…He gave (as, to be) head over all to the church”

Now then, how should I interpret this? Does “head over” (“kephale huper”) mean “source of”? Paul uses the word “hupo” only a moment before (“under” His feet). Does “huper” mean “over” or “of”? Was Jesus given as “head over all”? If we read “head over” (and not “source of”), does this fit the Greek? Does it fit the moment? Does it violate scripture elsewhere? Could Paul have written “head of” (or “source of”) if he so desired and intended? Do we call Jesus “Lord” or simply “Savior”? Is He ruling? Do we obey His commands?

Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Jesus is not the Lord of the world (John 14:30) at this moment as is clearly seen by the character and behavior of it. But is He the Lord of our world and the church? Does Paul tell us to obey Him? Is Paul “schizophrenic,” speaking of authority one minute and source another, inside the same sentence, only to confuse us with disjointed expressions? We only need to say so if we refuse to believe God set the husband as the authority and used Jesus to model the right way to be both.

Your last point I have really already covered, but I will state it again in the context of my last statement. There is evidence of the “Lord of Hosts” (I love that you see Jesus there!) being subordinate to the Father in as much as He chose to do so. He knew from before creation what He would be required to do and agreed to do. The beauty and sign of His love is not that He was forced, but that He willingly submitted. (Phil. 2:6-7)

Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Take away the thought that being “under the authority” is “demeaning” and you have no trouble accepting all of this. Reject being “under the authority” and you are left with a powerless husband who is your servant. (Eph. 5:25, John 13:12-17) Look at the world and you will see that is it’s desire. Look at Genesis 3:16 and you will see that is God’s warning.

Grace and peace…

(p.s. I promise before the end of the day to watch your video.)

Comment by Michael

November 29, 2008 @ 11:21 am

Back already!

Cheryl, I watched your video and I see now you have a lot invested in disbelieving the husband’s authority. As I mentioned (I suspect I would have written certain things differently had I seen your video first), you make the claim that “Christ” is a temporal term. Watching your video, I see the struggle continuing.

To do this, you must separate every instance of Jesus being referenced. “Lord of Hosts” here, “Jesus” there, “Christ” somewhere else. Then you attempt to draw meaning from those differences, as if it is not the same “person.”

I have no trouble at all with the idea of the Trinity you present, and of the equality of each member of the Godhead. I believe Phil. 2:6 addresses that issue quite clearly. Jesus was not of less authority than the Father, but He did choose to be submissive to Him. (John 8:29) It seems that much like JLP, perhaps you seek to dispute me over ideas I have never believed or expressed?

Is “Christ” a temporal term? From before He was Jesus in Isaiah to long after that body had perished in Revelation, the term remains. So then, why would we strain to make something out of which name the Son was called when we must ignore the entire book of Revelation in doing so?

Your video says that Jesus does not have less authority than the Father. Therefore, I suppose, “kephale” cannot suggest the wife has less authority than the husband. And so the real issue, at least in regards to this thread, is exposed.

If we were to agree that “kephale” did mean source, a “beautiful metaphor only God could have thought of,” would you then happily agree to submit to and be subject to your own husband as the church is to Christ? I won’t speak for you, but isn’t the entirety of this thread about rejecting that directive?

The issue, I believe, is not at all about why God gave authority to the husband, it is about denying He did so. First we relegate the husband to the “spiritual leader,” an expression found no where in the text. Then we begin to undermine even that, because after all, “the husband cannot always be spiritualy superior to their wives” and we would not want to be guilty of “idolatry”!

I often teach the boys (now many are men!), “If the world is doing it, it is wrong!” The world teaches what is in this thread, and from mis-respresenting “kephale,” to ignoring the context of submission and the authority of Christ over the church, to placing great significance on what word is used to reference Jesus, we stretch and strain to interpret scripture the way the world would.

I do not understand why God did what He did, as He warned I would not. I wish He hadn’t done much of what He chose to do. I’ll be very honest here, I don’t want the responsibility and accountability for my spouse when one day we stand before the King! I have enough trouble with my own flesh! Nonetheless…

I will leave this post with this last thought from scripture…

1 Peter 3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Grace and peace…

Comment by jlp

November 29, 2008 @ 12:05 pm

Michael,

I don’t agree that your interpretation of scripture is correct. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Comment by Michael

November 29, 2008 @ 12:31 pm

Hi JLP,

I am thankful for the dialogue and I will do my best to remain open to the promptings of the Spirit. I don’t want to be in error, and I pray I will have the courage and grace to come back and share if I learn something different. God bless you!

Michael

Comment by candytoosweet

November 29, 2008 @ 4:32 pm

Michael,

The problem we have here is that we disagree with you over the interpretation of the texts you used to support your views. Unless we can 1st agree on the interpretation, we can’t move on to discussing the issue of hierarchal relationships between the genders.

However, I doubt we will be able to agree on the meaning of these texts. As such we will not be able to move on to discussing gender hierarchy. I’m just being practical here. Sometimes people just have to admit they interpret the Bible differently and accept those differences.

Comment by Cheryl

November 29, 2008 @ 4:41 pm

Michael,

I will answer your second post first.

You said: “Cheryl, I watched your video and I see now you have a lot invested in disbelieving the husband’s authority. As I mentioned (I suspect I would have written certain things differently had I seen your video first), you make the claim that “Christ” is a temporal term. Watching your video, I see the struggle continuing.”

My video has nothing at all to do with “husband’s authority”. A husband could have authority whether Jesus is equal to the Father or not. They are separate issues. The issue that some seem to push is making Jesus as the Christ as unequal in authority with the Father from all of eternity. This is not scriptural. There is no sense at all in the OT that the preincarnate Christ has any less authority than the Father. As far as the husband’s authority, if scripture said that he had authority over his wife or that he was to take authority over her, then that would settle it. Scripture does not give him an authority over her but instead says that they are “joint heirs together” and both are called “sons” of God with both inheriting equally in Christ.

You said: “To do this, you must separate every instance of Jesus being referenced. “Lord of Hosts” here, “Jesus” there, “Christ” somewhere else. Then you attempt to draw meaning from those differences, as if it is not the same “person.””

Jesus is the eternal Word of God, but to his eternality he added a human nature. In order to become human, he emptied himself and became a servant. Yet in his Godhood he was and is always equal with the Father. We must be able to differentiate between when Jesus is speaking as a man and when scripture speaks about his Deity. Jesus’ humanity had a beginning. His personhood and Deity did not have a beginning.

You said: “Jesus was not of less authority than the Father, but He did choose to be submissive to Him. (John 8:29) It seems that much like JLP, perhaps you seek to dispute me over ideas I have never believed or expressed?”

Did you not express that 1 Cor. 11:3 showed Christ as under the authority of God? Didn’t you attach this to the woman being under the authority of the husband? I responded that the only time that Jesus was under the authority of his Father was in his incarnation. Most hierarchists use the argument of Jesus’ eternal subordination as an argument to “prove” that women are eternally subordinate to men. When I had an email dialog with Dr. Bruce Ware, this was the first thing that he brought up without me even mentioning anything about women.

You said: “Is “Christ” a temporal term? From before He was Jesus in Isaiah to long after that body had perished in Revelation, the term remains. So then, why would we strain to make something out of which name the Son was called when we must ignore the entire book of Revelation in doing so?”

The Hebrew term for “Christ” in the Hebrew is Messiah. This term was used for the coming Messiah and was not used for the Trinity except in terms of the future fulfillment in the coming human Messiah. Are you also saying that the resurrected body of Jesus “perished in Revelation”? If I understand you right, you are greatly mistaken. If I do not understand you, then you may want to reword what you have written.

You said: “would you then happily agree to submit to and be subject to your own husband as the church is to Christ? I won’t speak for you, but isn’t the entirety of this thread about rejecting that directive?”

I very happily submit to my husband and I love him and serve him as much as I can. Submission is a Christian attribute. Christians are told to submit one to another and my submission is not to everyone else but not to my husband. My husband is also happy to serve his wife and sacrifice for me. Submission is not a problem as long as it is understood in context as a Christian attribute. When it is removed from its Christian context and forced upon some because they are uniquely in a position to submit without choosing to submission but forced into that place by their unequal “role”, then that is a problem.

You said: “The issue, I believe, is not at all about why God gave authority to the husband, it is about denying He did so.”

This is the issue. Nowhere in scripture is it said that God gave husbands authority over their wives. God did not give Adam authority over his wife in creation, but rather the authority was given to both of them, not over each other, but over creation.

You said: “I often teach the boys (now many are men!), “If the world is doing it, it is wrong!” ”

The world can love their children and sacrifice for their well-being. Not every thing that the world does is wrong. The measuring stick is not what the world does, but what the bible says. If the bible says that this is good, it matters not what the world says. If the bible were to say that the man is to take authority over his wife, we do not say because most of the world agrees with this, that it is wrong. We must measure everything by God’s word. The majority of the world agrees that the man is the authority over his wife. The bible does not say this and so we reject the world’s way and accept God’s way.

You said: “I’ll be very honest here, I don’t want the responsibility and accountability for my spouse when one day we stand before the King! I have enough trouble with my own flesh! Nonetheless…”

This is not scriptural at all. This is also what I was taught when I was young, however scripture is clear that one person will not be accountable for what his wife does. When Eve sinned, God did not call Adam to account for her sin. When Ananias and Sapphira conspired in Acts 5 to lie to the Holy Spirit, each one was questioned separately and each one was accountable for their own sin. Ananias did not take the blame for the family and Sapphira did not go free because it was Ananias’ idea and he was accountable for her. The scriptures show that we are each responsible for ourselves and no husband will speak for his wife in the day of judgment. This is an evangelical myth, but it is not scriptural. If you think it is, please show me from scripture where a husband will represent his wife before the throne.

Comment by Michael

November 29, 2008 @ 5:05 pm

Hi CTS,

That’s is a very reasonable statement. If it is a general comment, there is little I can say. If it is specific, I would appreciate the chance to hear and consider the difference.

As I have written, I came looking for information on how the responsibility of the husband had been diluted down to “spiritual leader” and found even that under duress here. So, if it is first a matter of interpretation, I would like to narrow the area of discussion and be allowed to see what I am missing. For example, the KJV says it this way:

Eph. 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

(The Greek appears to read: “Wives to your own husbands subject yourselves as to the Lord.”)

How should I interpret this verse, within its context of course? Or, if you prefer, this one:

Eph. 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

(The Greek appears to read: “But just as the church is subjected to Christ so also the wives to their husbands in everything.”)

Either one will do for me as this area of Paul’s writing seems to provide the most difficulty for us all.

Comment by Cheryl

November 29, 2008 @ 5:25 pm

Michael,

I am not working through your first comments.

You said: “Here we see YHVH, I AM, Jesus Himself speaking and calling Himself the one and only “Christ,” albeit in the Hebrew.”

You have a big problem here because if you say that YHWH means “Christ”, then the Father is also “Christ”. The Messiah is spoken of in future terms, and in “eternity past” terms the Trinity is “Savior” but not the human Christ.

You said: “Here we see our place in Christ determined even before creation.”

This is God’s foreknowledge and election. It doesn’t mean that “Christ” is what God is called in the OT.

You said: “This is the last verse of the Bible, describing the Son who is back with the Father, sitting on the throne, and just like He is 9 other times within the final book, called “Christ.””

Yes, that is right. But Jesus is still human as the resurrected man, Jesus Christ. Are you denying that Jesus is a resurrected human? If not, I really do not see your point. As I said “Christ” is a term for the human Messiah not an eternity past term for God.

You said: “So then, was the idea of “becoming flesh” (John 1:14) and “do always those things that please Him” (John 8:29) something “new” to the Son?”

It isn’t something new at all. It was determined before creation. However there is a big difference between something determined from before the world began to the appearance of the physical man. The man Jesus came into being, but his Deity had no beginning because he is truly God manifest in the flesh.

You said: “What I see is the word “sent.” Indeed, I see “sent not to do My will but His will” if you will allow me to paraphrase the second example.”

Jesus was indeed sent as the Word of God, but as humanity he was from the Father. His humanity was not “sent” as if there was humanity before the incarnation. His humanity came from the Father.

Heb 10:5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;

As Deity he was sent, as humanity he came from the preparation of the Father (source).

You said: “When Paul writes, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” (Eph. 5:22), what is he referring to? Here goes a button again, but the word “hupotasso” means to obey or be in obedience to.”

Submit means to willingly put oneself under. A student submits to a teacher in order to learn from the teacher. If the student does not submit, the teacher cannot teach. We are to submit ourselves to Jesus because he is the one who provides for us and gives us all that we need to grow. If we refuse to submit to Christ, we cannot receive. Submission is necessary to receive.

You said: “Then, and I will agree many who know me might readily accept this, my source is not God but dirt! Hmmm… so what are you all trying to say about me? ;))) Now back to your post.”

There are two sources for both man and woman. 1 Cor. 11 shows that the woman came from man and every man now comes from the woman. Physically she is the source just as physically the man was the physical source of the first woman. Yet the ultimate source is God since he is the creator.

You said: “Indeed, a perfect sacrifice was needed and God prepared the body for that purpose inside Mary. But where is the contextual connection to “kephale”? I’m sorry, but the stretch is much too far for me when, within the very thought, we have the clear context of “authority” in all the examples we have reviewed.”

In 1 Cor. 11 we need to look at the context to understand what Paul meant by “kephale”. Paul speaks about the origin or source of the woman and the source of all men that now come from the woman. However in this passage we see not even one reference to “authority over” that would give any context for “kephale” meaning an authority of one party over the other. The context then is about origin or source and has nothing at all to say about hierarchical authority. It must be read into the passage and not mined out of the passage. I think it is much better to let the scripture speak for itself.

You said: “Is the reason for submission that the “source” of woman is man (and of man it is dirt)? Is the context one of “sourceness” or of authority? Looking but one verse further, we find the following.”

The context is one of provider or source of supply. Jesus as our Savior provides us with salvation. We must submit ourselves to accept that salvation, because if we do not submit, we cannot receive. Jesus washes us and sacrifices himself for us to supply us with everything that we need to be his blood-bought bride.

You said: “Once more we see the word “hupotasso,” this time translated “subject unto.” Paul is not writing about the source, he is writing about Christ’s authority (after He is back in heaven, glorified with His Father!) over the church and drawing an exact parallel to wives with their husbands. (“…as the church…so let the wives be…”)”

Again the subject is not “authority over”. It is submission in order to receive. While I do agree that Jesus has authority over all things because he is God, when he is spoken of as the resurrected man, the husband to the church, he is spoken of as sacrificing for her to give her what she needs. All things are put under her feet and she will rule and reign with him. She cannot rule and reign with him on her own because the ability to do this must come from the source of supply that only he gives. Jesus is absolutely the one who feeds and nourishes and cares for the church and lifts her up to a position of rulership over the world.

You said: “Now then, how should I interpret this? Does “head over” (“kephale huper”) mean “source of”? Paul uses the word “hupo” only a moment before (“under” His feet). Does “huper” mean “over” or “of”? Was Jesus given as “head over all”? If we read “head over” (and not “source of”), does this fit the Greek?”

Jesus is the source of all authority and of all power.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

He is the source of all things, including all thrones, all dominions, all rulers and all authorities. All of these things that he created will be put under his feet and the church will
be lifted up in a position of rulership with him.

You said: “Once more we see the word “hupotasso,” this time translated “subject unto.” Paul is not writing about the source, he is writing about Christ’s authority (after He is back in heaven, glorified with His Father!) over the church and drawing an exact parallel to wives with their husbands. (“…as the church…so let the wives be…”)”

What we do see if Jesus ruling WITH his church OVER all of creation. We do not see him ruling OVER the church since he has placed her beside him in rulership.

You said: “Similarly, our power does not come from our authority, it comes from God, equally, always, without respect to persons! ”

Amen! We cannot just take authority to ourselves. Authority comes from God. If God gave the man and the woman equal authority in creation and he did not give the man authority over his wife in creation, then we must not add to God’s word what he did not say.

You said: “But is He the Lord of our world and the church? Does Paul tell us to obey Him? Is Paul “schizophrenic,” speaking of authority one minute and source another, inside the same sentence, only to confuse us with disjointed expressions? We only need to say so if we refuse to believe God set the husband as the authority and used Jesus to model the right way to be both.”

Jesus is indeed Lord, but he is Lord because he is God. The husband is not the Lord of the wife. There is only ONE Lord and ONE God. A wife does not have two masters. Jesus is her only Lord and Master. Jesus as God is our LORD and MASTER. As the resurrected man, he is head of the church which is his body.

The man is the husband of his wife and he is designated to cling to her and give himself up for her but he cannot save her spiritually and he is not her master or her Lord and God. The similarity is not to Christ’s Deity but to his humanity. Otherwise a wife would have two mediators between her and God and this would be idolatry.

You said: “There is evidence of the “Lord of Hosts” (I love that you see Jesus there!) being subordinate to the Father in as much as He chose to do so. He knew from before creation what He would be required to do and agreed to do. The beauty and sign of His love is not that He was forced, but that He willingly submitted. (Phil. 2:6-7)”

I will also repeat for you here that the Lord of Hosts became man. It is in his appearance in his humanity that he was humbled and became obedient even unto death. In his Deity before he became man he had complete equality in authority with the Father. There was no need for one to submit to the other since they had the same will and there has never been a disagreement in the Trinity where one needed to submit to the other one’s will as if there were two wills instead of one.

You said: “Take away the thought that being “under the authority” is “demeaning” and you have no trouble accepting all of this. Reject being “under the authority” a