The CBE Scroll

Comment by richard

January 8, 2008 @ 2:00 pm

Liddell Scott is a lexicon for classical Greek more so than for koine Greek. BDAG (the lexicon for classical Greek) doesn’t offer this definition. I am by no means trained in Greek, but this does offer some explanation to your question.

Comment by jlp

January 8, 2008 @ 4:38 pm

Are both Liddell Scott and BDAG lexicons for classical Greek? What is the difference between Liddell Scott and the BDAG?

Is Bauer’s the same as the BDAG? If so, here is some criticism of it, from Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen’s Women, Authority, and the Bible, (100-103).

Under section two, where Bauer gives ‘superior rank’ as a meaning for kephale, he cites only two references from secular Greek. One comes from Zosimus and is dated A.D. 500 – at least 400 years after the New Testament was written. (Our question is not what kephale meant in A.D. 500 but rather what Paul meant when he used kephale when writing his letters to the churches in the first century.) Bauer’s only other reference to secular Greek to support the meaning of ‘superior rank’ is to Artemidorus in the second century, where kephale is used as a symbol of the father. What Artemidorus said (Lib K, chapter 2, paragraph 6) was ‘He [the father] was the cause (aitos) of the life and of the light for the dreamer [the son] just as the head (kephale) is the cause of the life and the light of all the body.’ He also said ‘the head is to be likened to parents because the head is the cause [source] of life.’ Bauer’s reference may be an example of a lexicographer reading his own cultural understanding (i.e. fathers have ‘superior rank’) into the text…

Those who, like Bauer, insist that kephale means ‘superior rank’ say that since kephale is used with that meaning in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, that meaning must have been familiar to Greek-speaking people in New Testament times. The facts do not support this assumption.

The Septuagint was prepared by a large group of Hebrew Greek scholars for the thousands of Jewish people who lived outside of Palestine. For these Jews, Greek was their first and sometimes only language, and they could not have read a Hebrew Old Testament even if one had been available. They used the Septuagint in their synagogues. For all the early churches outside Palestine, the Septuagint translation was the Old Testament, for it was written in the only language they knew.

We studied all the instances in which the Hebrew word rosh (meaning ‘head’) appears in the Old Testament and how it was translated in the Septuagint. Rosh occurs approximately 600 times and the Aramaic word resh occurs fourteen times. Usually rosh or resh simply means physical head of a person or animal, the same meaning that the Greek work kephale usually has in the New Testament. In the 239 instances when rosh refers to a physical head, the Septuagint translators nearly always translated it with kephale. But like our English word ‘head,’ rosh sometimes had metaphorical or figurative meanings, including leader or someone in authority, or beginning, as in rosh hashshanan (Ezek 40:1 ‘at the beginning of the year’).

About 180 times, the Hebrew word rosh, meaning ‘head,’ clearly refers to a ‘chief something’ – a chief man, chief city, chief nation, chief priest, that is, the leader or authority figure in a group. Apparently, this meaning for rosh was as common in ancient Hebrew as it is in English today. But, as we have seen from the Liddell, Scott, Jones, and McKenzie lexicon, that was not a common meaning in the Greek language of New Testament times. The findings of these lexicographers are confirmed when we examine the Greek words that the translators of the Septuagint used when the Hebrew word rosh means ‘leader’ or ‘chief.’ In the 180 instances when rosh means ‘leader’ or ‘chief,’ the Septuagint translators rarely used kephale. Archon, meaning ‘ruler,’ ‘commander’ or ‘leader,’ was used 109 times (about 60 percent). Apparently the translators believed that archon rather than kephale more accurately conveyed the meaning of the Hebrew rosh when it meant ‘ruler’ or ‘leader.’

Although archon was the most common word used for rosh when it meant ‘chief’ or ‘authority,’ it was not the only one. The translators occasionally used thirteen other words. Some appear in Deuteronomy 1:13-15, where heads appears three times. ‘Choose wise, understanding, and experienced men, according to your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads. And you answered me, “The thing that you have spoken is good for us to do.” So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and set them as heads over you.’

Obviously ‘heads’ in this passage meant ‘superior rank’ or ‘authority.’ But the Septuagint translators did not use kephale in any of the three places. Instead, they used the Greek words hegoumenous, hegeisthai and chiliarchos. The verb hegeomai means ‘to rule’ or ‘have dominion.’ The noun chiliarchos means ‘to be a leader,’ ‘a commander of a thousand soldiers.’ Among the fourteen words used to translate rosh, kephale does appear eighteen times. But these include six passages that have variant readings. Four others involve a head-tail metaphor that would not make sense without the use of head in contrast to tail. For example, Deuteronomy 28:44 says, ‘He shall be the head and thou shalt be the tail.’

Comment by jlp

January 8, 2008 @ 4:46 pm

Here’s a comment from Philip Barton Payne on the Mickelsen study:

The Mickelsens actually understate their case from Greek usage. Including its 1968 supplement, the Liddell and Scott lexicon lists forty-eight separate English equivalents of figurative meanings of kephale. None of them implies leader, authority, first or supreme. To confirm that ‘authority’ was not in the usual connotative range of kephale, I consulted three prominent speicalists in ancient Greek literature (David Armstrong of the University of Texas at Austin and Michael Wigodsky and Mark Edwards of Stanford University). They all agreed that the idea of ‘authority’ was not a recognized meaning of kephale in Greek.

Comment by jlp

January 8, 2008 @ 5:39 pm

I just found this in Women, Authority, and the Bible (97) by Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen:

The most complete Greek-English lexicon (covering Homeric, classical and koine Greek) in current existence is a two-volume work of more than 2,000 pages compiled by Liddell, Scott, Jones, and McKenzie… The most common lexicon… in our day is the koine lexicon… commonly known as Bauer’s.

So this means Liddell Scott is both classical and koine and that Bauer’s is koine.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 8, 2008 @ 5:56 pm

In my biblical Greek class (and for those who might not know: koine Greek is the name of biblical Greek – and it is different from classical Greek) at seminary – we learned kephale the first quarter and the only definition given for the word is ‘head.’ The book is written by William D. Mounce, who is a complementarian, on the board for the ESV translation. His book Basics of Biblical Greek is one of the most common textbook for Greek students in seminaries. That might explain a lot.

Comment by jlp

January 8, 2008 @ 6:01 pm

He doesn’t have any figurative meanings for kephale? Just the physical ‘head?’

Comment by fjs

January 8, 2008 @ 10:15 pm

Carrie Miles has an interesting take on head:

So when Paul describes the husband as ‘head’ of his wife as Christ is head of the church, he draws not on a metaphor of authority but on the metaphor of the head as the source of unity. The husband does this not by leading his wife and certainly not by ruling her but rather by nurturing and serving her in such a way that they grow together head and body into one flesh.

This definition is interpretively solid in context and relates accurately to the meaning of the text. It makes sense out of Paul’s comment when he switches to the oneness of Christ and the church in Ephesians 5:31:

‘As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.” This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.’

Comment by fjs

January 8, 2008 @ 10:16 pm

The quote is from Carrie Mile’s article, ‘Who Is My Mother and Who Are My Brothers? Jesus and Family Values’ on the CBE website.

Comment by jlp

January 8, 2008 @ 10:48 pm

But why the claim by some people that there is no evidence that kephale meant ‘source’ when Liddell Scott lists it? In addition, these same people claim it means ‘leader’ or ‘authority’ yet Liddell Scott doesn’t list that as one of its meanings. Why do these people say what they do in light of this?

Comment by richard

January 9, 2008 @ 6:50 am

It seems that Philo, who was a contemporary of Paul, used kephale as ‘head’ rather than ‘source.’

Comment by Liz

January 9, 2008 @ 8:42 am

Why do ‘they’ do this? Better to ask ‘them’ as I’m sure you have! We do each choose our own experts and feel more comfortable with translations which back up our preconceived notions, so why would convinced complementarians take any notice of a commentator who disagreed with their beliefs?

It is illogical to us who believe/understand differently and we get frustrated when people don’t ‘get it’ but unless someone is questioning their belief they won’t be in a position to look at another viewpoint, however sound the scholarship may be.

Comment by fjs

January 9, 2008 @ 9:32 am

Did Philo use head as ‘first,’ or as ‘leader?’

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 6:01 pm

Richard, can you give the exact reference of Philo’s to look up? I want to check out the year and the sentence that he uses kephale in. Thanks. If you could put a link here it would be really useful.

Comment by Lori

January 9, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

See comment 77692.

Why do ‘they’ do this? Better to ask ‘them’ as I’m sure you have! We do each choose our own experts and feel more comfortable with translations which back up our preconceived notions, so why would convinced complementarians take any notice of a commentator who disagreed with their beliefs?

Bingo! My dear, you just said in a paragraph what I was going to say in four words: because they want to. It really is as simple as that. You can throw around Greek definitions from now until the Lord comes back, but no dyed-in-the-wool patriarch will ever accept it because they don’t want to. Their entire worldview depends on keeping women subordinate, so for every bit of proof you offer they will quote some ‘expert’ of their own that will support their own view. I mean, look at the whole ‘Jesus is subordinate in the Trinity, so women must be subordinate on earth’ controversy. Wayne Grudem says it, so that means it’s gospel truth for his followers. End of story.

Comment by richard

January 9, 2008 @ 8:17 pm

Again, I am well out of my league on when I point to the Greek, but when I hear other arguments made, I still try to weigh them with what knowledge I have. I’ve read Webb’s book ‘Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals,’ as well as Giles ‘The Trinity and Subordinationism.’ They seem like the strongest arguments I’ve heard so far, but I did not find them convincing. I only say that to show that I really have tried to see an egalitarian point of view, but I respectfully disagree.

Anyway, I did a search in Bibleworks on the lemma of kephale, and I’ve posted the Greek/English here.

Note that I am posting this on my own, and my comments should be seen as coming from me, and not on behalf of the website on which I’ve posted this document.

While I appreciate the interaction, I likely won’t be able to continue, since this is more technical than I am capable. However, I felt that the initial post was an attempt to be more provocative than informative, which is why I posted what I did. Again, thanks for the interaction!

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 8:18 pm

When Paul says in Ephesians 5:23: ‘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’ (NIV) he defines precisely what he means by ‘head’ when he says ‘his body, of which he is the Savior.’

I don’t think there can be any argument that Paul uses the term ‘head’ in regards to husbands in a figurative manner as being the wife’s savior. But he is also comparing the wife to being the husband’s body, and to understand what Paul meant by that we need to understand what the people at that time understood as the relationship between the physical head and the body.

I know that many of the ancients (including the Greeks – although I don’t know the exact time frame) considered the heart, not the head, to the be seat of decision making because they understood that a calm heart rate led to less emotional decision making. So I don’t believe that Paul was referring to the husband as being the wife’s decision maker.

Bilezikian in Beyond Sex Roles says that the Greeks of that time saw the head as being the source of nourishment for the body, so perhaps that is what Paul means when he refers to husbands as being the ‘head’ of their wives.

So how did Paul see the head’s function in relation to the body?

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 8:48 pm

Does Philo use the Greek word kephale for each use of the term ‘head?’ Or are other words being translated as ‘head?’

Also, Philo was from Alexandria in Egypt. How similar was his usage of Greek words to Paul’s?

And, if ‘leader or authority’ was a common metaphorical usage of kephale, why didn’t Liddell Scott pick up on this? Or were they only creating a Greek lexicon for the Greek spoken in the direct vicinity of Greece, rather than Greek spoken by someone living in Egypt?

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 9:05 pm

Is the word kephale the same as in Richard’s document – κεφαλὴ? I can’t read Greek but this is the closest Greek word in his document to kephale.

Here’s the quote from his document:

1:61 But as the head is the chief of all the aforementioned parts of an animal, so is Esau the chief of this race, whose name is at one time interpreted ‘an oak,’ and at another, ‘a thing made.’

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 9:13 pm

Richard, thanks for the link. I appreciate it. That was nice of you.

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 9:16 pm

Why would someone say that kephale can’t mean ‘source’ when a reference book says it can? It would be a matter of foot-in-mouth disease. I mean, you could be so easily disproved that it’s embarrassing. Why would someone subject themselves voluntarily to that kind of humiliation?

I think what’s happened is that someone said there was no proof that kephale ever meant ‘source’ and everyone else just repeated it – not knowing that there actually was evidence that it could mean ‘source.’

Comment by Suzanne

January 9, 2008 @ 11:18 pm

This issue of kephale and the lexicons has been well discussed/hashed over in some of Grudem’s many appendices, available by googling ‘Grudem recovering appendix.’ Sorry – I know that doesn’t sound too great but it is in the appendix of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (RBMW) – what can I do? There are three parts and these can be accessed by links at the top. Some of this study is also presented in Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. The way I understand it LSJ is not entirely complete. It does not reference every work in Greek. As has been pointed out, if you look at kephale in the LSJ it does not mention authority or leader. If you look at caput in Latin you will see a very large section for leader. So there is quite a contrast between Greek and Latin.

There is also a contrast between Hebrew and Greek. It is quite complex.

Even in Hebrew, ‘head’ could mean head of a tribe, or also the beginning as in the beginning of wisdom. Also later in Greek, we have Adam, the kehpale of the human race. To my mind, the first in order, but not the ruler. In fact, when kephale is translated into English as ‘ruler,’ one has to ask if this is always accurate.

In any case, LSJ did not mention Philo. There is also a mention in Plutarch of the general of an army being the kephale. But this is not the ordinary use of the word. In fact, kephale is used by Arrian around the same time, in Tactics, for the right hand phalanx of the army, and in Job 1:17, kephale is the raiding party.

The meaning ‘source of a river’ is also possible but not terribly common. Ultimately Al Wolters, also a complementarian, wrote to Grudem and pointed out rightly that ‘source’ is a meaning of kephale in the Greek lexicons in other European languages, but then Wolters suggested that maybe this also had come from influence from another language.

There is also some disagreement as to where the reasoning part was for the Greeks – sometimes, in the heart or lungs, but for Philo in the head. But we have to ask if this is relevant. Is God the reasoning part of Christ, and is Christ the sensation part of God?

Or is God the first cause, the eternal progenitor? It is also worth knowing that for classical Greeks the sperm was stored in the head. And, Zeus gave birth to Athena from his head.

There is so much more. In my view the studies have shown that ruler is a possible but not very likely meaning for head in the New Testament. Actually, I don’t think it is possible because of the context. However, here is a passage that Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), De Recte Fide ad Pulch. 2.3, 268.) used to show that kephale means ruler. See what you think.

The one of the earth and dust has become to us the first head (kephale) of the race, that is ruler (arche): but since the second Adam has been named Christ, he was placed as head (kephale), that is ruler (arche) of those who through him are being transformed unto him into incorruption through sanctification by the Spirit. Therefore he on the one hand is our ruler,(arche) that is head (kephale), in so far as he has appeared as a man; indeed, he, being by nature God, has a head, the Father in heaven. For, being by nature God the Word, he has been begotten from him. But that the head (kephale) signifies the ruler (arche), the fact that the husband is said to be the head (kephale) of the wife confirms the sense for the truth of doubters: for she has been taken from him. Therefore one Christ and Son and Lord, the one having as head the Father in heaven, being God by nature, became for us a ‘head’ accordingly because of his kinship according to the flesh.

This is a translation by Grudem. But, in fact, arche (αρχη) does not mean ruler. It has two meanings: beginning, origin, foundation, source, first principle; and place of sovereignty, power. So, it is not usually used of a person, although it can refer to power. But, here it refers to Adam. Is Adam our origin or our ruler? Here is another way to translate the passage:

Therefore of our race he became first head, which is source, and was of the earth and earthy. Since Christ was named the second Adam, he has been placed as head, which is source, of those who through him have been formed anew unto him unto immortality through sanctification in the Spirit. Therefore he himself our source, which is head, has appeared as a human being. Yet he though God by nature, has himself a generating head, the heavenly Father, and he himself, though God according to his nature, yet being the Word, was begotten of him. Because head means source, He establishes the truth for those who are wavering in their mind that man is the head of woman, for she was taken out of him. Therefore as God according to His nature, the one Christ and Son and Lord has as his head the heavenly Father, having himself become our head because he is of the same stock according to the flesh.

Kroeger Clark translated it this way. It simply makes more sense to me.

I don’t think there is going to be a tie breaker. For myself, I can say with full conviction that head does not necessarily mean ‘leader’ or ‘ruler.’ Is it possible to prove that it can never mean leader? I don’t know. I think it is clear that in this passage Cyril of ALexandria uses it to mean that they are of the same kind of nature.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 9, 2008 @ 11:29 pm

There’s something strange about the document (referred to in comments 77716 and 77721). It seems like the first word of every segment is in Greek, but the rest of the paragraph is not in Greek. Was there a copy error?

For example, 1:100 says monos, which means only or alone… and then the rest of the paragraph is jibberish.

Comment by Suzanne

January 9, 2008 @ 11:44 pm

I only see gibberish too.

Comment by jlp

January 9, 2008 @ 11:59 pm

Suzanne, thanks for the information on kephale. Now I’m beginning to see why people say that it has to be understood by looking at the context that it is used in. I’m also beginning now to see how complex the issue is. You gave me good insight.

And thanks to both Mary Ann and Suzanne for pointing out what I thought I also saw – that most of what I thought was Greek was not really Greek. It looks like another language.

Comment by jlp

January 10, 2008 @ 12:09 am

Suzanne and Mary Ann, have you studied the Mickelsen study on kephale in the Septuagint? If so, what is your take on the study? How do you feel about it? Thanks.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 10, 2008 @ 12:09 am

Regarding comment 77655, Mounce only gives one meaning for kephale in my Greek textbook. The meaning is ‘head.’ This is strange since for most Greek words, Mounce gives more than one ‘sense’ (meaning) of the word.

Thanks, Suzanne, for the great input (see comment 77727). I love the translation you quoted from Kroeger Clark! I also wanted to add that the two meanings I learned when I had arche as a vocabulary word were ‘beginning’ and ‘ruler.’ I think ‘beginning’ is the primary sense for the word ‘arche.’

Comment by Suzanne

January 10, 2008 @ 12:59 am

αρχη is a feminine abstract noun meaning the ‘beginning’ or the ‘over all.’ It only means ‘ruler’ if you think of how you can use the word ‘office’ to mean the person in the office. If someone says ‘the office wants you’ that means the person in the office. It really doesn’t have as a primary meaning ‘ruler.’ There is a word for ruler, αρχων, which is a masculine word for a person who rules.

The jibberish above is an encoding problem. It wasn’t in unicode. However, I have no doubt that Philo used the word kephale as he did. But it is rare.

I just don’t think God meant, ‘I do the thinking for Christ, and Christ does the thinking for man, and man does the thinking for woman.’ It seems more likely that ‘Christ is of the same nature as God, man is of the same nature as Christ (since he became human) and woman is of the same nature as man.’

Comment by Suzanne

January 10, 2008 @ 2:42 am

Have you studied the Mickelsen study on kephale in the Septuagint?

No. Sorry.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 10, 2008 @ 3:05 am

Hi JLP, I have not read the Mickelsen study of kephale (though I will see if my seminary library has a copy of the book tomorrow and then I could contribute something more meaningful here). However, from what I’ve read of what you explained in comment 77645, I really appreciate Alvera’s insights. It seems very useful and noteworthy that kephale was not used as the translation for the times when the meaning ‘commander’ or ‘leader’ was trying to be communicated in the Septuagint translation. I’d really like to read more about this. It’s very interesting!

I am just now realizing that the word arche (αρχη) in comment 77727 is not the same as the archon that Alvera refers to (discussed in comment 77645). αρχη means ‘beginning,’ whereas αρχων (a different word) means ‘ruler,’ ‘official,’ ‘authority,’ or ‘judge.’ I am assuming that Alvera’s study is referring to αρχων (can you confirm that, JLP?). If that’s true, then that clarifies a lot of confusion for me! Thanks.

Comment by richard

January 10, 2008 @ 4:38 am

Most papyri discoveries have been in Egypt since it is only there that the climate allows for their preservation. Until papyri were found in trash dumps of people’s grocery lists, etc. New Testament Greek was thought to be some sort of ‘Holy Spirit Greek!’ Once other papyri were found, it was then known that the Greek of the New Testament was a common dialect in use at the time. So the fact that Philo was in Alexandria offers good evidence that the Greek he spoke was extremely similar to Paul’s Greek.

Regarding the previous comment on the difference between αρχη/arche and αρχων/archon, they are indeeed the same word, only different forms. arche is the nominative singular (used as the subject), while archon is the genitive plural (possesive). Example usage would be something like this:

Nominative singular: The ruler/αρχη/arche wrote me a speeding ticket.

Genitive plural: The ability to create laws is the prerogative of the rulers/αρχων/archon.

Comment by Suzanne

January 10, 2008 @ 9:59 am

Richard, I am sorry but you can’t do that. You are driving without a license!

Comment by HKH

January 10, 2008 @ 11:08 am

I’m sorry Suzanne. But could you explain to me what you mean by saying that Richard is driving without a license? You may both know what you mean, but I don’t.

Does he not have the Greek training of some of you others or do you mean something else? Thanks.

Comment by Suzanne

January 10, 2008 @ 12:38 pm

I don’t have a polytonic keyboard during the day, but… maybe Richard can correct this if he sees it. Otherwise I will post the correct forms tonight.

Comment by jlp

January 10, 2008 @ 7:13 pm

Mary Ann, unfortunately I can’t answer your question. The Mickelsen study is on pages 97-110 of the book Women, Authority, and the Bible, edited by Alvera Mickelsen. It’s put out by IVP Press.

Comment by jlp

January 10, 2008 @ 7:30 pm

I thought you might find this study on kephale interesting. It’s from pages 103-104 of Women, Authority, and the Bible. It’s by the Mickelsen study.

That leaves only eight instances (out of 180) where the Septuagint translators clearly chose to use kephale as a translation for ro’sh, when ro’sh meant ‘chief’ or ‘leader.’ Septuagint translators used fourteen different Greek words to translate ro’sh:

1. archon (meaning ‘ruler,’ ‘commander,’ ‘leader’), 109 times

2. archegos (‘captain,’ ‘leader,’ ‘chief,’ ‘prince’), 10 times

3. arche (‘authority,’ ‘magistrate,’ ‘officer’), 9 times

4. hegeomai (‘to be a leader,’ ‘to rule/have dominion’), 9 times

5. protos (‘first,’ ‘foremost’), 6 times

6. patriarches (‘father/chief of a race,’ ‘patriarch’), 3 times

7. chiliarches (‘commander’), 3 times

8. archiphules (‘chief of a tribe’), 2 times

9. archipatriotes (‘head of a family’), 1 time

10. archo (verb; ‘ruler,’ ‘to be ruler of’), 1 time

11. megas, megale, mega (‘great,’ ‘mighty,’ ‘important’), 1 time

12. proegeomail (‘take the lead,’ ‘go first,’ ‘lead the way’), 1 time

13. prototokos (‘firstborn,’ ‘first in rank’), 1 time

14. kephale (where head can mean ‘top’ or ‘crown’), 8 times; kephale (in ‘head-tail’ metaphor), 4 times; kepahle (where manuscripts have variant readings), 6 times

ro’sh (not translated), 6 times

Comment by jlp

January 10, 2008 @ 7:36 pm

Richard, are you saying that the material found written in Greek in Alexandria has been compared against the Greek spoken by the Jews living in the areas that Paul was writing his letters to and the metaphorical language has been found to be similar?

Is there any evidence that kephale was being the used in same way in Alexandria as it was in the areas that Paul was writing his letters to?

Comment by Suzanne

January 10, 2008 @ 9:54 pm

I was hoping Richard would take the time to check what he had said in a dictionary. However, he has made it clear in his first comment that he has not studied Greek so I must accept his comment on the meaning of arche as an expression of innocent enthusiasm.

There are, as I said, two distinct words:

ἡ ἀρχή:a feminine abstract noun, for ‘beginning,’ ‘first cause,’ ‘authority,’ ‘official’ (genitive: τῶν ἀρχῶν)

ὁ ἄρχων: a masculine participle of αρχω (‘to begin a process’ or ‘rule’) with a genitive form τῶν ἀρχόντων. This means the ‘person who rules.’

There is no possible way that any reader of Greek could confuse these two words. Besides the fact that there is a circumflex on the omega in the genitive of arche, there is also the fact that no one reading Greek refers to a word without its article, and so the error is impossible.

However, this has drawn my attention to Grudem’s study again. Grudem on arche:

…when the Hebrew term ro’sh means ‘source’ or ‘beginning’ (of rivers), the Septuagint translators used another term, arche, ‘source,’ ‘beginning,’ not kephale, ‘head.’

This is also the case when referring to a related idea, the beginning point of something, such as the beginning of a night watch (Judges 7:19; Lamentations 2:19), or the beginning of a period of time (Isaiah 40:21; 41:4, 26: 48:16; 1 Chronicles 16:7, etc.).

This is interesting in light of the use of kephale in Orphic Fragments 21a, where kephale seems to mean ‘beginning’ or ‘first in a series’ (see below). If this meaning was commonly recognized at the time of the LXX, then kephale could also have been used in these texts, but arche was preferred by the translators.

I conclude from this that Grudem believes that the primary sense of arche is ‘origin.’ Here he simply says that arche is prefered for the meaning of beginning.

Grudem then says:

…archon was the common word that literally meant ‘leader…’

In fact, the most common word for ruler, the one that literally meant ‘ruler,’ was archon. It is not at all surprising that in contexts where the Hebrew word for head meant ‘ruler,’ it was frequently translated by archon.

The fact that a word that literally meant ‘ruler,’ ‘authority’ (archon) should be used much more often than a word that metaphorically meant ‘ruler,’ ‘authority’ (kephale) should not be surprising – it is only surprising that people have made an argument of it at all.

Here Grudem argues that archon means ‘ruler’ and ‘authority.’ Archon is the simplest way to say ‘leader.’

Later Grudem writes on arche:

…the word arche can mean either ‘beginning’ or ‘ruler,’ ‘authority.’

arche usually means ‘beginning’ or ‘first cause,’ ‘place of authority,’ ‘the office.’ But, just as in English you can say the ‘authorities’ so you can say in Greek ἁι ἀρχαι. But I don’t think that you can say that Adam is the ἀρχη means Adam is the authority over the human race. That just doesn’t make sense to me. Adam is the origin or beginning of the human race.

Then Grudem translates the text from Cyril of Alexandria:

…the one of the earth and dust has become (gevgonen) to us the first head of the race, that is ruler (αρχη): but since the second Adam has been named Christ, he was placed as head (κεφαλη), that is ruler (αρχη) of those who through him are being transformed unto him into incorruption through sanctification by the Spirit. Therefore he on the one hand is our ruler (αρχη), that is head, in so far as he has appeared as a man; indeed, he, being by nature God, has a head, the Father in heaven. For, being by nature God the Word, he has been begotten from him. But that the head signifies the ruler (αρχη), the fact that the husband is said to be the head of the wife confirms the sense for the truth of doubters: for she has been taken from him. Therefore one Christ and Son and Lord, the one having as head the Father in heaven, being God by nature, became for us a ‘head’ accordingly because of his kinship according to the flesh.

Personally I think it is clear that here both arche and kephale refer to ‘origin’ or ‘beginning’ and not ‘ruler.’ This makes sense out of kinship.

Here is another example from Philo, incidentally:

And of all the members of the clan here described Esau is the progenitor, the head as it were of the whole creature (LCL, vol. 4, 489)

I have come to the conclusion myself that ‘head’ is intended to mean progenitor. I find that this best fits the various texts which refer to Adam as being born first. Since woman is obviously the mother of man, I believe the text is making the relationship reciprocal, making man the progenitor of woman, as woman is the mother of man. And this is to teach the interdependence of man and woman. I believe that the notion of final decision maker and ruler to be out of place.

Comment by Suzanne

January 10, 2008 @ 9:55 pm

My link is broken, but I copied from Grudem’s Appendix of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (A,B,C).

Comment by tiro

January 10, 2008 @ 10:11 pm

I haven’t read all of the posts. But, has anyone pointed out that contextually, 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 are using them differently. In Ephesians the wife is told to view the husband as her head, and the husband is told to view the wife as his body. Thus the metaphor is about the interdependence of the head and body, which leads to the end where he speaks of the two becoming one flesh.

1 Corinthians 11 on the other hand is making a chronological listing of events and the relationship of two in in. All humans came into being through Christ, the first woman came into being from the body of the man, Christ the Messiah was sent into the world through the work of the Father. Something like that. And, there is a certain kind of honor and dependence of the one on the other.

Thus in Ephesians I would say that there is strictly a head/body metaphor… kephale as physical head. But in Corinthians the use of head is more in line with ‘origin’ or something similar, one thing coming through the help of another…

Comment by jlp

January 11, 2008 @ 2:55 pm

Suzanne, I really don’t understand 77786. I have no understanding of Greek. Could you make it simpler? Thanks.

Comment by fjs

January 11, 2008 @ 8:41 pm

Thanks, Tiro. that is what I was trying to articulate in an earlier post and you did so much better. Context is highly important in the determination of word meanings.

Comment by jlp

January 11, 2008 @ 9:23 pm

Suzanne, in comment 77822 I’m having a hard time distinguishing between your argument and Grudem’s argument and am having a hard time following the explanation of the Greek grammar. My knowledge of any type of grammar isn’t very high.

Comment by Suzanne

January 12, 2008 @ 2:15 am

I have provided these quotes from Grudem because I have the impression that he, at first, claims that arche means ‘beginning’ and archon means ‘ruler,’ but then he goes on to say later that arche means both ‘beginning’ and ‘ruler.’

While this is not technically false, in fact, arche means ‘beginning’ and has, as a very minor meaning, through association of authority with the person in authority, the meaning of ‘ruler.’ It would not be a common meaning of arche. However, archon is the common, very common, word for ruler.

Why didn’t the quote from Cyril use archon if Cyril meant that Adam was the ‘ruler’ of the human race? Because Adam was not the ruler, but he was the ‘origin,’ the ‘progenitor,’ the arche.

Then Grudem goes on to say that when ‘head’ is used in association with arche, ‘head’ can mean ‘ruler.’ This is counterintuitive, surely, if Adam was the ‘ruler,’ the word would have to be archon.

I guessed that maybe this argument of Grudem’s caused Richard to completely confuse the two different words – arche and archon. It seems to me that Richard thought that they were the same word with the same meaning. Presumably Richard has read the kephale study, but maybe he has not. I am trying to understand how Richard, who supposedly has access to studies on kephale confused these two words.

Much of this has been hashed out over the years with the conclusion that you cannot prove that kephale does not mean ‘authority,’ but you can certainly say that ‘origin’ is very possible and seems the most likely from the context. Especially since you cannot show in any way that the woman has the authority of the husband on her head in 1 Corinthians 11:10. That is not a linguistically possible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:10.

I’ll try to have another run at showing the mistake Richard made in Greek.

Comment by Suzanne

January 12, 2008 @ 2:53 am

I wrote:

αρχη is a feminine abstract noun meaning the ‘beginning’ or the ‘over all.’ It only means ‘ruler’ if you think of how you can use the word ‘office’ to mean the person in the office. If someone says ‘the office wants you’ that means the person in the office. It really doesn’t have as a primary meaning ‘ruler.’ There is a word for ruler, αρχων, which is a masculine word for a person who rules.

Then Richard wrote:

Regarding the previous comment on the difference between αρχη/arche and αρχων/archon, they are indeeed the same word, only different forms. arche is the nominative singular (used as the subject), while archon is the genitive plural (possesive). Example usage would be something like this:

Nominative singular: The ruler/αρχη/arche wrote me a speeding ticket.

Genitive plural: The ability to create laws is the prerogative of the rulers/αρχων/archon.

What Richard wrote is complete and utter nonsense, and I am up late trying to explain why.

Richard, did you get this from your software program? Is it okay to search for words in a software program if you don’t know Greek? Software searches may have spelled the end of scholarship in Greek as far as I am concerned. Actually, I blame the people who proliferate this stuff.

So then I wrote:

ἡ ἀρχή: a feminine abstract noun, for ‘beginning,’ ‘first cause,’ ‘authority,’ ‘official’ (genitive: τῶν ἀρχῶν)

ὁ ἄρχων: a masculine participle of αρχω (’to begin a process’ or ‘rule’) with a genitive form τῶν ἀρχόντων. This means the ‘person who rules.’

Let me try again.

ἡ ἀρχή: (arche) is a feminine abstract noun, for ‘beginning,’ ‘first cause,’ ‘authority,’ ‘official’ (it has the genitive or possessive form τῶν ἀρχῶν/archôn)

ὁ ἄρχων: (archon) is a masculine participle of αρχω (‘to begin a process’ or ‘rule’) with a possessive form τῶν ἀρχόντων. This means the ‘person who rules.’

Nobody who reads Greek is going to mistake the feminine abstract word arche with the masculine word for a person, archon, no matter what the forms look like. Who confuses the words ‘he leaves the room’ with ‘the leaves fell in the fall?’ It just isn’t going to happen.

Even though there is a form of arche which looks the same as archon, they could never be confused because they would be preceded by an article (the) which in one case would be feminine and in the other case masculine, along with other differences.

Maybe Richard will just come back and admit that there are two different words. Anyone with a Greek lexicon can see that they are two different words.

Likewise, his enthusiasm for the Egyptian papyri has little to contribute to this discussion.

This is beginning to sound like the time when Grudem went to the Colorado Springs meeting on May 27, 1997 with a draft claiming that adelphoi cannot mean ‘brothers and sisters’ even though ‘brothers and sisters’ the first meaning in the LSJ. He hadn’t checked. I have always wondered how he could explain that. Did he ever admit to his colleagues whether he had drafted the entire list without reference to the lexicons?

Comment by SSM

January 12, 2008 @ 6:28 am

Hello all. I am rather new to these discussions and have never been to any Bible college. Just an observation while reading – how do egalitarians treat Grudem’s Systematic Theology (I cant find any other theology book). I view it as suspicious as he picks and chooses his interpretations and sources. My husband thinks he offers many different interpretive options and is a useful source (forgive the pun!) of information. I think if one part is biased, then the whole will be biased.

Hasn’t Rebecca Merrill Groothuis commented extensively on ‘head’ somewhere?

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 6:44 am

Thanks so much, Suzanne. Now I get it. I know it must have taken a lot on work on your part. It really expanded my understanding. Thanks a lot!

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 7:26 am

SSM, here are some quotes from some authors on ‘head.’

I believe Suzanne also has some comments on ‘head’ on her website, in one of her blogs.

In addition, Michael Kruse comments on it extensively here.

Comment by SSM

January 12, 2008 @ 7:40 am

JLP, thanks for the links. They are very helpful.

I wonder about the application of husbands as head/source. Is this a culturally-specific comment about husbands being the financial source for the family? Is there a trans-cultural application for husbands and wives (i.e. how do we apply it now?)

Comment by Jackie

January 12, 2008 @ 9:00 am

Although archon was the most common word used for rosh when it meant ‘chief’ or ‘authority,’ it was not the only one. The translators occasionally used thirteen other words. Some appear in Deuteronomy 1:13-15, where ‘head’ appears three times. ‘Choose wise, understanding, and experienced men, according to your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads. And you answered me, “The thing that you have spoken is good for us to do.” So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and set them as heads over you.’=

Obviously ‘heads’ in this passage meant ‘superior rank’ or ‘authority.’ But the Septuagint translators did not use kephale in any of the three places. Instead, they used the Greek words hegoumenous, hegeisthai and chiliarchos. The verb hegeomai means ‘to rule’ or ‘have dominion.’ The noun chiliarchos means ‘to be a leader,’ ‘a commander of a thousand soldiers.’ Among the fourteen words used to translate rosh, kephale does appear eighteen times. But these include six passages that have variant readings. Four others involve a head-tail metaphor that would not make sense without the use of head in contrast to tail. For example, Deuteronomy 28:44 says, ‘He shall be the head and thou shalt be the tail.’

I have to say I disagree with this assumption. I’ve read this assumption several times, but not once have I see the underlying assumption tested. What does the structure of the tribes at the time? How did they view ‘head.’ Take the difference in kingship between England and Scotland, for instance. It drove King James’ English courtiers nuts that his Scot subjects treated him like a regular guy… and vice versa. The underlying issue was how the two group viewed ‘king.’ In Scotland, the king was ‘first amoung equals’ while in England, the king was the God-ordained leader of the country. Indeed, in many tribal societies (which arguably Scotland was with its clan system), being named ‘leader’ meant more that one of representative, not that one had absolute rule.

So anyway, before we can make a determination of what head and tail means, we first have to decide how the society functioned and whether we are dealing with a clan-type kingship or a Sun king absolute ruler situation. Then of course there is the whole idiom and not necessarily meaning what the individual worlds mean.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 12:34 pm

SSM, to be honest, I don’t have an answer to your question (see comment 77855). I have thought about it though. But, at this point I can honestly say I don’t have a good answer. Perhaps someone else does.

Comment by Suzanne

January 12, 2008 @ 1:11 pm

Jackie, if Adam is the head of the human race, we really don’t need to worry about the cultural application. Adam is dead. He is the head or the ‘origin’ of the human race. I don’t really worry at all about how man is ruler or woman, he just isn’t, that is the curse.

My tentative views are this. Woman has the reproductive capacity. She has the power of veto over sex. In a very basic way she has something that man wants. Lots of women feel disempowered, or overpowered, of course, as I did. However, a man feels this too.

So… the woman who marries, the wife, owes it to her husband to have children for him, for them both, equally (I don’t mean if it is medically bad for her, but otherwise). The wife shares her reproductive capacity with her husband on equal terms. She has children with him, she acknowledges that they are his children and together they have equal parental rights. She is the mother with full rights as mother and she acknowledges him as the progenitor. She respects his equal rights.

This means that women who want independence from men are going against Scripture, women who want abortions, or divorce their husbands, taking the children.

Not that there are not situations where these things happen, but in general, the wife honors and respects the husband as father. It is really about acknowledging the full partnership and interdependence of man and woman. That is one application that seems plausible to me. I think it calls for inclusion of men into the family in a deep way, that women should have tenderness toward men.

But, of course, if the man is acting as boss, or the ruler, he blocks the normal function of a couple loving each other. This is the curse.

I haven’t written anything very useful about kephale before. To me, it isn’t a technical translation issue, because I would just translate it as head. It is a matter of interpretation. But clearly, it is not cut and fried – head is ruler – that just isn’t so. kephale means the origin or head of the line to me.

Comment by Suzanne

January 12, 2008 @ 1:19 pm

On systematic theology, I personally do not believe that subordination in the Trinity is a historic belief, nor do I think that historically the Trinity was compared to the male-female relationship.

The simple reason is that the Vulgate and some early Reformation Bibles (Olivetan) said that the curse of Eve was that she would be submitted to her husband. That means that up until after the Reformation, theologians believed that woman was subordinated by the curse. Therefore, the subordination of woman came about through sin, the sin of Eve.

So, in this view, Christ could not be compared to woman, as having the same subordinate position, because Christ does not come into submission through his own sin.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 1:29 pm

Jackie, it seems like you are asking a lot of questions at once. Can you narrow it down to one? Thanks.

Comment by Sarah

January 12, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

I am a first-time responder to this blog, but have been following it for some time.

Keep up the good work! It’s encouraging to see thoughtful discussion taking place. I became a Christian right after graduating from high school and received my early training in churches thoroughly committed to gender heirarchy. I accepted this teaching; ironically, it remained unchallenged until I briefly attended a conservative Bible institute which, while being decidedly anti-egalitarian, had a wonderful library. There I recieved my introduction to some of the issues being discussed – as well as my introduction to the heat that comes when presumptions are challenged.

I haven’t run into too many fellow egalitarians in my journey. Most of my church connection over the years has been in self-identified complementarian churches. Prior to my move to this area a couple years ago, my home church, wonderful in many ways, was also staunchly allied with the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: the founding pastor was mentored by John Piper, and Grudem’s work was highly recommended. (I once heard one of the current pastors proclaim his honor at having Grudem’s brother as his dentist(!) I’m sure he’s an excellent dentist.)

I’ve been very concerned about some of the consequences of traditional teaching for the church’s testimony to the world and for the harmful effects I have seen to our ministry to each other, particularly regarding marriage issues and mentoring young Christians as they explore their gifts.

I have also been concerned by the tone the debate has sometimes taken. There’s no room among Christ’s followers for anything less than a loving and respectful (and truthful) approach to the other side. While I’ve been most disappointed by the behavior of some of my brothers and sisters on the complementarian side of the divide, I have to remind myself to take care, especially when provoked, and maybe throw an accountability reminder to my ‘team’ every once in a while. I especially need to remember that we are all ultimately on the same team, and shout it loudly where that may be put in doubt.

I’ve seen God’s hand at work despite our failings. This gives me hope.

Over the years, information given by those affiliated with CBE has been a real source of encouragement and a valuable resource in my own exploration. I’ve had the opportunity to share it with others who are seeking as well.

For the record, I once apparently had two dorm floors of dear Christian students praying for my rebellious spirit at the Bible institute. I had shared with my roommate some of what I was discovering regarding kephale on my own time. Her apology and the disclosure of my rebel reputation came when she learned about the word in a New Testament class.

The information about its use in the LXX (Septuagint) was particularly compelling to me; in response to Jackie, I’m not an expert on Old Testament history, but I don’t think we’re entirely in the dark regarding the way the ‘heads’ of tribes were viewed and addressed in relation to their actual function by their contemporaries (the Bible itself covers some of that). To me, it seems at least as relevant how they were viewed by the translators of the LXX, whose use of the term is under discussion.

Take care and blessings to all. Thanks again to everyone (and I mean everyone) who has been taking the time to work through some really important issues on this blog. Keep up the good work – you don’t know who’s watching.

Comment by fjs

January 12, 2008 @ 4:20 pm

I love your story, Sarah. I also became an egalitarian at a conservative Bible college when I began researching Ephesians 5. It was like God was leading me to discover another biblical interpretation. In my faith journey I had only heard the complementarian interpretation. I didn’t know there were other solid, biblical interpretations.

I have also found few comrades in the journey and feel often like a very unusual person. Some think I have become a feminist and folks frequently ask me if I believe the Bible anymore. I have attended churches that are backed by denominations that ordain women and even still I am the weird one among women.

Glad you are part of the dialogue and willing to share your journey.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

I was converted to gender hierarchy as a young woman. I was put under enormous pressure to convert, and so thinking that what I was doing was what God wanted me to do – I converted. I used to pray for my female relatives that they would convert to it also. Instead I ended up unconverting. Strange how prayer gets answered in unusual ways.

Comment by Alan

January 12, 2008 @ 5:33 pm

I have followed the above discussion with interest. For those who would like to review the entire discussion in the scholarly literature both pro and con including the most recent articles through 2007 might want to see my article in Priscilla Papers (Vol. 20, No. 4, Autumn 2006, pp. 21–36). My conclusions to the whole debate and applications to 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 are given at the end of the discussion. What emerges in this study is that both ‘source’ and ‘authority over’ are legitimate meanings in first century Greek, but, and this is important, both senses are ‘rare’ as far as the evidence is concerned. A third sense is now emerging from the evidence – a sense that a number of scholars are following. This sense is ‘prominent’ ‘preeminent’ ‘foremost’ ‘representative’ (Thiselton, Cervin, Perriman, Gundry–Volf, Johnson).

The context in each case should determine the metaphors sense and also allow for Paul to use ‘live’ metaphorical senses that he himself has created. In such cases no exact metaphorical use can be found in any lexical listing from antiquity.

Finally, kephale should continue to be translated by the English word ‘head’ with the understanding that this English word is not the exact equivalent of the Greek word and that metaphorical meanings derived from the term are primarily determined by the context.

Comment by Sarah

January 12, 2008 @ 5:57 pm

Thanks for the responses! I know I have been considered strange, and not just for the egalitarian issue (I’ve been told many times that I think too much). Most often I haven’t brought gender issues up in conversation unless necessary. Right now I’m at the house of a couple of dear friends (mother and daughter) who, while not academics, are some of the best practical theologians I know.

Needless to say, we’ve been having a grand conversation – I’ve been relaying the blog discussion as we go, and they’ve been very interested. As one just said – you don’t have to be a rabid feminist to know that we are created in God’s image, too, and if God didn’t want women to serve him in certain ways he wouldn’t have given them the brains and talents (and I’ll add, the desire) to serve in those ways. Pretty much sums it up.

I have to wonder what those students praying for me to repent of my rebellious ways would think of how things have turned out. Their prayers might have been answered in ways far more profound than expected. At least I hope so.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 7:54 pm

Thanks for the info, Alan. I’m going to look up your article. It sounds really good.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 8:00 pm

When I was young there was quite a conversion process going on to convert young women to gender hierarchy. As soon as a woman converted to Christ, great efforts were made to convert her to the idea of submission as a way of life for her. To be considered truly submitted to the will of God, women were expected to accept one-way submission to men and to reject anything that smacked of feminism. In fact, for some Christians, feminism was the enemy. And to be considered a good Christian, a woman was expected to reject all forms of feminism.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 8:16 pm

When I think about it, it’s amazing how much effort part of the Christian community has made in order to make sure women are ‘less than all they could be’ for the Lord.

Comment by sarah

January 12, 2008 @ 9:02 pm

Thanks to Dr. Johnson (Alan) for the additional information. One of the things his post shows me is the value of discussion and informed debate: when we are unwilling to challenge ‘established’ theological understandings we lose out on essential insights.

Don’t know where the search will end but glad for the fact that it is being pursued.

Comment by jlp

January 12, 2008 @ 11:32 pm

I just read Dr. Johnson’s article ‘A Meta-Study of the Debate Over the Meaning Of Head (Kephale) in Paul’s Writings’ (Priscilla Papers, Vol. 20, Number 4, Autumn 2006). It’s great. I really enjoyed it.

However, I’m glad I didn’t read it before starting this blog. Because, if I had I wouldn’t have created it, as the article answers the question the blog asked. And then I would have missed all these great responses.

Comment by SSM

January 14, 2008 @ 5:07 am

JLP, I had similar experiences to yours in comment 77899, and agree with your comment 77900.

I am currently trying to undo the washing of my mind with all that hierarchical stuff. Since I became a Christian I have always believed in my heart that my God gave me unfettered access to his kingdom and gifts but until recently have not known a biblical interpretave method to support it. I am expert in the viewpoint that doesnt support my experience with God – a somewhat frustrating position!

Comment by SSM

January 14, 2008 @ 5:29 am

I have now read Dr. Johnson’s article (also, see comment 77908). It is excellent.

This blog has stimulated quite a discussion at home! To answer part of my question in comment 77855 I can make a suggestion. If we apply the ‘Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic’ as outlined by William Webb in ‘Discovering Biblical Equality’ by Pierce and Groothuis and we see how Paul, when addressing the Ephesians provided a Christian analogy for their cultural setting (Christ to the Church, husband to the wife). We wondered what analogy Paul would use now in our non-patriarchal culture, and thought the equal ruling of Adam and Eve pre-fall would show our interdependence and thus a redemptive look at how our marriages should function.

Comment by sarah

January 14, 2008 @ 7:24 pm

Early in any conversation I have with people about studying the Bible, I try to lay out the fundamental principle that ‘context is your best friend.’ It seems to me that there’s a tendency to accept that axiom when it comes to reading a passage or term in its immediate literary context while regarding with suspicion attempts to put it in its cultural context. Knowing the audience as well as the speaker can change our whole outlook; a friend of mine just shared a passage from a book in which one character asks another if he likes cats. When he answers ‘yes’ and reminisces about his childhood kitty, she pushes a plate toward him and says ‘good; I’m not hungry anymore.’

Maybe this says more about my friends than anything else.

Comment by Liz

January 15, 2008 @ 6:03 am

See comment 77796.

I think this is exactly how our marriages should function and it’s great that you came to that conclusion through looking at cultural context.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 3:28 am

I feel offended that CBMW took my question word for word and quoted it on their website. If David Kotter wanted to answer the question – he should have engaged us here.

Comment by Suzanne

January 16, 2008 @ 5:39 am

Could you please delete my three comments above – comment 78067, 78079, and 78080 and just post this link to my blog, here, where I have posted a full response? I had some editing difficulty here.

Thank you. You may copy my post to here if you wish.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 7:07 am

To David Kotter, instead of copying my exact post to your site and then commenting on it, why didn’t you respond here?

To Suzanne, thank you for your open letter to David Kotter. I am hoping that he reads it and responds to it.

Comment by Mary

January 16, 2008 @ 7:40 am

JLP, you said (see comment 78076):

I feel offended that CBMW took my question word for word and quoted it on their website. If David Kotter wanted to answer the question – he should have engaged us here.

Yes, I agree he should have. But then he’d actually have had to engage someone, and be subject to refutations of what he says. He’s safe from that at the Gender Blog.

Additionally, your excellent question (which he’s really not addressing, given he’s tipped his hand about dismissing any evidence that doesn’t support his position) could not then be used as fodder for numerous posts of non-answers.

It’s very fashionable right now to not engage those of us who embrace biblical equality, but rather to quote us elsewhere and never actually deal with the discussion of the issues. What this says to me is that some of the more influential proponents of gender hierarchy are either unwilling or unable to defend any actual critique of their anti-egalitarian opinions.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

Hey John Mark, at least you come here and talk to us, instead talking at us from another site.

I have something I would like to ask of you. Could you post links to some of the issues you discuss, such as:

Plato’s description of the role of the head in a human in Timaeus 44d

Are you denying the great and lasting impact of the Greek and of the arguments and images of Timaeus on Eastern and Jewish thought in the period before Christ?

Don’t some uses of a term count more than others?

(I’m assuming you believe that kephale was used as ‘authority’ more often than other metaphorical meanings.)

Again, since Plato uses ‘head’ as an image of authority, this is a reasonable interpretation of what he wrote.

I should mention that it seems an extraordinary claim, made on Suzanne’s blog, to say that Paul would have been more likely to have read Aristotle than Plato. Aristotle, sadly, was in relative eclipse for much of the Hellenistic period. The neo-Platonists included such world class figures as Plotinus.

Check out the references to Plato in Hellenistic philosophers and Greek thinkers as compared to Aristotle. Note the influence of Plato on Philo and on the translators of the LXX.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 3:24 pm

Hey John Mark, if you are correct about kephale meaning ‘authority’ some of the time, why doesn’t the Liddell Scott Jones lexicon reflect it? And why didn’t the translators of the Septuagint, who were later than Plato, use kephale more for authority than they did?

Also, you do realize only men benefit from men having ‘authority’ in marriage and in the church? The teaching of gender hierarchy has seriously damaged women in the Christian community, while benefiting men. The massive damage caused to women by teaching gender hierarchy is terrible.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

Just once I wish the male teachers of gender hierarchy would admit to the harm and damage they have done to women through their teaching.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

John Mark, you do realize you are teaching something that benefits you and harms me, don’t you?

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

John Mark, the reason I asked you for links is because I’m not really sure what you are talking about.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 5:09 pm

John Mark, your knowledge level is higher than mine, and I’m not able to follow all your ideas, so I will just ask you three questions.

1. The Mickelsen study concerned the Septuagint, which I believe is the same as the LXX. In comments 77645 and 77779 I have quotes from the Mickelsens in which they basically state that when the translators of the Septuagint chose to translate rosh from Hebrew into Greek for the most part they didn’t use kephale. See part of the quote below:

That leaves only eight instances (out of 180) where the Septuagint translators clearly chose to use kephale as a translation for ro’sh, when ro’sh meant ‘chief’ or ‘leader.’ Septuagint translators used fourteen different Greek words to translate ro’sh…

What I think you meant in one of your posts is that the translators did just the opposite and the that Septuagint translators (if it is the same as the LXX) used kephale to mean ‘authority.’ Now I may be misunderstanding you here. Am I? If I’m not do you have evidence that contradicts the Mickelsen study? If so, can you provide the precise information such as the Mickelsen’s provided in their quote?

2. You also talk about Plato believing the head is the seat of the immortal, rational, and simple soul. Recently I read a psychology book that stated that the ancient Greeks (no time period was given) understood that when the heart rate is calm, more rational decisions are made. As a result they saw the heart, not the head, as the seat of decision making. So I don’t know what to make of your statement about Plato.

3. As for your statement:

Are you denying the great and lasting impact of the Greek and of the arguments and images of Timaeus on Eastern and Jewish thought in the period before Christ?

I have no idea what you are referring to.

4. (This is actually for both you and Suzanne.) You said:

I should mention that it seems an extraordinary claim, made on Suzanne’s blog, to say that Paul would have been more likely to have read Aristotle than Plato. Aristotle, sadly, was in relative eclipse for much of the Hellenistic period. The neo-Platonists included such world class figures as Plotinus.

There weren’t very many books back in Paul’s day, and most people had little access to them even if they could read. Perhaps Paul didn’t read either Aristotle or Plato.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 5:13 pm

John Mark, for your information… I mentioned the fact that the belief in male authority only benefits men to let you know that I take that into consideration anytime a man tries to convince me of male authority.

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

John Mark, I think I understand what you mean when you say:

Are you denying the great and lasting impact of the Greek and of the arguments and images of Timaeus on Eastern and Jewish thought in the period before Christ?

You are saying that Greek philosophy influenced Jewish thought, am I correct?

But here’s where I am confused, I thought (and perhaps incorrectly) that the Jewish people rejected Greek thought as pagan. If you do believe that Greek thought did influence the Jews, what part of Greek thought do you believe influenced them? Perhaps the Jews accepted part of Greek thoughts and rejected others. If so, what part did the Jews accept that would have influenced Greek speaking Jews like Paul to use kephale to mean ‘authority.’

Comment by jlp

January 16, 2008 @ 6:35 pm

John Mark and Suzanne, John Mark seems to believe that kephale was often used with the meaning of ‘authority’ (or am I way off on this?) and Suzanne believes it was used rarely with the meaning of ‘authority.’

Here is a quote I would like both of you to comment on, from Philip Barton Payne’s Women, Authority, and the Bible:

To confirm that ‘authority’ was not in the usual connotative range of kephale, I consulted three prominent speicalists in ancient Greek literature (David Armstrong of the University of Texas at Austin and Michael Wigodsky and Mark Edwards of Stanford University). They all agreed that the idea of ‘authority’ was not a recognized meaning of kephale in Greek.

Do you know who these men are, and why they would have said what they did? I sort of agree with Suzanne, that probably on rare occasions it was used with the meaning of ‘authority’ (and also on rare occasions to mean ‘source’). But I’m not a Greek scholar like John Mark and these men are, and I’m not a linguist like Suzanne is.

Comment by JSE

January 19, 2008 @ 1:34 am

It would appear to me that JLP is offering just enough evidence to argue against herself. Perhaps that was taught to her by her male teachers also.

I have an anecdotal story: My son once came to me and said, ‘Hey daddy, I’m superman!’ I said, ‘Yes son, you are superman’ and I picked him up and flew him around the room… although, I do not expect him to rescue me during a time of danger.

Comment by jlp

January 19, 2008 @ 3:19 am

Suzanne wrote a very informative response to John Mark Reynolds here. You have to scroll down to find it. I encourage everyone to read it.

Comment by Jackie

January 19, 2008 @ 9:32 am

I don’t actually have a question. Rather I was making the point that we assume we know that rosh used in the head and tail idiom means that the being the head and tail meant leader in terms of the decision maker. With that underlying assumption we then intepret meaning into passages about leaderhip in societies represented in Scripture. We apply, without adequate proof, Western understandings of leadership over other tribal understandings. For instance, over Celtic tribal concepts, nor indeed even modern Near East tribal concepts.

If, for instance, we were to consider a ‘first among equals’ understanding of head and tail, then Andrew Perriman’s suggestion that kephale in Paul’s usage may indicate ‘prominent.’ Responding that we can ‘see’ it in the Old Testament doesn’t really test assumption. We may well ‘see’ in the Old Testament what we are most predisposed to see based on our own Western enculturation and we may take and ‘see’ parts of the Bible as examples that do not reflect time/culture of the head and tail idiom. (After all, the Old Testament does not reflect a stagnant culture, but rather reveals many cultures in flux.)

Which gets to the pointm that until someone, somewhere looks at the tribal structure at that time, in that place, then we can’t make assumptions about the meaning of an idiom from that period. We can’t know the truth based on an assumption colored by our own perceptions.

Jackie, if Adam is the head of the human race, we really don’t need to worry about the cultural application. Adam is dead. He is the head or the ‘origin’ of the human race. I don’t really worry at all about how man is ruler or woman, he just isn’t, that is the curse.

I’m sorry, I need a Scripture reference on this… where exactly was Adam called the head? I double checked, and I couldn’t find it. Also, how do you know that a man ruling over woman was a ‘curse?’ I can only find, ‘To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”‘ However, God does not say this is a curse. Rather it appears to be more of a consequence. Woman’s desire will be for man, and he’ll rule over her. In my experience God is right – just like what Jesus said about our treasure. Where we put our hearts is what will control us – if God’s our desire, we’ll be in his control, if our desire is money, money will control us. Doesn’t seem like a curse to me, just common sense.

My tentative views are this. Woman has the reproductive capacity. She has the power of veto over sex. In a very basic way she has something that man wants. Lots of women feel disempowered, or overpowered, of course, as I did. However, a man feels this too.

Yeah, see, that’s a little wacky for me. Though I am chaste since I’m not married, I could be out having sex without having children. And veto and sex just don’t go together. When people love each other and surrender their own wills to one another, ‘vetos’ fly out the window. So, that whole woman as life giver therefore has control thing is just out there as far as I’m concerned.

So… the woman who marries, the wife, owes it to her husband to have children for him, for them both, equally (I don’t mean if it is medically bad for her, but otherwise).

Praise the Lord, Jesus didn’t see it this way! Rather we owe no one anything except love. Jesus paid all my debts, I am indebted to no one. We’re free in Christ. And frankly, if we truly want to be life givers we don’t have to go out and get knocked up. Rather, we can truly share in giving live and raise the dead! We can tell people about Jesus and watch them be transformed from death to life. Eeek, it really worries me that we see children as something we ‘owe’ to anyone.

The wife shares her reproductive capacity with her husband on equal terms. She has children with him, she acknowledges that they are his children and together they have equal parental rights.

All I can say is, huh? Paul felt that we should stay unmarried becuase it gives us more time for the Lord and spares us the burden of relationships. At the same time, he valued those relationships and encouraged us to live healthily in those relationships. We’re not valued by our reproductive systems, but rather by our fundamental relationship with Christ. The only verse that could in any way be interpreted to suggest such a thing is in Timothy, and no one knows what it means (and anyone who claims they do is fibbing to you). And I would never see children as ‘his,’ ‘hers,’ or whatever. Children are human beings that we don’t own – in fact, hopefuly, we’ve given them to the Lord.

She is the mother with full rights as mother and she acknowledges him as the progenitor. She respects his equal rights.

Again, I can only ask where is this found anywhere in Scripture?

This means that women who want independence from men are going against Scripture, women who want abortions, or divorce their husbands, taking the children.

Again, where exactly is this anywhere in Scripture? Yes, men and women are interdependent according to Paul. However, Paul says it is better to be unmarried in order to focus on the Lord. Women are not ‘dependent’ on men – we are dependent on Jesus. We are complete in Jesus – just men are complete in Jesus. If we want to be life givers, we do it Jesus’ way. Now, if we want children because we love children, great. But it is not our calling in life. Jesus said our calling is to love one another and to go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing folks, casting out demons, etc… That is what it means to be a real Christian woman.

Not that there are not situations where these things happen, but in general, the wife honors and respects the husband as father.

Okay, we’ve totally crossed into creepy. First, Scripture forbids having sex with our fathers, but encourages us to have sex with our husbands. That should be our first clue that we don’t view our husbands as fathers. Next Jesus was point blank, we aren’t supposed to call anyone father except the Father (most of us miss this, but hey, Jesus said it, so he must have been making a point.)

Further, when showing us what marriage should be like, Paul had three folks in the Godhead to pick from. God the Father, God the Spirit and God the Son – kind of odd, but if he meant for us to somehow subliminally understand that he meant to point out a father-child relationship, he picked God the Son. To me, that should be another indication that we’re not talking parent-child relationship. Then mix that with Song of Songs. Its kind of odd, but when the chick was getting all hot about her man, she wasn’t saying, ‘oh daddy, your legs are so hot.’ Oddly enough, she refered to him as ‘brother’ and talked a lot about how he was like her. Kind of like man spotting woman for the first time.

Comment by Mary

January 19, 2008 @ 9:51 am

Jackie, I took Suzanne to be saying that the wife should respect the husband, who is father of their children, as the children’s father. I don’t think her context makes it reasonable to assume she meant that a wife should give her husband respect as though he were her father.

And out of the scary-but-true category, one incestuous relationship the Bible doesn’t forbid is a father having sex with his daughter; she’s the one female relative that a man isn’t forbidden in Torah to have sex with. Of course, that doesn’t negate the fact that such behavior is evil, as we all know. It’s a part of that traditional anthropological code that sexual access to a woman was controlled by her father, until she was acquired by a man as his mate, who then had control of sexual access to her.

There are movements today that are much too close to this primal practice for comfort, if we examine them.

Comment by fjs

January 19, 2008 @ 10:51 am

Thanks, Suzanne, for your blog link. I visted and read one of the online books… I feel newly empowered to preach the gospel.

Comment by jlp

January 19, 2008 @ 4:24 pm

Jackie, I see what you are saying. So often we have not looked at the cultural and historical context in which words are used and therefore have read our own cultural context into them. I have to agree we have done that a lot with the Bible.

Comment by Liz

January 19, 2008 @ 10:58 pm

Whatever the word head was intended to mean, it was used in the relation of a husband and wife. There is no mention of anyone being the ‘head of the home’ and yet this is included in comments about roles and responsibilities. One comment has been enlarged to include extra ideas until it is believed to be what God has in mind.

On our dining room wall we have a plaque which reads ‘Christ is the head of this home; the unseen guest at every meal and the silent listener to every conversation.’ This is over forty years old and since the upsurge of interest in defining strict roles in the home, this particular text has disappeared from Christian bookshops in Australia.

Comment by Suzanne

January 19, 2008 @ 11:34 pm

Jackie, I wrote:

Not that there are not situations where these things happen, but in general, the wife honors and respects the husband as father.

I definitely meant that a woman is to respect her husband as the father of her children – if they have children. Not as ‘her own father.’ Forgive me some unedited typing. Don’t start a rumour about me.

All I am saying is that women should respect men, however you find that appropriate. It’s not something I care to argue about. I was just writing some tentative thoughts. I see you don’t like them. I am okay with that.

You asked about Adam. Adam is not called the head of the human race in the Bible. It is part of the evidence on kephale. It goes like this:

Grudem says, ‘Give me one example where kephale refers to a person and the person is not the ruler.’ So then someone says, ‘Adam – in Cyril of Alexandria,’ and Grudem says, ‘The word probably has the sense of ruler there.’

Here is another interesting example. This is from the Gender Blog a couple of days ago.

Grudem wrote, ‘…the king of Egypt is called “head” of the nation.’ Here is the quote (but not supplied by Grudem):

…among the Ptolemies, Philadelphus was the most illustrious; for all the rest put together scarcely did as many glorious and praiseworthy actions as this one king did by himself, being, as it were, the leader of the herd, and in a manner the head of all the kings. (Moses 2:30)

Here Grudem says this. Someone has already challenged him on this and Grudem wrote:

Therefore this example should be reclassified as one in which the meaning authority over is possible but not [emphasis mine] required. (19) Philo, Moses 2.30: ‘As the head is the ruling place in the living body, so Ptolemy [Ptolemy Philadelphos] became among kings.’ Cervin does not think that head means ruler here because Philo says that Philadelphos is the head of kings, not in the sense of ruling them, but as the preeminent king among the rest. Philadelphos is the top of the kings just as the head is the top of an animal’s body… This example is therefore to be rejected.

That is a direct quote from Grudem in the appendix of his book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. So why, if he has admitted that this example should be rejected, does he put it at the head of his list on the gender blog a few days ago?

The fact is that no one is able to hold Grudem responsible to what he himself has already written.

It is true that sometimes the Greeks located the ruling part of the body in the head. Not always, but sometimes. However, I cannot think of any examples where the meaning of authority over other people is presumed to be part of the meaning of head. If someone is mentioned as ‘head’ they are more likely first in some way, not over in authority.

The example of the general that Grudem gave is counterbalanced by the fact that there was a use for the term kephale in the army already, the right-hand phalanx, not the general. One time the general is referred to as the head, but that was only in a metaphor or comparison, that he was like the head. The general was never called ‘the kephale of the army.’

Every one of Grudem’s examples can be looked at in context and you can see that there is an explanation in the surrounding text for what kephale means. It is not assumed to mean authority.

Comment by Suzanne

January 20, 2008 @ 12:29 am

Liz, you might want to check out this post, here.

These are excerpts from some wedding vows at Bible.org.

For the man it says ‘I will look to Christ as head of our home as I have looked to him as head of the church,’ but for the woman it says ‘I will look to you as head of our home as I have looked to Christ as head of the church.’

Comment by Mary

January 20, 2008 @ 3:55 am

It seems obvious to me that in Ephesians 5:22ff, kephale is used in a head and body metaphor. Thus, in one of the biblical passages that so often gets ‘authority’ imposed onto it, we have a pretty good example of kephale, used for a person (husband) in a way that precludes ‘authority’ as the foundational meaning of the word. The head is not the authority figure for the body; separate them in that way, and both head and body die. It’s about unity, not authority.

I really don’t see what’s to be gained by imposing onto such examples a mandatory ‘authority’ meaning. Yes, I know that’s what traditionally has been done, but I believe it does obvious and troublesome damage to the unity metaphor of head and body when we try. And is that not, for Christians, what marriage is supposed to be about: a unity in love so strong and unbreakable that separation is deadly?

Comment by Mary

January 20, 2008 @ 3:56 am

Let me clarify: I mean deadly to the marriage, with emphasis on the strength of the unity and Christlike love binding that unity.

Comment by jlp

January 20, 2008 @ 7:31 am

Suzanne, you are very balanced in your explanation of the Greek. I really appreciate that. Someday you should write a book about the word kephale. I know you would do a great job.

Comment by Liz

January 21, 2008 @ 6:37 am

Suzanne, thanks for the link regarding marriage vows.

Recently we have been to two weddings of girls who grew up under our ministry and whose mothers are now egalitarian (one is an elder) Both girls went to other churches as they grew older, one because she said she couldn’t stay in a church which had women leaders. The other went because her mother was married to a domineering man who believed in headship and verbally abused both the mother and daughter, so after much heart-searching the wife left and moved to another suburb.

These young women were both married at nineteen and at both services the emphasis was heavily on loving leadership and submission. One ceremony had another newly-married couple pray for the bride and groom (first the husband who prayed that the groom would be a servant leader and then the wife who prayed that the bride would graciously submit and then the husband prayed again).

We are so saddened that this age group are going back to what their mothers left behind years ago and particularly since both girls witnessed their mothers being ill-treated by their husbands. The books, videos, tapes, and pre-marriage counselling courses are so filled with hierarchy which sounds very spiritual and these young people are eager to please God. Sadly, they may not see the ‘other side’ until or unless there is trouble in their marriage and then they will maybe be prepared to listen (often it is too late to save the marriage).

Comment by Suzanne

January 21, 2008 @ 10:04 am

This is why I argue that it should actually be illegal to make a vow to obey another human being. It should not be a choice or option. It is a very terrible thing to have it thrown in your face for the rest of your life, in who-knows-what circumstances, that you made an unconditional vow to obey the equally fallible human being you married at nineteen. It more or less destroys any chances the couple might otherwise have of growing up and making it as a couple, in my opinion.

Comment by LMcC

January 21, 2008 @ 12:07 pm

I’m grateful that my husband and I were able to use CBE’s wedding ceremony. We did rework a lot of it, in part because some parts would have been a sledgehammer to our audience and in part because we didn’t want to repeat things too much, but we’re glad we used it. There will be no need to renounce any parts of our vows later. My husband actually wrote the ring vows himself, and we both used them.

My complementarian friends still don’t understand why I took such a huge stand against the word ‘obey.’ It’s not that I don’t believe in submission (duh, egalitarians are actually all about mutual submission); it’s just that I remember how impossible my now-husband could be when we were still under the old ways. He had some problems he needed to deal with on his own; and as long as he was able to hide behind ‘I’m the man,’ he didn’t deal with squat. He didn’t learn things he needed to know that I already knew. To marry him under hierarchy and pledge to obey would have been to sabotage our well-being in every area of life through his inability to do what was needed and my inability to do the right thing without breaking sacred vows. Sexual hierarchy isn’t worth it.

Personally, I’m starting to think both sides of the debate are working too hard over the kephale issue. We know from history that men had legal right to rule their wives, but Paul radically redefined the duties of the husband to the point where he left any mention of ‘rule’ out. I can imagine some of the Ephesian men waiting for Paul to say the ‘r’ word, hoping he’d justify their behavior toward their wives, only to realize he deliberately left that part out. They had to have been thrown for a loop. Hierarch men seem to stop reading at ‘head’ and ‘Christ,’ happy to raise themselves up over their wives (and often any other woman around); but a further reading would point out that the prideful attitude and arrogance would have to go ASAP. For those who love power more than their wives, reading and understanding those next few words about sacrificial love is too difficult to do.

Comment by Paula

January 21, 2008 @ 3:36 pm

For the life of me, I will never understand how any Christian can want to rule over another Christian. It is the antithesis of all Jesus taught and modeled, all Paul wrote so passionately about, all John said about how a person’s love for God is seen in the way they treat others. None of them restricted this to relationships between men alone, or exempted men from the command to ‘consider others as better than yourselves.’

A Christian who desires to rule hasn’t learned the first thing about following the Christ. Such people have thrown Jesus’ ‘not so with you’ in the mud and think he has changed his mind about ‘who is the greatest.’ They live as though God does indeed ‘look upon the flesh’ and has decided after all to be ‘a respecter of persons.’ They desire the praise of men and the honored seats and put a burden on women they themselves could never carry.

Pharisees one and all.

Comment by Mary

January 21, 2008 @ 4:16 pm

But Paula, they deny that it’s about ruling. In the case of husbands, it’s called ‘servant leadership,’ and in the case of those church ‘roles’ that are ‘forbidden’ for women, it’s called ‘head leaders’ or ‘positions of authority.’ But they wouldn’t dream of actually ruling over anyone. (Which just shows the circularity of the argument; if it’s about ‘serving’ and not ‘ruling,’ then there’s no foundation to excluding women from such ‘leadership.’)

Comment by Paula

January 21, 2008 @ 5:11 pm

You got it, Mary. Their reasoning ultimately turns on them, so they hope we never follow it to its conclusion. Why work so hard to keep women out of the ‘lowest’ positions in the church? How can we be plotting to usurp authority if there’s no ‘rule’ in it? How could anyone object to women being servants if that’s all it is?

Comment by Paula

January 21, 2008 @ 5:34 pm

I think I get it now.

If women want it, it’s ruling. If men want it, it’s ‘servant leadership.’ Men are ‘ministers;’ women are ‘servants.’ Men are ‘elders;’ women are ‘elderly women.’ Men have the ‘offices;’ women have the ‘gifts.’ Men are only forbidden what the Bible expressly forbids, but women are only permitted what the Bible expressly permits.

I’m slow, but eventually I catch on.

Comment by Liz

January 21, 2008 @ 5:41 pm

Marvellous reasoning in the last few posts. We can see it so clearly and yet others don’t. Just shows how deep is the social conditioning which has gone on over centuries and how prayer and example (with some gentle explanation at times) will eventually win people over. As others have said – Jesus’ whole teaching for life is about mutual submission, dying to self, esteeming others and so on and it all gets forgotten or pressed down by one or two debatable verses.

Thank God for this place where we can learn how to better express the great truth of true biblical equality. Thank God for everyone who writes and gives their perspective which we can take into our lives and share with others.

Comment by Paula

January 21, 2008 @ 5:55 pm

I think if we’re ever to turn the tide, it will start with small ripples like this. Being ‘faithful with a few things’ will surely be rewarded in the end.

We just have to keep talking about it and keep it in the public eye. What we can’t do is fade away and stay in our places.

Comment by Richard P

January 23, 2008 @ 2:32 am

I can find a verse in the Bible where it very specifically says that God created a help proper for Adam. Can you find a verse where it specifically says that God created a help proper for Eve? When discussing the ‘best’ that God wants for our lives, this issue cannot be ignored.

If I am going to be a useful ‘help’ for someone, I must follow their vision, I must do what they ask me to do. (It is also true that I can be useful by helping them refine their vision.) If I follow my own vision, if I ignore what they ask me to do so that I might instead do what I want to do, or if I try to talk them out of their vision so that they might follow mine, how am I a useful ‘help’ for that person?

The Bible does not seem to say that God created every woman to be a help proper for every man. Rather, the Bible seems to show that this relationship/responsibility comes into existence between a husband and wife. If a woman truly wishes to be all that God has created her to be, and if she wishes God to honor her obedience to him, why on earth would she marry a man whose vision and goals for life she could not follow and support and be a proper help for? On the other hand, if she has married a man whose vision and goals for life she can follow and support and be a proper help for, where’s the beef?

So much for the theory. Now for the reality. Every couple who has ever married eventually falls out of their own Garden of Eden and ends up living in the real world (he has no vision that she is interested in and he is irritated/hurt that she is off chasing her own vision). And for thousands of years, pregnant women who had six other children at home could not build or run churches or skip off to the third continent over to do missionary work, but men could. Division of labor, pure and simple. Over time, my guess is that this division of labor will stay. Some women will use technology to enable them to both have children and build churches. Most won’t.

Abuse of any kind (male or female) is abhorrent.

For thousands of years, men have ruled over/dominated women, just like it says they will in Genesis. So long as man says ‘I’m going in this direction’ and woman says ‘Don’t leave me, let me follow you,’ that is not likely to change (‘If you are going to follow me, then I expect this and this and this’). Men like to explore, to wander, to experience the thrill of discovery. And guess what? They like to engage in battles to determine who the dominant one is. Women don’t necessarily like to do this (although many do). But so long as women follow men, and follow them into strife, their lives will be caught up in strife (if you don’t want any of that, don’t have anything to do with men – or women either). Probably has something to do with what God said our lives would be like after he removed Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.

We never will find peace in each other. We will only ever find peace in Christ.

Comment by Richard

January 23, 2008 @ 2:50 am

We never will find peace in each other. We will only ever find peace in Christ.

Should read: We never will find lasting peace in each other. We will only ever find lasting peace in Christ.

Comment by Suzanne

January 23, 2008 @ 3:20 am

If I am going to be a useful ‘help’ for someone, I must follow their vision, I must do what they ask me to do.

In fact, what you say here is the complete opposite of the concept of help in the Bible. The one who helps has a superordinate position in which they ‘succour’ or ‘give aid’ to the one who is in danger.

This is the concept of ezer, because God is our ezer in times of trouble. And Christ was addressed in the early church as boethus and prostates. This is, of course, what Phoebe was to Paul. According to the Greek word, she was a person who out of her status or wealth helped Paul when he was in need. I don’t doubt that she shared a vision with him, but I very much doubt that she did as she was told by him. She did act as his envoy, but previous to that she must have offered him ‘succour’ or rescued him in some way.

God is our help, Christ is our help. This is the theology of the words in the Scriptures.

Two ancient prayers to Christ – αρχιερευς (high priest) και προστατης (benefactor) and βοηθος (help) και προστατης (benefactor). This is what Eve was called – βοηθος (‘help’)(Clement).

So Eve was βοηθος and Phoebe was προστατις, both words used as a way to address Christ in prayer. Obedience and subordination had absolutely nothing to do with this kind of help.

And for thousands of years, pregnant women who had six other children at home could not build or run churches or skip off to the third continent over to do missionary work, but men could.

Women like Catherine Booth and Elizabeth Fry had children and preached and traveled. And many other women – Anne Hutchinson, Mary Fisher, Margaret Fell. Lots of women preached, but the Puritans flogged them and exiled them. Life was harsh.

Mary Fisher felt the Puritans had flogged her enough and she went and preached to the sultan Mohammed IV. He did not flog her. There were a few men in the group that set out for Turkey but she was the only one that completed the trip. I suppose that was due to her great dislike for exploring and discovering (just kidding).

Anyway, British Columbia was evangelized by women called the Caravanners. They had to train first as riders and later as mechanics to be part of the mission. No men allowed!

Comment by Mary

January 23, 2008 @ 8:52 am

‘Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you’ is not a command. It is a consequence of sin. In Christ, we have the remedy to sin and the corrective for this consequence… if we will prefer Christ over the familiar patterns of sin.

Comment by Mary

January 23, 2008 @ 8:59 am

Defining women solely by their husbands and babies is a bit problematic; we who live as Paul said he’d prefer that people live (single) and don’t have either husband or babies realize quite acutely that marriage and motherhood are not what make a woman.

That’s one of the many problems with superimposing this world’s social structures onto the Christian faith. The world tells us stuff like what different planets men and women are from, how wild men are but how captivating women are, and makes whether one is male or female into an idolatry of sex differences. Meanwhile, there’s kingdom work going undone (fields ripe for harvest) and far too few laborers; they’re too busy with ‘me and mine’ and have been deceived into thinking that the only field of labor for women is the home.

Christ calls people, men and women, to follow him. That’s the greatest adventure. Christ doesn’t just call the men and the women get to follow the men. In some marriages, husbands find that their callings involves supporting their wives’ callings and sharing the responsibility of nurturing their children. Both husband and wife must be sensitive and obedient to the voice of Jesus Christ!

Is it going to be all about Christ, or all about men? Sadly, in the church all too often, people are taught that being all about men is being all about Christ.

Comment by Light

January 23, 2008 @ 9:55 am

If a woman truly wishes to be all that God has created her to be, and if she wishes God to honor her obedience to him, why on earth would she marry a man whose vision and goals for life she could not follow and support and be a proper help for? On the other hand, if she has married a man whose vision and goals for life she can follow and support and be a proper help for, where’s the beef?

Richard, is it your view, then that it is God’s design that men in general get to have visions and women do not? Is it your view that the only proper vision for a woman is her husband’s? Do you believe that a woman can have a vision and her husband can be a help for her in that?

Comment by Watcher

January 23, 2008 @ 11:04 am

I don’t know. Seeing the direction of this thread, I can’t help but think of Deborah in the Bible and Golda Meir, past female prime minister of Israel whom I mentioned in the Huckabee thread. I’m sure there were many differences between these women, but one huge one was with the men they married.

The Bible doesn’t say much about Deborah’s husband, but there doesn’t seem to be this either-or stipulation put on their marriage because Deborah had the calling to leadership and her husband didn’t. It seemed he supported her just fine in her call and didn’t feel his manhood threatened.

Golda’s husband, on the other hand, could not handle Golda being a born leader. And, when push came to shove, Golda’s husband forced her to make the choice between living in poverty with an insecure man or taking the road that led to her becoming a great leader for her nation during a time of crisis.

It is too bad that too many believe women have no calling beyond the insides of a very small, man-made box. It is too bad that many otherwise reasonable people can’t see that the visions and callings of men and women can co-exist in a mutually beneficial arrangement. It’s too bad that so many are stuck in an either-or, neither-nor thinking that leaves no room for both men and women to reach their full potential according to their gifts and callings. It’s too bad so many find it so easy to say to a woman, ‘You must graciously submit because God does not call you beyond what we want to see and believe for you.’

I thank God that while the church has told women ‘no’ he still says ‘yes.’

Comment by Suzanne

January 23, 2008 @ 11:58 am

It’s too bad that the church is teaching men that woman was created to be a submissive assistant. Woman is supposed to be nursemaid, private secretary, iron the shirt, and put the breakfast on the table.

And doesn’t a woman have her own ideas and creativity? Aren’t women flowing over with their own initiative in response to what they see? Don’t women live longer than it takes to raise the six children?

Are we going to have to argue over again that a woman is a human?

Comment by Suzanne

January 23, 2008 @ 12:02 pm

I wrote:

Two ancient prayers to Christ – αρχιερευς (high priest) και προστατης (benefactor) and βοηθος (help) και προστατης (benefactor). This is what Eve was called – βοηθος (‘help’)(Clement).

What I should have written:

Two ancient prayers to Christ – αρχιερευς (high priest) και προστατης (benefactor) and βοηθος (help) και προστατης (benefactor)(Clement). This is what Eve was called – βοηθος (‘help’) in the Septuagint.

Comment by Suzanne

January 23, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

Here is Grudem’s response in his Systematic Theology:

Recently some writers have denied that the creation of Eve as a helper fit for Adam signals any difference in role or authority, because the word helper (Hebrew ‘ezer) is often used in the Old Testament of someone who is greater or more powerful than the one who is being helped.

In fact, the word helper is used in the Old Testament of God himself who helps his people. But the point is that whenever someone ‘helps’ someone else, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or in our modern use of the word help, in the specific task in view the person who is helping is occupying a subordinate or inferior position with regard to the person being helped.

Does this mean that as we call on God to help us he takes the inferior position? That is what is being taught in the seminaries throughout the evangelical community. I find it incredibly disturbing that the goal to keep woman subordinate informs our concept of an omnipotent God and requires that we place him in an inferior position.

And what does God look like in this inferior position of being a helper?

‘Blessed are you, O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the LORD? He is your shield and helper and your glorious sword. Your enemies will cower before you, and you will trample down their high places.’ (Deuteronomy 33:29)

Why does Grudem not quote this verse about God? Is God as ‘ezer (helper) part of the systematic theology? No, it isn’t. Why doesn’t Grudem expand on the inferior position of God in the rest of the book?

Comment by Mary

January 23, 2008 @ 2:28 pm

That response is very interesting, Suzanne. I think of how often someone has told me that kephale must mean ‘authority’ and that husbands are not supposed to submit to their wives (despite Ephesians 5:21) because, ‘Of course, Jesus never submits to the church. The church submits to Christ, and that’s why wives submit to their husbands and not husbands to wives. Christ is the authority over the church, so husbands are authorities over their wives.’

But here in Grudem’s response, we have a concession that God takes a subservient role to humans? Can this be a case of that proverbial cake that can be both had and eaten?

Yes, indeed, let’s have that kind of consistency throughout the book. Or better yet, let’s see some serious study that subordinates itself to what the Bible actually says, not flimsy props for an extrabiblical pre-formed conclusion.

Comment by Paula

January 23, 2008 @ 2:46 pm

Good observation, Mary. They do indeed want to ‘have their cake and eat it too.’ They want men to never submit to women but will make God submit to men! I only wish they’d make up their minds. If a husband is never to submit to his wife because God does not submit to man, then by what twisted reasoning to they make God submit to man?

Grudem’s admission should have all Christian leaders calling for him to step down from every lofty position he may occupy, and for him to be grilled about his apostate beliefs. He has called God inferior to man, solely to protect the male supremacist doctrine of Eve being inferior because she was Adam’s ‘helper.’ And he is blind to the fact that this belief shoots down the very basis for making husbands exempt from mutual submission, which he calls ‘impossible’ (see ‘The Myth of Mutual Submission,’ here).

Comment by Mary

January 23, 2008 @ 2:48 pm

Yes, mutual submission is indeed impossible… for those unwilling to actually do it.

Comment by Suzanne

January 23, 2008 @ 3:49 pm

When I first took a serious look at some of Grudem’s book, I assumed that he was not considered orthodox. I thought that his doctrines represented a heterodox minority in the church. Now I am simply baffled.

Let’s put this together. Woman is functionally subordinate to man, man to Christ and Christ to God. However, God, with reference to the specific task in view, occupies a subordinate or inferior position with regard to man.

So when man has a task, everyone is subordinate to him, both woman and God. Woman, of course, never has a task.

Comment by fjs

January 23, 2008 @ 4:00 pm

I did a word study on ezer as it is used in Genesis 2. Only there the word is used as a noun… a help. It’s not a qualifier of the woman or a verb. She is the answer to the counterpart the man is seeking during the animal naming. Context again helps us with the meaning of the word.

One needs to reconcile with Genesis 1:26-28 with Genesis 2′s creation story. The only way is to see the story in the whole context of the story Moses is telling the people of Israel.

He is revealing a God who is very different from the gods of the time – one who creates humans in his own image, one who provides what his creation needs from food to relationships. God is revealing himself as one who invites his creation to rule as vice regents in his image. The man and the woman are sharing this image and rulership. In order to separate roles, one must read something into the text that is not present. Moses is not speaking about separate roles but about a God who provides the counterpart necessary in human relationships and to govern and fill the earth.

That’s all it’s telling. Grudem reads way too much into the story.

Comment by Suzanne

January 23, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

I want to acknowledge that Grudem has responded to all this argumentation on pages 102 and following in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (RBMW).

He also states clearly that woman is the spiritual equal to man, but ‘she is not his equal in that she was his helper.’ (102) On page 103, ‘…she found her own identity in relation to the man as his equal and helper by the man’s definition.’

So what Grudem is saying is that man names woman helper and this name of helper is what indicates that she is not equal. God has allowed Adam to define woman out of Adam’s sense of leadership and to make his headship over woman clear. So God gives woman to man to name and man names her his subordinate.

You can google into these books if you don’t own them.

Comment by Mary

January 23, 2008 @ 5:36 pm

But Grudem gets it fundamentally wrong. The man never calls the woman his ‘help’ or ‘helper’ or anything of the sort. God saw the solitary human’s need for a perfectly corresponding counterpart/companion/strong help. Only when woman had been taken from the solitary human was the man even aware of the need, and even then he (unlike Grudem) called it true: ‘At last! This is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone. I’ll call her woman, because she comes from me.’

Our first father never called our first mother ‘helper.’ Nor did God.

Comment by Suzanne

January 23, 2008 @ 5:53 pm

I don’t know why Grudem says that woman is helper ‘by man’s definition.’

It is clear however, that man is defined as helper in relation to a task, not in relation to his loneliness. Woman is created to help man with his task, not with his need. Woman, of course, does not have a task and so does not need help.

Comment by Suzanne

January 23, 2008 @ 5:54 pm

I meant:

It is clear however, that woman is defined as helper… in relation to man’s task, not in relation to man’s loneliness.

Comment by Paula

January 23, 2008 @ 6:44 pm

The more Grudem writes, the deeper a hole he digs for his theology. Even some of his supporters must be getting nervous by now.

He ignores the reason God made Eve, ignores Adam’s need for help, inserts hierarchy at every turn, makes up bogus Greek to impress the unwary, and redefines words to jam together his self-contradictory collection of teachings.

I still stand amazed at how any Christian can want to rule another Christian, no matter what they choose to call it (which Grudem doesn’t even try to say it isn’t ruling). It’s just plain prideful, nothing less.

Comment by Suzanne

January 23, 2008 @ 7:33 pm

Paula, this is all old writing – twenty years old. I live on the Canadian west coast and my pastor comes from Australia. I voice a murmur of disagreement with male authority and he quotes Grudem.

Grudem did not exactly make up bogus Greek. He took the Hebrew of 1 Kings 8:1, רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת/rashei hammattot – ‘heads of staffs’ which in Hebrew could mean ‘heads of the tribes.’ The literal word is mateh, and it really means a stick or sceptre, but infrequently a tribe.

Then in the Codex Alexandrinus it was translated as κεφαλαι των ραβδων – heads of staffs in a completely literal way. (Note: I haven’t seen this version but that is what Grudem says.) But, in the critical text, the accepted text of the Septuagint, this particular phrase from the Hebrew was omitted. Of course, I don’t know why, but it was not translated at all.

So, in straightforward, literal Greek we have only ‘heads of staffs.’ However, Grudem argues that staffs must mean tribes, as it did in Hebrew, and therefore, the phrase contains the meaning head as leader. It is worth noting that in the Septuagint, ‘head’ of a tribe is not translated with the word κεφαλη, but with αρχων.

Take Numbers 30:1 for example.

וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת, לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל/vaydabber mosheh el-rashei hammattot, livnei yisra’el

και ελαλησεν μωυσης προς τους αρχοντας των φυλων ισραηλ/kai elalesen Mouses pros tous archontas twn phulwn Israel

And Moses spoke to the leaders of the tribes of Israel.

Here we see the translation ‘leader,’ αρχων (αρχοντας)/archon, (Remember that arche is a different word and closer to kephale.) This was the claim earlier in this thread, that archon means leader.

So in both places rashei hamatot is translated, but in one case it becomes ‘leaders of tribes’ with the word archon, and in the other ‘heads of staffs’ with the word head kephale, because the staff as a stick of wood can have a head, but it cannot have a leader.

Grudem then argues that the literal phrase ‘heads of staffs’ must mean ‘leaders of tribes’ and therefore ‘head’ must mean ‘leader.’ However, we see that this was not the normal and accepted way to translate the phrase into Greek and in Greek it appeared to mean ‘heads of staffs.’

You can see how confusing it is. However, the Septuagint translated the concrete words and retained the metaphor. There is no reason to think that usually ‘head’ meant leader in Greek. I think it argues against it because that variant did not make it into other versions or other places with the same Hebrew wording.

Comment by Mary

January 23, 2008 @ 9:34 pm

I’m not following you, Suzanne. God observed that it was not good for the human creature to be alone, and out of that need – not a need for help for a task; such a need is not articulated – God created the ezer kenegdo, forming her from the human’s body.

What am I missing?

Comment by fjs

January 23, 2008 @ 9:40 pm

What does it say about a God who validates a husband’s naming his wife subordinate? Context is off. Way off.

Comment by Suzanne

January 24, 2008 @ 12:47 am

If I am going to be a useful ‘help’ for someone, I must follow their vision, I must do what they ask me to do.

From this I assume that Richard is saying that a woman is a ‘help’ in order to do as she is asked – in order to help with a task. I am pretty sure that is what is taught in Grudem’s Systematic Theology, so I must assume that this is the standard belief today in the church. This is also taught in Carolyn Mahaney’s chapter on biblical womanhood in the home. A wife nurtures her husband and helps him with his task. She does not have a task. He is her task. That is the standard teaching on why God created woman.

Richard, have I represented the standard complementarian teaching on why God created woman fairly?

Comment by Liz

January 24, 2008 @ 3:15 am

Interestingly enough, if we take the line that ezer means help as it is used of God, then the woman could be seen as stronger than, wiser than, ‘better’ than the man. I haven’t read anywhere that women are claiming that for themselves but if you use the same logic as Grudem and others, that is where it leads.

If nothing else, ezer means that the woman is certainly not inferior but of such strength and power that the man is better off with such a companion.

A personal annoyance is where translators called ezer kenegdo (helper suitable)
‘helpmeet’ and use it as a noun. This just reinforces the idea of helper being an assistant to the main person.

Comment by fjs

January 24, 2008 @ 7:55 am

That’s why the interpretation is so faulty… it is based on a presupposition brought in to the text. One has to add it because it is not there. One must create a meaning for help/helper that is not accurate. The word study I did suggested that help had to do with rescue. In context, it has to do with rescuing the man from being alone… ‘God said it is not good for the man to be alone.’ It is way more literal.

I also read about Augustine who reasoned… he noticed that God said it was not good for the man to be alone, then noted that the text seemed to be saying that the woman was created as a companion. However he dismissed that meaning because he could not imagine that a woman could be a companion. He thought that if God wanted him to have a companion, then surely he would have created another man.

Socially they had no experience of women who had been educated… they were sheltered, restricted, and often barely teens when married to much older men. But, a lens was present.

It is charged that egalitarians use a modern lens… but they/complementarians will not own their own lens.

Comment by fjs

January 24, 2008 @ 8:47 am

Just a couple more thoughts on ‘help.’ Often helping is thought of as a socially or physically weaker person who assists the stronger. But that is not accurate because it couches ‘help’ in a servant meaning. But helping, a help or a helper does not carry such a meaning.

Consider… if I help my child… it is help from a stronger, adult helper. If my husband helps me it does not mean he is weaker or subordinate. In the same way, if I help my husband or if I am a help… neither does that mean that I am subordinate. We cannot assign ‘servant’ or ‘assistant’ to help meaning without using a interpretive lens.

Why wouldn’t the author of Genesis use the word servant or slave, or even employee, if he were to mean that a woman is designed to be subordinate and take direction, the man’s vision?

Comment by fjs

January 24, 2008 @ 8:58 am

Another thought. Complementarians make it seem like a particular man who has a particular task or vision is the one who is in need of this ‘help.’ It is an individualistic interpretation.

In reality, Moses was speaking to the people of Israel in the context of their vocation to image God in the world. That is the vision… it is a corporate vision to which all of God’s people share. It cannot be carved up into household duties done by the woman who is somehow helping the man be God’s image in the earth. She is also one who bears God’s image in the earth.

I see the whole picture as a much more ‘one another’ thing, a community who shares the vocation and vision of God for the world… it is not a structure for family or task assignments to keep the conflict down in marriage. God is not that small or petty.

God has given us an amazing call, an amazing vocation to image him in the world… to be his vice regents governing and filling the earth. Who could do that alone? We need a community, and that is what the author of Genesis is trying to communicate!

Sorry I’m so passionate, but I cannot help it. I am tired of seeing God’s amazing Word be used to support petty ranking that serves no one, not even God’s purposes.

Comment by Liz

January 24, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

FJS, don’t apologize for having a passion for people to see what God is really saying in his Word. The whole plan of creation and redemption is so profound that it is frustrating when we see it misunderstood and even maligned.

Comment by ILikeReading2

January 25, 2008 @ 7:40 am

Here is a site where you can get some good information on kephale.

Comment by fjs

January 25, 2008 @ 8:31 am

Thanks, Liz, somedays I feel like the word has been hijacked to served a particular agenda that elevates men over women. It is the ultimate in taking God’s Word in vain as I do not believe it was intended to serve an individualistic, oppressive purpose. God’s Word is meant to liberate and transform God’s people so that they reflect his image.

My daughter recently said this… ‘if I must remain subordinate forever and if that is what God is like… I don’t want to be a Christian.’

Comment by tiro

January 25, 2008 @ 11:33 am

See comment 78882.

Ilikereading2, the link isn’t coming through.

Comment by tiro

January 25, 2008 @ 11:42 am

See comment 78770.

Excellent thoughts, FJS. I had heard the quote about if man needed a companion then God would have created another man, didn’t know it was Augustine. If anything tells us of the depravity of men, that statement should do it. To reduce women to things to be used of men with no companionship involved is pretty disgusting. To deprive women of education is also horrific. To treat them so lowly and try to keep them coddled as never maturing children had to be very painful for many of the women. And yet, often men wave off these things as nothing.

Comment by tiro

January 25, 2008 @ 12:08 pm

See comment 78667.

Are we going to have to argue over again that a woman is a human?

Perhaps it is time for a detailed definition of what it is to be human.

Comment by fjs

January 25, 2008 @ 1:04 pm

Tiro, just to qualify… I read it somewhere, thought it was Augustine. I think it was a compilation of commentary by the church fathers – this one was on Genesis – need to find it again. But regarding the content, I laughed because the statement revealed the social lens through which he was interpreting.

Funny is that perhaps the Spirit was challenging his point of view based on the text, but he rejected it as impossible based on his estimation and experience of women in his day and time. Wonder where Augustine would be today?

Comment by fjs

January 25, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

I found it… It is from the Ancient Christian Commentary on Genesis 1-11, page 68-69.

…now suppose the woman was not made for to be his helper in begetting children, then how would she be able to help him? It would hardly be the case that she would be made to till the earth with him, for there was not yet any labor require to make her help necessary. In any case, if there were any such need, a male helper would be better, and the same could be said of the comfort of another’s presence if Adam were perhaps weary of solitude. How much more agreeably could two male friends, rather than a man and a woman, enjoy companionship and conversation in a life shared together. And if they had to make an arrangement in their common life for one to command the other to obey in order to make sure that opposing wills would not disrupt the peace of the household, there would have been proper rank to assure this, since one would be created first and the other second, and this would be further reinforced if the second were made from the first, as was the case with the woman.

It reveals his lens… and proves that one does interpret Scripture through the lenses of one’s experience. We must always be humble.

Comment by Paula

January 25, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

Yes, it seems ridiculous to need to do this, but we really should define ‘human.’

Ideas: only humans are made in the image of God, able to become children of God, the ones Jesus died for, given spiritual gifts in the church, able to be called ‘friends’ of God, all of ‘one blood,’ all of one ‘flesh and bone.’

How does this question relate to egalitarianism then?

Given all that is true of all humans, on what basis can it be argued that there is something intrinsic in half of them that is inferior to the other half? The only ‘out’ for male supremacism is to claim wome have ‘equality of being with inequality of role,’ but this is logically impossible unless the ‘role’ is temporary and voluntary. Given that femaleness is neither, and therefore not a role, then it means females are unequal in being, and thus not quite as human.

Comment by Liz

January 25, 2008 @ 4:56 pm

FJS (see comment 78885), it was comments like this from new Christians which got us going in researching the whole issue of equality. We knew that God couldn’t be like that so set out to prove it – so glad we did!

Comment by fjs

January 25, 2008 @ 8:57 pm

Liz, I know, I agree God is not like that. Did anyone read Dan Kimball’s book They Like Jesus but Not the Church? He is writing about this current generation from coffeeshop interviews from regular, average unchurched people. Their consensus is that they really like Jesus and what he has to say but cannot identify with the church as it is.

They see the church as sexist, Republican, and out of touch with the world they care about. Kimball wrote an entire chapter on how the church speaks about and treats women. He calls the church to become more sensitive, to create more speaking roles for women and to hear their voices. While egalitarian himself, he tries to respect other complementarian views encouraging such churches to lift some of the rigid restrictions.

I wanted him to go further, but that was all he could do. It’s a start, I was glad he noted that the church’s attitude and restriction of women is a barrier to faith for many women.

Comment by Watcher

January 26, 2008 @ 8:18 am

Which is only common sense, FJS (see comment 78935).

Why would anyone want any part of any faith where the cards are stacked against you? Where your rights and the justice due you take a back seat to someone else, always? Where people give lip service to your value while restricting you to a plastic, man-made form that serves their own purposes, then calling it God’s order so you better fear and behave? After all, heaven is at stake. Oh and, by the way, God is male, so he is not only in total agreement with your total subjection, he is the author and finisher of it.

It’s a wonder more women don’t go running and screaming in the other direction.

Comment by ILikeReading2

January 26, 2008 @ 8:35 am

What strikes me as strange is that the more conservative male gender hierarchalists teach a view of male/female relations that is definitely harmful to women, and yet get upset at women for not accepting it.

Yet, they would never allow themselves to be treated in such a manner. I keep thinking that we need to challenge them on this issue. Perhaps we should ask them to put themselves in the position they expect a woman should be in. This should be for at least a year, so they really have a chance to go through what they want women to go through.

Comment by ILikeReading2

January 26, 2008 @ 8:37 am

Another thing the conservative gender hierarchalists don’t realize is that the non-Christian world doesn’t see them as they see themselves. They see themselves as defenders of the faith on the issue of women, and the world around them sees them as treating women like children.

Comment by Mary

January 26, 2008 @ 12:21 pm

And that’s the charitable ones, ILike. Some of the more cynical (or accurate?) ones see them as despotic protectors of their own system of privilege. In the world, who doesn’t want to be the ruler? ‘It’s good to be the king!’

Comment by fjs

January 26, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

Watcher, I am wondering why no one writes a book on why women hate going to church.

There are no outreaches designed to reach feminists and others who see women as fully human. I wonder if they see Jesus as loving feminists at all?

Comment by Suzanne

January 26, 2008 @ 4:32 pm

What is missing in this conversation is an understanding of why women buy into it themselves, and they do. I would highly recommend Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire. It is now outdated and considered Marxist propaganda, etc. However, it explains how those who are oppressed in a system buy into it and support it. It is a real eye-opener.

Many women are strong supporters of male hierarchy. That is the question, why? Is it because of their desire to be attached to a male with power and to get power this way? Is is lack of adult responsibility for self? Is is simply the desire not to be alone, to be part of a couple in a world where men call the shots?

Are some women able to work within the system in some way?

At one level, there are lots of people who just don’t know anything else, and are not complicit. However, some are.

Comment by fjs

January 26, 2008 @ 5:06 pm

I get that Suzanne; I do think a lot of women buy into it. If I think of why I did, it was because my church taught that this was how a woman expressed godliness. I did not have the interpretive tools to suggest anything different and did not want to go against God’s Holy Word. I respected the Scripture very much.

I also remember a time when I could not read the Bible because I hated those passages that spoke of women being submissive – while I respected it, I was disturbed by it. I even sought pastoral counsel, which did not help much. There was something gnawing at the core… but no theological lift out. Which is in reality oppressive.

I also think that people in general in church groups were not taught to be knowers for themselves. A sort of group-think existed in which one would be uncomfortable with being different.

My family of origin issues also contributed to being comfortable with someone taking care of me – and reinforced women as caretakers and enablers of family, spouse. There were cultural and political (feminists are bad, hate their children and husbands) forces at work too that led me to believe that this role was good and expected and godly.

Suzanne, I would like to read the book you suggested, I will look for it. Women are often most harsh on my sense of call and freedom and while I understand my own journey I don’t grasp all of the dynamics.

Having said all of that, there are many non-churched, intelligent women who avoid church or when awareness sets in, exit the church. (Book: Exit Interviews) Or, who put up with it and use their gifts in other places.

Comment by Julie

January 26, 2008 @ 7:18 pm

And you didn’t take the opportunity to rebuke her for her rebellion and inform her that she is living outside God’s blessing because of her attitude? Tsk, tsk.

I’m sure that is what I would have heard from any church I’ve been to.

Yep, I’m about ready to do just that. Why don’t any of you live in my town?

Comment by Julie

January 26, 2008 @ 7:24 pm

Somehow the last post missed my quote from FJS (see comment 78885):

My daughter recently said this… ‘if I must remain subordinate forever and if that is what God is like… I don’t want to be a Christian.’

And, Watcher (see comment 78969):

It’s a wonder more women don’t go running and screaming in the other direction.

Guess I haven’t figured out how to lift quotes yet… sorry for being technologically inept!

Comment by fjs

January 26, 2008 @ 10:33 pm

Julie, I agreed with my daughter…

I wish I had a community too in which there were people who shared my dream for a more just society of God’s people.

‘Honored are those who hunger and thirst for justice.’

Comment by Suzanne

January 26, 2008 @ 10:42 pm

Oops. I put the quotes from that book in the thread on submission. They look a little lonely there.

Comment by Watcher

January 26, 2008 @ 11:08 pm

All right, FJS, when were you going to start writing that book, Why Women Hate Going to Church?

And Suzanne, you give good explanations for why people remain in oppressed positions.

Guess I just sort of want to answer my own musings about why more women don’t run away from church, or at the very least, give the reasons why I’ve clung to Christianity rather than search for something else.

David said in Psalms 84:10 ‘… I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God, than dwell in the tents of wickedness.’ And I have to agree with him. If those in power want to keep me away from the fullness of God, I know I’m better off in the fringe of what God is doing than to be far away from him.

And… Peter said to Jesus in John 6:68 ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.’ The words of Jesus bring life. And somehow those words manage to bring life to the thirsty soul even when some of those who preach the word muddy the waters with their own self-serving doctrines. Somehow there’s so much life in those words people still give their hearts to Jesus even when it’s not a completely pure gospel being given.

But… I thank God that he doesn’t want me to remain at the door. He has called me on into his house as his child. And I thank him that he calls me out of the darkness of oppressive doctrine and into the fullness of all he has for me.

And I know he’s not just called me, he has call many others who are still bumping around inside their little man-made boxes. He’s called them to break out and become free. Because whoever the Son sets free is free indeed.

And, he’s called those who have left the church back to a place of fellowship with him. A fellowship minus the heavy restrictions and extra doctrines those in power want to pile up on people.

I get frustrated. But I have hope.

‘He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.’ (Philippians 1:6)

Comment by tiro

January 27, 2008 @ 12:45 pm

See comment 78919.

Given all that is true of all humans, on what basis can it be argued that there is something intrinsic in half of them that is inferior to the other half? The only ‘out’ for male supremacism is to claim women have ‘equality of being with inequality of role,’ but this is logically impossible unless the ‘role’ is temporary and voluntary. Given that femaleness is neither, and therefore not a role, then it means females are unequal in being, and thus not quite as human.

Actually, I don’t think gender hierarchalists can claim that women as a group are assigned an inferior role even temporarily because they are women. Such a state does as you say, it assumes an inherent inequality of being. But they close their minds to this because their desire for supremacy is stronger than their desire for truth. And, they dominate and coerce their women into closing their minds to hearing anything else by using fear: fear they will be against God’s will.

Comment by tiro

January 27, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

See comment 79026.

Guess I just sort of want to answer my own musings about why more women don’t run away from church, or at the very least, give the reasons why I’ve clung to Christianity rather than search for something else.

We cannot run away from God, or wouldn’t want to. Although some do run from churches and not from God. Fellowship is hugely important though.

If church denominations were organized in such a manner that we could stop preaching traditions, then perhaps churches could be released to preach true Scripture, and wait upon God to lead meetings. Many good souls, both men and women, are waiting, hoping, and praying for this.

Comment by Richard P

January 27, 2008 @ 4:50 pm

The word meet is Old English. Shakespeare used it. It means fitting or proper or suitable.

‘And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet (fitting, proper, suitable) for him.’ (Genesis 2:20, KJV)

‘And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet (fitting, proper, suitable) for him.’ (Genesis 2:18, KJV)

‘Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.’ (1 Corinthians 11:9, KJV)

Again I ask – what are the comparable verses in the Bible (God’s Word) which state that God saw there there was no help suitable for Eve and so he created one for her? Simply reinterpreting the verses provided above does not answer my question.

If you re-read my comment 78630 above, dated January 23, 2008, you will see that I am not discussing superordinate, equal, or subordinate issues. I am discussing the simple issue of what it means to be an effective help. I am not emphasizing position in a heirarchy. I am emphasizing doing what is necessary for one to be an effective (and perhaps efficient) help.

Suzanne felt that this statement of mine is the complete opposite of the concept of help in the Bible: If I am going to be a useful ‘help’ for someone, I must follow their vision, I must do what they ask me to do. She then began discussing positions in a heirarchy as support for her claim. Don’t read more into my statement than what is there.

If you are on a ladder changing a lightbulb and you ask me to hand you a new lightbulb, how am I a help suitable for you if I hand you a hammer? If I am going to be useful/helpful to you, I must do what you asked me to do – I must hand you a lightbulb. (Or, to rephrase it slightly: for me to be a suitable help to you, I must give you what have told me that you need.) This has nothing to do with positions in a heirarchy. And it is not in contradition to the biblical concept of being a useful help.

On the other hand, if I know your goal/vision is to change the burned-out light, and I see the lightbulb you are unscrewing is not the burned-out light, I can increase my usefulness to you by refining your vision – perhaps by saying something like ‘if you want to change the burned-out lightbulb, perhaps you could begin by unscrewing the burned-out lightbulb, not the good lightbulb.’

I fear that some of the commenters here may be inclined to see a fight where none exists.

I was asked if I thought it ever possible that a woman could have a vision that her husband could help her pursue. Absolutely. Many husbands find great delight in helping their wives be all they can be. But that is the exception rather than the rule. Of the billions of people who have lived and are now alive, the vast majority live a hand-to-mouth existance. None of them have the luxury of helping either spouse be all they can be. They are too busy caring for the children and scrounging for enough food and shelter just to stay alive. Do the egalitarian Bible precepts you are discussing in these threads apply to them as well? Can you see that for billions of people, the husband does rule over his wife and family – out of necessity, not because they adhere to some well-thought-through biblical exegesis? In many/most instances, the wife is too busy caring for the children and her husband and perhaps aging parents; she does not have the time (or the training, or the inclination?) to figure out what must be done to get food for the family to to protect the family from the tiger about to pounce. Hence, the husband ‘leads’ to food and shelter; the wife and children follow.

The relationships of these billions of people is perhaps a better place to look for the ‘truth’ of the three verses I quoted above than the relationships of a relatively small handful of educated people who have the luxury of debating whether women are allowed by the Bible to be pastors. Most of the people who have ever lived (and to whom the Bible was also written) are too caught up in simply trying to survive to be concerned with what 1 Corinthians 11:9 really means.

They just do what works. That means the husband doesn’t give birth to the children and, for the most part, the wife doesn’t provide food and protect the family. Rather, the wife helps her husband in that endeavor. He sets the agenda and leads; she and the children follow. Not because the Bible tells them they should do it that way, but because it works. The statements in the Bible simply acknowledge this. The statements in the Bible are not prescriptive (it should be this way); rather, they are descriptive (it is this way).

Comment by Ellen

January 27, 2008 @ 4:59 pm

Hi, love this site – thanks CBE for getting this going.

Comment by Richard P

January 27, 2008 @ 5:02 pm

At comment 78490, on January 21, 2008, Paula said:

I think if we’re ever to turn the tide, it will start with small ripples like this. Being ‘faithful with a few things’ will surely be rewarded in the end.

My point is to say that you never will turn the tide amongst the billions of people who are living in the ‘real’ world of hand-to-mouth existence – regardless of being faithful with a few things. The real world for billions is this and will stay this: God cursed the ground; if a woman with children is to have food for herself and her children, she must follow her man; if he is to feed them by the sweat of his brow, and protect them from the tiger about to pounce, they are going to have to do what he says.

This is not about positions in a heirarchy, it is about successfully getting the lightbulb changed in the most effective and efficient manner, as discussed in my post above. And if the civilized world ever runs out of power for all of the technology that helps us escape the effects of God’s curse on the ground, I suspect that we moderns will regress back to the division of labor that billions of people currently are engaged in. Why? Because it works.

Consider: Are all of the freedoms you claim that the Bible gives you equally true for the woman in the middle of the jungle in Africa – considering that the Bible was written for both of you? Or do the relationships of most of the billions of people who have lived and are alive today more accurately reflect the relationship described in the three verses quoted at the top of my previous post? Which is it that most of the people in the world who are living hand-to-mouth are concerned about: being higher on the heirarchy, or getting the lightbulb changed effectively and efficiently?

When in direct contact with the ground that God cursed, who needs to help whom in order to survive? And what must one do for that help to be both effective and efficient? These are the two questions that the Bible speaks to when considering the relationship between husband and wife. There is an undeniable perversion of meaning when we apply these biblical concepts to people who have managed to insulate themselves from the cursed ground. But the people who have managed to do this are relatively few compared to the rest of humanity. It is for them that the Bible speaks.

Comment by Richard P

January 27, 2008 @ 6:06 pm

It is for them that the Bible speaks.

Should read:

It is for them (the rest of humanity) that the Bible speaks.

I am not the Richard who posted in the first part of this topic. Perhaps it would help readers if the moderator could change the name to Richard P on comments 78630, 79073, and 79076.

Comment by Suzanne

January 27, 2008 @ 7:02 pm

Richard, thank you for clarifying that you are not the same Richard. I am the same Suzanne!

On help, I think the case is quite the opposite of what you describe. In the Scriptures, help is succour, the aid given to a person in need or danger. The person in need may, or may not, be able to articulate their need. They can say that they have a need and that is it. They are stumbling in the dark and someone reaches out to them and says, ‘Here, let my change the lightbulb for you. There, isn’t that better.’

The word for Eve, ezer, was associated with being a shield and a defender. In Greek, the translation is boethus, and this was a title for Christ. Phoebe was a great help, a prostatis, a guardian. And so in the early church Christ was addressed as our salvation, our guardian and helper of our weakness. By definition the person being helped is weaker than the person who is helping. That is just what the word means.

See comment 78638.

The person being helped is in need and distress, not changing a light bulb.

Regarding the millions, my understanding of Africa is that the women both bear the children and provide for them. I can’t accept your premise without facts.

My impression from reading World Vision, etc. is that the majority of people in the world who till the soil are women. I would have to think over your comments on woman and labor and see if there has ever been a time in history where poor women have not labored to feed their family.

Maybe you would care to explain how you came to the conclusion that ‘help’ was handing someone a lightbulb instead of a hammer. My concept of help is that your husband is in jail because of a civil war or persecution or whatever, and you feed him, go to court for him, appeal to government for him, take up a musket and defend his property and organize your subjects to defend the castle, as some of the women of the English Civil War did, in fact.

P.S. Why doesn’t the woman change her own light bulb? Just wondering. Some men like to keep certain jobs as their domain. I don’t know if this is a good thing or not. I am not that crazy about cooking but I don’t mind taking the drain apart under the sink.

Comment by Suzanne

January 27, 2008 @ 7:16 pm

Here it is in 1 Clement 36:

This is the way, beloved, in which we found our salvation; even Jesus Christ, the high priest of our oblations, the champion and defender of our weakness.

Αυτη η οδος, αγαπητοι, εν η ευρομεν το σωτεριον ημων, Ιησουν Χρστον, τον αρχιερεα των προσφορων ημων, τον προστατην και βοηθον της ασθενειας ημων.

So here, in an old fashioned translation, we find that prostates, the word for Phoebe, was translated ‘champion’ and the word for Eve, boethos was ‘defender.’

Do you think that you would address Christ and say to him that he, as your ‘help,’ must do as you say, although he may have the liberty to refine your vision if you have it wrong? Do you think that this understanding of the word ‘help’ as champion and defender has perhaps been lost in translation?

Comment by Suzanne

January 27, 2008 @ 9:09 pm

Maybe it would be clearer if I just explained that the word translated as ‘help’ into English, really means ‘rescuer.’

Comment by Mary

January 27, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

I think we have a hugely distorted notion of what non-industrialized marriage ‘roles’ are all about. Families, including husband, wife, and children, all work together so that the family can survive. They do whatever it takes to survive. And yes, in many cases, sin is deeply rooted, so that as in other more privileged situations, men may reserve for themselves the ‘higher’ place and force women to do ‘lower’ work and dehumanize them. But that is sin, that isn’t in any way what Scripture shows us as the ideal.

Life was not ideal for the Christians of Ephesus and Corinth, nor is it for us. There are men and women who settle for the sinful notion that men must rule over women. But we can’t get around the fact that Jesus taught his followers it is not to be so among us. Marriage simply isn’t an exception. It’s a lot easier for us to break out of the sinful post-fall paradigm in a society where even non-Christians realize that men aren’t endowed with ‘leadership genes’ and women aren’t ‘born followers.’ Nonsense, and most people know it. Sadly, though, some in the church want us to re-create the rigidly sinful hierarchies of the first-century Roman world and adhere to their customs simply because they see evidence of the hierarchies. I fear that’s because people are comfortable with hierarchies. Power, the most prized commodity, is the world’s way of doing things. Why not behave like the world?

Well, because we have an example of something radically different: The only true authority, Jesus Christ, emptying himself and freely accepting death on a cross for our sinful sakes. Really… how dare we claim that we ought to be authorities over one another?

Elsewhere just today, the false assumption was expressed that egalitarians will only submit to Christ as a non-authority non-leader. No, we submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, who gave himself up for us. We don’t submit to Christ because he’s our authority and leader, we submit to him because he gave himself freely for us. We submit out of love and gratitude, which is what we ought to do for one another (and we ought to behave in such a way that others find it easy to love and be grateful to us).

This is not complicated, in my opinion. It all, always, comes back to a simple but radical concept: the one who would be greatest is to be servant of all. In my opinion, we ought to aspire to that (and only that) kind of greatness.

Comment by Andy

January 28, 2008 @ 4:41 am

You are right, Mary, that we don’t really understand how non-industrialized families work. For one thing, people in the ‘global South’ are more group-oriented. They are willing to put aside their ‘rights’ for the sake of the group. I knew one girl in a ‘global South’ country that gave up a job offer at a good company so she could stay home and help her younger brother study for his high school exams (a year-long process).

From my Western perspective, I could not believe it! I considered the boy to be lazy! But the important thing for her was not her upward mobility, but the entire family’s upward mobility (or survival!). And a brother failing his exams would be a huge burden (financially and socially) to the family.

It is also interesting to note that where there is less prosperity, there is less discussion of gender roles. Women just get out there and do what they can to support their families. It is once families get to a comfortable level and the husband can afford to support them all that all of a sudden they have to think about whether it is okay for a woman to work, etc.

Another dynamic is that family of origin is more important than the family you create when you get married, and so sometimes the role of the woman’s father is more important than her husband. (Yes, this is still patriarchal because a man is in charge, but it adds an interesting dynamic to the marriage relationship…)

Comment by SSM

January 28, 2008 @ 7:25 am

Just referring to a previous line of thought – I have left the church, but remain fully Christian. We do have Christian friends and some fellowship via that. But, after thirty years, I couldnt stand the frustration and symbollically ran screaming from the church with my husband supporting me! I am glad my daughter is not being exposed to the limiting thinking impressed on me.

Comment by Liz

January 28, 2008 @ 8:11 am

In the discussion on the survival practices of a huge percentage of the world’s population, it needs to be said that surely their way of living is not what God intended in the beginning. It is the result of sinfulness and inequity in the world’s distribution of wealth and resources. Any group of people who have their standard of living raised ultimately have to consider their traditional roles and whether they still maintain them or look at new ways of relating to each other.

Part of the gospel is release of the captives, sight to the blind, etc. meaning people’s lives will improve as they learn to let God control their lives. We should never be satisfied that the way of living described above (see comment 79076) is how God intended but should be about trying to support groups which are engaged in helping (that word again) people have a better way of life. ‘It works’ sounds as though it is a good way to do life. In so many ways it doesn’t ‘work’ – everyone suffers, mostly the women and children as there is always male privilege even in these cultures.

Also, there are many organizations which give women the opportunity to have their own businesses in order to be independent and provide for their families. Sometimes the husbands resent this but it is working and the children are well and eat more regularly.

Comment by SSM

January 28, 2008 @ 9:20 am

I keep thinking about the creation discussion…

If Eve really was created subordinate to Adam, why did the serpent approach her? Surely her foolish act to eat the fruit following clever persuasion would have been overruled by her more insightful, less-easily deceived husband and leader?

However, if Eve was either equal or, dare I say it, stronger party, who Adam looked up to, she would be the obvious choice for the serpent to approach.

Where was Adam’s protest at wrongdoing or error? Eve didn’t seem to force-feed him the fruit! One thus could argue that the serpent could have approached either person and achieved the same result, because they were co-dependent.

Comment by Mary

January 28, 2008 @ 10:20 am

Yes, the fact that ‘her husband, who was with her’ was an active participant in all this. It’s right there to read, if we’re not ripping out a little bit of the story to prop up our equally out-of-context reading of a completely different fragment of Scripture.

Comment by Andy

January 28, 2008 @ 12:00 pm

Liz, thanks for pointing out that the way most of the world lives is not what God intended. I hope I didn’t imply that I thought that. I just wanted to point out that the ‘woman following her man’ to get away from the tiger that is about to pounce (as described above) is not really the way things work in ‘jungles in Africa,’ for example, although it might sound exotic to us.

The dynamics are much more complex and that is why I brought up the group orientation versus the individual orientation. That also might help us understand why the feminism of the global South is much more family-focused than it is in the United States. Women are focusing on maternal health, universal and compulsory education for girls, more severe punishments for honor killings, and the right for a mother to pass on her citizenship to her children.

Regarding the organizations that help women set up small businesses, it is interesting to note that the reason many of these organizations focus on women is because it is understood in the community that women will not make a mess of it, that they will pay back the money lent to them, and that they will benefit their families and communities more so than if the money were lent to the husband.

I guess I’m getting a bit far from the word kephale… so that is all I have to say about that.

Comment by Liz

January 28, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

No Andy, I didn’t assume you thought it was an ideal way to live – just taking the thought a step further and as you say, it is a complex issue.

Comment by fjs

January 31, 2008 @ 1:23 pm

Regarding helper as rescuer, I agree with that. Regarding individualism, we think in terms of individual family units with a husband and a wife… but I believe the man and the woman in Genesis 1-3 represent not simply marriage and the marriage relationship althought that is included… I believe the man and the woman represent, in the story, the society that is forming as a result of the creation of humankind.

This society is the people who will do God’s will in the earth. The two figures are representative of the people of God… Moses wrote this and taught it to the people of God in the wilderness who were anticipating the new community in the new land. The people of God cannot do this apart from one another. They cannot establish a community, fill the earth without one another. Everybody is needed. The alone being, Adam is rescued from being alone… not having a community of people who are doing God’s will in the earth.

In the fall story, we see the serpent (figure for the wisdom of surrounding nations)… which represents the false wisdom enticing the people of God to worship false gods. The point of the story is to call the people to remain faithful to God alone and not let the nations surround them entice them away. They would lose the land… like the man and the woman were evicted from the garden.

Jesus, the second Moses… but more than Moses… God in flesh, also taught about the new society of people who will establish the will of God in the earth.

Jesus, The Word or wisdom and person of God enfleshed, became human and dwelt among us. We are called to the same allegience to Christ as the people of God were to the one true God. It is the same story rearticulated through the person of Jesus Christ. It is the same call and vocation… to establish the kingdom… society in which God’s people do his will. One cannot do it alone… we need a community, others will in participation with Christ will rescue us from our sin and aloneness.

I know it sounds like a wacky re-take but if one looks at the whole story of faith… one sees it.

Comment by Joe

February 10, 2008 @ 5:51 pm

I am trained in Greek. the argument that Koine (New Testament) is so vastly different that the classical lexicon is not applicable is total nonsense. We read the New Testament in my classical Greek class, second year. The New Testament is very simple Greek; child’s Greek. The only difference between it and the Greek of Plato is that the New Testament has bad grammar. That’s all Koine was, just bad grammar.

Comment by Richard P

February 10, 2008 @ 9:08 pm

If Eve really was created subordinate to Adam, why did the serpent approach her? Surely her foolish act to eat the fruit following clever persuasion would have been overruled by her more insightful, less-easily deceived husband and leader?

…yes, the fact that ‘her husband, who was with her’ was an active participant in all this. It’s right there to read,

‘Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’”‘ (Genesis 3:1, NIV)

‘”You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.’ (Genesis 3:4-6, NIV)

Nowhere in verses 1-2 does it state the location where the Serpent engaged Eve in conversation. They could have been talking miles from the forbidden tree. Neither do these verses state that Eve immediately ate of the forbidden fruit as soon as the Serpent was done with his ‘speech.’ You will note that there is a break between verses 5 and 6 that could support the notion that it was some time later that Eve was contemplating the forbidden fruit – perhaps days later, or only as long as it took Eve to walk from where she had conversed with the serpent to where the forbidden tree was.

At any rate, it is not stated explicitly that Adam was with Eve when the serpent spoke with her. The verses only say that Adam was with Eve when she ate from the forbidden tree. ‘With her’ when she ate could mean simply ‘in the area’ – close enough that Eve could go find Adam and offer him some fruit.

Since it is not stated explicitly that Adam was with Eve when she spoke with the serpent or when she actually took of the fruit and ate it, I think it is equally reasonable to interpret Adam’s silence as meaning he was not present at either event (the talking and the initial eating), and therefore was not available to provide input into either situation. He was simply and suddenly presented with a proper help, sent to him to alleviate his loneliness, who had fallen (by eating the forbidden fruit) and he had not. Out of synch with each other. Separated by a wide gulf. The person God had created for Adam, to complete Adam, was now out of reach and unavailable for fellowship – unless we want to assume that the fallen and the non-fallen can have genuine fellowship with each other.

It has always seemed to me that this transaction demonstrates just how great a need that Adam had – which God fulfilled by creating Eve. Adam’s need for Eve was so great that he chose Eve over God. It is said that Eve was deceived while Adam was not, so that Adam was the greater jerk. I have never interpreted this scenario that way. It always seemed to me that Adam purposely chose to eat the forbidden fruit so that he might stay together with Eve – the completer of himself – rather than refuse the fruit and stay as he had been before Eve came – unfallen, but lonely, with God. To me, Adam’s behavior has always been an issue of tremendous self-sacrifice – knowing what he was doing, and intentionally choosing to fall in order to be able to stay with the one who had been made to complete him. Had Adam not done that, Eve would have been kicked out of the Garden and Adam would have been left behind by himself.

I realize that what I just typed has only a tenuous connection with the issue of whether husband is head of/leader over his wife (Adam’s sacrifice for Eve being in some way equivalent to, or a type of, Christ’s sacrifice for his bride). But, I am curious about what the posters here might have to say about this. Perhaps the moderator could start a new topic about this issue if there is any interest in discussing it.

Comment by Suzanne

February 10, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

Richard P, here is Augustine on the literal meaning of Genesis:

After the woman had been seduced and had eaten of the forbidden fruit and had given Adam some to eat with her, he did not wish to make her unhappy, fearing she would waste away without his support, alienated from his affections, and that this dissension would be her death.

His analysis seems similar to yours. Personally I have no idea. I am not even sure if what any two individuals do has anything to do with their gender.

I would not blame all men for what Adam did or did not do, and I would not blame all women for what Eve did or did not do. Quite silly because we know that statistically women are neither more sinful nor more gullible than men.

Joe, thanks. So many people tell me that I only know classical Greek so you know, I am totally ignorant of Koine Greek! Except that I did study Koine Greek as well. I wouldn’t say ‘bad grammar,’ but very simplified grammar. Some very obscure passages, also. Maybe that is the bad grammar.

Comment by Mary

February 10, 2008 @ 11:00 pm

The man eating with full knowledge just to stay with the woman? Out of some sense of self-sacrifice?

Was it self-sacrifice that led him to hide from God, then to blame not only the woman, but God for creating her to be with him, when his sin was uncovered (pun intended)?

Strange… it’s wrong to accept that the man was with the woman when she and he both ate, but we’re supposed to take seriously the invention that the woman wasn’t with the man (who Scripture said was with her) and he could see clearly (without aid of the fruit) that she had sinned and then in that act of supreme self-sacrifice ate it too, so she wouldn’t be banished (or was it so he wouldn’t be alone again?)…

That just doesn’t fit with the angry buck-passer of a man who blames everyone except himself when he can no longer hide from his sin. This is the wildest flight of fancy I’ve ever read on this passage, all argued from silence, of course. And I’ve read quite a few wild ones. (Such stories are generally used to prop up some other flights of fancy that can’t be supported by the text, either.)

Is ‘her man, who was with her’ really so terribly far-fetched? It doesn’t say ‘her man, who was miles away from her and who already knew good and evil without benefit of the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden.’

Comment by Suzanne

February 11, 2008 @ 12:22 am

It’s wild all right, but how about if we decided to defend the opposite gender once in a while? What if I defend Adam and men decide to defend Eve? Wouldn’t that be sweet?

Comment by Liz

February 11, 2008 @ 2:52 am

As Mary said – your comments, Richard, are made to fill a silence, which is always a dangerous thing to do. Throughout the Bible there is no suggestion that Adam (the male) did anything even remotely sacrificial in the garden. The original sin is attributed to ‘Adam’ and even if we take that to mean ‘human,’ it is still recorded as sin and therefore needed the sacrifice of Christ to be forgiven.

If Adam had done something commendable, surely God would have had something to say to Adam and it would have counted for something when the consequences for sin were stated so clearly.

I would be happy to begin a new post to discuss Richard’s propositions, but will wait to see what the administrator advises.

Comment by Mary

February 11, 2008 @ 9:49 am

That would be incredibly sweet, I’m sure, Suzanne. What’s so sad, and so true of the very human nature described in the story in question, is that no such thing was going on in it.

Comment by Trevor

February 11, 2008 @ 7:17 pm

I thought that this thread must be way finished so hadn’t bothered to look in on it for ages. Then I stumbled across Richard P’s comments – 78630, 79703, 79076, and finally 80062 and so wanted to comment. So much so that I hand-wrote a whole lot of Richard’s material to respond to. Then I dutifully read through all of the other comments to see how others had responded. That was enlightening too, very much so, thank you all.

There’s not a lot that I could add because it has been so well said already, including a couple of comments from Liz (my wife) that said about what I would have said anyway. Which says something about the ‘oneness’ thing, though she is the one with the writing skill.

Anyway, Richard P. If I can go all the way back to your earliest comment, 78630, where you end with the corrected refrain, ‘We will never find lasting peace in each other. We will only ever find lasting peace in Christ.’ So true, but!

Richard, I find your take on the human male species rather sad. Stereotypical and sad. You quite rightly attribute that state of affairs to the fall, but why leave it there? This is the whole thrust of the egalitarian argument. Redemption in Christ provides a far better way. All relationships have the potential for restoration, including male/female, husband/wife relationships. We don’t need to live any longer under the curse, whether we interpret that to be descriptive or prescriptive (I prefer descriptive and note that you do too). Old things are done away with. We live now, from the moment we respond in saving faith to the finished work of Christ, in the realm of the new creation (see 2 Corinthians 5:17, NLB). As men and women, husbands and wives, we can find peace in each other because the old enmity has been removed. Granted that this peace came through Jesus Christ, see for example Ephesians 2:14, NLB, and the peace we find in Christ should transform all other relationships.

This in turn should lead to a greater confidence in our ability to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Allowing him (Christ) to be the head and resourcer, or direction giver in our lives. Neither of us (men or women) need any longer be subject to, or follow the descriptive pattern established because of the fall and expulsion from Eden. Redemption has provided an entirely new means of relating to God and each other and this is as much good news for the two-thirds (to which you alluded) world as it has been for the West.

Far from the issue (wrangling over texts) being trivialised by our modernity, it is the very reason for the freedoms and technology that we in the West enjoy. Our part (as Christians) should be that we don’t market the economic gains, technology and decadence of the West, but the gospel of grace that prepared the way for such liberation.

As has already been well said, most of the patriarchal existence that is of necessity experienced in these more primitive cultures leaves so much to be desired. It would be tragic to bring to them a gospel that reinforces the legitimacy of patriarchy and thereby fails to deliver them from its evils.

To take up your comment again in 78630 and conclude, ‘For thousands of years, men have ruled over/dominated women, just like it says they will in Genesis.’ While sadly true in reality, it is descriptive only of godless society and definitely not God’s intention for his redeemed humanity.

Comment by Richard P

February 20, 2008 @ 2:55 am

With regard to Genesis 3:1-6: (quoted at Post 80062 above)

Where is there anything in those verses that contradicts what I said in that post, quoted below for convenience? I don’t know what you mean when you say I am talking from silence. Where in the referenced verses does it state that the Serpent and Eve were standing beside the forbidden tree while they spoke? Where in the referenced verses does it state that Adam was with Eve during her conversation with the Serpent? Where in the referenced verses does it state that Adam saw Eve take and eat the forbidden fruit? The responses to my last post seem to be reading things into these verses that simply are not there. The Church has imposed meaning onto these verses that the words by themselves simply won’t support.

Finally, Adam’s statements to God were a simple recounting of what took place – “I was not seduced by the Serpent; rather, I intentionally took what Eve gave to me (it wasn’t the Serpent who bamboozled me, I did it to myself by intentionally accepting the fruit that Eve offered me).” And Eve’s statement to God was a simple acknowledgement that Adam did not tempt her to sin, the Serpent did. I don’t see how either of these simple, accurate statements of what took place can be read as statements of blame or of trying to escape responsibility – except that folks are reading things into these statements that are not there.

Nowhere in verses 1-2 does it state the location where the Serpent engaged Eve in conversation. They could have been talking miles from the forbidden tree. Neither do these verses state that Eve immediately ate of the forbidden fruit as soon as the Serpent was done with his ’speech.’ You will note that there is a break between verses 5 and 6 that could support the notion that it was some time later that Eve was contemplating the forbidden fruit – perhaps days later, or only as long as it took Eve to walk from where she had conversed with the serpent to where the forbidden tree was.

Since it is not stated explicitly that Adam was with Eve when she spoke with the serpent or when she actually took of the fruit and ate it, I think it is equally reasonable to interpret Adam’s silence as meaning he was not present at either event (the talking and the initial eating), and therefore was not available to provide input into either situation.

Comment by Richard P

February 20, 2008 @ 3:27 am

I intended for the last 3 paragraphs above to be in italics as they are all quotes. I’m guessing I need to surround each paragraph by itself with the beginning and ending italics code.
———-

I stumbled onto the CBE Scroll accidentally. A cursory glance through some of the topics made me think that I could find some intelligent discussion of the scriptures listed below. I have seen plenty of intelligent discussion. But much to my surprise, it has not centered on the scriptures listed below. Rather, the discussion in the main seems to be bent on denying that these scriptures exist.

I understand that some men seek to abuse their position, and the targets of this abuse have suffered for that. That concept stands on it’s own and it is admirable that folks should want to find a solution for it. But a solution will not be found. Men have always and will always rule over women and children in general (there are always exceptions to the rule). If it could be any different (if women were capable of taking control away from men), it would have happened by now. The fact that it hasn’t happened by now is primary proof for the truth of the proclamation “… and he will rule over you” at the beginning of Genesis. You may not like that, but I repeat – if it were possible for things to be different, they would have been by now.

However, the paragraph above has nothing to do with the scriptures quoted below. These scriptures are in the Bible and they do inform us of what is most likely meant by the “husband is the head of the wife” scriptures discussed in this topic. Many people refuse to become christians or be active in the church because it is too hard for them to forgo the sin that the Bible says we must forgo. Likewise, I can accept that many christian women will abstain from marriage because they do not want to place themselves into the situation that the Bible says married women are to place themselves into.

And that is the kicker for me. Because the scriptures quoted below do not teach that husbands are supposed to dominate and abuse their wives and treat them as less than human – the main point of discussion in this topic. The scriptures are not directed to the husband – they are directed to the wives. They are telling the wives to submit, they are not telling the husbands to dominate. When done Biblically, it is the wives themselves that willingly place themselves into the position of helper (providing what is asked for or what is needed, asked for or not) for their husband. It was this concept that I was hoping to find an intelligent discussion of – but it appears such discussion will not be found here.

Stating that you don’t like what the Bible says is one thing. But insisting that the Bible doesn’t say something which it clearly does say is something else entirely.
—–

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Titus 2:4-5

That they may teach the young women to be …obedient to their own husbands …

1 Peter 3:1

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands …

Ephesians 5:21 – 24

Wives, submit to your own husbands …

Comment by Mary

February 20, 2008 @ 9:21 am

You said you don’t understand why people said you were arguing from silence. These questions show that’s precisely what you did:

“Where in the referenced verses does it state that the Serpent and Eve were standing beside the forbidden tree while they spoke? Where in the referenced verses does it state that Adam was with Eve during her conversation with the Serpent? Where in the referenced verses does it state that Adam saw Eve take and eat the forbidden fruit?”

The passage IS silent on these questions. That’s why we can’t invent alternative stories. You can’t discount “her husband, WHO WAS WITH HER.” You can’t claim he wasn’t with her, and Scripture doesn’t say he was only with her after she had the conversation alone, went to the tree alone, ate alone, then came back to be with him and give him the fruit. Such an invention is an argument from silence. It contradicts what IS said, which is simply that the man was with her.

You also said, “When done Biblically, it is the wives themselves that willingly place themselves into the position of helper (providing what is asked for or what is needed, asked for or not) for their husband.”

Egalitarians are going to challenge you on this, because your stated idea of what our first mother being EZER KENEGDO to our first father means, is not biblical. You’ve read your definition of “helper” — synonymous with “assistant” — into the passage when that is not what EZER KENEGDO means. You’re not even addressing that all believers, including husbands, are to submit to one another. There is no exemption in marriage. All are to love and sacrifice themselves for one another. You apparently make the classic error of creating separate, different lists of commandments for husbands and wives based on what is specifically instructed for each, without taking into account the general instructions for all. Without exception, there’s nothing that is specifically instructed for wives and husbands that is not also covered in general instructions for all believers.

I call saying these things, part of having intelligent discussion. If that’s not what you’re looking for, I’m sorry. You can put forth any opinion you like. If you do, you should expect it to be read carefully, and possibly challenged. That’s what has happened.

Comment by Mary

February 20, 2008 @ 9:22 am

I would ask you to not make the false claim that anyone here has said they don’t like what the Bible says. I don’t happen to agree with what you have SAID that the Bible says.

Comment by LMcC

February 20, 2008 @ 12:29 pm

FTR, I’m going to have the NIV open to Genesis 3 while I’m doing this. Nobody can say now that I haven’t read it.

From 80062: The Bible doesn’t say the serpent and Eve were talking near the tree? Fine. It doesn’t say they weren’t either. Interpreting “with her [Eve]” to mean “in the area” when she ate of the tree is a stretch. Interpreting Adam’s choice to eat of the tree into some sort of distorted nobility and love for Eve isn’t even in the Scripture at all. If anything, Mary’s description of events in 80067 is much more in line with Genesis 3.

Egalitarians get accused of not believing in the plain reading of Scripture, yet we’re being told we’re wrong when we’re doing it? We’re accused of adding to Scripture, yet this theory of Adam’s part in the fall is supposed to be swallowed without question?

Going to 80735: Adam didn’t assign blame? He tried to blame God! Referring to Eve as “The woman you [God] put here with me” while trying to get himself off the hook isn’t exactly a mere bland statement of fact.

From 80736:

“I understand that some men seek to abuse their position, and the targets of this abuse have suffered for that. That concept stands on it’s own and it is admirable that folks should want to find a solution for it. But a solution will not be found. Men have always and will always rule over women and children in general (there are always exceptions to the rule). If it could be any different (if women were capable of taking control away from men), it would have happened by now. The fact that it hasn’t happened by now is primary proof for the truth of the proclamation “… and he will rule over you” at the beginning of Genesis. You may not like that, but I repeat – if it were possible for things to be different, they would have been by now.”

Am I the only one who found this paragraph disturbing?
So does he think that men abusing their power is really OK, since he says a solution will not be found, and that male rule over women is the way it is supposed to be? Is he really telling abused women to shut up and take it because male rule is God’s order, and so what if a man abuses it? It certainly seems that way, even while giving lip service to the idea that seeking solutions to abuse is good.

Unfortunately for Richard, some men would disagree with him that women have never been able to gain power — although I find these men just as disturbing as his quote. Certain men’s groups call American society a “matriarchy”, blaming feminist “control” for all of society’s ills. I’d like to put him in a room with one of these “it’s the matriarchy” guys and let them fight it out. I’ll bring the sodas. Who wants to bring popcorn?

Also from 80736:

“Because the scriptures quoted below do not teach that husbands are supposed to dominate and abuse their wives and treat them as less than human – the main point of discussion in this topic. The scriptures are not directed to the husband – they are directed to the wives. They are telling the wives to submit, they are not telling the husbands to dominate.”

This part is true, and there is no part of Scripture that does tell men to dominate. Unfortunately, sinful men have chosen to interpret verses about submission as permission to dominate, and churches aren’t really doing anything to stop that.

“When done Biblically, it is the wives themselves that willingly place themselves into the position of helper (providing what is asked for or what is needed, asked for or not) for their husband. It was this concept that I was hoping to find an intelligent discussion of – but it appears such discussion will not be found here.”

What? You’re not describing a normal woman, there. You’re wanting a mind-reader. Psychic ability is explicitly condemned in Scripture. Providing what is needed whether asked for *or not*? Sorry, I prefer open communication with my husband, and he would say the same if he were posting. Even if you are not talking about “asked for or not” in the psychic sense, I know many men get angry and offended when someone else provides unrequested assistance or advice. And you’d want to tell a woman it is her duty to put herself in the line of fire like that? No. Absolutely not.

We don’t talk about women submitting here specifically because we talk about *all* believers submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. This is much more Biblical than unilateral female submission to an unaccountable man. To get that kind of false submission requires ignoring that ezer does not mean “inferior or subordinate helper” because God describes Himself with that word. Contrary to hierarchal beliefs, women’s submission is assumed here as part of the total submission of all believers in Ephesians 5:21. Yes, I’m going to repeat myself over and over because I’m really sick of hierarchs claiming we do not believe in submission. If anything, Christian egalitarians believe more strongly and more completely in Biblical submission than any hierarch ever can or will. We’re not giving half of our population a pass on it because of their Y chromosomes. Around here, it’s “everyone submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”, not “women submit to men and you have no right to say anything about it”. For hierarchal men, who do not believe Ephesians 5:21 applies to them if the nearby “one anothers” are women, to tell us that we who believe in Ephesians 5:21 have a problem with submission is completely backwards.

Speaking as an ex-traditionalist: I have to laugh when traditionalists say egalitarians deny Scripture. I was exposed to much more Scripture twisting and denial under traditionalist teachers. Much more Scripture had to be outright denied, Bible history and culture had to be ignored, and a lot of objective reality had to be tuned out. Egalitarianism, not traditionalism, is by far the more Bible-honoring point of view.

Comment by Mary

February 20, 2008 @ 10:59 pm

Yes, that was a very disturbing paragraph, LMCC. At BEST, it’s a matter of the tradition of settling for the sin that God said would beset human beings (the man dominating the woman and the woman nevertheless desiring him inordinately) and not even acknowledging that in Christ we’re called to be a new creation.

The really sad thing is, to me, that some of the WORLD is finally understanding that men ruling over women isn’t the way it has to be, but so much of the church (thank God, not all of it) is still settling for the sin.

As I said, that’s the BEST way that can be interpreted. There are worse ways, but I want to give Richard the benefit of the doubt and not speculate further about the disturbing possibilities.

I’ve said before, and I think it bears repeating here: If submission is such a godly thing for women (and I agree that it IS godly), why do so few men in the church dare to submit to their wives out of reverence for Christ? If they consider themselves leaders of their wives (as so many pro-patriarchy speakers and authors prescribe for husbands), oughtn’t they to at least TRY to model submission as all Christians are required to practice toward one another? Oh, I know someone’s going to say, “But husbands submit to God.” Sorry. Submission works the same way that love does. Those who claim to love God but do not love their neighbor, are liars. John says so. And there’s very, very little difference between self-sacrificial love and true biblical submission. Both are required of all believers, toward all believers. (No exemptions for husbands toward their wives or wives toward their husbands.) Both require surrender of the self in favor of the other. Both require a genuine, chosen act of the will. Both require that the other be considered higher than oneself. I think that there has been some careful re-definition of biblical submission so that husbands are given a pass on ever having to practice it fully and wholeheartedly toward their wives. That’s because if they did, they’d have to give up the worldly positional “authority” over their wives and have the humility to acknowledge, as Adam did,

“This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!” (My wife is one with me, not apart from me, not mine to rule over, not my inferior or my subordinate. We’re one-flesh partners!)

That’s the real deal. Sin ripped that apart into a “leader” and a “follower.” It doesn’t have to, and indeed in Christ it is NOT, to be so among us.

Comment by Suzanne

February 21, 2008 @ 2:27 am

Richard P,

Rather, the discussion in the main seems to be bent on denying that these scriptures exist.

That I wish to read the scriptures in the original languages does not equal the same thing as denying the scriptures exist.

Some women do escape from abusive husbands and are able to raise their children on their own. Therefore, for the individual abused woman, a solution can be found. You seem to write off abused women entirely.

Your concept of “helper” is so remote from scripture, that I can’t help wondering where you got it. Ezer is defined in English as succourer/succorer. You could look that up in a dictionary.

You should know that in Titus 2:4-5

That they may teach the young women to be …obedient to their own husbands

the word “obedient” does not occur in the Greek, but “submissive”.

Comment by jlp

February 21, 2008 @ 5:01 am

Richard P.,

You make several negative remarks about our views. When you make a negative remark you should tie it specifically to the post you are responding to so that the person whose view you are criticizing has a chance to directly reply to your negative remark.

And just for the record, I don’t agree with any of the negative conclusions you have stated in your posts about our views.

Comment by Sarah

February 26, 2008 @ 11:08 pm

This discussion seems to me to point yet again to our tendency to often see what we expect to see rather than what is there. With respect to Richard, he seems to be seeing a disregard for Scripture where there is none because the conclusions expressed do not concur w/conclusions that are self – evident to him. We get so used to reading the Bible a certain way or looking at history in a particular light that we literally can’t see the flaws in our perceptions, both of the evidence and of those with whom we are debating.

This sword cuts both ways…I know I have a tendency to impute impure motives or lack of thought to those who disagree with me.

Regarding historical precedent: it is true that men have, in general, “ruled” women throughout history, and it might be argued that women may be more vulnerable in general due to their intimate ties to children and lesser physical strength. However, this general rule might show nothing other than the sinful tendency of those individuals and groups in power to use it to control those less able to fight back. As a matter of fact, the idea of women as inherently inferior or the property of men has popped up repeatedly throughout history and around the globe, as has human sacrifice, cannibalism, and despotism and tyranny in general. As a matter of fact, false religion has been pretty much universal in human history, even among those to whom God revealed himself directly.

In a world marred by universal sin, universal practice may not be a reliable indicator of virtue or created intent.

Comment by Liz

February 27, 2008 @ 7:27 am

I agree Sarah. Just because something happens all around the world and has done so for hundreds of years does not make it right or even desirable.

The earlier comment that suggested that if things were going to change, they would have by now is almost an evolutionary idea. Things will only change as human beings take God’s word seriously and listen to his heart on issues of justice. We can all do our small bit to help bring about change and the first would be to believe that we can make a difference.

Comment by Jenny

March 17, 2010 @ 11:57 am

I realize that no one has posted to this blog in years, but I wanted to explain how I came to this site inquiring about kepahle. I want to illustrate just one way of how women and men can reach other women like me who want to follow the will of God. Allow me to start from the beginning, please.
I was raised in the Church of Christ as most know is a very conservative belief system. I really couldn’t tell you what it means to be an egalitarian. I was raised in the theme of submission, but my mom was my dad’s help meet and dad could not have run his business without her. (I found Suzanne’s comments about ezer to not be fully explanatory. Isn’t the Hebrew ezer knegedo or something close. We do not want to state that we are God to man, but an equal compliment.)

I digress. I have been married eight years and have been slowly coming to the conclusions that the gifts that God has given me do not fall under the submissive role that the church has put on me. I was reading Gal 3:28 and thinking about all the instances where there were women publicly serving in the church and asked God why them and not me? Why do You say we are all equal and then tell us that man is the head of the woman? That women needs authority over her head and so on? I prayed for enlightenment or I would not be able to fulfill the calling that He has put on me.
One of the church ladies was emptying out her library and passing on the books when I came across “Why Not Women?” I am not a scholar yet, but know that the original context and language is important. For the first time in my life I read that head could mean “source”. What a difference this has made to me. For a while I have been secretly afraid that I have been disobedient to scripture because I have not covered my head appropriately. That I have not submitted enough. I have been trying to reconcile Gal 3:8 with my beliefs of the time and they don’t mesh! It isn’t until you speak of equal partnership and cooperation in the harvest that I don’t have to argue with what God has given me as His Word. I am supposed to measure by scripture what the Spirit tells me, but if I have an incorrect understanding of scripture, I am worried that Satan is influencing me into disobedience and pride. Last night I was using the online strong’s concordance to verify my information that I received from this book, but to my disappointment I found none. That is when I searched kephale_source that this blog came up first. I appreciate the discussion and will find further information to read. I will not let this matter stop with me, but will be bringing it up in my ladies bible class for discussion.

Comment by Deborah

March 17, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

Jenny, that’s so cool! I use Strong’s a lot too, but it lists any way the words have been translated in the KJV (not always correctly) as its basis and so is not always very accurate. Egalitarians have a couple of different ways of viewing the word “head” and the New Testament passages where it appears. Even if you find you are not definitively sure of a particular reading of a scripture or word, I hope you do not give up searching. The overarching trajectory of scripture is, as you point out, that of God’s releasing women and viewing them as co-equals. It can take some time to sort through the weight of all the hierarchal interpretations handed down to us (it took me years), particularly when we are concerned about being self-deceived or selfish. But as you search, I’m confident you will see again and again that the explanation which makes the most sense of God’s Word and mind in the matter is egalitarian. The “difficult” passages which some focus upon as creating transcultural and severely limiting norms and the hierarchical view of head both contradict His broader message (and the hierarchal view of head would also put the Father eternally over the Son in 1 Corinthians 11:3, whereas they are one in essence–equal in power and rank, with the Son elevated to all rule and authority once again–despite the Son’s temporary emptying of Himself while on earth). Blessings~

Comment by Deborah

March 17, 2010 @ 12:41 pm

P.S.–Jenny, if I may, it seems prudent to mention that other women might respond to your searching in ways you would not expect. Sometimes we imagine they all would be eager to know of their freedom in Christ, but for some, the fear of self-deception (and so many have been falsely taught that women are more prone to deception on account of the story of the garden), the fear of change, and the fear of what husbands would think, can actually cause them to turn on you personally and attack you. I’m speaking from much experience…. I think it is great that you want to tackle this in ladies’ bible studies, but in case these matters have not occurred to you, I recommend much prayer for timing and manner, personal protection, etc. All best, Deb

Comment by Liz

March 17, 2010 @ 7:54 pm

Welcome Jenny – it is amazing to read of how you found this site. Very encouraging to know that at any time, someone could be helped by reading old posts.

No matter what environment we are in, if we believe that God is good and loves his people without favouritism, then we will find the truth about equality, even when we are taught quite the opposite.

May you find this site a valuable tool for growth and support.

Comment by Bill Altman

April 25, 2010 @ 5:25 am

Very interesting discussion here. Let me answer one issue about Liddel Scott and “source” as a possible meaning for kephale. LS point to two citations as evidence. In one, source of a river is the meaning, but kephale is used in the plural. When the word is used in the singular to refer to a river, it has the meaning of mouth of a river. This makes sense, as kephale has the common meaning of the point that is the end of something (head of a body, head of a column on a building, end of a pole, etc.). At the source of a river, there are usually many streams and tributaries that come together to form the river. Therefore it would make sense to use kephale in the plural. Where the river flows into a sea, the mouth, kephale is used in the singular.

The other citation is LS refers to Zeus and essentially says that he is the beginning (arche) and the end in the first line. The second line says that he is the kephale, the middle, and the perfection of all things. Kephale seems to have its regular meaning here – the end point of something (in the temporal sense) – thus, Zeus is the beginning, the middle and the end. Plus, that particular fragment has also been found with the same line, except that arche is used. And since the fragment is quoted by Plato, it’s at least 500 years older than the NT. Not great evidence.

Thsre are the *only* pieces of evidence that are used for the possible meaning of source for the word kephale.

Comment by Don

April 25, 2010 @ 6:45 am

How about Athena springing fully formed from Zeus’s head/kephale?

Comment by Bill Altman

April 25, 2010 @ 4:11 pm

I love that story. According to one of the myths of the birth of Athena, Zeus consorted with one of the Titans who became pregnant. But there was a prophecy that the child would be greater than Zeus. To prevent the fulfillment of the prophecy, Zeus ate the mother to be. Then he started having headaches. He asked a friend to go to work on his head with an axe and out popped Athena. She came out of his kephale, his physical head. The word is used in a purely literal sense, his actual head, not in a metaphorical sense.

When one thing is the source of another in a particular sense, it does not necessarily follow that that that thing carries the meaning “source” in the broader and metaphorical sense. To the Greeks, the intestines were the source of emotions. But that particular meaning does not carry over into intestines meaning source in other senses.

Comment by Don

April 26, 2010 @ 11:34 am

Yes, but his head/kephale was the source of Athena. Today, we simply do not think anything like that.