CNN Reporter Labels Voddie Baucham a “Sexist”

Now here’s something you don’t see every day—theological debate on CNN. The CNN reporter says that Voddie Baucham sounds “sexist.” I think that the charge is patently unfair. In any case, I thought you would want to see this one for yourself.

(HT: Tim Challies)

190 Responses to CNN Reporter Labels Voddie Baucham a “Sexist”

  1. brian September 10, 2008 at 10:46 am #

    Voddie laid it down! I love it….and I also HATE how the woman said, “women staying at home is a burden to the family” as if stay at home Moms are forced to stay home and they hate it? My wife loves being a stay at home Mom, she works harder than I do! The sexist ones are the two women in the video, not Baucham.

  2. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 11:05 am #

    Not all families can afford to have a SAHM. Many women work for health benefits for the children because companies only pay for one person and it can be extremely expensive without another income. So, it can be a burden for some who have medical problems. It think it is always best to err on the side of grace in these situations.

    Adam Clark says this about Isaiah 3:12:

    Verse 12. Err-“Pervert”
    billeu, “swallow.” Among many unsatisfactory methods of accounting for the unusual meaning of this word in this place, I choose Jarchi’s explication, as making the best sense. “Read billalu, ‘confound.’ Syriac.”-Dr. Judd. “Read beholu, ‘disturb or trouble.'”-Secker. So Septuagint.

    This verse might be read, “The collectors of grapes shall be their oppressors; and usurers (noshim, instead of nashim, women) shall rule over them.”

  3. Paul September 10, 2008 at 11:15 am #

    I thought this was a really interesting clip when Lydia posted it yesterday.

    Especially because the two women seem to get the Bible wrong, and Voddie clearly gets it right.

    BUT, to claim that it’s ungodly for a woman to be anything but a stay at home mom is an insult to women everywhere. What about women that can’t afford to stay home, what with wages shrinking and the buying power of Americans shrinking even faster?

    I’d bet that 95% of the people making the case for SAHM’s are making enough money that it’s not an issue.

    For the rest of us, as Lydia said, it’s best to err on the side of grace.

  4. jeremy z September 10, 2008 at 11:33 am #

    ya know, i don’t think it is unfair. the poor CNN reporter is feeling judged and limited by Voddie interpretations of the text. now that is unfair.

    it actually worries me. why? because we have a typical secular women (on CNN) who is trying to make sense of a narrow evangelical view of womanhood.

    this interview is kind of embarrassing.

  5. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 11:39 am #

    “Especially because the two women seem to get the Bible wrong, and Voddie clearly gets it right.”

    Can you be more specific in what they got wrong?

  6. Adam Omelianchuk September 10, 2008 at 11:43 am #

    So the verdict is in? Sarah Palin is outside the will of God? Is VB right on this? What about CBMW’s stance?

  7. William September 10, 2008 at 11:48 am #

    Adam,

    What is CBMW’s stance?

  8. Adam Omelianchuk September 10, 2008 at 12:04 pm #

    According to their blog posts its OK. Though, their past journals tell a different story. It all depends on how they interpret Is. 3:12. It is it universal or limited in scope? If the former VB is right. If not, David Kotter is right.

  9. D.J. Williams September 10, 2008 at 12:30 pm #

    “Allright, what about the text that says the man and the woman should submit to one another…”

    And that text would be?

    I respect Voddie tremendously as a pastor and one who is doing more for the family than almost anyone on the evangelical scene. However, I think he’s wrong here. If Isaiah 3:12 is all we’ve got on women in political leadership, then I don’t think there’s a case. The passage seems much more symbolic than literal (it is a prophetic oracle, after all) with the imagery of infants and women (read: the weakest members of ancient society) ruling and oppressing the people. This seems to be a proclaimation that God’s judgment is manifested in the powerful being crushed in spite of their own strength. Just my initial thoughts, though.

    That said, before anyone slams Voddie for being cold and uncaring to the plight of the single mother or the woman who can’t afford to be a SAHM, you might want to listen to him talk about being raised by a single teenage mother in South Central LA. He knows the plight. He’s lived the plight.

    The interview was embarrassing – to CNN. Last time I checked, a journalistic interviewer was supposed to elicit the opinions of the interviewee, not load the discussion with their own opinions. As I joked about at the top of the post, that last statement was a horrible betrayal of journalistic integrity.

  10. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 12:35 pm #

    “Allright, what about the text that says the man and the woman should submit to one another…”

    And that text would be?”

    If they are both believers in the Body of Christ that text would be Eph 5:21.

  11. Russ September 10, 2008 at 12:45 pm #

    I find this video really interesting in light of the recent discussion of Irving Bible Church’s move.

    Many of us connected with that situation have been marveling at the amount of buzz that created both in circles like this blog, and in the press at large. It just seems like there are so many other churches, including evangelical non-denominational churches like IBC who have already made this shift, or have been there for a while. Why so much attention on IBC? It has really fascinated some of us.

    Now, the Palin deal and all this ensuing discussion, which has also surprised me a great deal, wraps a whole new context around the IBC discussion.

    I am fascinated by it all.

    ***now back to your regularly scheduled theological discussion :-)***

  12. McBride September 10, 2008 at 1:16 pm #

    That’s the question I have, does Voddie disagree that Palin should be VP or was he just defending that particular text?

  13. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 1:23 pm #

    McBride, You probably did not see this which will answer your question:

    http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/8/30_Did_McCain_Make_a_Pro-Family_Pick____.html

  14. rafe September 10, 2008 at 1:23 pm #

    What struck me most about the interview was the assumption that having a political position in government is more important than leading a church. I don’t think that is something we get from Jesus, especially in light of his last words to Peter.

    Also, nowhere in the Titus text does it say that a woman can’t work outside the home. It gives a list of responsibilities, but these aren’t exclusive responsibilities. For example, is it improper for a woman to love children that aren’t her own (if she has children)? Whether or not a woman is employed is a matter of conscience. (I’ve known of many who have worked and kept their priorities at home.)

    As for me, I just wish these professed Christians would back-off of the political scene–but that’s me. (See paragraph 1.)

  15. Luke Britt September 10, 2008 at 1:27 pm #

    We, the pastoral staff at my church, have watched this video this morning. I think Voddie’s response was firm, but necessary. I think he would agree that the fact that women have risen in place of the men in leadership positions is a critique of lazy men who exchange leadership for a comfortable (meaning neglect of role responsibilities), yet unbiblical marital relationship.

  16. Matt Horne September 10, 2008 at 1:32 pm #

    Isn’t it convenient to resort to name calling when you’re loosing an argument? It is so easy to use such a tactic like that to ruin someone’s credentials and make them seem less worthy to take part in a discussion.

  17. D.J. Williams September 10, 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    Lydia said…
    “If they are both believers in the Body of Christ that text would be Eph 5:21.”

    But let Ephesians 5:21 be informed by context. The very next words Paul says are instructing wives specifically to submit to their husbands. When he offers his instructions to husbands, that phrase is curiously absent. What do you make of that?

    At any rate, it is quite a semantic and textual stretch to call that “the text that says the man and woman should submit to one another.” It’s misleading at best.

    Also, thanks for linking Voddie’s post. It should be noted that he specifically says that women working outside the home is not necessarily wrong – provided that they are caring for their family’s needs at home first (and BTW, the same could be said of a man who neglects his family and chases career). Where I break with Voddie is that I would say that judgment should be made by the Palins, their pastor and spiritual mentors, not those of us whose only knowledge of them is always preceeded by a byline.

  18. John September 10, 2008 at 2:08 pm #

    Denny,

    Why have you been relatively silent about giving your opinion about Palin? Are you still thinking through it?

  19. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 10, 2008 at 2:14 pm #

    Pastor Voddie clearly honored God in this news segment.

    God bless Pastor Voddie and all other pastors who stand for Biblical Truth and won’t compromise the Word to tickle ears.

  20. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 2:29 pm #

    “But let Ephesians 5:21 be informed by context.”

    Absolutely. I agree. All believers are to submit to one another.

    ” The very next words Paul says are instructing wives specifically to submit to their husbands. When he offers his instructions to husbands, that phrase is curiously absent. What do you make of that?”

    The word ‘submit’ is not in that verse (22) but was added in by translators…all that means is that submission is for all of us and then he gives examples of how that is done in subsequent passages for wives and husbands. If you can sacrficially love your wife as Eph 5 teaches without submitting to her, then you may want to revisit what that really means.

    Don has great teaching on this passage on other threads. It really helps to read this in an interlinear and take out all the chapter and verse numbers and read it like a real letter where you can see the chaism.

    I do want to ask though, why it is so important to you that husbands not submit? Are they also not to submit to other believers in the Body of Christ?

  21. Barry September 10, 2008 at 2:49 pm #

    I think Rafe’s comment is the best of the thread so far:

    “What struck me most about the interview was the assumption that having a political position in government is more important than leading a church.”

    It deserves a re-read. The role of a pastor is above that of president, king, prime minister, senator, or czar. The Kingdom of Christ is greater than the kingdoms of men. And in the Kingdom of Christ, He has so ordered it to be governed in a specific way.

    Thanks, Rafe, for that piece of wisdom.

    As for Denny’s view, perhaps I misunderstood him, but I thought him to be on the side of Kotter and Mohler in all of this. Maybe I over-read his comments.

    Barry

  22. Don September 10, 2008 at 2:51 pm #

    Here is an extract from my structure analysis of Eph 5-6 pericope. This is the 4th part in the teaching of the pericope and is in the form of a chiasm, which are found throughout the pericope.

    A4 but be filled by the Spirit,

    B4 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,

    C4 singing and praising in your heart to the Lord,

    C4′ giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God the Father,

    B4′ submitting to one another in the fear of Messiah;

    A4′ wives, [submitting to one another] to your own husbands as to the Lord.

    4. Here are 4 “-ing” verbs the inner 2 are to God, the outer 2 are to the church. It is important to notice that just as speaking to one another is mutually speaking (each one to others), so submitting to one another is mutually submitting (each one to others), contra Grudem (who correctly points out it might mean some to others, but not in this case). B4′ serves as the header principle that will be explained further with examples in the remainder of the pericope. In A4′ the verb is omitted and Paul carefully crafts the verb that is to be brought down in the previous phrase, it is reflexive (voluntary), it is to one another (mutually) and it is submitting. That is, the wife is to submit to her husband and the husband is to submit to his wife.

  23. Don September 10, 2008 at 3:02 pm #

    P.S. The full structure analysis is at http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/2008/08/ephesians-515-66-guest-post-by-don.html

    as a guest post.

  24. D.J. Williams September 10, 2008 at 3:06 pm #

    Lydia,

    Are you saying that the command to submit really isn’t present in verse 22? Unless you are, I think you’ve got to answer why the exhortation is made to wives but the command to husbands is framed in a completely different paradigm.

    Also, I wish you would give us the info on the specific sermon audio clips that have you so worried about reformed Christianity.

    Don,

    Sorry, but I think that your claim of a chiasm here is pretty off. I love Duane Garrett’s work on chiastic structure in Genesis, but it seems like you’re pulling this out of thin air. “Be filled with the Spirit” is chaisticly related to “wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as to the Lord.” Seriously?

  25. Stephen Newell September 10, 2008 at 3:10 pm #

    I’m convinced the only reason it is Baucham on this panel instead of Mohler is because of Baucham’s extremist (at least in the view of the egalitarians and secualrists) views on the issue. The secular media’s just trying to create a tempest in a teapot.

    I’m convinced.

  26. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 3:16 pm #

    “Are you saying that the command to submit really isn’t present in verse 22? Unless you are, I think you’ve got to answer why the exhortation is made to wives but the command to husbands is framed in a completely different paradigm. ”

    I am sorry. I thought I explained that above. We do not have to agree to love one another in Christ.

    But we do know for a fact the word ‘submit’ is not in verse 22 in the Greek. If we get rid of verse numbers and see the Greek, we see that He is telling all believers to submit to one another…then he gets into specific relationships. As I said before, if you can follow the instructions for husbands without submitting to your wife, then you may want to take another look.

    In any case, are you trying to tell me that husbands are exempt from Eph 5:21?

    “Also, I wish you would give us the info on the specific sermon audio clips that have you so worried about reformed Christianity.”

    I have responded to that on the ‘Hell’ thread. I hate to post it here…I have been a blog hog today. :o)

  27. shepherd steve September 10, 2008 at 3:18 pm #

    In regards to the Ephesians passage, verse 21 is the last of a string of participles that connects itself to “be filled with the Spirit”. What follows next in the book of Ephesians are three examples of where submission is important based upon what role you find yourself in (marriage, family, slave-master). It requires the Spirit’s leading to be submissive in these particular relationships.

    I think that Voddie was doing a fair job with the Ephesians passage and was answering fairly to the reporter’s question about Deborah. I was hoping that he would have used the Scripture in Judges 4:9 to say that Israel was not honored by God because a woman was leading.

    I would have to admit that I am not a fan of every stance that Voddie champions for the family. (more specifically his anti-public school stance) However, in this clip I think he did a pretty good job of defending what matters the most to God. I think the woman theologian (?) made me wonder what made her evangelical. Of course, this is CNN reporting a particular stance on their worldview.

  28. Brandon Swanner September 10, 2008 at 3:20 pm #

    Its true that many advocates for SAHMs are wealthy enough to allow the wife to stay at home more freely. But my household is one of the many exceptions. I am a pastor who brings home a salary in the mid 20’s. My wife and I set out from the beginning to live in a way that allows us to set our household up in a Biblical manner. We both drive our high school cars with over 150 thousand miles, we live in a small house, we eat on a very restricted budget, we don’t have cable, we don’t have many things……..but we do have the blessed benefit of having my wife stay at home to care for me as her husband and to train and nurture my children. It isn’t impossible to have a small single income and to make it.

  29. Don September 10, 2008 at 3:24 pm #

    On the “debate” it was so short no in-depth discussion was possible. I thought Feinberg was too weak in her presentation, she was correct on Eph 5, while Baucham was too strong.

    There is a verse in 1 Tim where Paul says a woman is to “rule her house” but some translations weaken that. In Titus 2:5, it is to work at home, but the home in the 1st century was a mini-factory, while the home in the 21st century is usually for consumption. Working at home in the 1st century would imply working anywhere in the 21st century, as the means of production are not usually home based today.

    So Baucham is simplistic, IMO.

  30. Don September 10, 2008 at 3:31 pm #

    The underlining dos not come thru on the post, where I tried to show the related theme in each paired line in a chiasm.

    In the case of the verses you mentioned, Spirit and Lord are both God and one way to practice being filled with the Spirit is to practice mutual submission in marriage. That is, all the verses following “be filled with the Spirit” in this pericope are example verses of doing this, and in particular of mutual submission, which has an extended discussion.

  31. Benjamin A September 10, 2008 at 3:32 pm #

    D.J. hits the nail on the head. Don’s chiastic structure is forced. It doesn’t work there…

  32. Don September 10, 2008 at 3:42 pm #

    Even if you do not agree with the outer lines of the chiasm, it is important to see the inner lines forming a chiasm, as the pairing of the inner 2 are to God and the pairing of the outer 2 are to the church. Plus the outer 2 repudiates Grudem’s claim that it is not mutual submission.

  33. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 3:48 pm #

    Does Grudem teach that Eph 5:21 does not apply to husbands within the Body?

  34. Don September 10, 2008 at 3:53 pm #

    Right, Grudem claims it is NOT mutual submission, it is SOME to OTHERS submission, guess who is on top?

  35. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 10, 2008 at 3:58 pm #

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

    Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.”

    Colossians 3.

  36. Benjamin A September 10, 2008 at 4:04 pm #

    Lydia,
    Paul is very clear from Ephesians 5:21 that all spirit-filled believers are to be submissive believers in general, which would touch all of one’s life. However, v.21 isn’t dealing with specific relationships as do vv. 22-24 where Paul get’s very specific in applying that submissive attitude to married women and tells them specifically to be submissive (pulling down that verb from v.21) “to their own husbands as to the Lord”. Then he clearly qualifies this imperative in v.23 by stating “BECAUSE A HUSBAND IS HEAD OF THE WIFE as also Christ [is] head of the church…”.

    This call for married women to submit to their own husband doesn’t lessen the spirit-filled husband’s responsibility to also maintain an attitude of submission as he is loving his wife and living with her in an understanding way; but it does establish a husband as being the head (leader) in this one flesh relationship to whom the wife is called upon to submit specifically, when their mutual submission (respect/love/admiration/friendship/committment/etc.) to each other (as brother/sister in Christ) doesn’t naturally produce agreement as to a direction for their union and/or family.

    All the exegetical gymnastics in the world can’t blur the clear teaching/meaning of Paul here, even when looking at it in the Greek!

  37. Don September 10, 2008 at 4:07 pm #

    In Eph 5, it is a head/body metaphor NOT a head as leader metaphor. A Berean can discern this by seeing that all the examples of Christ that are given are SERVING examples and serving is an example of submission.

  38. Don September 10, 2008 at 4:09 pm #

    Also, in Eph 5 a husband is called to agape-love his wife and in 1 Cor 13 one of the ways to IDENTIFY agape-love is “does not seek its own way”. As soon as a husband seeks his own way, it is NOT agape-love as commanded in Eph 5.

  39. Don September 10, 2008 at 4:12 pm #

    P.S. A head/body metaphor is saying a marriage is a one-flesh organic unity.

  40. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 4:15 pm #

    “Then he clearly qualifies this imperative in v.23 by stating “BECAUSE A HUSBAND IS HEAD OF THE WIFE as also Christ [is] head of the church…”.”

    Just a few things..

    If the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate ‘authority’ over in this verse then He would have inspired a clear word for authority. There are plenty of them that would have communicated that clearly and there would be NO question. We could clearly say that verse 21 does not include husbands.

    Also, if this is ‘hierarchical’ in nature then why isn’t the order hierarchical in the Greek. Shouldn’t Christ/church be first in that scenerio?

    “but it does establish a husband as being the head (leader) in this one flesh relationship to whom the wife is called upon to submit specifically, when their mutual submission ”

    Authority negates a ‘one flesh union’. They are diametrically opposed. you cannot be ‘one flesh’ and have one on top of the other.

    Let us all focus on servanthood, mutual submission and a true one flesh union in our marriages instead of wanting to be ‘over others’.

  41. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 10, 2008 at 4:18 pm #

    “All the exegetical gymnastics in the world can’t blur the clear teaching/meaning of Paul here, even when looking at it in the Greek!”

    Benjamin A, the revisionist egalitarians are quite adept at blurring the clear teaching and meaning of Scripture regarding the divine design of men and women in the home and church.

  42. D.J. Williams September 10, 2008 at 4:19 pm #

    Lydia said…
    “I have responded to that on the ‘Hell’ thread. I hate to post it here…I have been a blog hog today. :o)”

    Oops. Looks like I can’t keep my posts straight, Lydia. I apologize for the comment and for the mistake. I’ll respond to the other points later.

  43. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 4:19 pm #

    “Paul is very clear from Ephesians 5:21 that all spirit-filled believers are to be submissive believers in general, which would touch all of one’s life. However, v.21 isn’t dealing with specific relationships as do vv. 22-24 where Paul get’s very specific in applying that submissive attitude to married women and tells them specifically to be submissive (pulling down that verb from v.21) “to their own husbands as to the Lord”.”

    So you are saying that husbands are not exempt from verse 21? Or they are?

  44. Don September 10, 2008 at 4:24 pm #

    V. 22 is supposed to pull down the reflexive verb that Paul created in v. 21, “voluntarily submitting one to another”. As it is reflexive (or symmetrical), the subject (wives) and direct object (husbands) also switch places, so the husband is also to submit to his wife.

  45. D.J. Williams September 10, 2008 at 4:26 pm #

    Ben,

    Your post #33 is dead on. Lydia, I’ll direct you to Ben’s reply as my own.

    Don said…
    “Also, in Eph 5 a husband is called to agape-love his wife and in 1 Cor 13 one of the ways to IDENTIFY agape-love is “does not seek its own way”. As soon as a husband seeks his own way, it is NOT agape-love as commanded in Eph 5.”

    Who ever said that “seeking [one’s] own way” has anything to do with leadership in the home? This only further emphasizes for me what came out during my discussions with Sue a while back – most egals just don’t understand what complementarians really believe. While that’s the case, all the banter in the world here will be absolutely fruitless.

  46. D.J. Williams September 10, 2008 at 4:31 pm #

    Don,

    To be perfectly honest, the exegetical backflips you’re doing just make me sad. If these grammatical nuances are so clear, don’t you think that a translation or two would have picked up on it? Even the TNIV plainly says, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”

    And would you apply these same arguments to Colossians 3:18, even though the context is totally different?

  47. Benjamin A September 10, 2008 at 4:36 pm #

    Don,

    The verb is “being submissive”; not “being submissive one to another”.

    The “to one another” language is a different word all together that is actually the noun in v.21.

    I also find it interesting that you distinguish between being a leader and a servant. Jesus taught if you want to be a leader, you simply become servant of all. As you said, any Berean should know this…
    Jesus is our ultimate example of servant-leadership. So to a husband is to be ‘head’ of a wife as Christ is ‘head’ of the church. Servant-leadership!

  48. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 4:38 pm #

    “Who ever said that “seeking [one’s] own way” has anything to do with leadership in the home? This only further emphasizes for me what came out during my discussions with Sue a while back – most egals just don’t understand what complementarians really believe. While that’s the case, all the banter in the world here will be absolutely fruitless”

    I was a comp for 20 years. Read all the books, went to many conferences of well known teachers, etc. I most definitely know what they teach and think as I was one. I kept seeing contradictions in scripture and with all the resources for scripture study at our fingertips today, I started looking at this deeply starting with the Creation account. I was simply stunned at how much is ‘read into’ the creation account that is not there or is ignored.

    I spent years with this in prayer studying and begging God for wisdom. I did not want to bring my presuppositions to scripture anymore. I do not believe one has to attend seminary to be taught by the Holy Spirit. If we read the NT closely, we will see that new believers are given the Holy Spirit. That is my favorite part of reading Acts!

    An example of how confusing the comp/pat position can be: Just look at how far apart Baucham and Kotter are on Palin. How can they both be right?

    With that said, I believe we can disagree on this issue and be brothers and sisters in Christ. We are called to love God and one another, first and foremost.

    Also, I do not consider myself an egalitarian. I consider myself to be a true complementarian. I believe in submission for all believers to each other, in love, and to my husband.

  49. Don September 10, 2008 at 4:42 pm #

    No, the metaphor in Eph 5 is a head/body metaphor not a head as leader metaphor. This is essential to see so as not to end up with the false idea of males on top. All the examples are serving examples, none are leading examples. Jesus is called the savior of the body, NOT the LORD of the body, and being the savior is the most serving example that exists. Jesus IS both, but the metaphor is one of service, not leadership.

    A husband as head (metaphorically) is to serve his wife, any more than that is not justified by the Bible in Eph 5.

  50. Benjamin A September 10, 2008 at 4:51 pm #

    Lydia said, “I consider myself to be a true complementarian. I believe in submission for all believers to each other, in love, and to my husband.”

    Sounds like Ephesians 5:21-22!

    Paul is very clear from Ephesians 5:21 that all spirit-filled believers are to be submissive believers in general, which would touch all of one’s life.

    Lydia, “I believe in submission for all believers to each other, in love…”

    However, v.21 isn’t dealing with specific relationships as do vv. 22-24 where Paul get’s very specific in applying that submissive attitude to married women and tells them specifically to be submissive (pulling down that verb from v.21) “to their own husbands as to the Lord”.

    Lydia, “I believe in submission … to my husband.”

    Good stuff Lydia!!!

  51. shepherd steve September 10, 2008 at 5:17 pm #

    Don,
    Don’t force articifical structures into the Ephesians epistle. A chiastic structure isn’t what you would see or expect in the sentence. I don’t want to insult your level of training but it appears that you are missing some basic observations that can be made in the Greek New Testament. Maybe you don’t quite have the grasp to see some of these things? If you do, then you shouldn’t ignore the sentence structure.

    The Greek word kephale means authority when used in human relationships.

    You can disagree with me if you like but I don’t think you want to create artificial arguments to not follow a command from God’s Word. At the end of the day, we should always ask one question. Do I want to follow and honor Christ with my behavior, even if it doesn’t line up logically in my mind. If I do seek to bring Jesus honor by following His Word, then I need to be honest with the Scriptures. My admonition is that you seek out the meaning from the Scriptures for your walk with the Lord, not just to be right in a blog discussion where most people that comment are anonymous.

  52. Brian (Another) September 10, 2008 at 5:18 pm #

    To stop down on one point, I don’t understand a dichotomous approach to saying we all submit but saying wives submit to your husband is demeaning (a term used back in the Dr. Ware thread), or if one prefers, subservient, or, still, if one prefers, bad in some way. But this is something that has been hashed and hashed again, so perhaps I’m belaboring a dead horse point or something.

  53. Don September 10, 2008 at 5:30 pm #

    No, the Greek word kephale means the thing on top of your neck.

    When it is used as a metaphor it needs to be discerned what the metaphor is. In the 21st century the head metaphor is almost always a leader/boss, but simply teleporting that back to the 1st century will not do. It is a way to do a magic trick on oneself that is not recommended.

    In the 1st century kephale had a larger range of metaphorical meanings, one of these I agree MIGHT be leader, but the context decides what the metaphor is to mean. In any case, the head/body metaphor of one-flesh unity is what is in Eph 5. Going beyond the metaphor is not recommended.

  54. Benjamin A September 10, 2008 at 5:30 pm #

    Don,

    The verb is “being submissive”; not “being submissive one to another”. AS YOU WRONGLY STATED

    The “to one another” language is a different word all together that is actually the noun in v.21.

    You are leading people to believe that both the noun and verb get pulled down from v.21 and used as the implied verb of v.22. That would be called ‘poor scholarship’. It just doesn’t work like that…

    You said, “V. 22 is supposed to pull down the reflexive verb that Paul created in v. 21, “voluntarily submitting one to another”. As it is reflexive (or symmetrical), the subject (wives) and direct object (husbands) also switch places, so the husband is also to submit to his wife.

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. However, as a brother in Christ; I still love ya!

  55. Don September 10, 2008 at 5:32 pm #

    Wives submitting to their husbands is NOT demeaning, but it needs to be understood to be voluntary. And the same for husbands submitting to their wives.

    If it is not voluntary, then it could easily be demeaning (and worse, abusive) and non-Biblical.

  56. Benjamin A September 10, 2008 at 5:33 pm #

    Don said, “No, the metaphor in Eph 5 is a head/body metaphor not a head as leader metaphor.”

    Yes, and the body is called on to submit to the head. So while the head is the servant, it is also the leader to whom the body submits. Servant-leadership!

  57. Don September 10, 2008 at 5:34 pm #

    On the verb in Eph 5:21, Paul is doing a new thing, not seen before in any Hebrew or Greek text. He is crafting a new concept from existing words. If you do not bring that new concept verb down, you miss part of what Paul is trying to do, IMO.

    The Bible gets to define the words it uses AND WHEN IT DOES, one is to use the Biblical definition.

  58. Denny Burk September 10, 2008 at 5:35 pm #

    I also agree with Rafe: “Nowhere in the Titus text does it say that a woman can’t work outside the home.”

    The Titus text certainly makes domestic duties a priority, but it doesn’t automatically preclude other activities. In some situations it will, but in others it may not. My sense is that in our culture too many women let other concerns diminish the priority of taking care of children and the home.

  59. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 10, 2008 at 5:35 pm #

    Lydia: “I consider myself to be a true complementarian. I believe in submission for all believers to each other, in love, and to my husband.”

    Most excellent Lydia. Then please submit to biblical patriarchy in the home and in the church per the clear teaching of God’s Word and per the historical practice of the Church from the inception of the NT Church and so on throughout the centuries.

    Thank you.

  60. Don September 10, 2008 at 5:37 pm #

    No, there is no leader in the metaphor. Servant yes, leader, no.

  61. Don September 10, 2008 at 5:39 pm #

    Patriarchy is NOT the clear teaching of God’s word. That is a fantasy of some, but it is simply untrue to state.

  62. Benjamin A September 10, 2008 at 5:46 pm #

    Don,

    Your post #57 is the most outrageous statement I have ever read anywhere!

    Egals. everywhere should run as far away from such exegetical excrement as fast as possible.

    Incredible.

    And yes, there is leadership attached to servanthood as it’s related to Jesus Christ.

    v.24 “but as the church is submissive to Christ, so also the wives to the(ir) husbands in everything.”

  63. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 5:50 pm #

    Lydia, “I believe in submission … to my husband.”

    Good stuff Lydia!!!”

    Thanks Ben. But you may not like the fact that my husband is the one who really started looking at the contradictions first and became convicted by the Holy Spirit that in order to really live the ‘husband part’ of the Eph 5 passage, he had to submit to me, too. He believes this in order to be a true one flesh union. Ezer k. is not a subordinate position. It is a comparable position within the one flesh union.

    He saw that over time the comp teaching became more and more legalistic with ‘roles’, formulas and rules, etc. He even termed it the ‘Chrisitian Talmud’. :o) He also saw much of the hypocrisy in comp circles when certain wives of leaders were given ‘authority to teach men’ by their leader husbands.

    He became concerned that this whole idea of authority within the Body has been corrupted from the servant model of Christ and the Apostles and a good study of Hebrews 13 and other passages convinced us of this. He asked: What if wives of those who are not leaders would be good teachers, too? There were other things that we both started seeing as contradictions in scripture with comp teaching…too many to go into here.

    He believes the comp/pat teaching is a snare for men who are really not regenerate. We also both believe that this whole topic has been a path to Christian celebrity and a money maker for many. People love rules, roles and formulas for living. It is much easier to follow man’s teaching than Abiding in Christ and being fed by the Vine.

  64. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 10, 2008 at 5:51 pm #

    DJ Williams: “Don,

    To be perfectly honest, the exegetical backflips you’re doing just make me sad.”

    Benjamin A: “Don,

    Your post #57 is the most outrageous statement I have ever read anywhere!

    Egals. everywhere should run as far away from such exegetical excrement as fast as possible.”

    Soft and irenic tones by D.J. and Benjamin A. when speaking the truth-in-love to Don. Well done fellas.

  65. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 5:52 pm #

    “Most excellent Lydia. Then please submit to biblical patriarchy in the home and in the church per the clear teaching of God’s Word and per the historical practice of the Church from the inception of the NT Church and so on throughout the centuries.”

    TUAD, I sense very little love or compassion in your all your comments. It is a painful thing for God to have to teach those of us who have lacked love and compassion for others.

    Remember, He only disciplines those who are His.

  66. shepherd steve September 10, 2008 at 5:53 pm #

    For those interested in this discussion, I have a few helpful hints:
    Pick up a good Greek lexicon for understanding the categories of the Greek word kephale. (head) BAGD
    Next look at Ephesians 5:23 and try to figure out how Jesus Christ could be a head of His church and not be a “leader”.
    Jesus is the kurios (Lord) for the believer and the Christian is the doulos (slave). The Christian is to understand that he/she is under the authority of the Master Jesus Christ. {look throughout the New Testament for this truth stated} Then, try to explain how Jesus being the “head” could mean anything but having authority in His relationship with His Church.

  67. Don September 10, 2008 at 5:55 pm #

    Ben A.

    I can tell we disagree. Sobeit.
    This is not the forum for intensive study, that is for sure.

    I only ask you to follow 1 Cor 13 and not insist on your way when you love your wife ala Eph 5. If you DO insist on your way, then you are breaking a command of God.

  68. Don September 10, 2008 at 5:57 pm #

    It is of course true that Jesus is Lord. But that is NOT the metaphor in Eph 5. Taking a metaphor beyond its Biblical context is not recommended.

    Masculinists may want to do it, but they should not do it.

  69. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 10, 2008 at 6:03 pm #

    Shepherd Steve: “Next look at Ephesians 5:23 and try to figure out how Jesus Christ could be a head of His church and not be a “leader”.

    Jesus is the kurios (Lord) for the believer and the Christian is the doulos (slave). The Christian is to understand that he/she is under the authority of the Master Jesus Christ. {look throughout the New Testament for this truth stated} Then, try to explain how Jesus being the “head” could mean anything but having authority in His relationship with His Church.”

    Don: “It is of course true that Jesus is Lord. But that is NOT the metaphor in Eph 5. Taking a metaphor beyond its Biblical context is not recommended.

    Masculinists may want to do it, but they should not do it.”

    If I’m tracking this conversation correctly, then Shepherd Steve, as a “masculinist”, is taking a metaphor beyond its biblical context in Ephesians 5 which is not recommended according to Don.

  70. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 6:21 pm #

    “I only ask you to follow 1 Cor 13 and not insist on your way when you love your wife ala Eph 5. If you DO insist on your way, then you are breaking a command of God.”

    Yes, and please do not boast in having ‘final decision authority’ over your wife. This teaching is such a snare for new believers and unregenerate men.

  71. Benjamin A September 10, 2008 at 6:30 pm #

    1. We all should insist on Christ’s way and diligently seek His wisdom.

    2. I know of no one who “boast” of having ‘final decision authority’ in the home. That would be sad indeed.

  72. Don September 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm #

    Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
    Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
    Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
    Eph 5:28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
    Eph 5:29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,
    Eph 5:30 because we are members of his body.
    Eph 5:31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
    Eph 5:32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

    All the things that Christ (as head of the church) does in the above are SERVING functions, Christ loves, nourishes, washes, gave himself up, cherishes. One is on SOLID Biblical ground when doing these type of things as head of your wife in a marriage. Going beyond these types of things is not endorsed by this part of Scripture.

  73. Ferg September 10, 2008 at 6:38 pm #

    Don, I appreciate your words.

  74. Lydia September 10, 2008 at 6:42 pm #

    Amen, Don. This is exactly what my husband was convicted of with this passage. He was also convicted that it is impossible to live this out without submitting, too. Try lording it over another or having ‘final say’ while living this way. You can’t. This does NOT lessen him in any way. It is edifying to Christ and us both.

    I am convinced that if all Christian couples were abiding in Christ and living in the power of the Holy Spirit, CBMW would not be needed. There would no need for a final ‘decision maker’ or one in charge of another adult.

    Let’s start there, folks!

  75. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 10, 2008 at 6:55 pm #

    I am convinced that if all genuine Christians were abiding in Christ and living in the power of the Holy Spirit, and obeying Scripture, then CBE and egalitarianism would not have arisen to be the divisive force that it has proven to be.

    As the late Dr. Gordon Clark said: “The Protestant Reformation, for all its opposition to Romanism, never questioned the practice of ordaining men only. Now, if this practice has continued from the time of Abraham down to 1960 or thereabouts, those who are innovators surely must bear the burden of proof. The Westminster Confession indeed says, ‘All Synods…may err, and many have erred.’ Therefore it is theoretically possible that the Reformed Presbyterian Church is in error. But when the agreement is worldwide over 4,000 years, it is, I repeat, extremely improbable. Therefore a mountainous burden of proof rests on those who advocate the ordination of women.”

  76. Corrie September 10, 2008 at 7:52 pm #

    And what did Baucham get right? That Is. 3:12 somehow says that women ruling over a nation is a curse? Where does Scripture say that a woman can’t hold a position in secular office? Where does it say that Deborah’s rule was a curse to the nation of Israel. Ever talk to a Jew? They all love Deborah and consider her rule a BLESSING. Her rule was no more a sign that things where bad than Gideon’s rule.

    He was right about one thing. The culture does NOT dictate truth but that is exactly what patriocentricity does. It allows culture to dictate truth.

    graceindelible (dot)blogspot (dot) com has a couple of very good posts on why people are wrong to play “fast and loose” with this scripture the way that Baucham did.

    There is nothing honoring about reading into scripture one’s own bias and that is exactly what this anti-woman in positions of government is- bias. And I say this as someone who still believes that only males can be elders in the Church.

    Baucham comes out of the Doug Phillips camp which is heavily based on culture and one’s own opinions.

  77. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 10, 2008 at 7:56 pm #

    Corrie: “And I say this as someone who still believes that only males can be elders in the Church.”

    Thank you Corrie for upholding Scripture and for upholding the historic Church’s obedience to the clear instruction of Scripture regarding the requirements for the office of church elder.

  78. Blank Slate September 10, 2008 at 8:08 pm #

    I find Don frustratingly logical (c;

    and Lydia blessedly refreshing

  79. Don September 10, 2008 at 8:36 pm #

    There is no clear teaching of male only leadership for 4,000 years, that is fantasy of some.

  80. Kathy September 10, 2008 at 8:42 pm #

    I was wondering if any can give contextual support for the meaning of the metaphor kephale as ‘leader’? What in the passage describes the husband AS leader or says that he is to have charge of his wife? Does the context mention any authority he has? Does paul instruct husbands on how to lead? Anything? Where is the husband described as leader in the context?

    Without contextual support, I don’t see a case for kephale to mean leader, at all. There is absolutely nothing there to even consider contextualy that kephale means ‘leader’ as a metaphor in Eph 5.

  81. Kathy September 10, 2008 at 8:48 pm #

    I would also ask WHY, when kephale is used in Eph 5 AND 1 CO 11 that there is NO contextual support for a meaning of ‘leader’ in either passage?

  82. Kathy September 10, 2008 at 8:50 pm #

    WHY also, when kephale is used of husbands/man in 1 Co 11 and Eph 5, that Adam’s priority of creation is NEVER mentioned? Is not that where the idea of ‘headship’ somes from, Adam being created first? So, what?

  83. Don September 10, 2008 at 9:28 pm #

    Just to clarify, my understanding of one of the POSSIBLE meanings of kephale is leader, along with other possibilities. I do not think it means leader in Eph 5.

    P.S. 1 Cor 11:8 and 12 are refs to the woman being formed from the man in the garden. In this case, I think the head metaphor means source, the man in the garden was the source of the woman.

  84. Don September 10, 2008 at 9:36 pm #

    Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Esther, and others were leaders in the OT. Junia, Phoebe and others were leaders in the NT.

  85. Jason September 10, 2008 at 9:50 pm #

    Corrie says: “There is nothing honoring about reading into scripture one’s own bias and that is exactly what this anti-woman in positions of government is- bias. And I say this as someone who still believes that only males can be elders in the Church.”

    Once again, I find it impossible for anyone to not read some bias into the text. I know that the egalitarians on here will scream up and down that they do not. But they do, maybe worse than anyone else. Perhaps the inability to see one’s own biases leads you into further error. Yet it is always the egals that claim they can read without bias. I say it impossible…and very arrogant.

    To cite a great example of my point….

    Don says: “Just to clarify, my understanding of one of the POSSIBLE meanings of kephale is leader, along with other possibilities. I do not think it means leader in Eph 5.

    P.S. 1 Cor 11:8 and 12 are refs to the woman being formed from the man in the garden. In this case, I think the head metaphor means source, the man in the garden was the source of the woman.”

    Why does he “think” it does not mean something or why doe she reject it where it is clear? Because his bias will not allow him to see it.
    I just want people to admit they are reading the text through a lens. We all are.

    BTW, anyone can do linguistic and hermeneutical gymnastics to make any text say or not say what they want it to say. Goodness we see that in every thread on this issue.

    BTW (pt 2), Don please do not overstate your case (#84). I don’t think that argument holds up. Of course, I know I could never convince you of that. (Bias.)

  86. Adam Omelianchuk September 10, 2008 at 10:23 pm #

    I get a little suspicious when today’s complementarians make unified claims about what the church has “always taught” about women. Back then they saw them as inferior beings who naturally had an inferior role. Today’s “equal in being, different in role” stuff would have been nonsense to John Knox. Look what he wrote:

    “And first, where I affirm the empire of a woman to be a thing repugnant to nature, I mean not only that God, by the order of his creation, has spoiled woman of authority and dominion, but also that man has seen, proved, and pronounced just causes why it should be…. For who can deny but it is repugnant to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see? That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons shall nourish and keep the whole and strong? And finally, that the foolish, mad, and frenetic shall govern the discreet, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women, compared unto man in bearing of authority…. I except such as God, by singular privilege, and for certain causes known only to himself, has exempted from the common rank of women, and do speak of women as nature and experience do this day declare them. Nature, I say, does paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel, lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment. And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for the which not only they have removed women from rule and authority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of public office.”

  87. Don September 10, 2008 at 10:41 pm #

    Everyone has a worldview, which allows one to fill in gaps in a story, for example, and we often do that without even noticing it. To change worldviews it a major paradigm shift, for believers an example of this is often when they come to the Lord, but since it is likely that our worldview is not totally Biblical when were are new believers, this happens each time we conform more and more to a Biblical worldview.

    I do view the Bible thru an egal lens. And I can be wrong. Some ways I try to address the possibility of me being wrong:
    1. I try to study both sides on the egal/non-egal issue.
    2. I try not to interpret verses so that I would be advantaged over others.

  88. Denny Burk September 10, 2008 at 10:58 pm #

    Dear All,

    Complementarians and Egalitarians have been debating the meaning of KEPHALE for decades. Wayne Grudem has written most persuasively that KEPHALE means “authority” not “source.” He surveys 2,336 uses of KEPHALE in Greek literature to show that the meaning never is “source,” as the egalitarians argue.

    Grudem concludes:

    “There are still no unambiguous examples before or during the time of the New Testament in which kephale¯ has the metaphorical sense ‘source,’ and no lexicon specializing in the New Testament period lists such a meaning . . . In fact, we may well ask those who advocate the meaning ‘source’ an important question: Where is even one clear example of kephale¯ used of a person to mean ‘source’ in all of Greek literature before or during the time of the New Testament? Is there even one example that is unambiguous?”

    Read the whole thing here.

  89. Kathy September 11, 2008 at 12:05 am #

    While I do think that lexicons, and word studies are important, I don’t think any of that is as important than Paul’s own usage of the word for determining it’s meaning. (I do though enjoy very much the debate that still continues over it’s meaning)

    I’ve heard Grudem’s conclusions contradicted for years. I read both sides untel my head spun.

    So then how CAN we know for sure what kephale means aside the never ending debate? Context.

    What still remains, is it’s usage by Paul and lack of ANY contextual support for ‘authority’ or ‘leader’ within Eph 5 and 1 Co 11. And without this kind of support, even as the debate continues (as I think it should) WHAT is there?

    How did Paul use the word is the question of those passages on man/husband woman/wife. Paul’s context says nothing of the man leading, having authority, ruling or what have and of Adam being created first. So I think and believe that it is most important to stick to what his context DOES SAY and leave it at that without adding to scripture.

    And without contextual support there is no debate, REALLY. What else besides Paul’s own usage in context is the bottom line?

  90. Sue September 11, 2008 at 12:34 am #

    Um, have I been moderated? Here is my response to Grudem on kephale and hypotasso.

  91. Sue September 11, 2008 at 12:37 am #

    Guess my previous post misfired. To recap, out of 2,336 occurrences of kephale, only two indicate some kind of leadership.

    Notably Jephthah, in an irregular arrangement. The other is not really leadership but representation, and occurs 2 centuries after the NT.

    That is it. Oddly. There are no other cases of kephale referring to the leader of one’s own nation, people, tribe, or family.

    Curious.

  92. Sue September 11, 2008 at 12:42 am #

    I am deeply offended by the post at Gender blog here.

    I wrote and asked David Kotter to have that post revised to line up with the facts. He meant well but ultimately was unable to unravel what Grudem had written.

    There is no case of kehpale meaning “head of the nation” or “head of the people”.

    Kephale was the word used for a raiding party in Greek, which we can see in Job 1, so, in fact, it was not used to refer to the general of the army.

    The same problem with hypotasso. There are examples in Greek of where a king submits to his people. The claims in Grudem’s open letter to egalitarians are simply unsupported by fact.

  93. Corrie September 11, 2008 at 12:44 am #

    “I was hoping that he would have used the Scripture in Judges 4:9 to say that Israel was not honored by God because a woman was leading.”

    Judges 4:9 does not say this. It says that Barak will not get the honor because of the way HE is going about this.

    If anything it was because of Barak’s lack of faith since he would not simply obey the Lord’s directions to him through Deborah. He refused to OBEY the Lord unless Deborah also came with him. That was not part of the plan.

    God promised to give Sisera into Barak’s hands but Barak refused to obey and he certainly lacked faith in God and His word to him. He needed the strength of human flesh with him (Deborah) instead of trusting God alone.

    So, no, Judges 4:9 does NOT say that Israel was not honored because a woman was leading.

    It shows us that Barak didn’t get the honor because he lacked faith and he didn’t obey God unless Deborah caved into his demands.

  94. shepherd steve September 11, 2008 at 12:46 am #

    Wow, right after Denny’s explanation …
    A post about kephale that claims to shoot down “authority” because it isn’t in the context.

    That is an irresponsible statement to make when it is used of Jesus Himself in that verse in Ephesians to describe his relatiomship to the church. Listen, I know some of the solid theological training that Denny received (strong biblical languages, hermeneutics, biblical exposition) and I promise you that he understands this issue by being exegetically consistent. This is not a hobby for him but what he feels called to do. He isn’t just parroting someone’s argument but knows it well.

  95. Corrie September 11, 2008 at 12:53 am #

    Adam,

    I am so glad that you brought up Knox’s words from the “First Blast of the Trumpet”. In fact, that anonymous letter to the newspaper written by Knox is most loved by Doug Phillips and friends (ie., Voddie Baucham who appeared in a documentary, Monstrous Regiment of Women).

    Knox based his reasoning that women can’t be in secular rule on a woman’s very nature. His words are lies about women and their nature. It is hate speech against women and such language would not be tolerated if it were directed at African Americans and I don’t know why it is tolerated (and lauded!)by the Vision Forum/FIC camp.

    How anyone can promote this stuff and then claim to be a friend to women and respectful of women and their “role” is beyond me. I don’t believe it and, imho, it is speaking out of two sides of their mouth.

    If I promoted material which stated that African Americans are this, that and the other thing (all repugnant and derisive and extremely hateful) and their very nature shows us that they were unfit for this, that and the other thing and only fit for service to those who have a higher rank and then turn around and claim I love African Americans and consider them to be important in their “role”, people would be all over my rearend and for good reason.

    I have read through Knox’s “First Blast” and I am appalled that Phillips, Baucham, et al not only applaud but refer to it as PROOF that women shouldn’t bear rule in secular government.

    This alone should cause people to wonder what they really believe about women if they are willing to recommend such hateful diatribes against women.

  96. Sue September 11, 2008 at 1:02 am #

    Listen, I know some of the solid theological training that Denny received (strong biblical languages, hermeneutics, biblical exposition) and I promise you that he understands this issue by being exegetically consistent. This is not a hobby for him but what he feels called to do. He isn’t just parroting someone’s argument but knows it well.

    Then I think Denny should review the posts at gender blog. It is irresponsible to publish things that simply are not so.

    You should ask Denny for examples of kephale meaning leader of one’s own nation, tribe, family, etc. It is not a long list.

    He has not engaged in the debate on authenteo either. I have posted all the primary evidence and he has no interest. And yet, 1 Tim. 2:12 is the most quoted text restricting the ministry of women. Odd that he does not have the time.

  97. Jason September 11, 2008 at 1:44 am #

    Sue,

    Please don’t take offense at this, but do you honestly think a blog post refutes Grudem’s article?

    I read your response and I’m not sure what you think it proves.
    It doesn’t really disprove anything…and it doesn’t really prove anything.

    I still remain unconvinced of the egal interpretations of the verses in question in their context.

    Egals can make claims of alternate usages all they want but I have yet to see them make a coherent and consistent interpretation of all the passages in their context…that fits with ALL of Scripture…and believe me, I have read a LOT of egal material. The problem is there is so much linguistic gymnastics to make one verse fit their view that it makes no sense in the passage or book without adding scenarios (cultural statements, etc) that just are not there, and even then it doesn’t fit with other aspects of Scripture. That is one of the biggest egal flaws, IMO.

    But I’m sure I’ll be dismissed as some sort of woman-hater who can’t see through my own hatred of woman or something. That seems to be the general comeback to the complementarians by most on here. We’re all idiots. We all hate women. None of us has actually studied anything. We’re too biased. Blah blah blah.

  98. Sue September 11, 2008 at 2:03 am #

    Jason,

    some sort of woman-hater – Blah blah blah.

    This is not my style of language.

    I note that Denny does not actually claim that κεφαλη means authority, but only refutes the meaning of “source.” One should rather discuss whether kephale means αιτια or αρχη.

  99. Don September 11, 2008 at 7:55 am #

    Last I heard, neither Denny nor Grudem is claiming infallible interpretation. Sans that, the responsible thing to do is engage in discussion or decline due to lack of time.

    Grudem has been repudiated but keeps putting out papers, which in turn get repudiated. He is persistent but that does not mean he is correct.

  100. D.J. Williams September 11, 2008 at 8:13 am #

    I’m getting a bizarre sense of deja vu. 🙂

    Sad that we’ve descended into the same old territory again. Maybe there should be a 50 comment cap on all gender debate posts, because it seems nothing productive happens after that point anyway. 🙂

  101. Truth Unites... and Divides September 11, 2008 at 8:16 am #

    Grudem has been repudiated but keeps putting out papers, which in turn get repudiated. He is persistent but that does not mean he is correct.

    Let’s modify slightly.

    Don has been repudiated but keeps putting out comments, which in turn get repudiated. He is persistent but that does not mean he is correct.

    Sue has been repudiated but keeps putting out comments, which in turn get repudiated. She is persistent but that does not mean she is correct.

  102. Truth Unites... and Divides September 11, 2008 at 8:39 am #

    Grudem has been repudiated but keeps putting out papers, which in turn get repudiated. He is persistent but that does not mean he is correct.

    Let’s modify slightly.

    Sue
    has been repudiated but keeps putting out papers, which in turn get repudiated. She is persistent but that does not mean she is correct.

  103. Truth Unites... and Divides September 11, 2008 at 8:41 am #

    Grudem has been repudiated but keeps putting out papers, which in turn get repudiated. He is persistent but that does not mean he is correct.

    Let’s modify slightly.

    Don has been repudiated but keeps putting out comments, which in turn get repudiated. He is persistent but that does not mean he is correct.

  104. Don September 11, 2008 at 8:42 am #

    This is why I claim it is essential to study both sides, if you just read one side, you can come away with a false sense of:
    1) what the other side is even saying.
    2) the validity or invalidity of their arguments.
    3) what is the latest information.

    An example of this is Denny’s referring to a work of Grudem’s that has been repudiated.

  105. Don September 11, 2008 at 8:43 am #

    I agree that just because I am persistent does not mean I am correct. Persistence has nothing to do with correctness.

  106. Sue September 11, 2008 at 10:19 am #

    I lived in a comp environment for over 50 years. I think that I do know what comps believe.

    One day, I just flat out had the authenteo and kephale studies quoted to me. When I went and looked up the occurrences of authenteo and kephale in Greek, they simply did not line up with the way they were used in the studies. I cannot say that the conclusions are consistent with the evidence.

    I do not know how I have been refuted. This is déjà vu because no one has an answer. I finally realized that complementarianism is a choice that people make and is not related to evidence.

  107. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 10:34 am #

    “I have read through Knox’s “First Blast” and I am appalled that Phillips, Baucham, et al not only applaud but refer to it as PROOF that women shouldn’t bear rule in secular government.”

    Uh oh. When I see ‘Knox’ red flags go up. Not a nice guy but becoming quite popular with the hierarchalists or ‘Christian masculinists’ as I saw someone use on another blog. :o)

    Is this the same Knox who plotted murders (of Queen Mary) and succeeded in the plot to murder Lord Darnely, her husband? And the same Knox who married a 16 year old at 50 years of age. Believe it or not, that even hurt his reputation back then! Oh, and he wrote of the ‘monsterous regiment’ of women but was only too happy to conspire with Elizabeth 1 against Mary.

    Of course, the excuse is that he was only a ‘product’ of his time.

  108. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 11, 2008 at 10:53 am #

    I do not know how I have been refuted.

    Just because you personally don’t know how, doesn’t mean that you haven’t been genuinely refuted. Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean that it’s not there.

    This is déjà vu because no one has an answer.

    Repeating, just because you don’t see or understand the answer, doesn’t mean the answer isn’t there or hasn’t been provided to you.

    It’s similar to persuading a die-hard atheist. Just because the atheist doesn’t see or understand that the Holy Triune God exists as the Answer, it doesn’t mean objectively that the Answer doesn’t exist or hasn’t been provided to him or her.

    I finally realized that complementarianism is a choice that people make and is not related to evidence.

    And I long ago realized that egalitarianism is willful, sinful choice that people make and is not related to the evidence.

  109. Don September 11, 2008 at 11:05 am #

    I am egal exactly because I examined the evidence on both sides and came to a conclusion.

    I see it as entirely possible that masculinists are such due to the advantages that accrue to them for making that choice, but this is not a good reason to interpret the Bible that way.

    Exactly because of the supposed privilege of males, I would shy away from any such interpretation unless it was the only one possible. And it is far from the only one possible.

  110. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 11, 2008 at 11:20 am #

    I affirm historical complementarianism because this is what the whole counsel of Scripture clearly instructs and also what the historical Church has affirmed since the beginning of the NT Church.

    I see it as entirely likely that revisionist egalitarians advocate their unbiblical practice for the advantages that accrue to them for making that choice, but this is not a good reason to interpret the Bible that way.

    Exactly because Scripture is transcendent over culture, I would shy away from any such revisionist interpretation. And even more so because of the great divisiveness that revisionist egalitarianism has willfully inflicted upon the Church.

  111. shepherd steve September 11, 2008 at 11:22 am #

    “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.” Eph. 4:31
    Putting a label on someone {like a “masculinist”} that doesn’t agree with you (i.e. name calling) is not edifying for the Body of Christ.

    If someone doesn’t want to obey a command in Scripture, they don’t answer to me…
    they will answer to Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, the tone of this conversation is one that shouldn’t be acceptable here (because it definitely wouldn’t be acceptable in the church where I pastor & shouldn’t be acceptable in the local church). This is probably why I am a bit skeptical of theological discussions that take place in the comments section on someone else’s blog. Most people can make comments and remain anonymous, which allows them to not be held accountable for their actions. When you have to demonstrate that your walk with the Lord is consistent with your words (live w/ others in the same community & church), then teaching & reproof & correction is much more appropriate.

    Denny,
    I would admonish you to shut off the comment section of this blog entry because the tone in here is not very glorifying to God.

  112. Jason September 11, 2008 at 11:23 am #

    Don,

    Where has Grudem been “repudiated”??

    Just because someone responds does not mean they have “repudiated” anyone’s arguments.

    I, like you, have read tons of material on both sides of the argument…and I remain unconvinced of the feminist argument (2 can play the ‘name game’). As I have stated before I do not think your arguments fit with the context of the passages nor with the total record of the NT or the whole of Scripture. You can do fancy word play with the semantic range to make a word mean nothing, but then you haven’t really proven your point, you’ve just proved a word has been used differently somewhere in greek writings. That doesn’t help at all in deciding what Paul wrote. If you are working from the understanding that Scripture is true, consistent, and perspicuous then you have to reject any understanding that confounds or makes no sense of a text. I think feminist arguments (though sometimes plausible linguistically) are not well argued exegetically.

    I know some may disagree…but then again, that’s why there is a huge disagreement.

    I also reject that my bias is any stronger than someone who claims to have been hurt by men and thus spends their life seeking to explore a feminist understanding of scripture. I mean, if someone cannot see that bias, then they are self-deluded. We live in a society that has fully imbibed from the fountain of feminism, am I shocked when people can’t shake free of that and import tat into Scripture? No.

  113. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 11, 2008 at 11:31 am #

    CNN Reporter Labels Voddie Baucham a “Sexist”

    Just because Pastor Voddie upholds Scripture’s teachings regarding the complementary roles and relationships of men and women doesn’t make him a “sexist”.

    P.S. I’m one of many pro-life complementarians happily voting for Sarah Palin on the McCain-Palin ticket.

  114. Don September 11, 2008 at 11:42 am #

    From m-w.com

    masculinist
    noun
    Date: 1918
    : an advocate of male superiority or dominance
    — masculinist adjective

    Masculinist is not a disparaging term and is not name calling anyone. I am sorry if some have taken it that way, but that was not my intent. It is a descriptive term and I was using it correctly. I was not using it in anger or bitterness.

    I try to take the whole counsel of God in my understanding; from that whole understanding I am egal. I discuss my understanding of teaching units when they arise.

  115. Don September 11, 2008 at 11:52 am #

    I believe that all Scripture is true and consistent. Except for possibly prophecy, it was perspicuous to the original reader or readers; this does not mean it is so today, we have to work harder.

    For example, Jesus said many things to 1st century Jews; as I am a 21st century gentile I need to do my best to learn to think like a 1st century Jew to best understand some of the things Jesus said.

  116. Sue September 11, 2008 at 12:00 pm #

    I am not anonymous, nor do I accuse anyone of anything. I invite Denny and anyone else interested to engage with the primary evidence. No one has taken me up on this.

    Denny did ask someone to paraphrase pieces of someone else’s book for this blog. He has not engaged with the evidence on either authenteo or kephale. He introduces these texts and these studies, (not me) but does not take responsibility for seeing that they are used according to what the evidence demonstrates.

    I have emailed CBMW and appealed to them to make the necessary corrrections.

    I believe that complementarianism must accord with facts and be respectful of the evidence. Then it can properly take its place and be open to dialogue.

  117. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 11, 2008 at 12:09 pm #

    Sue: “…nor do I accuse anyone of anything. …

    He [Denny] has not engaged with the evidence on either authenteo or kephale.”

    Dear Denny,

    Sue is not accusing you of anything, but is it true that you have not engaged with the evidence on either authenteo or kephale?

    A simple “Yes, it’s true” or “No, it’s not true” will suffice.

    Thanks in advance.

    Thanks

  118. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm #

    Shepherd Steve, Would referring to someone as a ‘feminist’ bring the same rebuke from you?

  119. volfan007 September 11, 2008 at 12:27 pm #

    Way to go, Vodie! I really appreciate when godly men and women will stand for the truth of God’s Word without flinching. In our day and time, when so many are trying their best to re-write the Bible to fit the culture of the day, thank God for men like Vodie and Denny Burk.

    David

  120. Don September 11, 2008 at 12:47 pm #

    On the terms masculinist and feminist, Grudem wrote a book, “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth”. He disagreed with those who hold to Evangelical Feminism, that is, with Evangelical Feminists, but NOT FOR A SECOND do I think that Grudem is trying to INSULT them by using this descriptive term.

  121. shepherd steve September 11, 2008 at 12:49 pm #

    I will answer two questions that were posed but I think any further questions can be addressed by going directly to my webpage and e-mailing me.
    Don,
    you said this about “masculinist”

    From m-w.com

    masculinist
    noun
    Date: 1918
    : an advocate of male superiority or dominance
    — masculinist adjective

    That is putting a label on me that I don’t adhere to or believe. We are all equal in Christ and having different roles in marriage or the local church doesn’t change that reality. Leading like Christ isn’t lording it over others or being dominant but seeking to honor Christ by doing His will. So, yes Don this is name calling.

    In regards to Lydia,
    you said: Shepherd Steve, Would referring to someone as a ‘feminist’ bring the same rebuke from you?

    My comments were directed to everybody on this board. I simply used the label that was attributed to me.

    I will not respond to any other questions on this blog. If you really have a question, you can go to my podcast & e-mail me one. Otherwise, I think it is best for most here to drop the subject.

  122. Truth Unites.. and Divides September 11, 2008 at 12:57 pm #

    Otherwise, I think it is best for most here to drop the subject.

    I’ll gladly follow Shepherd Steve’s counsel for this particular thread.

    I shally simply and humbly rejoice in the fact that Sovereign God gets the last word.

  123. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 12:57 pm #

    “My comments were directed to everybody on this board. I simply used the label that was attributed to me.”

    I feel your pain…err…I mean anger. :o)

    We know what it is like to be labeled. It is not nice, is it? But thanks for not answering the direct question. Somehow, I have a hunch you are not upset when women are referred to as ‘feminists’.

    No questions for you. Just observations. :o)

  124. Don September 11, 2008 at 1:07 pm #

    Again, I looked up dominance on m-w.com, the first def is:

    1: the fact or state of being dominant: as a: dominant position especially in a social hierarchy

    As far as I can tell, the non-egals claim the male is to decide in a marriage, in other words they are in a dominant position in a social hierarchy. This is not an insult, this is just stating the obvious. If this is not true, then I am willing to be corrected.

    I do not see how a sinful person act like Jesus all the time, it is when they do not that things become problematical.

  125. Benjamin A September 11, 2008 at 1:21 pm #

    Hey Sue,

    Glad to see you joined the conversation. By the way, you have been engaged regarding your understanding or authento; others just disagree with how you understand its usage in other context. Your claim that no one has engaged you on this simply isn’t true.

    By the way, I would like to know your thoughts about Don’s understanding of ‘being submissive’ from Ephesians 5:21. If you didn’t read his post #57, you need to check it out there. I will give just a sampling of it here…

    Don said, “On the verb in Eph 5:21, Paul is doing a new thing, not seen before in any Hebrew or Greek text. He is crafting a new concept from existing words. If you do not bring that new concept verb down, you miss part of what Paul is trying to do, IMO.
    What he calls Paul’s new thing, is to take both the verb and noun of v.21 and make them together the implied verb for v.22. Clearly, this would be new and something not seen anywhere before. That much is true.

    Knowing how much you love the language, I wanted your thoughts on this. Do you agree with Don and believe “Paul is doing a new thing, not seen before in any Hebrew or Greek text”?

    Is this is the type of exegesis needed to reach the egal. position?

    When and if you disagree with your egal. brethren are you able to be as bold in your pronouncements against them as you are against your comp. brethren? Or would you remain silent as long as your agenda is being advanced; regardless the compromise? What say you???

  126. Don September 11, 2008 at 1:43 pm #

    Here is how Bruce Fleming teaches about Eph 5:21-22.

    CHAPTER 3: “Christian Submitting” (Eph 5:21)
    Telling a new truth in verse 21
    In verse 21, Paul adds a fourth and final verb to
    complete his description of how Spirit-filled Christians
    should act. No available word fits what he wants to
    describe. So he does the next best thing. He takes the
    common Greek verb – “to submit” – and modifies it.
    Christians encountered a similar difficulty when it
    came to finding the right word to describe “God’s love.”
    God’s love is more than “brotherly love” or “erotic love.”
    To describe God’s love, Christians took the Greek word
    – agape – and filled it with theological meaning until it
    came to mean “God’s way of loving.”

    First, to turn the verb “to submit” into a Christian
    action, Paul makes the verb reflexive. This shows that it
    is something one does of his, or her, own accord (to
    submit oneself).
    Then, he adds the reciprocal pronoun “to-one-another.”
    This means each one is intentionally behaving
    this way to the other. The result seems at first to be a
    no-win situation. In practice, however, it turns out to be a
    wonderful win-win behavior! This unique action may be
    described as follows:
    While I am submitting myself to you
    and you are submitting yourself to me
    we are submitting ourselves
    each one to the other

    Not a hierarchical submission. In ordinary
    language, normally when one person is submitting to
    another person this submission is imposed on them and
    is against their own will. Normally this means the other
    person ends up being “on top,” or “in charge,” or
    imposing their will on the person who submits. The
    person submits ends up being “on the bottom,” as “a
    follower,” and implementing the will of the other.
    But the kind of Christian submitting described in
    verse 21 is the action of two (or more) persons who are
    each submitting themselves to the other, at the same
    time other person is simultaneously submitting to them!
    This was not only difficult to say in Greek, it is hard to say
    in English as well. Perhaps it can best be called
    “reciprocating submission.”

    To make it clear that reciprocating submission is a
    uniquely Christian behavior, Paul adds a final phrase to
    verse 21. Here again he is forced to improvise.
    He takes the common biblical phrase – “in the fear of
    God” – and turns it into – “in the fear of Christ.” This is the
    only place in the New Testament to use this expression.
    This way of submitting-oneself one-to-another is
    motivated by God who wills us to interact this way. We
    are empowered to do this by the indwelling power of the
    Spirit of Christ (5:18b).

    Thus, this behavior is not only
    1) a willing self-submission (the reflexive verb)
    2) a mutual behavior (the reciprocal pronoun),
    3) it is also a Christian action (the final phrase).

    Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian, Professor Emeritus of New
    Testament, Wheaton College (IL), and co-founder of
    Willow Creek Church, describes this way of interacting
    (Beyond Sex Roles, Baker, pp. 154-156) as follows:
    “Being subject to one another” is a very different
    relationship from “being subject to the other.” …
    Being subject to one another is only possible among
    equals. … the reciprocity of such relationships
    renders hierarchical distinctions irrelevant within the
    Christian communities of church and family.

    Verse 21 illustrated by two sets of examples
    Paul creatively constructs verse 21 in such a way as
    to successfully describe the Christian action of
    submitting-reciprocally one-to-another, But, it is another
    thing for his readers to grasp the implications of this new
    kind of behavior.
    To illustrate his meaning, Paul adds two strings of
    examples, which complete the rest of this “walk”
    section. All of these verses (22-6:9) flow from verse 21
    and serve as a commentary on it.
    Scholars have pointed this out in various ways.
    – [Verse 21] functions as a heading for the entire
    section, 5:22-6:9…. (Sampley, p. 10)
    – The unique message of Ephesians is silenced
    whenever the dominant position of verse 21 …
    and the peculiarly startling content of this verse
    are neglected. (Markus Barth, p. 608, 610)

    The unique phrase using the word “fear” at the end
    of verse 21 introduces an illustrative section on Christ
    and the church in verses 22-31. Paul uses the word
    “fear” to introduce his second illustrative section as well
    in 33-6:9. In these 21 verses, everything works together
    to illustrate Paul’s new verb – submitting reciprocally.

  127. Don September 11, 2008 at 1:52 pm #

    In his book, Fleming extends his explanation.

    First he makes the verb a participle, an -ing verb, like the 3 previous, these are all lifestyle verbs, something that Christians are doing continuously, being filled with the Spirit.

    Second, he makes the verb reflexive. This means it isn an action taken because one chooses to do it, as in “I am submitting myself.”

    Third, the verb is plural reflexive participle, meaning we are submitting ourselves. Thus each Christian is to submit to every other Christian. Making this plural means this behavior is reciprocal. As Foulkes in Ephesians, p. 154 “There must be a willingness in the Christian fellowship to serve any, to learn from any, to be corrected by any, regardless of age, sex, class or any other division.”

    Fourth, Paul modifies this verb with a reciprocal pronoun. The reciprocal meaning is already included in the reflexive participle, but Paul makes it explicit by adding this pronoun. This is one word in Greek but if usually translated as “to-one-another”.

    In this way, to describe the reality of the Christian life, Paul creates a new verb with a uniquely Christian meaning.

  128. Benjamin A September 11, 2008 at 1:55 pm #

    Don,

    You certainly are persistent!

    That’s a good character trait to possess.

    Thanks for the information down load!

  129. Don September 11, 2008 at 1:58 pm #

    I tried to duck an extensive discussion, but your asking Sue made me rethink that idea.

    I hope no one finds it too much.

  130. Benjamin A September 11, 2008 at 2:34 pm #

    Don,

    This is what I find utterly amazing from your analysis and would like to hear from your fellow non-comps. about. Are they willing to say something this unbelievable?
    “In this way, to describe the reality of the Christian life, Paul creates a new verb with a uniquely Christian meaning.

    A new verb with a uniquely Christian meaning? WOW!

    And then to pull that NEW verb and meaning [being submissive to one another- all as the VERB?] into v.22 “the wives [implied verb; being submissive to one another] to their own husbands as to the Lord”
    That doesn’t even make sense. Are the wives to be submissive to one another AND to their own husbands…?

    This is what has forced you into believing and stating that Jesus is in submission to His church (see v.24 and the only logical conclusion- unless of course you decide to limit the usefulness of this new verb and state that it doesn’t apply to Christ and His church.) Which we know you haven’t done but instead have stated that Christ did/does indeed submit to His church.

    Question: Is Christ’s submission to His church something all egals. hold to??

  131. Don September 11, 2008 at 2:40 pm #

    I do not speak for all egals. I am egal and Jesus submits to me in many ways, the largest was in dieing for me.

    I recommend you read John 13 carefully and see what is the case if you do not let Jesus serve you, which is a form of submission.

  132. Don September 11, 2008 at 2:43 pm #

    Jesus is both savior (which is a serving function) and Lord (which is a leading function). Both are true, in some cases the Bible discusses only one of them in a section.

  133. Sue September 11, 2008 at 3:08 pm #

    Glad to see you joined the conversation. By the way, you have been engaged regarding your understanding or authento; others just disagree with how you understand its usage in other context. Your claim that no one has engaged you on this simply isn’t true.

    No, actually no one has engaged in a discussion of the evidence. It is on my blog, google “philodemus fragment” and “BGU 1208”.

    If you can find anyone who has discussed the evidence, I would be very interested.

    Dr. Kostenberger says that there are one or two pieces of evidence for authenteo, and that it could be either positive or negative. He does not cite the evidence.

    But there is only one occurrence and it is negative.

    He also says that there are “virtually” no negative occurrences of didaskein in the pastoral epistles, but there is one in Titus 1.

    No one else has discussed these discrepancies.

    Three points

    1. authenteo is a negative thing to do
    2. hypotasso can be from the strong to the weak, see Clement and 2 Macc.
    3. kephale cannot be shown to mean “authority”

  134. Jason September 11, 2008 at 3:19 pm #

    Don says: “I do not speak for all egals. I am egal and Jesus submits to me in many ways, the largest was in dieing for me.

    I recommend you read John 13 carefully and see what is the case if you do not let Jesus serve you, which is a form of submission.”

    This is what you end up with with egalitarian convictions.

    Scary…and even egals know this is a scary thing to say despite their ability to say it with a straight face.

    Don, thank you for proving my point about faulty egalitarian exegesis.

  135. Don September 11, 2008 at 3:23 pm #

    And exactly what was faulty? I missed you saying what it was.

    You may not have heard of it before, but that does not mean it is faulty.

  136. Jason September 11, 2008 at 3:34 pm #

    Well, I guess technically it is someone else’s exegesis that you cut and pasted. (What was that someone else was saying about relying on what we read?)

    But I am talking about the idea that Jesus submits to us.

    That is a faulty conclusion based on your exegesis of Eph 5. This is what I meant by how the fancy egalitarian linguistic wordplay doesn’t fit within the context of the passages the verses are found in. You end up with conclusions that make no sense, such as Jesus submits to us. Other than your faulty exegesis of Eph 5, you have reason to ever say that Jesus submits to us. It doesn’t fit with the total testimony of Scripture about our King.

    Thanks for proving my point,

    BTW, you can stop the condescension (“you may have never heard of it before”) because I’m not some kid who heard a sermon on comp/egal once and just believed everything I heard.

  137. Benjamin A September 11, 2008 at 3:36 pm #

    Sue,

    From a previous post you submitted-

    “BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): I had my way with him [authenteō ] and he agreed to provide Catalytis the boatman with the full payment within the hour.
    This is the ONLY example of authenteo preceding the epistle. Baldwin classified the meaning under “compel.”

    Compel: Webster’s 9th; “1. to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly; 2. To cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure; 3. Archaic: to drive together”.

    I submit that compel is morally neutral and could have either a positive and/or negative meaning with its use depending on context.

    The example from BGU 1208 appears to me NOT to be negative. Whoever the “he” of this line was, “he” needed to be compelled to do something (provide Catalytis the boatman with the full payment) for the benefit of others.

    Be more specific as to why you feel this example of authenteo MUST be negative.

    Sue,

    In your post #34 you said, “Authenteo is neutral when refering to the neutral absolute power of the master over the slave, ruler over the ruled, God over people, the Spirit over people, a planet over people.
    Where is authenteo neutral for one person over another?
    This word means to have or take over power.”
    Authenteo is neutral when referring to absolute power of:
    3. Master over the slave. A master is a person and a slave is a person. Authenteo is either negative or positive depending on how the Master (one person) treats the slave (another person). Your question was, “Where is authenteo neutral for one person over another?” Your own statement gives you the answer.
    4. Ruler over the ruled. *Apply same logic as above (see #1) [one person over another].

    Authenteo does not mean “to have or take over power”.
    Authenteo simply means “to have authority” or “to exercise authority” and is morally neutral; relying on context for positive or negative overtones. And if one wants to push for the meaning ‘compel’, that’s fine too because ‘compel’ is also morally neutral dependant on context for either positive or negative overtones.

    There’s not one shred of proof that authenteo MUST be inherently negative regardless of context. NONE.

    So, to say we haven’t been down this road before just isn’t true.

  138. Benjamin A September 11, 2008 at 3:41 pm #

    Sue,

    Also, you didn’t answer the main portion of my post directed your way.

  139. Don September 11, 2008 at 3:53 pm #

    As I pointed out, we need to allow Jesus to serve us per John and serving another is one way to submit to them. How exactly is this faulty?

    Just claiming something is faulty does not make it faulty.

    I am not trying to be condescending, but so far you have made claims without any reasoning to back them up.

  140. Sue September 11, 2008 at 3:55 pm #

    Benjamin A,

    Master over the slave

    You clearly believe that slavery is morally neutral. That is fine, but lets be open about where this is leading.

    Is leadership in the church equivalent to the control of master over slave? Yes or no?

  141. Jason September 11, 2008 at 4:06 pm #

    Don, I think the onus is on you to prove your point. Not on me to disprove it. You’re the one making the assertion that service=submission and that any way in which Christ might serve us denotes submission to us.

  142. Benjamin A September 11, 2008 at 4:12 pm #

    Sue,

    Why create rabbit trails? Stay focused.

    1. You said no one ever engaged your evidence on authenteo. I just demonstrated to you that you were wrong.

    2. I specifically asked you about Don’s idea of Paul creating a new word in Ephesians 5:21. Just say that you don’t want to go there and I will be fine.

  143. Don September 11, 2008 at 4:22 pm #

    I picked up the idea from scholars I agree with, it was not original with me, just to clarify.

  144. Benjamin A September 11, 2008 at 4:27 pm #

    Sue,

    Authenteo is morally neutral.

    Authenteo simply means “to have authority” or “to exercise authority” and is morally neutral; relying on context for positive or negative overtones.

    Which gives credence to Grudem’s statement that

    “we have never seen any CLEAR example in ancient Greek literature where authenteō MUST mean “domineer’ or “misuse authority.’”

    Clearly authenteo DOES NOT have to mean what you want it to mean.

  145. Don September 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm #

    On Jesus submitting to me and Jesus washing the disciples’ feet, one needs to know the 1st century context. Feet got dirty because people wore sandals and the streets had animals and their excrement on them. The LOWEST slave in the household had the duty of washing the feet of those who entered, for obvious reasons. Jesus is doing the task of the LOWEST slave. This is why Peter objects. Jesus further says if one does not let him do this, he has no part in them.

  146. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 4:41 pm #

    “Authenteo is morally neutral”

    Why do we see it only used once in the NT? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit use another clear word for ‘authority’ over that we could all see clearly that is what was meant? There are several to chose from that would have been very clear.

  147. Don September 11, 2008 at 4:46 pm #

    Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
    Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
    Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

    Who is Jesus a servant to while on earth?

  148. Don September 11, 2008 at 4:51 pm #

    Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
    Mat 20:26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
    Mat 20:27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,
    Mat 20:28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    Who is Jesus serving?

  149. Benjamin A September 11, 2008 at 4:52 pm #

    Matthew 28:18 Jesus, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”

    Jesus the ultimate SERVANT-LEADER!!

  150. Don September 11, 2008 at 4:58 pm #

    Yes, Jesus is a servant leader, but some things he does are serving things and some things he does are leading things.

  151. Jason September 11, 2008 at 5:08 pm #

    Lydia siad: “Why do we see it only used once in the NT? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit use another clear word for ‘authority’ over that we could all see clearly that is what was meant? There are several to chose from that would have been very clear.”

    Are we now standing in judgment of God’s Word?

  152. Don September 11, 2008 at 5:12 pm #

    No, the question is WHY did Paul use an unusual word if he was just talking about normal authority?

    My take is that there was a meaning to this word at Ephesus and Paul is using words used at Ephesus in this pericope.

  153. Jason September 11, 2008 at 5:28 pm #

    Don,

    Can you show that service=submission? Other than asserting it, I think not.

    Most egalitarians reject this notion as extreme.

    You have confused the biblical teachings of submission and servant leadership.

    BTW, yes, I have read on this subject too. I read Alan Padgett’s ETS paper on this subject. I thought he was dangerously off-base then, just as I think you are now.

    This idea is crazy…yet it is further proof of my earlier statement that egals end up denying overarching teachings of Scripture because of their stubbornness to twist individual passages to not say what they clearly say.

  154. Don September 11, 2008 at 5:32 pm #

    I NEVER claimed service=submission, that is your misquoting me and since you have now done it twice I ask you to stop.

    I wrote that serving another is an EXAMPLE of submission. There are many many other examples of submission. Submission is to be a mark of a believer, as it was a mark of Jesus. Helping carry another’s too heavy burden, for example.

    I am frankly astounded that you do not see serving another as an example of submitting to them.

  155. Jason September 11, 2008 at 5:41 pm #

    OK…can you prove that serving others is an EXAMPLE of submission??

    I think serving others is an example of service.
    I think what Christ did on the cross is called sacrifice, not submission.

    And since Scripture never uses submission to talk about what Christ does to us…I think you should avoid it as well.

    I’m astounded you continually make arguments that Scripture makes.

    Prove your usage is valid.

  156. Jason September 11, 2008 at 5:42 pm #

    Check that…I meant: I’m astounded you continually make arguments that Scripture DOES NOT make.

    (That’s why you should not edit mid-thought.)

  157. Lydia September 11, 2008 at 5:55 pm #

    “Jesus the ultimate SERVANT-LEADER!!”

    Here we go bringing modern cultural thinking into scripture.

    Jesus is not a ‘servant-leader’, He is God. He made Himself a servant while the Incarnate Son.

  158. Corrie September 11, 2008 at 5:58 pm #

    Hi Jason,

    I believe Wayne Grudem teaches in his Systematic Theology that when he serves someone, like a boy who needs his bike fixed, he is being subordinate (submissive) to him. That is in the section about God as ezer and how God is even subordinate to those He ezers. Of course this comes out of the comp assertion that being an ezer necessarily denotes subordination.

  159. Don September 11, 2008 at 6:06 pm #

    Jesus did the task of the lowest slave in washing the disciples’ feet. This was a serving act, not a leading act except to show the way of serving others for the disciples and the need to be willing to do the lowest task.

    The disciples did need to have their feet washed, they had been walking outside, they just did not expect Jesus to be the one to do it.

    If you do NOT see this act of service as submission by Jesus to the disciples, what do you see it as?

  160. Sue September 11, 2008 at 6:16 pm #

    1. You said no one ever engaged your evidence on authenteo. I just demonstrated to you that you were wrong.

    There were two pieces of evidence.

    1. Philodemus – to have authority

    This one was proven to not exist.

    2. BGU 1208 – to compel

    This was never categorized by anyone at all as “to have authority” but only “to compel.” It was not used as evidence for “to have authority” by Grudem, Baldwin or Kostenberger.

    So, there is no evidence that has been categorized in a scholarly article as “to have authority.” This is how it stands today.

    I think that both Kostenberger and Wallace now say that there is too little evidence to give authenteo any meaning at all and they then claim that didaskein “virtually” always has a positive connotation. However, in Titus 1:11 didaskein has a clear negative connotation.

  161. Sue September 11, 2008 at 6:17 pm #

    Corrie,

    You are right, Grudem does teach that God is subordinate to those he helps, when he is in the act of helping them.

  162. Sue September 11, 2008 at 6:20 pm #

    Benjamin,

    Until there is a scholarly published discussion of BGU 1208, it must be accepted that authenteo is used in a “hostile” relationship in this occurrence. Please see the note in the Appendix of Ev. Fem. and Biblical Truth, where Grudem concedes that authenteo is likely denoting a hostile relationship in this instance. This has never been refuted in print.

    We are left with only this occurrence and this is the conclusion, that authenteo is hostile, it is how a cruel master treats his slaves. See Hippolytus for that reference.

  163. Stewart Good September 11, 2008 at 6:21 pm #

    Voddie has it right. However, the scripture being quoted talks about the home and having a position of authority in the church. As Christ is the head of the church so is the man the head of the wife. This is not referring to political position. It is referring to a line of authority and responsibility. Only in Christianity does the woman achieve the highest position. Christianity demands the husband lay down is life–something I don’t thing any other religion requires. This could be interpreted as the Servant Leader

  164. Kathy September 11, 2008 at 6:41 pm #

    Sheperd steve says:
    ‘Wow, right after Denny’s explanation …
    A post about kephale that claims to shoot down “authority” because it isn’t in the context.’

    Maybe you missed my comment above Denny’s and the point being that what is not in the context, is simply not in the context There is no contextual support for either ‘leader’ or ‘authority’.

    ‘That is an irresponsible statement to make when it is used of Jesus Himself in that verse in Ephesians to describe his relatiomship to the church.’

    Are we members of the body of Immanuel?

    In Eph 5, Paul DOES describe CHRIST’S relationship as kephale of the church, his body and within that description there is not a word on leading or authority. Rather, Paul gives us a picture of Christ giving himself up for the church and loving the church NOT leading or ruling the church. Now if I were to go past what Paul has written and insert into the context a concept of ‘rule’, ‘leadership’ or ‘authority’ that is not provided by Paul THEN I would be being irresponsible.

    ‘Listen, I know some of the solid theological training that Denny received (strong biblical languages, hermeneutics, biblical exposition) and I promise you that he understands this issue by being exegetically consistent. This is not a hobby for him but what he feels called to do. He isn’t just parroting someone’s argument but knows it well.’

    Bottom line, neither claim infallability.

  165. Corrie September 11, 2008 at 7:13 pm #

    Sue,

    Thanks for confirming what I repeated from memory.

    I guess that subordinate would equal submissive, no?

    Also, I am not sure how we canNOT equate being a slave, especially the lowest of all slaves- a foot-washing slave- as being anything but an extreme act of subordination/submission?

    This was the example Jesus left for each one of us to follow. He told us that we shouldn’t be like the heathen who lord our authority over others but we should consider ourselves a servant to all.

    Jesus tells us in Matthew 20:27 that whomever will be chief among you, let them be your servant.

    The word is doulos which means slave, man of servile condition. It also says that this person will be devoted to others to the disregard of one’s own interests.

    I would define that as a submissive attitude.

    Does this submission apply to everyone with the exception to marriage where only one does the serving/submitting and the other does the receiving? The definition of doulos sounds suspiciously like the command to husbands to give up their lives for their wife.

    I am not sure how we can ignore the very reality that being a slave necessitates being submissive to the ones that slave is serving.

    Jesus, our Master, left us an example to follow. He never left us the example of being Lord and Master to follow but of being slave/servant. This theme is carried over in Eph 5.

    Jesus, for a time, emptied Himself and did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped. He had that equality with God but He laid it aside for a time in order to die that we may all live. It is during this time that He left us an example to follow. Why are some of us thinking it is our job to be like Him in His glorified nature as Lord, Creator and Master in our homes when Jesus told us to be like a servant to others, even those who wish to be CHIEF among their homes.

    Being a servant to others is actually serving them. It is not a code word for “leadership”. It means real submissive service where one is putting the needs of others above their own desires, wants and wishes.

  166. Kathy September 11, 2008 at 7:15 pm #

    There is also a negative occurrence of didaskein in Revelation. Jezebel was a false teacher. The context shows that didaskein there is negative.

  167. Kathy September 11, 2008 at 7:33 pm #

    Matthew 28:18 Jesus, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”

    Jesus the ultimate SERVANT-LEADER!!’

    That’s correct, Jesus is the ultimate servant-leader and ALL male or female, are to follow Jesus being servants to one another. It is correct that JESUS is the ultimate servant-learder since he IS Christ (a servent function) AND Lord (a leading function). But husbands are NOT compared to Christ AS Lord in any way. Husbands are kephale (not kurios) of their wives as CHRIST is kephale of the church.

    To think or believe that Paul is comparing husbands to Christ’s AS Lord is entirely non-scriptural.

  168. Sue September 11, 2008 at 7:33 pm #

    He told us that we shouldn’t be like the heathen who lord our authority over others but we should consider ourselves a servant to all.

    Yes, that is authenteo. We shouldn’t do it, and Chrysostom said that a husband must never do it to a wife.

  169. Kathy September 11, 2008 at 7:43 pm #

    ‘If you do NOT see this act of service as submission by Jesus to the disciples, what do you see it as?’

    Good question, Don.

  170. Sue September 11, 2008 at 7:44 pm #

    Kathy,

    There is also a negative occurrence of didaskein in Revelation. Jezebel was a false teacher. The context shows that didaskein there is negative.

    What is very odd is that Dr. Kostenberger said that there was no occurrence of didaskein that was negative *in the pastoral epistles.” This is to match 1 and 2 Timothy, just in case someone says that they are not written by Paul. It is a “covering all bases” kind of clause. However, there is a negative occurrence of didaskein in Titus, which is a pastoral epistle.

    So what really bothers me is that complementarians do not feel that they are accountable to anyone to be exact. They know that the desire of some to believe in complementarianism is overpowering.

  171. Sue September 12, 2008 at 12:41 am #

    Grudem writes,

    “we have never seen any CLEAR example in ancient Greek literature where authenteō MUST mean “domineer’ or “misuse authority.’”

    Yet, in the footnote of Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, page 680, Dr. Grudem mentions that other translators suggest “prevail” and claim that this is a hostile relationship involving insolence.

    Here is Baldwin on BGU 1208,

    In BGU 1208 the influence the writer exercises is based on his authority over his own funds and property. He is seeking to get what he considers an honest payment made to a boatman for services rendered in transferring his sheep across the Nile.

    Note that the person who is the subject of the verb is a citizen who is trying to get someone else to do something. He has no judiciary authority. He is upset that the person did not make the payment in the first place. The subject of the verb is not doing something wrong, but he is seeking to coerce the other person to make a payment. It is a hostile relationship.

    There is no hint here that authenteo is a behaviour which belongs to the proper exercise of authority in govt or church. There is a high likelihood that authenteo means simply “to coerce.”

    Therefore, egalitarians rightly point out that they do have a view of the scripture which accords with the facts as we have them.

    I would like to keep the focus on scholarly technical points, since interpretation can not properly be discussed among people who do not share a common set of basis facts.

    There needs to be some recognition of the fact that “to exercize authority,” while in the lexicon, is unsupported by evidence in literature contemporary with the NT.

  172. Brian (Another) September 12, 2008 at 10:26 am #

    Y’all write a lot. Which is good, I suppose, in a way. Most of this gives me tired head. I did have a few thoughts while reading another 100+ comment thread, though. I know this will give others tired head, too. Sorry for the very large chunk of writing (I was really trying originally to follow Shepherd Steve’s advice as I think it was a great comment).

    1)* Regarding authenteo, a. Seeking a fair wage is not coercion. I properly am seeking fair wages. I hold the authority to seek my wages. While not an “on the books law”, I do have legal (non-domineering) authority. b. a natural order of authority (e.g. the planets discussion) is ordered (dominance), not arbitrarily ruling (domineering). c) As far as master over slaves, it is, in the case of the writings (if I understand) a legal matter (Masters over slaves). And, again, to blatantly steal from Dr. Burk (vis-à-vis Chris Cowan, vis-à-vis Dr. Baldwin) there is a difference between “masters lord it savagely over servants” and “brutal masters have authority over servants”. From what I’ve read, yes, it can be a proper to assume a neutral meaning. Of course, given that I haven’t had Greek studies, I believe my lack of knowledge would discount me from this discussion.
    2) Minor quibble, Sue:

    “we have never seen any CLEAR example in ancient Greek literature where authenteō MUST mean “domineer’ or “misuse authority.’”
    Yet, in the footnote of Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, page 680, Dr. Grudem mentions that other translators suggest “prevail” and claim that this is a hostile relationship involving insolence.

    The adjective “clear” falls directly in line with the concept of “suggests”. While disputed passages may seem “clear” to you, they do not to other scholars. Dr. Grudem’s comment says that the meaning of “compel” does not seem appropriate (i.e. Dr. Grudem did not claim it was a hostile relationship). For your statement to hold authority (authenteo) over opinions, Dr. Grudem would have had to have said “we have never seen any other scholar translate authenteo as hostile.” To quote someone else on this blog, I ask you to retract your statement.
    3) Regarding didasko, I’m not familiar with the reference in Revelation, but in Titus 1:11, the teaching is still not negative. In order for the phrase to become negative, it had to include the (I’ll just use the English translation) for personal gain things they shouldn’t teach. It would make sense that the use of the greek work for “false teaching” would have been used if it were a neither/nor construction (plus why would Paul only eliminate that for a woman, but that’s another discussion).
    4) Regarding the God/man relationship as master/slave, aren’t we called bondslaves of Christ?
    5) Again, I’m not a scholar, so I apologize for the very blatant use of concepts from others. I also don’t see it (to reference others) as a bad thing as some have stated before (or, rather, the implication that it is somehow anti-intellectual).
    6) I enjoyed this:

    “If men and women are equally in the image of God, then we are equally important and equally valuable to God. We have equal worth before Him for all eternity, for this is how we were created. This truth should exclude all our feelings of pride or inferiority, and should exclude any idea that one sex is better or worse than the other. In contrast to many non-Christian cultures and religions, no one should feel proud or superior because he is a man, and no one should feel disappointed or inferior because she is a woman. If God thinks us to be equal in value, then that settles forever the question of personal worth, for God’s evaluation is the true standard of personal value for all eternity.”

    As Paul and others have said before, pizza.

    * – I’m directly thieving from Dr. Burk’s references in an earlier thread, but it’s very concise and easy to reference. Plus writing out all that has been discussed would wind up being too repetitive. But I’m repeating already……

  173. Sue September 12, 2008 at 11:27 am #

    No Brian, it has nothing at all to do with seeking wages. Please refer to BGU 1208, and what it actually says. Grudem admits it is a hostile encounter including insolence. Why are you tidying it up for him? Is your Greek better than Grudem’s?

    Hipplytus, more later, but clearly authenteo is something that cruel masters do. It has a negative connotation. That is what connotation means. It is associated with something negative. Cruel masters are negative.

    Try to sanitize this but that is all you are doing.

    Let’s be clear. There is no clear example of authenteo having a positive connotation.

  174. Brian (Another) September 12, 2008 at 1:20 pm #

    I didn’t claim superiority in Greek. I assume you do? To borrow from a politician, I am way above my pay grade here. I am merely speaking from the research I can do online and the books I can read (I sadly don’t have time for a Greek class).

    Taking the way you say it, OK, but it changes it not one iota. Payment, not wages (the boatman was paid his fare…..for his work, or, as I used, his wages). The point was that it was for a transaction. Anger involved or not, it was a disagreement over a payment and “he agreed to provide” or “consented to provide” or however you want to say it. Wouldn’t, in the effect of domineering be “he was forced to pay”? Or is that what it says (I am not a Greek scholar, so I cannot translate the full document)?

    Connotation: Because the person is negative does not make the verb negative. Inhuman masters can still have legal authority over their servants. With the concept of connotation (I think we agree to a point on this), then, it would indicate that the connotation of authenteo as it is used in 1 Timothy should have a modifying action as in hold authority and then associate with something negative. It would follow that for your translation to hold that the Greek word for “false teaching” would have to follow, but instead it is the verb teach (which, I’ve heard it argued, should now be understood to be negative in a stand-alone manner).

    The point is that authenteo can be used in either situation, but the word, itself, is not negative. Just as teach could as well. It looks to be neutral unless it has the additional negative environment. In 1 Timothy, it has the action of teach which is taken as good except where it is modified to become sordid (as in Titus 1:11, and I will have to go and investigate the Revelation reference).

    I cannot defend Grudem. And I still say that from what I have read (I do not claim to be a Greek scholar as you are, I would assume), the boatman is positive. I would also lean the same way for the Saturn reference as well, but I haven’t delved that deeply into it specifically.

    Thanks for the interaction. Given your superiority in Greek, though, I think it best for me to bow out. I just wanted to make sure the statement of I invite Denny and anyone else interested to engage with the primary evidence. No one has taken me up on this. was not taken as what has happened (see here. The fact that you don’t align with the argument does not repudiate Dr. Burk (or Dr. Grudem or Dr. Baldwin, etc.) nor compel them to a rejoinder.

  175. Sue September 12, 2008 at 1:37 pm #

    Facts –

    1, There are three occurrences of authenteo –

    a BGU 1208 which Grudem cites as “hostile”

    b Tetrabiblos – a planet

    c Hippolytus – inhuman masters do this to their slaves. The passage is highly negative, the context is negative, the connotation is negative.

    Until these facts have been disproven in a scholarly article, the conclusion in scholarly literature is that the connotation of authenteo is negative. The ball is in the court of the complementarians, and they have not returned it.

  176. Benjamin A September 12, 2008 at 1:50 pm #

    Sue,

    Where is a modern translation [see below including the beloved TNIV] or even a lexicon [Sophocles/Preisigke/Lampe/Moulton and Milligan/LSJ/Mayser/BDAG/Louw and Nida/DGE: see Table 2:1 in Women in the Church p. 41 Kostenberger & Schreiner editors] that agrees with your understanding of authenteo?

    [you said “CLEARLY authenteo is something that cruel masters do. It has a negative connotation. That is what connotation means. It is associated with something negative. Cruel masters are negative.?]

    What’s clear to you wasn’t so clear to those actually publishing the translations and lexicons. Listen, believe what you want- but please show some humility and admit that others [many others] who disagree with your clear understanding are not simply ignorant comps. trying to suppress women. They are very intelligent believers who looked at the evidence and came to a different meaning of authenteo than did SUE (And Don/Lydia/Kathy/et.all.).

    Commenting to Brian you kindly said, “No Brian, it [BUG 1208] has nothing at all to do with seeking wages. Please refer to BGU 1208, and what it actually says.

    So Sue, please show me how BUG 1208 has anything to do with cruel masters [“CLEARLY authenteo is something that cruel masters do”]. That usage has nothing to do with cruel masters at all. Please refer to BGU 1208, and what it actually says.

    BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): I had my way with him [authenteō ] and he agreed to provide Catalytis the boatman with the full payment within the hour.

    You misrepresent BUG 1208 as having reference to cruel masters and postulate yourself as being a Greek scholar [who would like to and I will quote you here; “I would like to keep the focus on scholarly technical points [BGU 1208 = cruel masters? That’s scholarly technical points??]

    You continue “since interpretation cannot properly be discussed among people who do not share a common set of basis facts.”

    [ps. You just shut down Lydia who said she simply relies on the Holy Spirit for the clear meaning of any text. She said it like this “I do not believe one has to attend seminary to be taught by the Holy Spirit. If we read the NT closely, we will see that new believers are given the Holy Spirit. That is my favorite part of reading Acts!” Sue, your exclusion of non-Greek scholars and you attitude in general is very elitist.]

    Notice all of these translations [teams of Greek scholars/ who also have the HOLY SPIRIT] and not one of them came to YOUR conclusion regarding authenteo. AMAZING! Not one of these translation teams, who also focus on scholarly technical points, and not one of them agreed with your understanding. Yet you continue to claim assuredness in you assessment of a very obscure word.

    Just maybe the Holy Spirit accurately led ALL these translation teams to a correct understanding of a very obscure word.

    12 but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;
    DARBY

    12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
    ESV

    12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
    ESV NT Rev. Int.

    12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.
    HCSB

    12 Moreover, I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. Instead, she is to be quiet.
    ISV

    12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    KJV

    12 They should study to be quiet and obedient along with everyone else.
    The Message

    12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.
    NET

    12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
    NASB95

    12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to listen quietly,
    NCV

    12 I do not let women teach. I do not let them have authority over men. They must be quiet.
    NIrV

    12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
    NIV

    12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
    NKJV

    12 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.
    NLT

    12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
    NRSV

    8 I desire, therefore, that the men [definite article before “men” and distinctive word for a male individual designating the man as leader and in authority in the church] be praying in every place, lifting up holy hands without anger or skeptical criticism. Likewise, I desire that women be adorning themselves in apparel that is fitting [to their sex and to their position as Christians], having along with this, modesty and sober-mindedness; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or very costly garments, but with that which is fitting for a woman professing godliness, adorning themselves by means of good works. Let a woman be learning in silence with every subjection. Moreover, I do not permit a woman to be a teacher [in an official position exercising authority over the man in matters of Church doctrine or discipline], neither to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence, for Adam first was molded, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been completely hoodwinked, has fallen into transgression. Yet she shall be saved [in the sense of sanctifying, salutary influences in her spiritual life through the pains of childbirth] in her childbearing if they continue in faith and love and holiness accompanied by sober-mindedness.
    WUESTNT

    12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
    NRSV NT Rev. Int.

    12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
    RSV

    12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
    TNIV

  177. Brian (Another) September 12, 2008 at 2:04 pm #

    Sue: I shouldn’t have come back, but I wanted to ask you a question. Just since you listed it, though, the idea that you disagree with Grudem on a) does not mean he is wrong. I see you ignore B (but I think it’s b/c it’s not a human relationship, right?). And c, since I, perhaps, have missed it, what is the context of the full passage (I only piece together portions here and there). I thought the full context was in divine judgment. The negativity is to be an inhuman master. In the same sense, then, wouldn’t the word walk be negative? Again, I don’t have the ability to translate the entire document (or even a greater portion than what is posted online). Perhaps you can post a greater amount of translated text than what is available for 1208 and Hippolytus?

    That wasn’t my question, though. To understand, what is offensive (comment #92) at the CBMW blog? I think you mean the last paragraph, right? I think the blog can be codified with “Can egalitarians find even one example out of millions of words of ancient Greek literature where a person is called ‘head’ and it means ‘non-authoritative source’?” Right? I would rather understand if someone has written an offensive statement, it would be good to correct, I say (hence truly, I would like to understand what was offensive.).

  178. Sue September 12, 2008 at 3:21 pm #

    These are the three occurrences

    a BGU 1208 which Grudem cites as “hostile”

    b Tetrabiblos – a planet

    c Hippolytus – inhuman masters do this to their slaves. The passage is highly negative, the context is negative, the connotation is negative.

    I agree with Grudem and others that BGU 1208 is negative.

    I do not find Tetrabiblos relevant.

    I find Hippolytus negative.

    “Wherefore all shall walk after their own will. And the children will lay hands on their parents. The wife will give up her own husband to death, and the husband will bring his own wife to judgment like a criminal. Masters will lord it over their servants savagely, and servants will assume an unruly demeanour toward their masters. None will reverence the grey hairs of the elderly, and none will have pity upon the comeliness of the youthful.”

    Even if one retranslates this as

    “Inhuman masters will lord it over their servants”

    The context is negative.

    There is no positive use of authenteo to support the suggestion that it can be used positively.

    In fact, the translations of 1 Tim. 2:12 which you show are dated after Erasmus Latin translation of the NT. He translated authenteo as “autoritatiem usurpare”, and then it was translated into English by Tyndale as “have authority.”

    But previous to Erasmus, in the Vulgate, it was translated as “dominare.”

    I have very little time right now, but I think it is important to show why egalitarians do not agree with complementarians. It is not because egalitarians do not have the same high view of scripture, but it is because of these scholarly differences.

    I don’t mean to shut down discussion of interpretation. I am very sorry if I gave that impression. I personally do not have time to engage at greater depth at the moment. I have just enough time to comment on this one issue, and I read the other comments with interest. Sorry to give the wrong impression.

  179. Sue September 12, 2008 at 3:24 pm #

    I would rather understand if someone has written an offensive statement, it would be good to correct,

    Yes, it would be good if Grudem’s statements against egalitarians in general and the scholars of the TNIV were correct statements. They are not.

    It is too bad, but the statements on Gender blog do not encourage respect.

  180. Don September 12, 2008 at 4:07 pm #

    Yes, CBMW should remove the false claims about the TNIV and about egals.

  181. Lydia September 12, 2008 at 4:16 pm #

    “Just maybe the Holy Spirit accurately led ALL these translation teams to a correct understanding of a very obscure word.”

    I do not agree with this statement at all because of all the translation errors when it comes to the teaching of authority over others within the Body of Christ.

    (NOTE: I am not speaking of God ordained CIVIL authority or authority of parents over children, who do grow up to be adults eventually, or even masters to slaves yet Paul does tell them to get free if they can)

    These supposed authority in the Body passages have been translated horribly from those laboring under a church/state mentality.

    They did not rely upon the Holy Spirit as much as they relied upon their earthly ‘masters’ and their belief in the chain of command structure of the institutionalized state/church. This errant and fleshly thinking about earthly authorities within the Body and marriage has been the biggest problem for the Body since it’s beginning. Sinful man always wants power and authority over others.

    A good resource to understand what I mean is below. I respectfully request that those here read this with a very open mind. The authors are not trying to make money from this teaching and their quest to understand scripture, as so many do these days. Praise God.

    http://awildernessvoice.com/GEC.html

    Just a note: For every ‘authority over others in the Body’ proof text that is brought out, you can also produce several that teach not lording it over, functions within the body, we are all priests, we all have anointing, all believers are gifted, all gifts edify the body, God is not a respecter of persons, the first will be last, all the one another’s, etc., etc.

  182. Brian (Another) September 12, 2008 at 4:53 pm #

    Thanks all for the interaction and the information. We diverge greatly here. Have a superb weekend and go and buy some gas before it is $5/gallon. Or pizza. Buy pizza. But it isn’t sold per gallon. In an appetizing way, that is.

  183. Jason September 13, 2008 at 12:13 am #

    I go away for 24 hours and this thing explodes.

    I wanted to respond to a few things, but honestly I don’t want to weed through all these posts.

    I guess I’ll just wait until the next argument…which I assume will happen as soon as Denny posts again. 🙂

  184. Truth Unites... and Divides September 13, 2008 at 2:34 am #

    “Women are deserting the Church in their thousands and turning to the pagan religion of Wicca.

    …..

    Maybe the Episcopal Church was ahead of the game when it posted a “pagan” rite – called A celebration of the Divine Feminine – on its web site a few years ago.

    As part of the eucharist, the priest raises a cup of milk and honey and then a plate of raisin cakes to Mother God, before saying: “Thank you, Mother, for the abundance of life for the rich, full, pleasing, and life giving milk of our bodies.

    “Thank you for the children who drink from our breasts for they bring sweetness to our lives. We drink this cup as your daughters, fed from your own bosom.”

    It goes on: “Mother God, our ancient sisters called you Queen of Heaven and baked these cakes in your honour in defiance of their brothers and husbands who would not see your feminine face.”

    This affirmation of womanhood, which Dr Aune argues is one of the main attractions of paganism, is bolstered by a hostility to men, as if the two can not be complementary but rather are mutually exclusive.

    ….

    Yet, speak to most female Christians and they will say that the lack of churchgoing men is an imbalance just as worrying.

    One reason for this may be what some put down to a gradual feminisation of the Church.

    It’s not just the fact that the number of female clergy has risen dramatically over the last decade – as many women are now being ordained as men – but more because of a growing tendency to put the emphasis on emotions and feelings rather than tradition and doctrine.”

    Excerpted from: Has the Church Become Too Feminine?

    Thanks Voddie for standing up for and affirming transcendent biblical truth.

  185. Don September 13, 2008 at 9:39 am #

    It is just as wrong to introduce pagan feminine ideas as to introduce pagan masculine ideas into the church, both are to be rejected.

    The church is called the bride of Christ as a metaphor of the new covenant.

  186. Sue September 13, 2008 at 12:23 pm #

    I am confused by duplicate comments that appear in more than one thread at a time. Is this what is meant by “doublespeak?” 😉

  187. Stacey September 13, 2008 at 3:47 pm #

    I haven’t read all the comments made because there are just too many and i’ve got things to do, but let me just say AMEN VODDIE! I wholeheartedly agree with him and I am so proud of him to stand up to two extremely liberal women and defend the Bible! We need more like him!

  188. Truth Unites... and Divides September 14, 2008 at 11:14 pm #

    An Explanation

    I Tim. 2: 11 Γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ· 12 διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. 13 Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὕα. 14 καὶ Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν· 15 σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης·

    The teaching here, which seems to have confused so many [revisionist egalitarians], is one of biblical theology: The rules regarding the behavior of women, their obligation to remain “in silence, in all submission,” are not simply references to an historical origin of men and women in the first parents, but rest in our continuing racial existence in them as resident in their bodies, whose living existence we protract, and in whom we participate in their sin and redemption, each in a manner peculiar to his sex.

  189. Don September 15, 2008 at 9:42 am #

    The above analysis, altho it uses big words, makes a fundamental mistake in thinking that A possible interpretation is THE ONLY interpretation possible. Once you see that, you see that his interpretation is a choice, and a wrong choice at that.

  190. Paul September 17, 2008 at 1:00 am #

    “…but rest in our continuing racial existence…”

    Wow, there are some stupid people in the world. Never knew Christianity was a race.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes