I don’t know of many more controversial issues in the church than issues regarding women in ministry. It is not controversial whether or not women can do ministry or be effective in ministry, but whether or not they can teach and preside in positions of authority over men. The most controversial issue aspect of this issue, of course, is whether or not women can hold the position of head pastor or elder in a local church.
There are two primary positions in this debate; those who believe that women can teach men and hold positions of authority over men in the church and those that do not. Those that do, normally go by the name “Egalitarians.” Those that do not, go by the name “Complementarians.” I am a complementarian but I understand and appreciate the egalitarian position. In fact, the church I serve at most often is an egalitarian church. (However, I don’t want you to think that my complementarianism is not important to me. There is much more to complementarianism than whether or not a woman can preach!)
There are a lot of passages of Scripture which contribute to the debate, but one stands out more than all the others. 1 Tim. 2:11-15:
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”
I don’t want to debate whether or not this passage teaches either position. I am simply going to assume the complementarian position and attempt to deal with the sting of “I don’t allow a woman to teach.” It does have quite a bit of sting.
I like to make the Scripture pragmatically understandable. In other words, I want to not only understand what it says, but to rationally understand why it says what it says. Why does God give this instruction or that? What practical rationale might be behind the instruction of God? I know that we cannot always find it and our obligation to obey transcends our understanding but, in my experience, more often than not, our understanding of the command can accompany our obedience so that we are not so blind.
“I do not allow a woman to teach.” We think of this as coming from God. God says, “I do not allow a woman to teach.” Teaching is something that requires _________ therefore, women are not qualified. You fill in the blank:
1. Intelligence
2. Wisdom
3. Love
4. Concern
5. Rational
6. Persuasiveness
While I think the sting of this passage assumes that Paul is speaking about one of these, I don’t choose any of them. I think Paul (and God) has something different in mind.
The other night, at 3am there was a sound in our living room. Kristie woke up, but I did not. She was looking out there and saw the lights go on. She got scared.
Pop quiz: What did she do next?
a. Got a bat and quietly tip toed out there to see who it was.
b. Got a gun and peeked around the corner.
c. Woke me up and had me go out there.
Those of you who choose “c” are both right and wise. You are right because that is what happened. (It was my 2 year old Zach who decided it was time to get up.) You are wise because that is what normally happens and is typically, for those of you who have a man in the house, the best move. Why? Because men are better equipped to deal with these sort of situations. There is an aggression that men have, both physical and mental, that is more able to handle situations that might become combative. That is the way we are made.
Now, let me give my short and sweet answer as to why Paul did not allow women to teach:
Paul did not let women teach due to the often aggressive and combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine. Men must be the teachers when combating false teaching. However, because the role of a teacher in the church is so often to combat false doctrine, and because false doctrine is always a problem, generally speaking, the principles are always applicable. The “exercising of authority” is inherently tied to teaching and its necessary condemnation of false doctrine.
The combative nature of teaching is particularly relevant to a broader understanding of the characteristics of men and women.
The best illustration in the real world that I could use to help you understand what I am saying is that of a military commander in charge of leading troops into battle. Of course there might be an exception here and there, but do a study and you will find that no matter what the time or culture, men are always leading here. Why? Because men are simply better equipped and more followed. There are certian areas where men and women have a unique stature. I believe, like in military, the position of head pastor is the same. Not only are they better equipped for the issues that will arise, but they are followed more readily.
Let me give you another example: Two years ago, my wife was confronted by another couple who did not believe that she was doing what was right. She used to do princess parties where she would dress up as a princess (Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty) and go to little girls’ homes and entertain them for an hour or so. She was really good at this. After we moved from Frisco to Oklahoma, she still had one party on the schedule. She called her boss and let her know that she could not do it since we had already moved. Her boss became very angry and began to threaten her. She also said that she was going to bring in her husband (who was a lawyer) and sue Kristie. Kristie became very scared and did not know how to handle this situation, especially since her boss was now using her husband as part of the threat. She told me about this and I told her not to speak to her boss anymore, but to let me handle it. I did. I stepped in and confronted both her boss and her husband’s threats concerning the issue. In the end, they backed off.
I felt that it was my duty and obligation to step in and be strong on behalf of my wife as the situation became confrontational. Kristie is both tender, gentle, and, in those situations, frightened. She was going to give in and travel back to Texas to perform this last party even though she would lose money in the gas it took to go there and back. Her boss refused to pay her mileage.
My point is that men are conditioned to handle confrontation better than women. It is not that Kristie could not have done the same thing as me, it is just that this was not her bent. Women, generally speaking, are not bent to deal with confrontation the same way as men. Teaching in the church involves, more often than not, confronting false understanding.
Can women teach? Absolutely! Can women understand and think as well as men? Most certainly. But the bent of a man is better able to handle the type of teaching that is always necessary in the church.
Would I let a woman teach from the pulpit from time to time? Yes. Paul is not restricting women teachers over men in the absolute sense. The infinitive here, “to teach” is in the present tense which suggests the perpetual role of teaching which exercises authority (confrontation).
The role of head pastor, I believe requires confrontation. That is not all there is, but it is there and it is very important. It is because of this, I believe, Paul said that women cannot teach or exercise authority over men.
See follow-up posts here and here.
Comments are open again. Be safe. Read the rules.
1,432 replies to "Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors"
I would still like someone to give a more thorough answer regarding this lexicon entry I quoted above. Like I said, I know the Thayer’s is outdated. However, I didn’t just find this in Thayer’s. It is found on the Net Bible site too-pretty much word for word. I just did some more reading there and see that they take their definitions from the TDNT. Is it considered totally outdated? I really don’t know. Thought their comments quite interesting.
The TDNT says this:
A. kephalḗ outside the NT.
1. Denoting what is first, supreme, or extreme, kephalḗ is used for the human or animal “head†but also for a “point,†“tip,†or “end,†e.g., prow of a ship, top of a wall, mouth of a river (or source)…..
So the idea of “source” is brought up here–at least in referring to a river.
And this, regarding it’s NT usage in I Cor 11:
2. In 1 Cor. 11:3, Christ is the head of man, man of woman, and God of Christ. Hence man should not cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman should do so, since she is the glory of man. The distinction between man and woman is seen here to have an ontological ground, for while man is God’s reflection directly, woman is so only indirectly, having her life from man and for man. It is by reason of this basic distinction that charismatically gifted women should cover the kephalḗ when praying or prophesying. Not to do so is to offend against the head in the twofold sense; the long hair that phýsis gives women for a covering is an indication of this.
From here on the Net Bible site:
http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=2776
Cheryl,
But ‘head’, as illustrated in that scripture, is surely different than ‘master lord’ is it not? Interesting that verse is often quoted to back-up Christian authoritarian headship in the church and in marriage, but the other parts of it like women keeping their heads covered, and men not is totally opposite nowadays. How many Christian men do you see, for instance, wearing baseball caps, and Christian women with short hair? How many otherwise hard core comps in the church do you see objecting to that part, lol?
Interesting too, that the Catholics have dropped the requirement for women to cover their heads, yet most priests still wear head dresses of some kind, yet their denomination is very heavily male dominated.
“metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
a) of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
b) of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
c) of things: the corner stone
This defininition doesn’t sound like “source” to me. Indeed, it sounds a lot more like “authority”.”
Cherylu,
That isn’t actually a definition. It is a listing of how they think it is being translated in many Bible translations.
And here’s another example:
As a single person, you are considered to be head of a household even though you may not have anyone to be head over. So headship does not necessarily exclusively denote authority over another human being, except in the case of the boss-employee relationship, and in the military command, and similar cases where there is a voluntary giving up of self governance.
And what about marriages where either the husband or the wife is not Christian? In the case of a woman who has an atheist for a husband, for example, whose leadership does she follow, his, or Christ’s? if he tells her she can’t practice Christianity does she give it up to obey the biblical command of wives submitting to their husbands?
”So if that word “head” in that verse does not mean authority…then God is not the head of Christ and Christ is not the head of the church. Let’s not say what we “think” it means…let’s look at what it means.”
Fitz, it’s good to remember that all words both in English and in other languages, have a range of intended meanings according to how they are being used in each instance. In the 1 Cor. instance we have a few reasons to rule out the concept of authority over. The most important IMO is that God does not have authority over the Son except in a temporal way during Jesus time on this earth as the God/Human Messiah when Jesus laid aside some of His power and glory. In the Trinity there is no over or under, lessor or superior. IOW one part of the Trinity does not tell the other parts what to do. They are always in perfect agreement of will.
The other important reason why kephale cannot mean authority in 1 Cor. 11 is because the order is not one of an hierarchy and parts are missing for it to be one. Instead what is noticeable is that it is in chronology for 3 specific events. Thus whatever we want to say that kephale is, it must fit in with these 3 events.
”Now if men dont step up and God uses women then so be it…God can do what He wants….He’s God, but when I search the scriptures for answers to the debate, the biblical pattern I see is male leadership….thats all i’m saying.”
Fitz, noting that more men are used in leadership or authoritative positions of ministry than women is not a good enough reason to say that women should NOT be used.
TL,
Is not one of the main functions of a lexicon to give definitions of a word? And on the Net Bible site it is specifically listed as the “definition” of the Greek word.
Fitz, 1148
“If we cant rely on the “clear” teaching of verses in the bible then what do we rely on…we are left to our own opinions.”
If it were “clear” we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 🙂
@TL….
It is crystal clear to me….clear in Greek and clear in English.
Ok…you have taken the time to tell us what it cannot mean “IYO”…but again…I ask you….if that word cannot mean authority then in the context of the verse what does it mean? What is Paul saying?
Oh and by the way…I do understand the nature of God with regard to the trinity teaching.
There is also an issue over the meaning of the word ‘submission’ in some of the lexicons. However, what exactly does it mean biblically? Is it voluntary submission or forced? We know some comps who say the first and other comps who say the latter. So there is disagreement even among comps about how far to take the headship issue.
If I ‘allow’ someone to teach me in church, that means I am giving them my permission, voluntarily. I have made a personal choice to have a teacher-pupil relationship with them, nothing more, regardless of their gender. I am always at liberty to make a change of churches if I find their teaching unsatisfactory.
Whereas, if I am being told I must remain under the teaching of a certain head pastor no matter what, simply because they are male and therefore in authority, that’s quite different. I am being held involuntarily, and told simply because I’m a woman I have no choice but to stay and to submit unconditionally.
It seems to me the latter is giving unconditional authority to someone in the church on a gender basis, regardless of character, rather than everyone in the church honoring the true headship of Christ over his entire body of believers, male and female.
Cherylu, 1157
”
Is not one of the main functions of a lexicon to give definitions of a word? And on the Net Bible site is specifically listed as the “definition” of the Greek word.”
This is where quality and accuracy come into play. If the only attempt at defining a word is according to Bible translations then we are not actually defining them according to meaning but according to doctrinal leanings of the translators. In order to factually understand the meaning of a word we must ascertain it’s use in the every day literature of the times it was written in.
This is why Liddel Scott is more accurate than many. They search how the word is used outside of the Bible in order to understand more accurately how it might be used in the language of the time.
“Instead what is noticeable is that kephale is used within a chronology for 3 specific events. Thus whatever we want to say that kephale is, it must fit in with these 3 events.”
OK Fitz, so leaving you plenty of room to analyze for yourself, what would you say are the 3 specific events listed in 1 Cor. 11:3? They are all in chronological order. What 3 specific events in sequence fit.
TL,
So what does the Lidell Scott lexicon give for the definition? I do not have one and can not find one easily available on line. They also seem to be quite pricey from Amazon, for instance.
“If the only attempt at defining a word is according to Bible translations then we are not actually defining them according to meaning but according to doctrinal leanings of the translators.”
I would say yes and no. Usage is important in specific cultural settings. A non-biblical example is this:
I’m originally from the south. There we say we are ‘fixing’ to go somewhere or do something. Everyone outside of the south finds that particular usage odd, since they equate fixing only with repairing something. However, as I explain to them, the word is also defined as ‘preparing’. So in that context it is a viable word, although albeit a somewhat different way of expressing the same thing. After 28 years of living in the west, I still think it is a good usage, and still say it that way even though my friends find it highly amusing. 🙂
Here’s where I depart however from using strictly cultural definitions of words, however. We have too many slang definitions in our own language. Which do I give the most credibility to? The context in which they are used, of course generally gives us the best clue. Our context when interpreting part the Bible is the whole Bible, and all else follows.
However, I do see Paul’s admonitions as his personal preference in teaching, not strictly based on a cultural definition of a word, because everything else in the Bible points of God as being no respecter of persons. In fact, if we want to look at where Jesus Himself was on the human authority issue, we have no further to look than Matthew 12:46-49. Obviously, Jesus Himself considered God the highest authority, even though He was teaching Himself at the time. Notice he included both the sexes in His admonition. That’s why I think sometimes we get too hung up on these few verses in Paul in the church, and don’t pay enough attention to the context of the rest of scripture.
Re: #1164. Obviously verse 50 should have been included in that scripture, since that was the point Christ was making that doing God’s will is always before human authority, and relationships. Please pardon the oversight. Now, I’m ‘fixing’ to go put on my glasses! 🙂
Re: #1145 in particular:
Extensive, completely Bible-based comments here on my blog:
http://caraboska.livejournal.com/11593.html
TL and everyone else,
Here is an intersting article that I just read: http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/The-True-Meaning-of-Headship-Part-Three
It quotes PGW Glare who was the editor of the Scott Liddell lexicon. He says that he doesn’t believe that source is a word that should be used to define kephale and also makes this statement: “in most cases the sense of the head as being the controlling agent is the one required” when dealing with similes or comparisons.
He says he was unable to make that edit when he was working on the lexicon.
Cherylu,
regarding kephale, I will look for a liddle Scott online.
In the meantime, did you notice the first meaning Thayer’s gives:
1. the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.
Kephale is sometimes used as an idiom meaning life. If we recognize this, and then read Ephe. 5 again, we can see the relation in the head/body metaphor. If the head is separated from the body, there is loss of life. Thus Paul is trying to get the Ephesians to view the marriage as one whole. And head is used in a way that can represent life, but so is body. The head and body metaphor is deeper in its implications than first strikes us.
Regarding the editor of Lidell Scott Lexicon. It really doesn’t matter what the editor thinks. He is an editor. He didn’t do the research. Liddel & Scott did the research. He has no business changing words from a research book. That, plus he was influenced by CBMW.
TL,
If you do find one that can be accessed on line, that would be great. I have seen several places that you can download one but I think it is pretty large, correct?
I haven’t found anyplace that is directly available online.
TL,
Did you read the article I linked to above? And are you certain that this editor is not aware of any new research or has not done his own research? You made quite a charge against him in your last comment.
This lexicon has been revised in the past, has it not?
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kefala%5Cn&la=greek&prior=pula=n#lexicon
This should work for you.
As for editors. I’ve written articles, pamphlets and such. As well I’ve friends that are writers. One of the worst things about editors is that they think they’ve license to rearrange things written because they hope to more effectively market the writing. They are the worst at intruding and confusing the sincere research of writers. And IMO the only one who should be revising someone’s writing is the author. Unfortunately after one dies, many think it’s a free for all.
Thanks TL,
I will check that link out later. Have to get dinner on, etc. right now.
Cherylu,
Are you aware that Liddel and Scott’s first edition was published in 1889? So, we can be sure, no editor has consulted with the authors.
This should be the link to kephale in the Liddell Scott Lexicon,
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dkefalh%2F
If that doesn’t work then go to this link and enter “kefalh” in the search box.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?redirect=true
yes, I think that worked. This is one area where I don’t know the answer, but I do know that those who think they are certain, are not. Grudem wrote to Glare and told him that kephale was the usual translation for rosh in Hebrew, which means both head and leader. But Grudem forgot to mention that when rosh means leader, it is usually not translated into Greek as kephale. In fact, in about 90% of cases, another word is used. But Glare did not claim to be an expert in Hebrew, so he simply responded to what he was told.
I have often wondered how much research Glare did on this issue. I don’t know.
Just found a FANTASTIC resource. You can get verses in multiple, multi-lingual translations, different Greek manuscripts, and exhaustive grammatical commentary! This is a link to just one verse I was looking up, but from there you can navigate to whatever you like, I would think…
http://scripturetext.com/colossians/1-20.htm
Just a word here: For anyone to say their position is more ‘right’ than someone else’s because that’s the side they take is not convincing to me, nor would I think it would be to anyone who is objectively trying to decide what the truth is. I try to keep that in mind.
I like it when we can present both sides of the debate without trying to prove each other right or wrong, but just presenting both sides as we see them, hermeneutically speaking, from the Bible, and from other theologically reliable sources.
That to me, is the most valuable gift we can give. We can only present one side or the other, then it is ultimately to the hearer to decide where they stand.
Not trying to lecture, just saying….Let’s be as biblically and culturally as objective as possible.
”Here’s where I depart however from using strictly cultural definitions of words,”
mbaker, 1164,
I think you misunderstood me. I was not suggesting such. Word meanings are indeed determined by the people who use them, no doubt. And if you want to analyze how they are being used in one area of life, yes you look to see the RANGE of meanings that you find them used in other areas of life. This and the balance of context helps us determine meanings. Context is huge right along side how the word is used elsewhere.
It is rather odd how in our own language we clearly understand that words have a range of meanings. When someone asks us what a word means, say a child, we give them a list of its meanings and uses trying to help them get the gist of how the word is used. Yet here in Biblical discussion on word meanings in Greek and Hebrew some seem to really demand one word, one way it is used and deny all other ranges and shades of meanings for the word. Why is that done. To all appearances it is to channel the word to mean what one wants it to mean to fit a precise doctrine. This I submit to you is not responsible exegesis of Scripture.
“Just a word here: For anyone to say their position is more ‘right’ than someone else’s because that’s the side they take is not convincing to me, nor would I think it would be to anyone who is objectively trying to decide what the truth is.”
Well said. I suspect that describes the heart of everyone discussing the issues here.
We want the truth and nothing less will do. One thing I know about God’s truth is that it produces good in the lives of those who live it and those they live around. God’s ways bring healing, peace, joy, wisdom, understanding, maturity and most of all real life.
God’s ways bring healing, peace, joy, wisdom, understanding, maturity and most of all real life. And isn’t that exactly what we are all longing for?
Kay,
I knew the Scott Liddell lexicon was first published in the 1800’s. I wasn’t sure of the exact date.
I think I am wondering why it seems people are having a problem with the idea of it being revised by folks now if there are new understandings of words that have come about since then? Wouldn’t that be the only way to keep it accurate for today? Folks say that Thayer’s lexicon is outdated and so don’t put too much stock in it. So, why would it be a problem to update this one if it becomes apparent that it is not always accurate?
Now, like I said before, I don’t know how much research this editor had done to convince him that “source” is not a proper definition for the Greek word “kephale”. But if it has indeed come to light that this is the case since this lexicon was published, wouldn’t it be better to change that in a revision then to just let it ride making folks believe something that isn’t true?
I guess I am just finding it odd that this lexicon has been spoken of so highly here and then people don’t want to see there being any revisions made if it becomes obvious that a correction needs to be made. (If that is indeed the case.) What am I missing here? Or are people saying that they don’t believe any corrections do need to be made and that this editor is very wrong in his understanding?
“I think I am wondering why it seems people are having a problem with the idea of it being revised by folks now if there are new understandings of words that have come about since then? Wouldn’t that be the only way to keep it accurate for today?”
If there are new understandings of words, then the person doing that research needs to acknowledge and prove his or her research and stand behind it, rather than messing with someone else’s research. If we mess with another’s writings, then eventually we do not know for certain what was originally written. That is how it is usually done.
Kay,
No new research has been presented. Dr. Grudem has not presented any new uses of kephale that were not known in the 19th century. One cannot add meanings to the Liddell Scott Lexicon without evidence. If you follow my link, you will see that each and every entry is supported by multiple examples and occurrences of the word.
Of course, it would be nice to bring something up to date, if there were new evidence. But no one has suggested such a thing.
Thayers Lexicon does not depend on evidence so it is only a secondary source. Liddell Scott and BDAG are lexicons based on evidence, Thayers not so much.
Maybe the pastor who stated this was wrong was wrong here, but I was listening to a sermon (by who I can’t remember) on the meaning of kephale. I believe he said that this word was never used to refer to either the physical head (like the head of a cow or human) or a authoritative head (the head of a company), rather it was used exclusively to refer to things which were the first into something (i.e. the head of a plane, the head of a spear, or the head of a line of men in an army). It was that which was first into combat.
Glare did the Revised Supplement to LSJ in 1996. LSJ is 2,042 pp. long. After that comes the Revised Supplement Edited by P. G. W. Glare With the assistance of A. A. Thompson. It’s 320 pp. long. Entries in the main book that have entries in the Supplement are indicated with a star inside a circle. The Supplement also offers corrections to LSJ. The online LSJ is the 1940 (9th) Edition, and a supplement was published in 1968. Glare’s 1996 Supplement was the end result of a 10-year project.
Yet even with this, there are a couple chapters in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography, Edited by Taylor, Lee, Burton and Whitaker (Eerdmans 2004) that raise serious questions about the lexicography of both LSJ and BDAG. FWIW, I think this is a book that any person interested in NT Greek should put at the top of her or his list to buy. The essays are interesting and thought-provoking: http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Language-Lexicography-Bernard-Taylor/dp/0802822169/
I remember listening to a sermon awhile back (can’t remember who it was) where the pastor claimed that kephale was never used to refer to the literal head (as in the head of a human or animal) or to the authoritative head (as in the head of a company). Rather it is used to refer to that which was first into something (i.e. the head of an airplane, the head of a spear, or the head of a line of men in the army). So for instance the “head” of a line of army men in formation was that which was first into combat. It didn’t denote leadership in an authoritative or hierarchical manner.
I remember listening to a sermon awhile back (can’t remember who it was) where the pastor claimed that kephale was never used to refer to the literal head (as in the head of a human or animal)
He either misspoke or has apparently never read 1 Cor. ch. 11 (e.g., vss. 4,5,7) or Matt. ch. 6 vs. 17 or Rev. ch. 1 vs. 14, ch. 13 vs. 1, etc.
Kephale has a primary meaning of a literal physical head, the thing on top of one’s neck. When is is NOT that, one knows that the text is using a metaphorical or symbolic meaning, the question is what metaphor?
The kephale of a Greek army was the first into battle, the pointmen. This was contrasted with the archon or general who was NOT the first into battle, he kept back, except in the case of Alexander the Great, he was both in many cases, leading from the front which made him so special.
Another aspect is that the writers of the NT were Hebrew thinkers, so when they thought of a Hebrew or Aramaic word, they would translate it into the closest Greek word. Everyone knows that when the NT uses hades, for example, it is NOT referring to the hades of Greek mythology. This is something to be aware of, that just because a Greek lexicon gives a range of meanings which might be totally accurate, but the Bible usage trumps the lexicon. That is, the Bible gets to define and refine words beyond their normal usage and words are defined by the way they are actually used. (Recall that a lexicon is a compilation of how a word is used in a culture.)
In the 21st century when someone is called a head of something it means boss/leader, so when we see Christ being called a head and also knowing that Christ is Lord, no bells go off and the text SEEMS to flow and be obvious. But we need to dig deeper and see WHAT aspects of Christ are being used in the metaphor when he is called a head. And the Bible does not let us down, we can see in Eph 5 exactly what a head does, it serves the body, there is ZERO discussion about leading the body in this text. Earlier in Eph. 4 it provides what is needed for life, serving the body. As one eats with one’s head, this is not such a stretch.
EricW,
Thank you for that info.
Eric,
“He either misspoke…”
Or I misremembered – it was a long time ago. I know that pastor did state that it doesn’t refer to the authoritative head (head of a company) since that was part of the point of the sermon.
Yes, Michael T, that was another possibility I thought of after I posted – i.e., that you might have misremembered or misstated what he said, rather than him having misspoken.
That’s a lot of “mis-“es in a thread about misses being head pastors.
I read a very interesting ariticle by Wayne Grudem on the meaning of the Greek word translated head.
It is found here: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/kephale_grudem.pdf
If some of you that are familiar with Greek would read it and let me know what you think I would appreciate it. It has to do specifically with the use of this word as authority in the Greek around the New Testament time period.
Cherylus,
I have read every word of it. I have found that there is one man in the Old Testament who was called the “head” over his own people, and that is Jephthah. I don’t think that Dr. Grudem would disagree. This is enough for him and leads him to list the reference to Jephthah as several of his examples of support.
The other examples are less than clear. The word head translates rosh in Hebrew. However, typically when the word rosh means leader of a tribe or country or family, the Greek uses many other words which are normally used in Greek to mean leader. Greek had many words for leader and did not use the word kephale in this way.
I hope that no woman will experience what I did, in a pastor’s office dealing with issues of subordination, and having this study quoted to me. I was so naive that I thought it must have some value and have proved something, but I was shocked at the examples. They are remote, unconvincing and hardly suggest that Paul would have used kephale as the normal word for leader.
I think that instructing a woman on her subordination based on this study is mental cruelty.
Sue,
The other examples are less than clear. The word head translates rosh in Hebrew. However, typically when the word rosh means leader of a tribe or country or family, the Greek uses many other words which are normally used in Greek to mean leader. Greek had many words for leader and did not use the word kephale in this way.
The only trouble with that statement to me is that in Grudem’s article he has many quotes from the Septuagint where the word head certainly appears to be used as a leader–or a person in authority. I don’t see how you can just rule them all out and say that the Greek did not use this word in that way. It certainly isn’t clear at all to me looking at all of those verses just in the Bible itself that this is true.
Maybe it isn’t the most common translation of a word for ruler or leader, but I honestly don’t understand how anyone can say that it doesn’t occur at all. Unless of course the word translated head in these verses is really not kephale at all. In which case Grudem would be guilty of deliberately misleading everyone that read his article. Is anyone accusing him of that?
So, if it is used at least sometimes in this way, how can it be automatically ruled out as a possible meaning in Paul’s instructions which are in question in this discussion?
Cherylu,
I have read each of the examples that Grudem provides in their context, in the chapter and book in which they occur. They usually do not refer to people, they are in poetic language, a literal word for word translation from the Hebrew, and in one case, the LXX says literally “the head of the branch.” This is a metophor for the “leader of the tribe.” However, the metaphor of branch, requires the word “head” to also be metaphorical. This is NOT the usual word for “leader” in Greek and Dr. Grudem should not imply that it is.
I really have read all the examples and they are of this kind. In other cases, the word head is used in an expression of “head and not the tail” to refer to what comes first. I don’t think this relates to the NT use. There is definitely a prominence to kephale, it means first, origin, above, in some cases, good and acceptable. But these are metaphorical cases. I don`t think it can be said that this applies to the use in the NT, head of the body.
Much of the Bible is metaphor, To love your neighbour as yourself is not metaphor. It is clear. Let us obey that.
Sue,
Many of those verses do speak of individual people. Sometimes they speak of nations, etc.
And of course they are metaphor. But is not the husband being head of the wife, Jesus the head of the church, etc. also metaphor? Certainly no one takes literally that the husband is the wife’s physical head! I honestly see no difference here.
And I do not see why, as I have said again, the husband can be accused of not loving his wife as himself if he obeys the instructions given him in Ephesians 5 where he is told to give himself for her as Christ gave Himself for the church.
I have to go and do errands, etc. so probably won’t be able to continue this discussion much at this point.
Cheryl,
With all due respect, to argue on one hand against someone else’s insistence on concentrating on the Greek translation of one word, as you have on another thread, but then defend your own argument by concentrating so much of it on the word’s English use here, is employing the same tactic, don’t you think?
I think we agree that authority, or ‘head’ can mean different things, and has different uses throughout the Bible. I just see a whole authoritarian doctrine being built here by comps around these few verses that Paul has given as to how he personally sees the leadership of the church taking place, and most of your own arguments based upon what you see the one word ‘head’ meaning, either physically or metaphorically.
If the church is so serious about following biblical instruction to the letter in these verses, why not go with the specific group leadership of elders that Paul himself spelled out? Comps seem to have no problem with the singular position of head pastor, a description or authorization, which does not appear anywhere in Paul’s instructions to the church, or in the rest of the Bible for that matter. Yet over and over you staunchly defend the word ‘head’ as meaning singular biblical male authority in the church and marital relationship. That’s where the argument breaks down to me.
Sorry, I certainly don’t mean anything ugly, as I generally enjoy the range and the depth of your comments and respect your ususual attention to the entirity of biblical context, but I’m just somewhat confused by your arguments here.
“Many of those verses do speak of individual people.”
Can you cite some examples?
mbaker,
I don’t think that having a “head pastor” is necesarrily any more Biblical then you do. I would much prefer a plurality of leadership. That is another whole discussion however, IMO. So I haven’t brought it into my comments on this debate.
As far as my coming back to this particular Greek word, I have seen it said by the egals over and over that this word is simply not used in this way in the New Testament or in the Greek of that time period. It seems to me that there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. That is what I am trying to point out.
And I am not upset with the Greek being brought into a conversation or doctrinal debate. What I was, and am, upset about is the insistence some times on this thread and I believe others in the past that the Bible can not be understood at all without knowing the Greek or Hebrew. I realize Sue has qualified her statement considerably on that issue. But that isn’t the only statement I have seen to that effect on this blog. That was the point I was trying to make on the other thread–that I find it very frustrating to be told over and over in one way or another that people can not understand the Bible at all unless they know the Greek. And if you remember correctly, I also said on the other thread that obviously people do have to know the original languages or there would be no translations available into English or any other languages and that knowing the Greek is valuable. What I was upset with there was what seemed to be an over emphasis on knowing the original languages to such a point that no can know the meaning of the Bible at all–at least certain parts of it–without knowing them. I don’t see that what I have said or am doing here is in conflict at all with what I said over there.
Cherylu,
In English, Latin, and Hebrew it is quite normal to use “head” or its equivalent in the following way –
head of family
head of tribe
head of state
head of government
head of dept
In Greek this is not normal. It is found in all of Greek literature twice. That is it. We have a significant amount of Greek literature, but out of all those times, once it is used for Jephthah, and once after the NT, in the Shepherd of Hermas.
If you know of any other example, then please provide it. I have read all of Grudem’s examples, and they simply do not stand up to his own criteria. They are not examples of a person being the leader of his own people.
Please cite an example, if you wish to continue believing this.
I do not think that it is worth the effort for most people to invest in learning the original languages. I think the moral teaching of the Bible is crystal clear. If a person can escape legalism by some other means than reading the Bible in the original languages, I would hope you could do that.
Dan Wallace was clear. If you want to question and challenge the leaders, then you must read all the original languages as well as the theologians do. That is my goal, but not one that I would recommend to others. Believe me, my own children have not studied Greek and Hebrew.
I don’t think that having a “head pastor” is necesarrily any more Biblical then you do. I would much prefer a plurality of leadership. That is another whole discussion however, IMO.
But if the concept and principle and practice of having a “head pastor” is contrary to Biblical teaching, then Evangelical Protestants, who use the Scriptures as their guide, might as well discuss or argue why women can’t be popes in the Roman Catholic Church, or can’t be Gollum.
If the position/role itself is arbitrary and capricious, then so is the argument against women being able to be “head pastor,” since the position was created contrary to Scripture. And if you’re willing to ignore what Scripture teaches or fails to teach about a “head pastor,” how can you demand that people accept your interpretation of Scripture for why women can’t fill a non-Scriptural function?
😕
“I don’t think that having a “head pastor” is necesarrily any more Biblical then you do. I would much prefer a plurality of leadership. That is another whole discussion however, IMO. So I haven’t brought it into my comments on this debate.”
My point is that we automatically cannot assume those other verses denote singular headship in the home either. Marriage in our culture is the VOLUNTARY union of two individuals with Christ as our mediator. It does not become a human boss-employee relationship once it is entered into. In the same sense, we voluntarily attend a church of our choice, because we believe the function of that church as Christ’s body is to be equipped to serve Him in the way He directs. It is not to put ourselves once again under OT patriarchal religious traditions, where certain people could enter the temple and certain people couldn’t That was also gender based. Women were kept in the outer courtyard. Being kept out of leadership today again keeps us in an outer courtyard.
I see Paul’s example of how he wishes his own churches to be run as a personal choice, by his authority as an apostle appointed by Christ. But I do not see Christ Himself establishing it as doctrine any where else. It is very similar to a general in the military. He is under a commander in chief himself, yet he gets to make the everyday leadership decisions, as the apostles did after the death of Christ. The trouble is it has become almost entirely an issue about gender related authority in the modern day church, and thrown it completely out of balance.
To borrow an analogy from Dan Wallace’s post on another thread, we also have folks, who by an accident of birth, turned out to be the ‘right’ gender for leadership, and their nose starts to bend down. They look over their glasses and say: “But I am a man.”
Thus women, by default, become second class Christians in the eyes of the church.