Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors

Would someone please direct me to the “other thread” so I might read all the overlapping comments. Thanks.

Ultimately, I keep coming back, as others have as well, to why argue over a position that isn’t biblical in the first place. The real discussion should be on how does the Church justify a “Head Pastor” “position” at ALL.

Cherylu,

Um. I don;t think I meant it quite like that. I was referring to this quote,

“This creeping arrogance was most likely not a part of the seminarian’s view of things at the beginning of his or her studies. No, there was anticipation, delight, and more than a little dread at the prospect of learning years of dead languages. And when the going gets tough, many students ask, “Why bother?” But in the end, they usually realize how extremely valuable the Bible in the original languages is.

And it is a documented fact that schools that go soft on the biblical languages sooner or later go soft on orthodoxy. Part of the reason is that the professors can no longer be held in check. Students can’t call them on the carpet for their exegesis, since the students have never learned how to exegete (an activity that, technically speaking, can only be done in the original language of the document).”

I think he is saying that leaders in general need to be challenged to be kept within orthodoxy. I think that is what he is saying. Perhaps I misunderstood. I don’t know why he would say exactly this, but I nifer that if you want to challenge someone who is teaching that women cannot teach, you should know the biblical languages, because the professors or theologians themselves need to be “held in check.” This is Dr. Wallace’s expression. Yes, I certainly think that those who restrict women need to be held in check! Whoever they are.

Sue,

This is all from the Grudem article:

In Judges 10:18, this statement is made: “And the people, the leaders of Gilead, said to one another, ‘Who is the man that will begin to fight against the Ammonites? He shall be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead’.

In three separate verses in Judges 11, Jephthah is referred to as the head of the people of Gilead.

In II Kings 22:44 (II Samuel 22:44), David says to God, You shall keep me the head of the Gentiles: a people which I knew not served me.
That same statement is repeated in Psalms 18:43

III Kings 8:1 (I Kings 8:1) (Alexandrinus): Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes.

Then we have Plutarch, Vindex… wrote to Galba inviting him to assume the imperial power, and thus to serve what was a vigorous body in need of a head.

And Aquila, Deuteronomy 5:23: The heads of the tribes.

And Aquila again, Deuteronomy 29:10 [Deut 29:9]: The heads of tribes.

Aquila, 3 Kings 8:1 [1 Kings 8:1]: Solomon assembled all the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes.

Theodotian, Judges 10:18: He will be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead.

Are these quotes incorrect or misrepresented–out of context? They certainly all sound like individuals that are leaders or rulers to me. And the ones that come directly from the Bible are certainly not taken out of context. I checked. And from what I can tell, they all come from the same Hebrew word.

So if these don’t fit being a leader or ruler, and most of the time of their own people, I certainly can not see why they do not.

Kay said:

‘Ultimately, I keep coming back, as others have as well, to why argue over a position that isn’t biblical in the first place. The real discussion should be on how does the Church justify a “Head Pastor” “position” at ALL.’

Does seem rather ambiguous, does it not?

The thread(s) I am personally referring to was the subordinationalism thread, then the thread Dan Wallace wrote apparently in response to some of the arguments taking place on that one, called “Is The Bible That Big a Mystery?”

A personal disclaimer here: I used Dan’s METHOD of illustration as an analogy of his illustration to those who would think their knowledge of language made them superior Christians, to show the same thing about being born male making men superior Christians. Just so you know he didn’t take a position on the headship issue himself.

Sue,

Thanks for your clarification on that quote. I did not understand what you meant, that is for sure.

Kay,

The overlapping conversation here is from Dan Wallace’s last article on understanding the Bible. Some probably overlaps too from the article about “Subordinationalism–a Lesser Christ” that Michael recently did.

Cherylu,

These add up to –

Jephthah
Heads of the branches
David, as the nation of Israel, head of the Gentiles
The Roman people are compared to a body in need of a head

Is there one case of a person who is described as

Head of his family
head of his house
head of a tribe
head of a nation
head of a state
head of government

These are expressions common in English, but do not occur in Greek. In a live metaphor, in a comparison like a body in need of a head, it is understood that the metaphor exists for this one instance only.

We could say in English, that the family is like a body in need of a head, or a body in need of clothes, or a body in need of food. We can say all of these things. But only one of them relates back to a normal English phrase, head of the house.

There is quite a difference between kephale actually meaning “leader” and it occasionally being used in a life metaphor to represent the leader.

Is there any other man in Greek, other than Jephthah, who is called “head of his own people?” I don’t think so.

The reference to David occurs in a passage that is particularly difficult to translate. It is poetic, and the translation into Greek is hyper literal. But once again, David was never kephale of his own nation, Never.

I know this sounds like quibbling, but in Hebrew and Latin, kephale did mean leader. In Greek it did not. Paul is using a live metaphor. It means what it means for Paul.

mbaker,

You said, 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.

I know this has been discussed here before, but I guess this is one of the ways that you and I (or egals and comps?) see this issue differently. I see what he told the churches here not as something of his personal preference on how he wants his own churches to be run, but as a Spirit inspired direction on how churches in general are to be run.

I guess I am not saying that directly to you, mbaker, as we have already discussed this in the past. I am saying it more in the way of clarification to any that might be reading this thread now that missed that part of the conversation before. I don’t think it too likely that any one new to this thread is going to go back to the beginning and wade through all of what has been said here!

Sue,

“The reference to David occurs in a passage that is particularly difficult to translate. It is poetic, and the translation into Greek is hyper literal. But once again, David was never kephale of his own nation, Never.”

So ignore the one about David if you like. Maybe he was not called kaphale of his own nation. But he is still called kaphale of other people in a way that denotes rule or authority, is he not? And I thought that is what was being debated here anyway–if kaphale ever meant leadership or authority. Clearly it does in this verse–unless it is translated wrong–if it is over his own people or someone else.

You asked is there was one place where people were described as head of a tribe. I gave you several in my list of quotes above. What you are calling branches is what is translated tribes in those quotes. And who were heads of tribes but someone from the tribe itself?

“You asked is there was one place where people were described as head of a tribe. I gave you several in my list of quotes above. What you are calling branches is what is translated tribes in those quotes. And who were heads of tribes but someone from the tribe itself?”

I am translating from the Greek. I don’t know what Dr. Grudem is translating from. In Hebrew there is an expression, that the tribe is called a branch. But in Greek there is a word for tribe, and a word for branch. If the Greek says “head of a branch” then this reflects a literal translation from the Hebrew. It does not reflect a native Greek expression. It is a translation of the Hebrew heads of branches.

For David, is the husband the ruler of the wife, a creature whom he conquers OR the head of his wife, his own body?

I know that there are some theologians who teach that the husband must exert his authority over his wife. Paul told church leaders to never do any such thing. Would he really want a husband to do that. The extent of the mental cruelty practiced in accord with this doctrine is terrible, in my view.

In the Hebrew, and in Greek, there are many, many men who are heads of their households, tribes, nations, etc. But the expression kephale is not usually used for this. That’s all. There is a term oikodespotes, and this is used for many men and for the woman in 1 Tim. 5:14, that she should oikodespoteo her own house.

Why don’t we hear sermons on how the woman is the head of her household? That is exactly what the Greek says. But there is no emphasis put on this. Look this word up in the Liddell Scott Lexicon and you will see that there is a good Greek term for head of the house, and it is used for the woman in 1 Tim. 5:14.

Cheryl,

You are using examples of OT scriptures to illustrate of the Jewish style of patriarchal leadership in the tribes. Could you show us some NT examples of that kind of strict male authority still pertaining to the church itself, after the coming of Christ, other than those few verses Paul wrote (which we now know even respected theologians disagree upon, and did even in the early church)?

You seem to be so adamant on that word ‘head’ meaning singular authoritative leadership of the male over the female. What is your evidence, except that you believe the word ‘head’ to be literally meaning authority over? But where in the NT did God give that kind of authority to anyone except Christ, and then Christ to the apostles?

One of the problems with the “heads of branches” translation is that I can’t find it right now in the Septuagint, because I think it only occurs as a variant in some of the texts, but was changed later to the regular word for leaders of tribes. It is not in the presently published text of the Septuagint.

Here is what I found – οι αρχιφυλοι – the usual word for leader of a tribe.

An addition to my last post:

Cheryl,

To give an illustration, we are told we are all minsters of the reconciliation. What do you think this means? We are also told to make disciples of all men. Do you think that means only men can do this? Do you not share the gospel with male and female unbelievers alike? I mean, dare you, if women aren’t supposed to teach men?

Sue,

The Scripures Grudem used he said were from the Septuagint–the Greek translation of the OT. And he said that these people were head (kaphale) over tribes.

mbaker,
The point I was trying to make here is that kaphale can be used as ruler over or authority in Greek according to what I am reading. That was the point that was being argued as not possible by both Sue and by Kay. And obviously still is. So I don’t see how we can be so absolutely sure this is not the way Paul was meaning them here either. And after all, this is not the word that this whole debate turns on one way or the other. There are other verses that come into play here too.

“There are other verses that come into play here too.”

And they are?

“The Scripures Grudem used he said were from the Septuagint–the Greek translation of the OT. And he said that these people were head (kaphale) over tribes.”

Yes, but in fact, they were from different manuscripts than those used today. The Aquila translation and the Theodotian translation are not the ones that are published today. I am not saying that they do not exist, but they are not standard. In the Septuagint that exists today, it says οι αρχιφυλοι

In any case, in the Greek that Grudem uses it says “heads of rods” actually. I will have to look for this later. But I don’t know if I can find it. However, if you look in the references you gave me, there is no use of kephale at all in any published copy of the Septuagint. It cannot be found.

υμεις εστηκατε παντες σημερον εναντιον κυριου του θεου υμων οι αρχιφυλοι υμων και η γερουσια υμων και οι κριται υμων και οι γραμματοεισαγωγεις υμων πας ανηρ ισραηλ

This is Deut. 19:9 and the word kephale is not in it.

και εγενετο ως ηκουσατε την φωνην εκ μεσου του πυρος και το ορος εκαιετο πυρι και προσηλθετε προς με παντες οι ηγουμενοι των φυλων υμων και η γερουσια υμων
Deut 5:23 not there either.

οι ηγουμενοι των φυλων

leaders of the tribes in Deut. 5:23 but no use of the word kephale.

The Scripures Grudem used he said were from the Septuagint–the Greek translation of the OT. And he said that these people were head (kaphale) over tribes.

Just because Grudem says something, does not make it so. He has used a variant literal translation and then made it appear to be a standard translation, but the Greek that he saw actually said, “heads of rods.” The standard translation says “leaders of the tribes.”

Sue,

Well, if what you are saying about Grudem’s article is indeed correct, then it would seem he may very well have misrepresented things, intentionally or not. That is why I kept asking if that was the case.

I have to go. Have spent a lot of time at this today and don’t have any more to use here now.

Cheryl,

From Wayne Grudem’s book, Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood:

“Womanhood: Fourth, any have/have not theme in Galatians 3—4 is not tied to class distinctions such as gender, race, or economic status, but to changes in salvation-history that are relevant to all groups of people. ”

“Note that it was primarily the Jews who were described as slaves await-
ing the proper time to become full sons. Freeborn Jewish males were
the “have-nots” in Galatians 3—4! All Old Testament saints, whether
Jew/Gentile, slave/free, or male/female, eagerly awaited the promised
inheritance. Galatians does not describe the new covenant as one that
brings status and privilege for certain classes of second-class people
under the old covenant. Rather, a fair reading of Galatians 3—4 shows
that Paul’s emphasis in these chapters is upon the arrival of new bless-
ings for all who were held prisoner “until faith should be revealed”
(3:23), and not upon the arrival of new privileges for particular classes
of unequal Old Testament saints.54”

But Paul’s switch from “there is not…or…” (ouk…oude) to “there is not male and female” (ouk…kai) in Galatians 3:28, in direct imitation of LXX Genesis 1:27, could suggest that he is indicating more than a new blessing upon former prisoners, and that he in fact is announcing a New Creation, a New (Hu)Man. The first Adam and all his descendants and his and their sins and life and nature were nailed to a cross in the body of the last Adam. This last Adam then rose from the dead as a life-giving spirit and sent forth His Spirit from heaven as the Second man/Adam to incorporate into Himself all those of whatever race or nation or status or class or gender or age who place their faith in Him. In this New (Hu)Man there is not “male and female” because He does not come from the earth like the first man did. He is the Bridegroom to His Bride, and the head of His body, and all the members of His body are one in Him and one with Him.

N’est-ce pas?

Cherylu,

I think Grudem has stretched things a little. But if the case is so obvious against women, why would he need to do that?

Cheryl, as a comp, you tell us.

I certainly didn’t see his stance here as being against women but against the the strictly partricharical view, which, prior to Christ, was biased toward strictly toward gender or race.

Race being part of the original tribes of Israel.

fitz, in 1148 you said, “I respect everyones opinions and positions in non-essential areas but they must have strong scriptural support. The Egal position in my opinion lacks this strong support.”

So I request scriptural support for who you think “God” refers to in 1 Co 11? There is no contextual support that it refers the Father, so if someone needs to provide support for a heirarchy, of the Ftahr over the Christ and man over woman in 1 Co 11, it’s comps. At the very least give me the contextual support I request. Thanks. There’s alot a comp is going to have to deny Christ in 1 Co 11 if the claim is made that “God” refers to the Father and not the Godhead. But we cannot deny that he was Creator, was prayed to and the churches belong to him. So where’s the hierarchal support in this instance?

Re: #1227, And not originally including the gentiles in the gospel of salvation, until the advent of Christ.

fitz, “If we cant rely on the “clear” teaching of verses…”

I rely on the clear reading of Paul in 1 Tim 2 for example. Paul is stopping only one woman. How much clearer can it get? There’s no way to prove that he stopped more than one woman or that the singular is used for women in general. That’s as clear as it gets. The comp interpretation in fact, of 1 Tim 2 is the one that is not clear, for example – women are saved through childbirth, even though many women cannot even have children lol

1203 Kay, “Ultimately, I keep coming back, as others have as well, to why argue over a position that isn’t biblical in the first place. The real discussion should be on how does the Church justify a “Head Pastor” “position” at ALL.”

Isn’t that a fact ;P

Sure makes me wonder.

1213 Sue :”Why don’t we hear sermons on how the woman is the head of her household? That is exactly what the Greek says. But there is no emphasis put on this. Look this word up in the Liddell Scott Lexicon and you will see that there is a good Greek term for head of the house, and it is used for the woman in 1 Tim. 5:14.”

The reason why we don’t hear sermons on how the woman is the head of the household (oikodespotes) is because it’s the “head pastor” who’s giving the sermons lol

mbaker,

Cheryl, as a comp, you tell us.

I certainly didn’t see his stance here as being against women but against the the strictly partricharical view, which, prior to Christ, was biased toward strictly toward gender or race.

I’m lost, what are you referring to here?

Cheryl,

I’m referring to my comment about Grudem in #1223. Which comment are you referring to? I think he makes it pretty plain there, and if you don’t think that’s the case, then why and how, specifically?

mbaker,

I am not completely sure what Grudem was saying in that comment. I think I would have to read more of the context to be more sure about what he is meaning.

Unfortunately, Sue has been banned. Not because of this post, but because other posts continually were being turned into the Egal/Comp debate. Sorry, we have just recieved too many complaints and I don’t have the time to moderate 24/7!

If anyone is interested in continuing to follow my series on the role of women, here is a new article on Genesis 3:16.

Blessings

Coming very late to this. 1200 or so comments is a lot…and I started in the middle!

I listened to an interesting audio file about 1 Timothy 11…that verse everyone is having trouble with. Unfortunately, I can’t track down the audio, but here is a site that sums it up in much the same way.

http://welivebythespirit.org/Paul_Timothy_Gnostics_Women/Paul_Timothy_Gnostics_Women.htm

It specifically discusses the Gnostic heresies in Ephesus at the time of Paul’s writing, and how 1 Timothy 11 makes a great deal of sense in light of those. In summery:

Gnostisim taught: “Knowledge of your origins via your family tree is important to salvation; Eve is the origin of all.”

Thus, Paul’s comment about genealogies, and his correction that Adam came first.

Gnosticism taught: “Eve is worshipped as a perfect, spirit being, Adam’s creator and, united with the Serpent, the enlightener of mankind with the True Knowledge.”

If fact, a common thought was that Adam was deceived because he did not recognize the Serpent as the enlightener. Whereas Paul refutes this by reminding the reader that Eve was not perfect, but rather the one deceived…while Adam was not deceived.

Gnosticism taught: “That which is physical is evil; spirit is good. Creating more vile flesh by having children is evil. Women who give birth will be hindered from entering Gnostic heaven.”

This is, IMO, the kicker. It’s the only context with which I can make sense of Paul’s bizarre statement about childbirth. “The childbirth” being a reference to Christ’s birth is a somewhat plausible alternative…but are Christians saved by Jesus’ birth? No. Else why would his death be necessary…and why would their faith in that sacrifice be necessary? Salvation is by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross…the fact of his birth is not enough.

Amaranth,

Wow. That makes a lot of sense, actually. And I can even see why Paul would think having women teaching in the church would be problematic, if it would have that kind of connotations. And it would make it sound like ‘authentein’ ought to be understood in this context as a woman placing herself in the position that Gnosticism assigns to women. So the question here is whether women are supposed to place themselves in a one-way relationship of submission to men, or whether we are supposed to do away with control-based relationships entirely and think in terms of equality between the sexes. Both variants represent ‘knocking women down a notch’ relative to the Gnostic view – the question is, as it were, whether we are speaking of one or two notches. And to decide that question, we have to look at other verses of Scripture.

Amaranth –

One thing to also note is that a lot of people in Ephesus would have been worshipers of the great goddess, Artemis. I believe knowing that will give insight into some of Paul’s words to Timothy, that he is not silencing women, but silencing a specific teaching of women that was coming forth that perverted the original teaching as set forth in Genesis.

Indeed. I get the impression that Paul isn’t saying that women (or “a woman”) shouldn’t teach at all…he’s saying she shouldn’t teach Gnostic heresies, which he then goes on to refute, point by point, in the next verses.

“Authentein” can mean domineering or usurping authority, and in the context of Timothy it makes sense that way. The text is “I do not permit a woman to teach or claim authority over a man”. That “or” is the crux of the sentence. Did he mean, “I do not permit a woman to teach a man, and I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man.” Or did he mean, “I do not permit a woman to teach authority over a man, and I do not permit a woman to claim authority over a man.” Both seem equally plausible, but the second falls more in line with the Gnostic refutation trend.

I’ve also heard (from a single source, so I’m not entirely convinced) that Paul specifically used the word “authentein” to imply not just authority, but authorship. As in, saying Eve created Adam. Saying woman came from man. As in, “I do not permit a woman to teach or claim authorship of a man”…which would be an even more clear refutation of Gnostic belief at the time. The fact that it’s the only place the word is used, tells me that it was being used to say something very, very specific…something that “authority” doesn’t quite cover.

Amaranth,

The Greek here is ‘didaskein’ and ‘authentein’. So it would be the first rather than the second option. Here is a literal translation of vv. 10-11: Let (a) woman in quietness learn in all submission. To teach, however, I do not permit (a) woman, nor to ‘authentein’ (a) man. I am purposely leaving ‘authentein’ untranslated for the moment. What is not clear from the word order here is whether the word ‘andros’ (direct object form of ‘aner’ – ‘adult male person’) is the object only of the verb ‘authentein’, or of ‘didaskein’ as well. An extremist interpretation of this verse could even be that women are not permitted to teach *at all* (regardless of the gender of the ‘teachees’). But I think even the most conservative among us would admit that the letter to Titus does speak of older women teaching younger women various things. So now that we’ve admitted that viewing things in a larger context of the whole of Scripture can lead to very different conclusions than if we took only the verse at hand…

I have read that the neither/nor constuction can refer to 1 thing or 2 things. Also that the direct object “man” is in Greek such that if it is 2 things, then it only applies to authentein. The implication is that IF man is also a direct object of didaskein, then it is one thing that is being discussed.

gunaiki [(to/for) a woman] as the object of epitrepô (I am permitting) is in the dative case.

andros [(of) a man] as the object of authentein is in the genitive case. There are several verbs whose objects do or can take the genitive case.

Ah yes, gunaiki I recognized as dative. But I admit to speaking a language on an everyday basis where the genitive and accusative singular forms for masculine animate nouns (e.g. ‘man’, ‘tomcat’ etc.) are identical, so sometimes I miss that particular distinction…

Now let me ask you something: is there anything that these verbs whose objects take the genitive have in common? Because in Polish, verbs that have to do with ruling, directing etc. often take the instrumental. I am sure that authenteO would take the instrumental if it were a Polish verb. Is there a situation like that in Koine Greek?

Now I guess it’s semi-obvious that ‘andros’ is the object only of ‘authenteO’ – although then again, there might be a rule that if the two verbs take different cases, that the noun only has to agree with the second one. Does anyone here know if such a rule exists in Koine?

Just a thought. Authentein is a Greek verb, yes? And yet “authority”, in English, is a noun…you don’t “”authority” somebody…you “have authority” or something like that. So to authentein someone, means one is doing something with that someone’s authority. It’s about what’s being done with the authority in question, not the authority itself? In which case I can’t see making the argument that women aren’t to *have* authority over men…it starts to sound like that aren’t to *take* it, or *steal* it, presumably by force (which seems to fit the implications of domineering and/or violence in the word). Am I way off base?

I’m not a language scholar by any stretch of the imagination, which is why I appreciate places like this, where I can pick the brains of those who have really studied the languages at hand. So, I wanted to say thank you for that. 😀

I don’t know enough about Greek to know what might characterize verbs that take their object in the genitive, and I don’t know my software well enough to do a syntax search and find all the instances in the NT.

“I am not permitting (a) woman to teach/authentein a man” is one possibility if the neither/nor construction is for one thing.

“I am not permitting (a) woman to teach (nor to authentein a man)” is another if the construction is for 2 things.

What is NOT possible is how it is often read in English, I am not permitting a women to teach a man nor authentein a man. That is, if it is 2 things being prohibited, then the scope of “not teaching” is unlimited, yet we know that older women can teach younger from Titus, so it must be a temporal limited prohibition (that is limited to the situation at Ephesus) if it is 2 things being discussed.

Here is a new post on the role of women at my blog.

Thanks for any interaction.

I just posted a new article at my blog looking at Galatians 3:27-29.

Hey all. Today I posted a new blog article in my series on the role of women, specifically looking at the ever-debated 1 Timothy 2:8-15. I welcome any comments.

Blessings