Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors

Good Grief. Even if I were a complementarian (I’m on the fence), I wouldn’t be one for the reason you give.

I’ll be back later, I have to go bang my drum in the woods . . . .

I believe, like in military, the position of head pastor is the same.

The role of head pastor, I believe requires confrontation. That is not all there is, but it is there and it is very important.

“…the position of head pastor….”

“The role of head pastor….”

Hmmm.

Where does one find that “position” or “role” clearly described in Scripture? E.g., where does Paul tell Timothy or Titus or someone to appoint a “head pastor” in every church?

The argument presented here seems to be based on eisegeting one’s church traditions or customs or practices into the Scriptures.

In other words, when someone asks a question that does not even use Scriptural terms, do not expect the answer to be Scriptural either.

“The argument presented here seems to be based on eisegeting one’s church traditions or customs or practices into the Scriptures.”

…and thereby discovering that the Scriptures support one’s practice or position or argument. 🙂

Obviously we are all aware of the result of an assertive, take charge, call the shots Eve and a passive, go along with it Adam.

So God says…”OK man, you blew it, so now I charge you with the responsibility of being the leader, and it will be a difficult burden to bear. And woman, you used poor judgement and rushed ahead, so I charge you with the responsibility of assisting and supporting–and woman, you’re going to long for man’s position of authority.”

And isn’t that exactly where we’re at? It’s not about our abilities at all. It is about our position. Jesus is submissive to the will of the Father, but fully equal. Women are called to be submissive to the authority given to man, but are fully equal.

Kim S, very well said. Very good discernment. You kept it simple…simply profound. I was picturing Jesus reading all of this…including my own comments and shaking his head side to side. We get so scholarly, we miss it entirely. We miss the obvious. And to think we thought that ended with the Pharisees. HA!

“Obviously we are all aware of the result of an assertive, take charge, call the shots Eve and a passive, go along with it Adam.”

I don’t know if you are joking or not, because that is not at all the picture painted of the woman or the man. Good exegesis requires more thought.

TL: The first two paragraphs struck me as being facetious, but even if the third one was written with a straight face, I couldn’t keep one while reading it. Nor could I figure out what Kim S (he? she?) is actually saying.

I am Joe’s (novel) / Jack’s (film) state of confusion. 😕

My research includes this particular area, but I won’t write a long post!

I agree with your conclusion, but not your argumentation – primarily because your argument does not come from the text, and because it is somewhat anecdotal. I know of several women I would rather have facing an intruder than their husbands!

The argument from the text has to do with spiritual authority (as do the passages in 1 Cor 7 and 1 Cor 14). I would be a fool to say that I have nothing to learn from mature Christian women – they “teach” me all the time. What Paul is talking about here is the exercise of spiritual authority within a church setting.

The argument begins in Gen 1-2 (as Paul notes), as God creates Adam as the covenant head and Eve as the “ezer” (suitable completer, companion). He represents the family before God (even though each one can relate to God directly). She has the responsibility to help him represent the family well. They are equal in creation, but not equivalent. (“Covenant head” does not mean I’m a covenant theologian.) God maintains these roles throughout the Fall and Redemption in Christ, both in the family and in the church family.

Where this gets interesting to me is then in defining what “submission” really is. It is not that the woman submits to the man’s person, his gender, or his title. Rather, her submission is her commitment to his true success as the covenant head. This is a commitment she can make even during the times when he is doing very little toward his success as the covenant head.

To develop these ideas takes far more space than this post allows. But, suffice it to say that the spiritual authority in the church mirrors the same function as the covenant head within the family.

Covenant head, what eisegesis, this term is not found in Scripture.

Once again folks, this is not an exegetical post. I said as much in the post. Many of you are critiquing with wrong assumptions.

This post assumes the complementarian position and attempts to give but yet one explanation as to why, practically speaking, this might be the case that women cannot teach.

In every worldview test, one must pragmatically defend their position. This does not mean it is right or wrong necessarily, it just give a further explanation as to why this might be the case that such and such is true.

Like with the Law. There have been countless extrabiblical attempts to explain how the dietary laws of the OT might have been in place. Some good, some a stretch. But they are pragmatic and extra-biblical reasons. This does not make them wrong or, in any sense, unjustified.

When it come to this issue, pragmatically speaking, my argument is that people respond to the authority of men more than women. As well, men are more inclined to assert the type of authority that is necessary in certain circumstances.

I had a egalitarian professor once argue to me that men and women had no essential differences other than reproduction. He felt that he must hold to this in order to substantiate his case. I said, “What about physical strength?” He said that there were German women that we stronger than many men!! With a straight face! He really was basing his theology on these exceptions.

I find that so many of you are doing the same thing here.

Common sense must have a place to play. One can give all the exceptions that they can, but this does not divert of the reality of the big picture.

Keep on track. I don’t mind arguments so long as they are not about Egalitarianism and Complementarianism. You can argue, as a complementarian, that this argument that I am making here is not good. That is fine. In fact, some of you have brought up some good points about the headship (which I don’t think answers the why question at all). But at least they are attempt to answer why it is that women cannot teach men.

Others have brought up the deception part of Paul’s argument. What does it mean that Eve was deceived and Adam was not? That is a very valid question. I would love to hear more about that from you.

But as it stands, I feel as if my illustration is very good and helps in the understanding of this issue. 🙂

Also, please no more about the word “head pastor” not being in the Bible. That is so tangential it does not deserve to be talked about here. You should know that we are simply talking about positions of teaching authority, eldership (not in a modern protestant sense), and leadership over men in the local church. If you don’t like the term “head pastor” that is your soap box, but, valid or invalid, not one for discussion here.

The phrase does not appear, but that doesn’t mean it’s eisegesis. The term “Trinity” doesn’t appear either, but it’s not eisegesis to conclude the Trinity from Scripture.

The concept of covenant head is rather easy to establish Scripturally. I realize some responsible exegetes don’t agree with that, but there’s a good argument in favor of it, starting with Adam, then Abraham, then Moses, David, and Christ. All the functions are demonstrated. Christ, in that role, is called the “head” of the body more than once, reflecting the same idea as what the phrase “covenant head” means.

But … lest we get too far into a debate, the lack of the phrase occurring in Scripture does not equate to eisegesis, whether or not my exegesis is correct.

I am one that actually believes the Bible is sufficient for faith and practise, so why add to it with terms not found in the Bible.

Yes, there are covenants associated with specific people. Yes, there is a creation covenant, but there is nowhere any statement that Adam is covenant head, this is just a human tradition for some. There are lots of traditions associated with the creation account, we saw some others stated by Kim above, but it does not mean that is what the Bible teaches.

EricW,

Payne’s argument is problematic and ultimately unconvincing. I would say for grammar what I say for lexicography. When half of the examples don’t bear out the rule, then it is not a grammatical rule. (Cf. 2 Cor 7:12; 1 Thes 2:3, 5; Instead, it’s simply an observation that ouk oude can link similar elements (whether they are combined as a hendiadys is a completely different issue; I would say only a few of his examples display that). The question becomes: are the two infinitives to be linked as a single idea in 1 Tim 2:12?

The immediate book itself is helpful, as Paul uses the construction in 1 Tim 6:7 to refer to polar opposites. In 6:16, he uses it to contrast what is done (not seeing) with what cannot be done (see). I think in this latter case, Payne seems to be making the argument with these types of parallels that they some how are the same idea. They actually are two different ideas. They are related, but that is not the issue at hand. It is whether the relation is one that would cause us to see it as a single idea. This simply is not the case here.

Secondly, the idea that the two verbs in 2:12 are one idea must come from their semantic domains, not the use of oude, as is clear from Payne’s own examples. There is no evidence that I am aware of that didasko and authenteo have any overlap. Certainly, we can see that one who teaches may have authority, but one who teaches may also have a mouth with which he teaches. This does not mean that the idea of the physical mouth and the idea of teaching are one and the same.

Folks, we are not going in this direction.

Whoops, sorry Michael. I didn’t read you there. I’ll just respond to Sue on another day. Thanks

Hodge, I was not speaking of your conversation. It is actually pretty good.

I was talking about the legitimacy of the designation “head pastor.”

Hodge:

Dr. Payne welcomes comments/criticisms re: the arguments he makes in his book:

http://www.pbpayne.com/?page_id=42

I’m sure he’d respond to your criticism. In fact, I’d hope it would be one he’d post so we all could read his response.

CMP,

I’m with you on the basic idea of venturing a pragmatic explanation. You’re not trying to prove your position–people shouldn’t be evaluating it on those terms. You’re assuming that the Bible teaches complementarianism, and offering a possible explanation of the reason for it. So people shouldn’t expect exegesis.

On the other hand, Paul actually does indicate the reason. If your suggestion has nothing to do with the Adam/Eve/deception thing, then it wasn’t God’s reason. (Or at least, Paul gave a reason–so it’s less likely that your suggestion was really part of God’s reason.)

Even aside from whether your suggestion makes sense by itself.

OK, back on track:

“This post assumes the complementarian position and attempts to give but yet one explanation as to why, practically speaking, this might be the case that women cannot teach.”

I would actually argue that what you have argued here is not complementarian, but a tenet of patriarchy. Patriarchy argues toward authority for men from a deficiency in the woman and a greater ability in the man. Complementarianism, however, seems to argue that both may have equal ability, but are assigned two different roles/jobs according to their gender (and I would argue that it because of the role of motherhood in the woman). Obviously, men and women are made differently, but differentiation and lack of ability (i.e., in this case the boldness to be aggressive and confrontational) seem to be two different things. I would argue that women have just as much of an ability to perform the role of the man, but that it would destroy her created purpose of motherhood and the reflection that God sets within her and her husbands relationship of the gospel and the order of His Church.
In other words, Complementarianism argues that both genders are made as the image of God, but are assigned two different roles, as also seen in their biology (and I don’t mean to say above that they have the same physical ability since they are physically divided into gender). Patriarchy, however, tends to see the man and woman, not only divided physically into their respective roles, but also spiritually, mentally, etc.
Do you think that your argument fits the former or the latter? And if so, where does Paul’s argument touch lack of ability? Practical theology works out what is in the text. I don’t see how your argument is a practical working out of what is there, nor do I see that it complements what is there, which is really my main issue with it. I don’t mind supplementing arguments, but not when they do not work out the arguments presented in the text.

Hodge, I don’t know what type of complementarianism you have come to know, but complementarianism does not argue for equality in ability at all. That is why the sexes complement each other: one sex has abilities that the other does not have. We believe that men have deficiencies in many areas that women fulfill. Same thing with regard to women.

Jug, I agree. I would tie in the “decieved” to my argument above, but have a hard time doing so. I simply do not know what Paul mean when he says that Eve was decieve and what the implications are. However, it could be her weakness which would tie in here quite a bit. I am simply not ready to go there.

OK Sue, since I have the green light from Michael, let me answer you:

If you want positive uses of authenteo from the Patristic era, then we have much more to work with there. Instead of citing the numerous examples that Lampe gives in his lexicon, concerning the word used in positive contexts, one use of which refers to God’s authority (Does God’s authority have a negative connotation?), I would simply refer you there.

I would also like you to quote the passage in Greek for me, since I don’t have access to it from where I am right now. What you quoted me, along with what Lampe quotes, proves my point about context determining a words connotation. If it can be used positively and negatively then it is the context that determines that connotation, not the word itself. (Not to mention that we’re going a couple hundred years past Paul to find its meaning.) But I would like that in Greek. Thanks.

Am I missing something? Is there anything new in payne’s book that has not been said by egals for the last 20 years. I am with Blomberg…nothing new. http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/man-and-woman-one-in-christ-an-exegetical-and-theological-study-of-pauls-letters/

Maybe I’ve misunderstood and this is my own brand of complementarianism, but I have always seen arguments that stem from belief in human sameness, but gender differentiation. In other words, what is different is the biology of the male and female for the purpose of family and the reflection of Christ’s relationship with His people. So they are physically different, but mentally and spiritually have the same abilities due to their shared human nature. I have only heard the other arguments made by the patriarchy groups, but I could be mistaken.

OK, thinking outside the box here. We learn and grow when we are required to get out of our comfort zone. To keep doing what we do best rarely stretches one. Could it be that since Adam showed weak leadership that God required it even more in order to stretch man? And could it be that Eve chose to be deceived and to not believe God, the Authority and therefore, God put her with all her abilities and talents in submission to stretch her and teach her about authority and obedience? Could it be that this is one of the ways that GOD demonstrates that He is God? By making us work in positions that don’t come naturally to us? Don’t know if you understand what I’m saying. That maybe, man does not possess all the talents and diversity for leadership that women possess and that women have always struggled with obedience and their emotions and too much of an eye for bling? Don’t everybody have a meltdown. Just a question.

Payne says in his comment on Blomberg’s post. “The problem with treating “assume authority” as though it refers to the assumption of properly granted authority is that all eighteen instances of αὐθεντέω from the first century BC to the sixth century AD with the meaning “assume authority” refer to assumption of authority that has not been properly delegated, as I show on pages 365-70 and 385-94.”

If someone thinks authenteo means something else, they need to interact with Payne.

Hodge,

Thanks. I am not sure if I have the Greek for Hippolytus, but rather two English translations – one complementarian and one traditional.

I am aware that if you pass on to a later time period, there are examples of the word being used with reference to God as our absolute master. But no one can take God’s place. Perhaps several centuries later, it was also applied to a pope. I am not sure. It is also used with the notion of usurping other people’s authority, and taking things that do not belong to you.

However, staying within the time period, I am asking if there are any examples at all of a context which shows that it can mean “to lead in church” or to lead in a positive way.

We do know that church leaders were told explicitly that they were not to kurievein their flock. That is an absolute command to church leaders in 1 Peter.

Likewise, women also are not to authentein (kurievein.)

Unless someone can produce a use of the word authentein which does not mean “to wield coercive or controlling power”, I must come into all discussions with the assumption that we do not have the data to argue that authentein means “to lead in church.” Academically, I have no other choice. I would be misrepresenting the facts otherwise.

I know that people trust me to be truthful on this, because I do have the data for several of the occurences of authentein on my blog, and I have interacted with many scholars on this topic.

In the end. I don’t have a good interpretation for this chapter. I have to let it go, and I know many academic, secular scholars who find the Greek of this chapter challenging to say the least.

Michael,

Often I prefer the academic debate, since I deplore all personal comments made on the internet. I have so much respect for your family life, for you and your wife, that I cannot bring myself to comment on the focus of your post except to acknowledge appreciation of your commitment to honesty and transparency. Your personal writing always touches my heart.

CMP:

Re: why one should buy and read Payne’s book, even if much of it has been said before:

I think Payne has put forth the arguments in a more exacting and detailed and extensive way, and has also (both in the text and in the footnotes) explicitly and pointedly called out Moo, Kostenberger, Grudem, et al., re: some of their statements and arguments.

That’s what makes Payne’s new book required reading, IMO, for both egalitarians and complementarians.

And, for those interested in textual criticism, his argument that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is an interpolation based on markings in Vaticanus as well as the history and geographic occurrence of the variant readings and the text’s inclusion and omission, is interesting reading.

I think that Payne’s conclusion that 1 Cor 11 is not about head coverings but about hair length is something that future commentators need to consider. Not just the possibility, but also how Payne supports his argument.

Read all of Blomberg’s review, as well as all of Payne’s even longer response!

The book is less than $20 at Amazon.com, and for that price, it should be a no-brainer purchase for those grappling with this issue, whether as a comp or an egal.

In other words, if you want to weigh in on the issue in the future, I think you have to be self-informed re: Payne’s treatments of the relevant texts and how he documents the support for his conclusions.

And as one who knows NT Greek, there are some interesting grammatical and lexical discussions.

Foolish probably to comment since you take away the real issue by saying that you are simply unwilling to entertain the idea that your interpretation is wrong.
Never the less, your arguments here are weak as well. Using your wife to represent all women is not fair or accurate. Maybe she is the exception rather than the rule. The majority of women I have met are fully capable of confronting any issue presented to them. Additionally they can often do so with a whole lot less bravado. Habit–AKA men are more readily followed–does not prove that men are more worthy or capable leaders. Finally, I think you are reaching too far into the future with your “suggestion” that what Paul is saying only applies to the role of senior pastor. It is hardly something he would have been concerned with give the culture in which he was writing.

Hi Michael! You are a guy very smart and very onest! Thanks Gad for you. But I chalenge you…is possible be a calvinist egalitarian, don’t be scary :). I know that a fist can speaks more than a thousand words, but believe me the woman is not to weak 🙂 Anyway is posible that ” Doctrine Develop within the Canon”?It’s posible a completarian become an egalitarian? Are you sure that Paul was prescriptive and not descriptive? ? And your argument sounds more subiective than obiective. Sounds a”folk theology” ! God Bless You (I am honest)

As one who leans towards complementarianism I do not think you have done it any favours with this example Michael. Sorry!

The church is full of men who have abdicated their responsibilities like a lot of little Ahabs. Men can be as timid and as frightened as your Kristie I’m afraid. They can also be very lazy.

However, one reason put forth why Paul stated that women could not teach was because of the dangers of being in authority as Christian leaders under Nero – they were very likely to be killed. How true this is I do not know, but if you’re going to talk about the physical strength of men being a prime reason as to why Paul recommended male leadership, the argument that it was highly dangerous to be a female Christian teacher under Nero would make more sense to me.

So will the next post be entitled:

“Why Women Cannot Have The Right To Vote”

😀

Biblical patriarchy in the church explained irenically.

Well done, CMP!!!

Will you wife come to my house and help me unlearn how to deal with confrontation, since I’m obviously not a proper woman?

I have:

1) Dealt with an aggressive landlord who threatened to sue me when he suddenly decided to break his own lease and charge me an extra 75% on my rent to pay for extra heating bills he had not anticipated.

2) Dealt for 3 years with the friendly neighborhood sociopath who came to the parsonage and constantly threatened to kill me if I didn’t do as he said. (n.b. Handling this guy didn’t require aggression, it required assertiveness and confidence)

3) Dealt with the teenagers who repeatedly attempted to vandalize the church. That particular church’s expenditure for repairs decreased by about 60% when I was the minister. (n.b. Dealing with the teenagers didn’t require aggression, it required assertiveness and confidence)

4) Stood up in front of the congregation and told them to stop spreading false and malicious rumors about a member of the wider the community. (N.b. this didn’t require aggression, it required me to have previously earned the trust and respect of the congregation – which is what “authority” is – and it required assertiveness and confidence.)

5) Dealt with sexual misconduct in the congregation. This also did not require aggression but required much the same as point 4.

So when a man who is 5’6″ and weighs 130 pounds doesn’t want to physically confront another man who is 5’10” and 180 pounds, do we conclude that the first man is unfit for leadership? Or just wise?

Sue, here’s our problem:

“Unless someone can produce a use of the word authentein which does not mean “to wield coercive or controlling power”, I must come into all discussions with the assumption that we do not have the data to argue that authentein means “to lead in church.”

1. I believe authenteo means to have or wield controlling power (coercive is probably a bit too loaded of an English word for us to use though I would not object to it in any strict sense), so your arguing that controlling power is abusive power in and of itself is an unsubstantiated assumption. If all exercise of power is abusive then of course you would see authenteo as abusive because it is the assertion of authority (specifically here in disciplinary matters).

2. I don’t believe authenteo refers to leading, which is more of what the pastoral analogy gives to us of an elder. I believe this has to do with the wielding of authority in Church discipline. So this authority is not one of delegation (cf. exousia), but of exercising Christ’s authority to discipline a member of the body.

3. I think P. Leid W vi.46 shows that the word refers to a governing authority likened to the reign the sun has over the earth (which is common thinking in the ancient world concerning the sun–cf. Gen 1:16); but the attestation of the word is scarce, so context, as said before, must be king.

4. I would still like you to address the merism I mentioned between the two polarized pairs. The contrast is not between good authority and abusive authority, but between complete submission and authority, and this is restricted only to performing this “over a man” because, according to Paul’s argument, there is a created order, Eve was deceived, and the role of women is found in the sacredness and sanctification of motherhood. Paul’s reason isn’t because authority should be practiced in a better way by women, but that they ought not have that authority for the reasons he gives. I don’t see how your limiting the term to negative connotations, and carrying certain contexts over to other contexts, fits with the rest of what Paul says here.

“We do know that church leaders were told explicitly that they were not to kurievein their flock. That is an absolute command to church leaders in 1 Peter.

Likewise, women also are not to authentein (kurievein.)”

So are you saying that the two terms are parallel? Because kurieuo also does not carry a negative connotation inherently. Rom 14:9 indicates that it can be a positive authority. Other contexts use it as a negative one. Thus, it is the context, not the word that carries this meaning.

Let me give you an example:

My Wife: “The electrician will come today to fix the light.”

Me: “What time will he be here?”

My Wife: “The man will be here at 5 pm.”

Another context:

My Wife: “The man is coming to fix the toilet.”

Me Applying Sue’s Lexicographical Methodology:

“The electrician’s coming to fix our toilet?”

My Wife: “No.”

Me: “But you used the word ‘man’ before in the context that referred to an electrician. So ‘man’ must carry with it the idea of someone who deals with electricity.”

Do you see the problem, Sue? Words have very limited meanings. They are smaller symbols that, although carrying some meaning, are meant to be interpreted within the larger contexts of other linguistic symbols. The real issue is what does the word mean here, not what can it mean in different contexts.

I know Sue is a Greek scholar, but what is the person who goes by Hodge?

Michael,

I agree with you that the Bible prohibits women from being teachers, and I generally agree with your line of reasoning. The problem I have with justifying the Biblical teaching in this way is twofold: (1) it ignores the reasons Paul gave for his teaching; (2) it always invites the exceptions.

Regarding (1), Paul’s reasons were the creation order and Eve’s deception. The latter doesn’t preach well at all, but that is what Paul said (interpret it how you will).

Regarding (2), someone will always point to some woman (perhaps Joyce Meyers) who handles confrontation really well, and then say, “So why can’t she teach/be pastor?” That’s the drawback of using generalities, and focusing on certain abilities.

Jason,

I don’t really know what to do about the headship thing. It is very obscure as to the why. I suppose just about any “why” could fit into it with some creativity. With obscurities such as this, I find it dogmatic, yet not explanatory. In other words, I believe it, I just don’t know what the reason are for it.

As far as the confrontation issue: I should have been more clear in the original post. But I am not saying that confrontation is not in the blood of women (you should see my wife when we fight!). I am saying that in these type of situations, more often than not, women are not bent in this direction. BUT more than this, they don’t command the respect and following here the way men do. That is why I emphasize the military illustration. However, the “robber” illustration will do as well (kind of). For example, if I were to come out of the room and a robber was in my house, I would command more respect from him than if my wife were to come out. There are many many reasons for this, but generally speaking, this is the way it is everywhere and always (i.e. it is not cultural, but part of our nature).

To bout for exceptions is problematic for two reasons:
1. Exceptions prove rules, not change them.
2. Most importantly for Christian discipleship, when we accept that this is the way it is (i.e. men and women are different by design and have different gifts and weaknesses) we will start building this into men and women at an effective level where the exceptions become even more exceptional. When we don’t, we neuter society, in my opinion, the way God intended it to be.

In my opinion, we are living in a more neutered society and we have failed to honor the role of women properly. Therefore, we still strive for the ideal and don’t compromise simply because this is just the way it is. Ideal is always what God commands, not a weak compromise because we are sinners. In other words, God commands us to be holy as he is holy even though it is not really possible. He commands us not to covet even though we are all going to. He commands things that are ideal even though it is a fallen world. We should promote the ideal, not a compromised version of it.

Eric, I know you were joking with your statement about women voting, but I think it is important to realize that with other interpretations in the Complementarian camp (i.e. women are not discerning, smart, rational, etc.) that can be a next logical step. However, with what I have presented here, it cannot.

Yes, I was joking, but you are correct that for some complementarians, it is a next logical step. I understand some complementarians were flummoxed about what to do with Sarah Palin being on the Presidential-VP ticket.

“BUT more than this, they don’t command the respect and following here the way men do.

Michael, now I see what you’re getting at. As a personal anecdote, my son was almost 7 when my husband past away. But even at a young age, my son had a respect for his dad that he did not show me and that I still struggle to earn (he is 12 now). And that was even when the man was ill! I often feel like I have to adopt or more stern tone and demeanor than is warranted just to let him know who is in charge.

But I still think it is a leap to generalize. There are reasons men may command more respect than women and not in all circles. A lot of it could just be socialization. I wonder if the same issue arises in egalitarian oriented churches that have established a culture of equality and it is common for women to be in leadership. I dunno, I think that would make a great survey.

Or you can simply take this as Paul – a naturally combative fellow raised in a chauvinist society – as spouting off his own opinion in a context utterly alien to our own.

When Paul doesn’t jive with actual reality, it’s not really that tough of a choice.

CMP wrote “Exceptions prove rules, not change them.”

The proverb is “The exception proves the rule.” The problem is that “proves” is used in the sense of tests, or else the proverb does not make sense. This can be seen at any number of Inet sites if you do not believe me.

So it IS true that an exception tests a rule and may mean the rule needs to change.
It is NOT TRUE that “Exceptions prove rules, not change them.”

My point is that God did not make any mistakes or accomodations in choosing Deborah, Huldah, Anna, Prisca, etc.

Michael,

There have been many articles in the last couple of years on how women are better at managing investments than men. This is one reason why it is so wrong to deprive women of equal say in money management in the home. Why should women, who are doomed to a slightly longer old age, not be able to plan for their own financial support into their own old age.

Hodge,

I assume that you have no example of authentein which is positive in connotation, when practiced by one human to another. You then proceed to give a non comparison about electricians, and men.

Obviously “electrician” has a very specific meaning and regardless of the context it does not lose that meaning.

Me: The electrician was here today and he suggested that I remove the water saver from the showerhead.

You: You mean the plumber, don’t you.

Me: No, the plumber did not recommend it, but I was chatting with the electrician while he did the wiring for the fan, and he said that he had taken his own water saver out, and now the shower has much better pressure.

Is this conversation possible or not? Does a word have enough of a meaning that we can actually say something unexpected or not? I suppose you are never able to communicate any information which is contrary to other people’s expectation. That is a very limited form of expression.

With respect to other comments, I do not doubt your knowledge of Greek. You so carefully skirt the facts that I know that you know that there is no evidence for a positive use of authentein. What a state for the church to be in after 2000 years of limiting women!

Kurieuein. What about it?

It is used of the sun and the moon, of God and the Lord. It is used of emperors.

It was used for the unkind way that Adam would treat Eve in Gen 3:16, and church leaders are told never to do katakurieuein. (I argue that katakurieuein and kurieuein are not substantially different on the basis of Luke 22:25 and Mark 10:42.)

Kurieuein, katakurieuein and authentein are treated as parallel terms by Jerome. They are not eact parallels. But surely, if Christians are told never to kurieuein, they why would authentein, which has no examples of positive use at the time of the NT, suddenly take on the meaning of “lead in church.” It is simply not congruous.

Sue,

You’ve listened to nothing I’ve said. There are positive uses for authentein. I gave you one. Did you miss it? To pretend that a few examples bind the semantic range to the negative in a word is just bad lexicography, and displays the unwillingness to look at this text honestly. You want a text that displays it as positive? 1 Tim 2:12, as the merism suggests.

If kurieuo is interchangeable with katakurieuo, then Christ exercises abusive authority in Rom 14:9. Your analysis just does not take into account all of the evidence with either word.

Finally, my analogy was with the word “man” not electrician. My point is that bad lexicography doesn’t understand that words don’t carry their contexts to other contexts. That’s why a single word often has various connotations, good or bad, according to the context (e.g. epithumia–I could easily make the argument you make with authenteo with epithumia, and show all of the contexts in which it is used negatively. Yet, it is also used in positive contexts, as is the word authenteo).
I also think, Sue, that your diatribe is a bit disingenuous. You told me to supply you with a text where authenteo was positive. I did. You said you would supply me with one where it was negative (even though most scholars argue that there isn’t one during the time period in question). Instead, you gave me one from the Patristic period, where I could easily supply you the numerous examples in Lampe, as I told you before. So saying that I cannot supply it is just not true at all. You’re posturing to overstate your case. The fact is that the word in the Patristic era is used in both positive and negative contexts. The word in the era we are supposed to be talking about can be taken either way in the VERY few examples we have from the earlier period. As I stated before, the determining factor is the context of 1 Tim. That includes the immediate context of the contrastive merism and the larger context of the letter. Both bear out the positive use.

BTW, I have no need to see it as positive. The complementarian position can survive either interpretation, since everyone sees the taking of authority over a man as an abuse and bad. My issue is simply one of appropriate methodology. However, you only have one option in your view. You CANNOT allow the word to have a positive meaning, and frankly, that makes your handling of the evidence a bit suspect.