CBE Blog Team Member — August 10, 2005, 12:15 am
Tough words in disputed texts
I asked Dr. Craig Keener about his current thoughts on “headship.” He noted that “headship” has a range in meanings in the ancient sources and possibly doesn’t mean “source” as the old CBE literature strongly advocated. But Paul does not use “head” in a strong hierarchical way either. Craig is still reading and figuring out his opinion on this. He also added that he is still formulating his opinion on what authentein — “to have authority over” — means in 1 Timothy 2:12. This word is so rarely used in the ancient sources that it is tough to guess how Paul was using it.
– Andy
Wow, how can a person speak with conviction on this subject (at CBE conference) and yet not be sure of the meaning of this word “head”?
And if the man is the head (source or whatever other desciption of the word you want to give it), then he is different to the women, or he has got a different role ? Therefore we arent equall, because a women cant be the head ? Please comment?
okay Pete, I think you need to clarify your question. Andy stated that though Keener might not believe it means source, he is still working out the meaning of the word. but regardless, it doesn’t connotate some kind of authority as Grudem is so fond of. I am interested in Keeners thoughts, as he is quite genius and if head does not mean source, as I think makes the most sense..then what are the possibilies. language is a funny thing.
Pete, thanks for your concerned comment. Thanks also Candice for asking for clarification because that would be helpful. I’m not sure exactly how Craig Keener would respond but I can tell you what I think.
Ephesians 5:23 (NIV) says “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” The author of Ephesians, probably Paul, is drawing an analogy between Christ-husbands and the church-wives. What is Paul trying to clarify or illustrate by drawing this comparison?
The hierarchalist view of this passage is interpreted to mean that Christ (like a husband) is the head (kephale) - meaning “boss” - of the church and so the church should submit to Christ. This is the way we use the word “head” today in English - for example “head of the company.”
But we don’t see in the New Testament Jesus acting like a CEO at “head-quarters” at the “head-office” bossing people around. Nor does the Greek word kephale always mean something authoritative.
So egalitarians have mused whether Paul might not be encouraging the church to submit to Christ and for wives to submit to their husbands because Christ was the founder (source) of the church and Adam’s rib was the source of Eve. Hence “respect where you came from!” 1 Corinthians 11 (the other big “headship” passage) seems to imply this in its reading. E.g. Verse 8: “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man . . .” and verse 12 “For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.” In other words, source makes a whole lot of sense from the argument and context of the passage.
But the linguistic stuff is difficult because if Paul was indeed using “kephale” (head) to mean “source” he was using the word in a slightly original way. (This is certainly possible as for example the word for love “agape” was used by New Testament writers is a fresh way. Same thing with the word “logos” or “Word”). On pages 425f of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (the evangelical hierarchalist main work) Wayne Grudem strongly disputes the fact that there are similar uses of the word kephale (to mean source) in the ancient sources.
I think what I would conclude and what most egalitarian biblical scholars conclude is that husbands are the head of their wives and therefore wives should respect and submit to their husbands. Husbands are also to submit to their wives (”Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” Eph 5:21). The text does not say that this role of headship gives the husbands the title of spiritual leader. Nor does it give them specific decision-making powers e.g. “Husbands, because of your headship, you are to make decisions when you and your wife disagree.” Nor does this imply specific masculine vs. feminine roles. This are significant extrabiblical additions to the text.
It seems to be highly plausible that the overally tenor of the Ephesians 5-6 passage is a strong instruction to one person (husband/father/slaveholder). There are then additional “and you should do your part as well” to wives, slaves and children. But the person with power who really needed to be instructed was the husband/father/slaveholder.
Again, we should remember that Paul’s encouragement to slaves to obey their masters does not mean that he supported the institution of slavery. Neither does Paul’s encouragement to wives to submit to their husbands mean that Paul intended to endorse hierarchical marriage even though that would have been norm in Athens-influenced Ephesus. Rather, as Keener has shown, Paul was more liberating and respecting of women than any writer who was his contemporary.
In conclusion, Keener and other solid egalitarian Biblical scholars take extremely seriously the contextual and linguistic issues of these controversial texts. Though they are solidly convinced of the biblical tragectory towards gender equality, they also do not set their analytical skills aside in order to argue for their point of view. If there is still ambiguity in their minds about what Paul was exactly trying to convey in making an analogy, then they admit that.
There are lots of Pauline texts that are very difficult for people to sort out. For example: 1 Cor 11:10, a woman ought to have a sign of authority over her head “because of the angels.” Hmmm . . . or 1 Cor 12:29 “what will those do who are baptized for the dead?” In the biblical texts, there are some real difficult nuts to crack.
Fortunately, the basics of our faith are very clear. We can easily agree there are a few minor things that are less clear. The 1 Timothy 2 passage has a number of real difficult exegetical problems. I would read Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by the hierarchalists or the excellent new book Discovering Biblical Equality by the egalitarians to compare the different points of view.
In the preface to the 2004 edition of Keener’s Paul, Women and Wives, he specificially addresses the issues we have been discussing here. On page xiv he specifically discusses kephale and authentein. I’m relieved that I did not say something in a blog that Craig had not stated elsewhere!
Mat 7:29 He wasn’t like the teachers of the Law; instead, he taught with authority.
Andy you said ”
But we don’t see in the New Testament Jesus acting like a CEO at “head-quarters” at the “head-office” bossing people around.”
I agree but He still had Authority, so you can be a leader with Authority ( like Jesus ) and yet be servant hearted, humble etc
Col 1:15 Christ is the visible likeness of the invisible God. He is the first-born Son, superior to all created things.
Col 1:16 For through him God created everything in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen things, including spiritual powers, lords, rulers, and authorities. God created the whole universe through him and for him.
So it seams God created authority - must be a good thing if He created it. Sinful man will clearly mess it up and abuse it, History shows us that !
That doesnt mean it cant be for our good ? Look at what Paul said
2Co 13:10 That is why I write this while I am away from you; it is so that when I arrive I will not have to deal harshly with you in using the authority that the Lord has given me—authority to build you up, not to tear you down.
I just dont get it .. Why Authority has to mean Hierarchy ?
Parents have authority over their kids, why for their good Read Heb 12 . So are you kids any less valuable or less in worth to God because they are under authority ? Authority has nothing to do with dignity,inheritance or destiny in God’s eyes. Parents , children, church leaders, members.. etc All equal in His eyes
Yet God created Authority for our good, and in reverence to Him we need to acknowledge Him as knowing best, and leave Him to judge those who abuse it !
Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They watch over your souls without resting, since they must give to God an account of their service. If you obey them, they will do their work gladly; if not, they will do it with sadness, and that would be of no help to you.
Authority doesn’t mean hierarchy automatically. It’s just the type of authority that hierarchicalists push that egalitarians detest. Yes, husbands are to have authority over their wives, but then the Bible also teaches that husbands are to submit to their wives. That’s giving considerable authority to wives — certainly the authority to correct the husband, and probably also the authority to lead her husband in the area of her strengths.
Also, of course, just because God created authority and has authority over us, it doesn’t mean that authority as human males like to wield it is a godly authority. Often it’s quite sinful.
Authority is also given to wives. “For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” 1 Cor 7:4
Thanks for your comments CT.
I do believe in authority for different “task”, if you look at every time the word is used in the new testament, most time it is stated ” authority GiVEN FOR ” etc and the reason, healing the sick or whatever. But back to my point..
So Church leaders can have authority OVER people, so much so that they will give an answer to God how they led. Heb 13V17
Parents can have authority over their children. And I believe will also give an answer how they “led” their children.
Yet both leaders and congregation are equal before God, as parents and children and equal. But there is still Authority over the other??
Funny, even the angles have others in authority over them. Michael their most powerful leader. think mentioned in Daniel, when he fasted for 21 days before got an answer.
Back to physical world .. If God put all these things in place for our good, why not in marriage?
Are we not ALL called to be humble, meek, loving, servant hearted etc, of course we are! Matt 5 Be attitudes.
Rom 12:16 Have the same concern for everyone. Do not be proud, but accept humble duties. Do not think of yourselves as wise.
Or the NIV says, “think of one another more highly than yourself”
Jesus command was ” to love your neighbour as you love yourself”
That’s similar to Paul in Eph 5 say Husbands love yourself etc Therefore Love your wives.
If these are Gods commands to ALL of us how can someone having God given authority over someone else use it for bad purposes? Unless they abuse it !!
Then they will face Gods judgement. Godly authority cant puff you up, unless ones flesh is getting the better of you. As a leader or someone in Authority this is constantly a tension you have to fight with.
Jam 4:6b&7 “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” So then, submit yourselves to God. Resist the Devil, and he will run away from you.
CT said - “Yes, husbands are to have authority over their wives, but then the Bible also teaches that husbands are to submit to their wives. ”
Are you relating submission to authority? When the word submit is used it is always related to Authority?
I do believe it is given to the man to lead in a marriage. But this should give freedom to those in submission, just like a church leader should be empowering the body to all God has for them. Else Judgement day will not be something to look forward to!! That’s what often mentioned after submit to, the word in reverence (fear) for God. As much as he is loving and compassionate He is righteous and holy and will judge, those who abuse their Authority and those who rebel against it.
The Holy spirit has been convicting me over the below verses, we don’t have masters and slaves, but I have a Boss in my work place, and in reverence for God, I submit to his authority over me as his employee. I can fully relate to this, culture has changed the way bussiness work but we are called to the same things
I do this to honour God. And work unto God. Unless my boss asks me to lie etc. (which a previous boss did do )I submit to him, and there is a promise attached to it an inheritance I will miss out on if I don’t!
Col 3:22 Slaves, obey your human masters in all things, not only when they are watching you because you want to gain their approval; but do it with a sincere heart because of your reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as though you were working for the Lord and not for people. Remember that the Lord will give you as a reward what he has kept for his people. For Christ is the real Master you serve.
So I suppose in a family there cant be one leader that will give an answer to God for the family was led?
Back to the original issue, what does Christ IS head of church mean? And then this paralleled with the word submit. Actually ” as Church submitS to Christ” not past tense, the Church still submits to Christ.
Its also strange that it says wives submit in EVERYTHING ?? Seams to contradict Submit to oneanother or one to another.
Which is see people reading as everyone to everyone ( well then why have authority or submission ? )
I have yet to find a verse that states that CHRIST submitted to or still does SUBMITS, to the church.
I dont see Phil 2 talking about submission. Jesus humbled himself .. YES
If George Bush, humbled himself, sold his big car to help someone in need, or mowed the lawn in front of the White House as an act of kindness, does that mean he has lost his Authority as president. NO !
Yes it’s just as crazy as God coming to earth as a man.
And dying for us.
I also found a verse that says, the Father submits / ed to the Son, or either submits /ed to the person of the Holy Spirit. Yet they are ONE, equal but have different roles.
If you have please show me the VERSES ??
And as I said before, we can’t look at authority with the worlds “glasses”
look forward to your comments
Pete - truth seeker
The New Testament does not have the same idea of authority as the average Christian today. We tend to want to know “who’s in charge,” who has the right to command others and to force their obedience. NT terminology has more to do with caring and providing guidance.
Pete asked for verses. First, Jesus had unique authority: he healed, cast out demons and forgave sins (Mt 7:29; Mk 1:22, 27; Lk 4:32, 36). He did not quote other rabbis to bolster his authority. He responded to challenges to his authority by healing people (Mt 9:2-8; Mk 2:3-12; Lk 5:18-26).
The authority given to the Twelve has to do with driving out demons (Mk 3:14-15) and healing (Mt 10:1; Lk 9:1-2; Mk 6:7), and does not have to do with the preaching that Jesus also ordered them to do. And who argues that women shouldn’t heal?
Paul’s apostolic authority was known for his gentleness, “urging” rather than “commanding” Timothy and Titus (I Tim 1:3; II Cor 8:6) and going out of his way to not issue commands (II Cor 8:8). Paul does use strong language in an argument with the Corinthians concerning rights (I Cor 8:9; 9:1-18).
It’s doubtful that pastors should assume such individual authority today, since the NT speaks of multiple leaders in the early churches, no one person being “in charge” (Eph 4:11; Phil 1:1). Even Peter as an early spokesman is presented as a peer among equals (Acts 2:14; 3:3-4; 4:13).
There are only two passages that use the Greek exousia, the much-used word for “authority” regarding the relationship between men and women. The first is I Cor 7:1-5 that tells us that in the most intimate aspect of marriage the authority of husband and wife is equal. The other is I Cor 11:11-12 which is about head coverings. Scholars disagree about the meaning of this passage, but most churches today realize that something local and cultural is going on there and don’t force women to wear hats in church.
II Timothy 2:12 uses authenteo, a word used for “authority” only here in the entire NT. It’s not really known what this word means, but it does seem to have a negative connotation and comes from an earlier form meaning “murder.” So the meaning might be something like “give orders to,” “dictate to,” or “boss around.” Whatever it is, Paul’s practice for that time, place and situation (no command is given) was local and limited. It couldn’t be otherwise or it would contradict I Cor 11 where it is obvious that women are being vocal participants in prayer and prophesying (teaching) in public worship.
Lots more can be said on this subject but there’s too little space here. I recommend that you read “The Nature of Authority in the New Testament” by Walter L. Liefeld in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy from which I drew for some of this commentary.
———————————————–