Real Life has precluded me making a contribution recently. However, I thought I would take time to relate something from last Sunday evening. I was chatting to two young men who are both drama students, and they were telling me about the dissertations they are doing. One is on the performance of Hamlet. He was telling me that he was looking at the performances of Lawrence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh and David Tennant, and how each performance was excellent and appropriate for the time, but the earlier ones were not so good for this present time.

I was wondering if there is a metaphor here. There is a canonical text, but how it needs to be expressed and worked out depends upon the time and place. The realisation is a dialogue between actors and audience. I haven't worked out how this might relate to Progressive Orthodoxy (partly because I'm not sure whether that is 'orthodoxy' or 'Orthodoxy'). But the idea of realising a play from a script does express a rich view of living out our discipleship.

This article is about IBM's Watson natural language computer, and how it has had 'issues' with slang and swearing. This quotation is germane to our discussions:

"As humans, we don't realise just how ambiguous our communication is," [Eric Brown, one of the researchers on the project] said.

As someone whose job is to try to get a computer to understand and use natural language, he is in a good position to make this comment. It is one we should always take into account when translating texts written in a ancient language to be read or heard by people of a culture significantly different from our own. In particular, it must make all of us even just a little less certain of our understanding.

Andrew,

With DavidR, I'm also puzzled by your hermenutical proposal. How would you respond to someone else, who disagrees with you, saying the same basic thing, e.g. "Andrew, start by believing that is OK for women to be bishops as a matter of faith, and you will  find that you are given understanding by the Holy Spirit".

It is 1 Tim 2.12 which seems to be critical for The Debate. Two points. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, has this on authenteo:

"AUTHENTEO, from autos, self, and a lost noun hentes, probably signifying working (Eng. authentic), to exercise authority on one's own account, to domineer over, is used in 2 Tim 2:12, A.V. "to usurp authority" R.V. "to have dominion". In the earlier use of the word it signified one who with their own hand kills either others or himself. Later it came to mean one who acts on his own authority; hence to exercise authority, dominion."

Its use (unique in NT) perhaps suggests that the problem in Ephesus was that some women (or perhaps just one woman?) who were untaught, were setting themselves up as authorities. The word has a negative sense, and it is not clear that men should be doing this either. It is to be contrasted with ordination, which is the recognition by the church of the gifting of an individual.

Then we have the main verb for the verse, which the Greek interlinear I have transliterates as "not I-am-permitting". Firstly, this is Paul expressing his policy. It is not a command - no imperative here. Secondly, I'm curious that the transliteration has used the English present continuous, rather than the plain present I-permit.

" I am not permitting a woman to teach or to domineer over a man."
[the text has woman and man in the singular, as does v11]

This has a different flavour  from the more common translations, although I must be very tentative about this point about the translation of the tense.

James Choung's article is interesting, as it suggests that the reason for the quotation about 'the woman' and 'the man' from Gen 2-3, is that this is an illustrates what can go wrong. His references show he is not unique in this. One reference is to an article from the Tyndale Bulletin 44 (Jan 1993) (certainly a respectable Evangelical publication) with the title "What Eve did, What Women shouldn't do: The Meaning of authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12". (Does anyone have access to that article?) This kind of idea seems a much better reason for vv13-14 than Paul setting out some hierarchy based on the sequence of creation.
 

Phil, your manful (bad pun intended) persistence does you credit. However, I am finding it difficult to follow your arguments. Perhaps others are also finding this, which is why they are not replying.

You have not addressed my point about why the relationship between husband and wives is germane to women's ordination. You quote other passages which those in favour have quoted, some of which relate to the relationship between husbands and wives. However, I would say that the reason thelatter have been brought up is because the argument of the opponents seems in some cases to be:

  "A wife is subordinate to their husband therefore a woman cannot be in authority"

The argument can be addressed in two ways. One is to show that the first clause does not really hold, hence the references to passages which show a much more equal treatment of the relationship between husbands and wives. The other is to question the 'therefore'.

I don't think you think that every man is the head of every woman, and that every woman should submit to every man. So, even if your understanding of Eph 5.22-31 is correct, how does it relate to, say, unmarried women in leadership?

Some hopefully not too rapid responses to your numbered points (from 12 Jan 11:56am)

I'm not sure at all what you mean in your first point, in particular what you mean by "giving a view on these 2 inserted words". Then you say "I am confident that this is just a syntax/grammar question and does not prejudge what 'submitting' and 'should submit' mean." The whole point of the discussion of Eph 5.21ff is over the meaning of words, or perhaps the meaning of the passage as a whole. Perhaps if you could give a variety of possible reponses to your point, we could select the one with which we agree.

For number 2, yes there is a relation between between huppotasso and kephale, but that does not determine the meaning of either, only that the understanding should be consistent.

For number 3, I'll ask what you are inferring from this. In my quotation from Leon Morris' commentary, in agreement with other scholars he clearly, does not read v10 as implying any subordination of women to men. (Also vv11-12 implies the mutual interdependence of men and women). So, it is unclear that vv8-9 provide a reason for the subordination of women based on creation sequence.

For number 4, I'm not sure what your point is here. Paul is saying that Christ is united with the church, it is his body. In the same way a husband should love his wife, with whom he is physically united. He should love his wife to the same extent and in the same way that Christ loves his church. Gen 2.24 is the implication of the origin of the man and the woman, in that just as the woman came from the man's body so they are reunited physically in marriage. No authority relationship here, just one of physical/metaphysical union.
 

If the issue is the ordination of women, it does seem better to discuss 1 Timothy, rather than Ephesians 5, as 2.8-15 (I think that one should read vv8-10 as well, the passage is about good order as much as structural authority).

However,  in the discussion I don't think nearly enough has been made of (as it were) the "elephant in the verses". That is that in v11, Paul either commands, or at least assumes, that women are to learn. Do we realise how astonishing this is? Here is a first century Jew, one who had been a pharisee of pharisees, one who had probably thanked God each day that he had not been born a woman, saying that women can learn, indeed should be learning. This is contrary to both Jewish and Gentile culture. However, it is not a stranger to the Gospel. Jesus commends Mary for choosing to sit at his feet (Lk 10.38-42). A woman sitting in the position of a disciple to their Rabbi - astonishing! So, a woman can be a disciple, the equal of the male disciples.

The idea that it is appropriate for women to learn is one which has not exactly been common in history, or even in the modern world as recent events have illustrated. Lest we in the west are too proud, I have to recall that my own university did not award full degrees to women until after WWII. Yet, over 1900 years earlier Paul is saying that women should learn. If one places these verses against the culture of the time, it is the liberation of women that should stand out.

So, the Gospel sets women on a track lifting them from the subjection the world would impose, and it gives them a new position. It is not surprising that the Way was so popular among women. And perhaps not surprising that issues arose in congregations when this new-found position and freedom was misused (hence the violent language of v12).
 

Re: Phil's comment on Eph 5 and ! Cor 11.

Although we have spent a lot of time discussing it, Eph 5 actually has nothing to say directly about women in positions of leadership in the church. Although Greek does not distinguish between Man/Husband  or Woman/Wife, I don't think many apply Eph 5.22ff as determining the relationships between men and women in general, only husbands and wives. So, the only possible issue is when a married woman is to be ordained, with a possible conflict of authority (assuming structural subordination is the right interpretation)  if her husband is in the church 'under' her. (I suppose it is alright if she is ordained a priest, and he is a bishop!)

1 Cor 11 at least addresses practice within a church gathering - although leadership as such does not seem to be concerned.  However, it is clear from this chapter that Paul assumes that women are entitled to pray and prophesy in the meeting, and the latter if valid must come with some spiritual authority. Kephale (v3) is being discussed elsewhere. However, what about v10, (literally, according to the online Greek interlinear I use, "because of this ought the woman authority to-be-having on the head because of the messengers")?

Leon Morris in the Tyndale commentary says:

"10. This verse is very difficult. What Paul says is something like 'the woman ought to have authority on her head', but most translations understand this of the subjection of the woman [cites Phillips, GNB, RSV]. But exousia means 'authority', not 'subjection'; when anyone is said 'to have authority' it does not mean that the person is set under someone. W.M. Ramsey poured scorn on the idea that the term can indicate a woman's subjection, seeing this as 'a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere expect in the N.T.'...
[Paul] has said that women pray and prophesy in worship (v5). For that they need authority and he is saying that their head-covering is their sign of authority. As M.D. Hooker puts it, 'Far from being a symbol of the woman's subjection to man, therefore, her head-covering is what Paul calls it - authority: in prayer and prophesy she, like the man, is under the authority of God'."

Then v11 gives the interdependence of the man and the woman which Paul has previously expounded for husbands and wives in chapter 7. And while in v3 "the man is the head of the woman", he balances this in v12. So, I have difficulty in seeing how this passage is a strong argument against women in leadership.

A book I have which I must re-read sometime is Umberto Eco's Mouse or Rat?; Translation as Negotiation, which is a set of essays about translation. As soon as one starts to consider what is involved, the issues become complex very quickly. The title comes from Eco's experience in translating into Italian La Peste by Camus. Translating a modern work from one romance language to another might be thought to be straightforward. But not so. The subtitle comes from the idea that the translator stands between the author and the reader, and the translation comes from negotiation in some form with both parties.

Coming to an ancient text for translation into a form for our modern world must be significantly harder than translating a modern text. We do not live within the society, the assumptions and world-view of the writer or the readers. So, I am with those who consider that translation, meaning, interpretation, exegesis are all mixed up - and often much more uncertain that some would like. But perhaps it is in that uncertainty that the Spirit can create the living and transforming Word for our time.

Prompted by Phil's reference to 1 Cor 11, I looked at my commentaries for this passage. Not surprisingly, Tom Wright (Paul for Everyone, 1 Corinthians) holds with kephale as being 'source'.  David Prior (BST 'The Message of 1 Corinthians', p181), says:

"The word for head is kephale, which on rare occasions means the ruler of a community, but normally carries the sense of source or origin. It is used of the source of a river. So God is the source of Christ, Christ (as creator) is the source of woman, and man ('out of his side' - Gn 2:21ff) is the source of woman (so 11:8). A third sense of kephale (apart from its literal meaning) is the determinative and directive sense, which is far closed to what we mean now by headship or leadership."

Leon Morris (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: 1 Corinthians, p149) says:

"3. It is easy to be too definite in interpreting head in this verse. We use the term often for a person in authority (cf. 'Heads of State'), but this usage was unknown in antiquity (except for a few passages in LXX). LSJ notes usages of kephale for the whole person, for life, extremity, top (of wall or column), source, etc., but never for the leader of a group. S. Bedale reminds us that the functions of the central nervous system were not known to the ancients, who held that we think with the midriff, the phren. The head was thus not the controlling factor (as GNB takes with its translation 'supreme over'); we must seek its significance elsewhere. 'Head' was used of the 'source' (as 'head' of a river), and LSJ cite an appropriate passage which says, 'Zeus is the head, Zeus is the middle, in Zeus all is completed' (they note that arche, 'beginning', is a variant for kephale in some MSS). It seems that it is this meaning 'source' that is required here (so Bedale, Barrett, Bruce, and others; H Schlier says, 'Paul could have used arche if there had not been a closer personal relationship in kephale). Paul is saying that the woman derives her being from man (Gen 2:21-22), as man does from Christ and Christ from God. But we must be cautious in pressing these words, for none of the relationships mentioned is exactly the same as either of the others." [I have omitted references.]

I have taken the liberty of a lengthy quotation, as there seem to be a number of good points in this discussion. It is a pity that David Congdon in his article on Trinity, Gender and Subordination (http://fireandrose.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/trinity-gender-and-subordination-series.html - thanks for this, Bowman) does not refer to 1 Cor 11.3, as it seems relevant. In particular, he draws out the problem of analogy which Leon Morris also refers to in the last sentence quoted. Also, if one understands "A is the head of B" to indicate that, in Congdon's words "B is ontologically subordinate to A", you do get into a confused doctrine of the Trinity using that understanding for "God is the head of Christ".

There does seem to be significant scholarship behind 'source' as the meaning for kephale in this passage. While the man is head of the woman, there is very significant doubt as to interpreting this as meaning the man has authority over the woman.

Phil, I would comment that your argument from Eph 5.22-24 is actually circular. You are playing 'submit' and 'head' off each other, together with the assumption that the passage is about the structural relationship between people. The relationship between Christ and the church is much, much more than one simply of authority, and so it is not necessarily this aspect where any analogy lies between Christ/Church and Husband/Wife.

I agree with Phil's recent comment that Scripture is radical. But it should be radical in challenging all systems and attitudes, in the 1st century as much as in the 21st. So, it should challenge patriarchy as much as radical feminism. The root of the challenge is in the nature of the Kingdom which Jesus is bringing in.
Two passages from the Gospels show how Jesus is reshaping our ideas of position, authority and power. The first is Mark 10.32-45. It is a significant point in Jesus' ministry, and the disciples are anticipating the Son of Man taking charge, so James and John bid for position in the new order. But Jesus does not seem very interested in that. What matters is that they can follow in the path which he is taking. And then he says that greatness in the Kingdom is not about ruling but serving, indeed being a slave of all, for that is what the Son of Man came to do.
Then John 13.3-35 gives us a sight of another critical time, this time in the evening of his betrayal. There is a link here again between position and slavery. v3 is the reason that Jesus acts as he does in v4, and I have read that the task of washing feet was deemed so demeaning  that only the lowest slave would do this. Peter's reaction to Jesus washing his feet was entirely understandable. Jesus points out that he is their Lord and Teacher, and yet he does this demeaning service. They are to do the same. When Jesus gave them the New Commandment, and said "as I have loved you, so you must love one another", they would have immediately thought of his action.
As a result, I see Ephesians 5.21-6.9 as a kind of commentary on this and elaboration of the call to love shown in being the servant of one another and the slave of all despite, or perhaps because of, position and authority.
Following Bowman's question, how might this relate to OWE? Well, it says that nature of leadership is fundamentally one of service, not one of ruling. It strikes me that women are at least as qualified for this kind of leadership as men.

There come to mind another couple of incidents from Scripture which show that it is possible to be a diligent student of Scripture but get it wrong. The sadducees were no dunces when in came to knowledge of the Torah, but Jesus still comes with the extraordinary judgement of Matt. 22.29. He then shows their error (about the resurrection) by quoting from their precious Torah.

I think it is fair to understand "the Jews" with whom Jesus is in dialogue in John 5.16ff to be the Pharisees (if not Saducees). Again, John 5.39, they have "diligently studied the Scriptures" yet had missed that they point to Jesus.

It is salutary to remember that Jesus seems to have reserved his most excoriating criticism for those whose heartfelt concern was to read their Scriptures and apply them rigorously and in detail to their own lives and the life of the nation.

As we seem to have returned to Ephesians 5.21-6.9, might I share some more ruminations? The key verse, it seems to me, is Eph 5.21. In understanding such a verse perhaps the important thing is to ask the right questions of it. But what to ask?

This reminded me of Luke 10.25-37, where there are two interesting questions. The expert in the law knows well the summary of the law. But of the instruction "love your neighbour as yourself", he ask the question "who is my neighbour?" It seems a valid question. If we are to love our neighbour, then we need to know who is our neighbour and who is not. Similarly, if "submit to one another" is seen as an expression of who is in authority, and so to determine those people to whose authority one must submit, then the obvious result is that "one another" is limited and our task is then to determine the answer to the question "to whom should I submit?"

But Jesus responds to the question of the expert with a story, which we know well, that of the Good Punk Rocker - sorry, the Good Samaritan. So, you might think that this answers the question with, perhaps, "your neighbour is someone in need". But no. Jesus responds with a different question: "who was a neighbour to the man who fell among thieves?" It is a question which shifts the spotlight from the one who should be loved - perhaps him, but perhaps not her - to the one who should be doing the loving and what is the quality of the love being shown.

So, when we read Eph 5.21, I don't think we should be asking "to whom should I submit", rather "How is my submitting?". I don't think this passage is about determining the order of those over and those under, those who command and those who obey, about authority and submission. It is about attitude and action, which is love. And in that, there are no limits to those to whom we can submit. "One another" does mean everyone else, as, for instance, in John 13.34. For to love is to submit - to put the other first.

My church, like many, has a "Drop-in" meal where some who are homeless, and others who are just lonely come for a meal and company. Ron, who runs ours, described an event at last week's meal. There was a guest there who Ron says it is difficult to understand anything he says, he seems confused. But that evening he saw in the main body of the church, among some clutter, a manger - perhaps left after a practice for the nativity service. This man went up to the manger, knelt down by it, crossed himself and spent a moment before it, before returning to the meal.

God chooses what is foolish in the world to shame the wise. May we be foolish and like that man kneel before the manger this Christmas and worship a baby.