Ruling over one another, or submitting to one another?

Man, I'll tell you what. I've learned a lot about Jesus' stance on authority over the past few months. I'd like to discuss some of what I've found.

We probably all know the three passages in Matthew and Luke about Jesus' disciples not being allowed to "Lord it over" or "exercise authority" in Christ's Church like the kings and "benefactors" of the gentiles do to those under them. But did you know that Luke uses slightly different wording than Matthew and Mark for "lord it over" and "exercise authority" to make a similar argument?

Check it out:

Mat 20:25  But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them (katakurieuo), and they that are great exercise authority upon them (katexousiazo).

Mat 20:26  But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister (deacon);

Mat 20:27  And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

Mat 20:28  Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mar 10:42  But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them (katakurieuo); and their great ones exercise authority upon them (katexousiazo).

Mar 10:43  But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

Mar 10:44  And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 22:25  And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them (kurieuo); and they that exercise authority upon them (exousiazo) are called benefactors.

Luk 22:26  But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

Luk 22:27  For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both Matthew and Mark use intensified versions of "kurieuo" and "exousiazo", but Luke uses the unintensified, normal words for lordship and exercising authority. Yet, I have found in several translations that "Lord it over" is made to fit "kurieuo" as if this word only restricts a bossy negative rulership, and not "good" lordship. The fact is, this word is used for the lordship of Christ, in Rom 14:9 and 1 Tim 6:15.
 
Peter, perhaps the most "authoritative" Apostle (in some people's eyes), recognized that "katakurieuo'ing" was inappropriate for him to do, or any other shepherd to do over "The Flock" in 1 Peter 5:3.

But Paul recognizes that even the benevolent lordship that "kurieuo" represents was inappropriate for such an illustrious Apostle as he. Christians are a band of brothers who shepherd and look after one another, not lords or masters of each other in Church Life. In 2 Corinthians 1:24, Paul says that he and his cohorts do not "have dominion over" or "rule over" the Faith of the Corinthians. Oddly, in many translations, like the NAS (can't say I'm surprised), Paul is only saying he and his comrades don't "lord it over" the faith of the Corinthians, which to our ear today sounds like he is only avoiding domineering, and not also avoiding proper rulership, which is what the word really means.

However, when women and authority are being spoken about, particularly in 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Cor 11:10, suddenly the words that are known to refer to either true domineering (authentein) or positive authority that one has oneself (exousia) are covered over.

1 Cor 11:1-16, a passage that is about how women are the glory of men, their metaphorical heads, so they shouldn't shame their husbands by how their hair or head appears. It goes on to say that women are to have authority over their own heads, and that men and women are not separate in The Lord, since both are sources of the other, and all of those things are of God.
This passage has been made into a text enjoining symbols of subordination or symbols of male authority, with what seems to be stunningly brazen disregard for what the words of the passage really mean, especially when you compare the words used of women having authority over their heads in 1 Cor 11:10 and other Scriptures where people or things have "authority over" other things using "exousia" and "epi":

( Matt 9:6, Matt 28:18, Mark 2:10, Luke 5:24, Luke 9:1, Luke 10:19, Luke 19:17, Acts 26:18, Rev 2:26, Rev 6:8, Rev 11:6, Rev 13:7, Rev 14:18, Rev 16:9, Rev 20:6, the last one means that death does not have authority over the Saints because the word "not" is added before "have authority", unlike 1 Cor 11:10 where women do have authority.)
(fyi, I used page 266, note 43, from the book "Why not Women?", by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton to find this list, along with page 182 of Dr. Philip Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ".)

And with regard to 1 Tim 2:12, just check the concordances linked to the words "kurieuo" and "exousiazo". The possible definitions given are almost all neutral or positive definitions of having lordship or having delegated authority.

Then check the lexical data for "authentein", which is what a woman is prevented from doing in 1 Tim 2:12. The range of this word is transparently more extreme and negative than either "kurieuo" or "exousiazo", even in such patriarchally-inclined concordances as these, and "authentein" is never used again for any positive authority in the whole Bible.
(fyi, I do not put much weight on the NAS exhaustive concordance's opinion, because as I have shown in my last post, this 1980-1998 translation clearly mistranslates many of the verses about women in ministry or authority, and appears very biased against women.)

 "Katakurieuo", the "darkest" word found in these verses, still has a range that includes plenty of neutral connotations, like "exercise lordship over, be master of". In fact, it seems like "authentein" is more synonymous with this word than "exousiazo". But even here, authentein still has the "autocratic, undelegated and self-assumed" aspect to it that not even "katakurieuo" can match.

Yet, the words that limit men, as well as all believers, from exercising authority and ruling as lords, are given dark connotations in some translations that appear to be unjustified. "Exousiazo" is even used of the positive authority that husbands and wives have over each others bodies in 1 Cor 7:4, it does not appear to be negative in the least.

We can't always use concordances and lexicons exclusively when trying to understand rare, era-dependent words like "authentein", but we sure can use them as a support structure and base.

Despite all of this, I have noticed that many "in authority" today, especially some  CBMW-style Complementarians (when I refer to "Complementarians", I am actually talking about Patriarchalists who still call themselves "Complementarians". I see Patriarchy as rule by fathers, or rule by males only/male only authority.), ignore in large part the call to avoid katakurieuo'ing, kurieuo'ing, kataexousiazo'ing, and exousiazo'ing others in the Church, and obsess over who may have authority and who may not, making lists and decrees of what women may not handle, or what they may not touch, or what they shall not taste, but these appear to be commandments and teachings of men. (Col 2:20-22)

One wonders if such men ponder these "limiting" Scriptures that apply to them as much as they do women's roles, or if they even truly fear God, that they might be careful not to abuse His Scripture and His people (I am speaking of the well-known scholars who truly understand what they appear to be rebelling against, not ignorant Complementarians who have scarcely cracked an interlinear and have never deeply studied these things.).
These high and lofty leaders do actually appear to be going against the clearest Scriptures we have, even in defiance of them, since some of the "chiefest" among them do know these Scriptures quite well, in the original languages, and just don't obey or care to emphasize them like they do their "favorites" about women being submissive.

In Scripture, no Church leader is ever said to have even the rather mild "exousiazo" over another Christian. The following are the words used in Scripture to refer to Church leaders:

sunergos, a fellow worker: many people, including the Apostles and a woman, are called "fellow workers"

kopiao, grow weary, toil, work hard: A word used for Paul and other Christians. Many of those mentioned in conjunction with this word were women. Apparently women are not merely "relationship-oriented" and not "work-oriented" as some seem to assert.

exousia, a right or authority: This is probably the closest thing to the typical idea of someone having "authority" that others do not in the Christian community, like the way Catholics view their Priests/Bishops/Cardinals/Pope and Protestants view their Deacons/Pastors/Elders/Overseers. However, much of the time this word simply means a right or a liberty to do a particular thing (marry a woman, get monetary support) rather than an "authority over" others.

This term is also used however of "governing authorities", ie worldly authorities that bear the sword and are God's servants to take vengeance on evildoers, which we all must be subject to. (Rom 13:1-4) This is pretty obviously not talking about Church discipline, since we do not jail or kill erring Christians but rather exhort them in gentleness and excommunicate them if they refuse to repent. Nor do we need to "fear" Elders like we "fear" worldly authorities when we do evil, as if Elders had the power to throw us in prison or burn us at the stake for crimes.

But let's look at the surprisingly few places were the Apostles describe their "authority" in a way that could mean a power over the whole Church that is only for a specific office. We will not discuss verses that talk about the authority that one has to marry a believer (even women have that right) or that the workers of the Gospel have to receive monetary support and not work secular jobs (1 Cor 9:11-12, 18) (1 Cor 9:5-6) or free food, since many women were workers with Paul (Rom 16 throughout) and would also be worthy of support and help. Even "true widows", old women, who have served God well and have no children to help them, are entitled to Church funds (no "male elder authority" needed for monetary support.).

2 Cor 10:8: This is were Paul says he and some others (the other Apostles perhaps, or simply his "fellow workers"?) have authority only to build up and not to tear down the Churches. This authority was given by The Lord to "them".

2 Cor 13:10: Paul says he writes what he does so that when he is present with the Corinthians, he will not use sharpness with them, according to the authority given to him only for building up the Church and not tearing down.

These are the only two places I have found where any Church leader flaunts his authority in general, and both times Paul carefully qualifies his "right" as restricted to edification only. None of us today are Apostles (in the sense of those who knew Jesus in the Flesh and were sent by Him specially), nor can we write binding Scripture like they did, so we cannot assume the authority of modern Elders is equivalent to Paul's authority.
Paul also called himself a Deacon, which was the title Jesus said the greatest or the chiefest of Christians would be called (an office described as serving as a servant).
Not that I am arguing that Elders don't lead by being "esteemed" (by example) or that there is no authority of any kind given to the offices of Elders and Deacons (for these people must have lofty Christian credentials to even by ordained), but I am saying that sometimes military-like rank and authority is inappropriately thrust out as the defining feature of Christian officers, when it is their personal faithfulness that is their primary feature.
The "authority" and rights to such offices can be lost by bad behavior and sin, so no one should be of the mind that they are above correction or discipline.

For example, why do you think Elders are called to pray over the sick? (James 5:14-15) I think it is because the prayers of righteous people accomplishes much, and in order to be an Elder you must be very demonstrably righteous, not a novice in The Faith. It does not appear to be at all linked to some kind of hierarchical "authority" that they have above other Christians, but it is rather their truly mature Faith seen through a life of good works which makes the prayers of the Elders heard by God to raise the sick.

dunamis, power, miracles, strength, ability: This word, despite seeming similar to the word "exousia" in meaning, does not appear to be even used once to denote Church leader's "power" over the congregation. All Christians are said to have power from Christ (2 Pet 1:3), especially Jesus' Apostles who were given power and authority over every evil spirit and disease by Jesus. It is also used to denote miracles and works of power, particularly those through which the Gospel and Apostleship is shown through.

hegeomai, to esteem, suppose, think, or regard, or its other use which is to lead or govern. This word means to either lead or go first, or to think or esteem. Phil 2:3, a clear case of "mutual esteeming of the other being superior" being commanded of the brethren, in the sense of thinking or deeming others as higher than oneself.

diakonos, a servant or minister (deacon): Jesus said "The greatest among you will be your diakonos" (Matt 23:11, Matt 20:26, Mark 10:43). Paul calls himself as well as other men (and a woman) "diakonos" in 1 Cor 3:5, 2 Cor 6:4, Eph 3:7, Eph 6:21, Col 1:25, Rom 16:1, and many other places in Scripture.

diakoneo, like "diakonos" but verbal, it refers to serving, waiting tables: All Christians should do this in some form, but some as official Church Deacons. (1 Pet 4:10-11)

proistemi, one who stands or goes before, one who presides, a manager or maintenance worker, a protector or guardian, to lead/rule by example: Those who protect and preside over others, they lead by setting a good example.

prostatis, a feminine derivative of the word "proistemi", used only of Phoebe the female deacon, a protectress or a patroness, a woman who is set over others: Strangely, this word is only given the meanings that don't explicitly denote ruling, even though this word is basically the same as proistemi. Often times it is translated "helper", even "benefactor", which isn't really the appropriate definition. More anti-female bias perhaps?

episkopos, literally an "over-watcher" or "on-looker" or overseer, one who watches over, a supervisor, a guardian: The emphasis is on care-taking and looking out for others, not ruling over them or having authority over them.

presbuteros/presbuteras, elders, old men or women, people who are old in The Faith and respected as if fathers and mothers of The Church. Some lead, some teach, some exhort, some comfort, all must be reverent and live Holy lives. Female elders are mentioned (1 Tim 5:2), and as far as I have seen the only time anyone is told directly to "submit" to the elders specifically is when the younger are told to submit to the plural "presbuterois", and mutual humility is enjoined on all in the same passage. (1 Pet 5:5) I don't see why the plural "presbuterois" must only refer to men and no women, when the masculine plural terms for "brethren" and "deacon" can and do sometimes include women.

presbutes and presbutis, also terms for old men and women: Paul calls himself a "presbutes" in a passage where he seems to pointing out his eldership to get someone to agree with him (Philemon 1:9). It appears that presbutes and presbutis are somewhat synonymous with "elder". Presbutidas, aged women (or simply women elders) are told to be teachers of the good, in order to train younger women how to be righteous. (Titus 2:3)

oikonomos, a household manager, steward (of someone's/God's house): Used for Elder qualifications, and of all Christians in 1 Pet 4:10.

hupakouo, to obey, to listen, to hearken to, answer: This is the word typically translated "obey", of children to parents (Eph 6:1, Col 3:20) and slaves to masters (Col 3:22, Eph 6:5), and of everyone to God and Christ, and of Sarah when she obeyed Abraham, calling him "Lord" (like "sir", a respectful title).
Women are never explicitly instructed to obey their husbands like children and slaves are to their parents and masters, but Sarah is given as an example of how righteous women adorned themselves of old, with submission and respect toward their husbands (1 Pet 3:6). In this case, she was also obedient to her husband. Women are told they have become Sarah's children, if they "do good" and do not "fear any terrifying thing".
Obeying a husband when he is following God is a very good thing, and respecting a husband (even if he isn't righteous) is also right.
However, lest we forget, Abraham was also told to obey Sarah by God when she was right about sending away Hagar and Ishmael, so it is not wrong for a man to also obey his wife when she is right about something. (Gen 21:12)
In 2 Thess 3:14, Paul commands that anyone who does not obey his instruction (to busybodies who were not working and being disorderly, that they must in quietness work and eat their own bread, verses 11-12; or possibly his whole Epistle) they must be marked out and not mingled with to shame them. Paul can do this, of course, because he is a Divinely ordained Apostle sent specifically by Jesus to establish Church doctrine, and therefore has unique rights as a writer of Scripture to command obedience.

hupakoe, appears to be the noun form of "hupakouo", and means basically the same thing; obedience, compliance, to listen to someone in the sense of obeying them.

peitho, to persuade or have confidence, to urge: This word is related to "obedience" as a concept, but it looks to be a bit softer. It appears to be a general persuading or gaining/having confidence in someone or of something. Used in Heb 13:17 of Christians being persuaded by or having confidence in their leaders. Sometimes it is translated "obey", but I think it is better to translate it "be persuaded by" in order to get the full nuance of this word, since making "peitho" mean "obey" makes it sound like it's the same word as "hupakouo".


Other words describing how the brethren should relate to one another:


huperecho, above, higher, supreme, excel, surpass, superior: This one is very interesting, because it is demanded of every Christian to esteem (word here for "esteem" is "hegeomai") others as "superior" to themselves. (Phil 2:3) Does that sound like it is in line with the proposed "Creation mandate" of male-only authority and male/female role-oriented superiority and inferiority to you?

douleuo, to serve as or like a slave: It is used of what actual slaves did for their masters, of Christians in comparison to God and Christ, and for what all Christians should do mutually. In Gal 5:13 Paul tells us we have been made free, but we are to use this liberty to serve one another (allelon) in love. We are literally told to be slaves in this sense to each other, through love. 
Interestingly, this word is not "diakoneo", the somewhat more typical word for "serve". "Douleuo" appears to be referring to a lowlier form of service than even waiting tables, enjoining a submissive, even obedient state to the one serving even more so than does "diakoneo".

One commentator that I've read, I. Howard Marshall (Chapter 11 of "Discovering Biblical Equality"), considers this even stronger than the idea of "mutual submission". To "serve" (like a slave) is both submitting to another person and doing so like a slave would! Slaves were the property of their masters, they were under someone else's authority by definition, and lower in rank. Yet all are told to mutually serve each other as if slaves to each other, mutually, in and through Love.

kepheles, a person's physical head, source of something or beginning of something, cornerstone, top, it might mean chief or most prominent, maybe leader or lord [this is debated]: fyi, these particular concordances seem to be sparse on the details on this word and I would recommend checking other resources, as I would with all of these words, especially due to the heavy patriarchal biases inherent in seemingly all of these concordances on Biblos.com.
Husbands are said to be heads of their wives, just like Christ is head of His Wife, the Church.
Headship appears to be related to or synonymous with saviorship, beginning, provider, or a source of life and sustenance in almost every verse discussing Christ's headship, especially when His headship is mentioned comparatively with the Church, where head is elaborated on by the words in the context, or were it is probably explicitly defined as "savior" by apposition in Eph 5:23.
Even when Christ is said to be "head over all rule and authority" (Col 2:10), it was only one chapter before this that Christ was said to be The Creator of all thrones/lordships/principalities/authorities and all things, being their source of existence as creator and the reason for their existence (Col 1:16).
Just because "head" is mentioned in the same sentence as "authority", doesn't mean that head=authority. "Head" may also carry the connotation of "top" or "preeminence" in some cases.
I think this may be sufficient to elucidate the others passages I would otherwise discuss here. See also Dr. Philip Payne's research and conclusions about the meaning of "kepheles" in Paul's writings on pages 117-139 of his book "Man and Woman, One in Christ".

Remember that 1st century Jewish or Gentile Greek speakers did not understand the biology of heads and bodies just like we do in our modern scientific era, nor did "head" as a metaphor necessarily mean the same thing to them as it does to English speaking moderns like us today. We must be careful not to be too anachronistic.

oikodespoteo, probably the verbal form of "oikodespotes", to rule the home as chief, manage a house as a master of it: Only used of young widows in 1 Tim 5:14. It literally means to rule a household as the ruler/chief/master, and not merely to clean and tend to house chores. This is a strange choice of words, methinks, if Paul believed that leadership and rulership were improper roles for women.

hupotasso, submission, be subject to, submit oneself, to be arranged under, sometimes to obey: This one is very important, so I'll expand on this one more than most of the others:

a. Everyone is told to be subject to the "higher authorities" (the government) in Rom 13:1-5. Also, Titus 3:1, 1 Pet 2:13. One must ask oneself, if a wife may not have authority on par with her husband because she must be submissive to him, why may Christian men take on governmental authority and have equal or greater authority than those to whom it is necessary for them to be "subject" to? Furthermore, slaves should be subject to their masters in the flesh and obey them (but get free if they can), and children must obey parents and be in subjection to them. Does that mean slaves can have no Church office because they would then have authority over their master? Must offspring be eternally subject and obedient to their parents, never taking an office that affords any amount of authority equal to or above their parent's authority?

b. (1 Cor 16:16) Everyone is told to be subject to everyone who works with Paul (fellow workers) and who labor hard with him (same word used in Rom 16:6 and verse 12, for multiple women). I don't know how it can be escaped that this passage is potentially calling for at least some men to be subject to some women who have been laboring hard with Paul.

c. (Eph 5:21) Calls for everyone to mutually submit to one another in the fear of Christ. This is especially born out by women submitting to their own husbands in all things, and men giving themselves up for their wives and loving them just as their own selves. It seems like some Complementarians largely ignore or attempt to explain away the part about everyone submitting to one another, or the man giving himself up for his wife's benefit and loving her as he does himself, and only focus on the wife's submission in everything to the husband.

Those Complementarians may say that "one another" in verse 21 really means "some to others", not that every person should submit, but only some should to others, and never others to those some who must submit. But look here for a list of how "one another" is used in Scripture, or a more complete list here: allelon. Most of these in Paul's writing (and probably the whole of Scripture) must be in the sense of "mutually, one person does the action to the other and the other person does the same action to the first one at some point."

Look especially at those in the context of the other places in Ephesians where "allelon" is used. (remember the original Scripture did not have chapters and sections to split it up by topic like English Bibles as far as anybody knows, so we don't have good reason to dissociate Eph 5:21 from Eph 4 on the basis of it not being in the same chapter.)

Eph 4:2 - with all humility, and gentleness, with patience, bear with one another in love. Sounds pretty "mutual" to me. It does not seem possible that only some should do these things to others and those others should not reciprocate the same at all.

Eph 4:25 - we are to put off all falsehood, and speak truth each with his neighbor, because we are members of one another. We are all part and members of the same body, some are not part of others who are in turn independent.

Eph 4:32 - be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving the other like also God in Christ forgave you. Certainly all must be kind to all others, no exclusive class of "those who are kind" and "those who only receive kindness".

Eph 5:21 - submit to one another in fear of Christ. It also good to consider what Eph 5:19-20 says just before this verse, about speaking to each other in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, making melody in our hearts to The Lord, and giving thanks at all times for all things in Christ's name to The Father. Just like the other three uses of "allelon" in Ephesians, it seems like this cannot be a case of "only some to others who in turn cannot or should not do the same in return ever." (yes, there are Complementarians who say that it is wrong for a man to submit to a woman at any time).
Paul then emphasizes the wife's submission in all things as an example without implying that it is wrong for a man to submit to his wife, but goes on to say that a man gives himself up in service to his wife and loves her just as he would like to be loved, since she is his own body.

Do men like to be treated with a submissive attitude? Do men love to be submitted to themselves? Should they then not love their wives as they love themselves, even submitting sometimes?
Does Christ ever not do what is good for his own Body in preference to what is only beneficial for Himself as Head? Is Christ too high and lofty in His inherent authority to ever submit to or humble himself before mere humans or for the Church?
No man as authority over Christ, yet He submitted Himself to His parents (Luke 2:51) and to the Law, and to worldly authorities (when they were not telling Him to disobey God). He did not come to be served but to serve.
Christ even humbled Himself so far that he became obedient unto death itself for our good (Phil 2:8), and what thing has less authority over Christ than death? So we see that one can submit to things that are not in authority over them, and Christ did just that.
Therefore, even if women did not have authority equal to their husbands, it would not preclude mutual submission. Also, Christ's "Head" (God) gives Christ all things, even all authority to judge which The Father Himself stopped doing in favor of allowing Christ to do it (John 5:22).
God put everything under Christ's feet, and then God gave Christ as head of these things to the Church (that She might share the authority as His body)(Eph 1:22-23)(1 Cor 3:21-23) Should men then, as head, give all things, even their own authority, to their wives, in the sense of mutual sharing? Does the physical head of a person have authority that their body does not share?
For the Church will reign in Her perfected state over all things with Christ, who reigns with God; Christ shares His authority to rule with her; she is not under His feet like the nations. How could She be? She is His feet!

See here for another close look into the nature of submission in Christianity and marriage: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/submission-in-marriage/

Christ will always be ruler in a way over the Church and everything else that a man can never be over his wife or anyone else, since Christ is eternally God and infinite, while men are not, nor will they ever be.
I think it is dangerous to go beyond Scripture when it makes analogies, and make men=Christ in every respect and woman=Church in every respect, or man= the human head in all ways and woman= the human body in all ways. We would end up with nearly endless absurdities, just like if we took "God is our Rock", or "God is a consuming Fire" as absolutes instead of limited analogies.

d. (1 Pet 5:5) Younger people are told to be subject to the older people (elders, plural), but all are enjoined to be humble toward one another in mutual humility, because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. This makes me wonder, do Complementarians truly obey this to the letter and submit (viewed as obedience) to every Christian who is older than them? Are all older Christians the "authorities" over all younger ones, and therefore the younger should never have any authority equal to the older? I wonder if "submission" goes from meaning "unchanging hierarchical Creationally-based gender-role obedience" when it's asked of a woman to merely "a humble spirit" when it is asked of a man.
Interestingly, in some versions, like the KJV and YLT, mutual submission is enjoined on all in 1 Pet 5:5, like Eph 5:21. I am not sure if this is due to a variant in 1 Pet 5:5 in the Textus Receptus or if the latter half of these verses might simply take the verb "submit" from the part before them like how the older manuscripts of Eph 5:22 must take Eph 5:21's verb "submit", which is not itself present in Eph 5:22 in the older manuscripts.

e. We are all also to be subject to God, of course. (James 4:7)

f. Wives are told to be subject to their own husbands in everything, to love them, to avoid shaming them, and to respect them. Men are told to love their wives sacrificially like Christ, honor and be understanding of their wives, not be bitter towards them, and love their wives as themselves.( Eph 5:21-33, Col 3:18-19, Titus 2:5, 1 Pet 3:1, 7, 1 Cor 11:5-6)
But we know all Christians should treat everyone else as they would like to be treated and prefer one another in honor, be considerate of others (especially the weak, who are not all women), and love each other in imitation of Christ's sacrificial Love, so wives should do the same for their husbands shouldn't they?
Likewise, everyone is told to mutually submit, to respect others and therefore avoid bringing shame upon them if possible, to humble themselves towards one another, to avoid "exercising authority" and ruling over each other like lords in Church life, and to esteem each other as superior to themselves, so shouldn't husbands submit to wives as well?

Perhaps wifely submission and respect is different in some ways than husbandly submission and respect, and maybe husbandly love and self-sacrifice is somehow not expressed exactly like it's feminine counterpart, but each is still at it's core the same thing; imitating all the aspects of Christ in our own individual yet similar ways that make us all One in Him, not separate or rigidly and exclusively complementary, nor perhaps in every way precisely the same. Everyone is an individual and differs from others in gifting and exact characteristics, not just by gender, so this goes for all people to some degree as well I think.

But I also think that certain characteristics are emphasized for certain genders because the Church was not to unnecessarily offend the patriarchal cultures of the Roman world, in order to win more to Christ (same with the passages about slavery).
Also, perhaps submitting in all things and being loving in a respectful husband-glorifying way is a task that is especially hard for women, and loving a wife sacrificially as oneself while giving honor to her in understanding, along with avoiding bitterness towards her is a harder task for men, so these things are emphasized for either sex to compensate for weaknesses inherent in our flesh.

g. (Heb 13:17) Everyone is told to submit (word here, "hupeiko", is not the same word used elsewhere for "submit", this one literally means to "yield oneself, to give way, to not resist") to their leaders in The Faith, and be persuaded or have confidence in them  (sometimes the word used here, "peitho", is translated "obey", but it could also mean simply to have confidence in or be persuaded by.)

hupotage, to be in/under control, to be in subjection/submission, sometimes to be in obedience: Apparently this is the noun form of "hupotasso", it's meaning appears to be the same.

proegeomai, to lead onward by example, go before, prefer: This word is only used in Rom 12:10, another "one another" passage. We are to prefer one another in honor.


Now for the words that aren't apparently used for NT Church leadership.



katakurieuo, rule as a total lord and master, exercise authority over, master, control, subjugate, overcome, "lord over": This kind of rulership is probably similar to "authentein", in that it is dominating and not proper for anyone to do in The Faith.

kurieuo, have authority over, rule over: This word is used of Christ and is not in itself a negative word. However, it is still inappropriate for Christians within the Faith community.

katexousiazo, to wield full authority over, exercise authority over, perhaps to dominate: Not permitted among Christians.

exousiazo, a proper exercising of authority over another, delegated power and authority over something: this term is used mutually in terms of husbands and wives having authority over each others bodies in marriage, but it is still not used of Christian leadership, because Jesus said it should not be so among his disciples.

authenteo, dominate, domineer over, take up self-assumed (undelegated/unrecognized) authority, force one's way on/compel, usurp authority, act as an autocrat, maybe perpetrate a crime against/instigate conflict, murder, be absolute master of, or flout the authority of: Only used of what a woman should not do to a man in 1 Tim 2:12, and never used again in the rest of the NT. I would say that this act is almost certainly inappropriate for anyone.

I do not include "exercise authority over" or "have authority over" in the possible definitions of this word, because, according to Dr. Payne who has done years of research on this word and issue, the first unambiguous use of "authenteo" to mean "exercise authority" comes from about 370 AD, hundreds of years after Paul, in the letters of St. Basil (a man who, in my opinion, would have probably been soaked in patriarchal culture and Church traditions, and therefore the word could have been skewed by this time). I took some of these definitions from what Payne has said other scholars believe the word's range must be, some of whom I believe are Complementarians.

Firstly, it is important not to assume that just because a woman is told not to do this to a man, that all men may do it to all women. Consider the surrounding context of 1 Tim 2:12: males specifically were just told to pray with "Holy Hands" and not with wrath and arguing in verse 8 of 1 Tim 2, and women were told "similarly" (probably referring to praying) to dress with modest apparel that wasn't flaunting their wealth (braided hair and gold (note: there is an "and" between "braided hair" and "gold" connecting them perhaps into one thought, "braided hair with gold plating", unlike the other two items which are separate things), pearls, or very costly clothing).

Both genders clearly have to obey the commands given to only one gender in these verses (1 Tim 2:8-10), and this same principle is obviously applicable to 1 Tim 2: 11-15, being directly before it. Only one gender is called out in each case because this letter of Paul's is a personal pastoral letter to Timothy to deal with specific problems in Ephesus at that time (especially false teaching and unlearned teachers, which is explicitly stated in 1 Tim 1 throughout), and certain genders were probably transgressing these commands more than others.

Secondly, men are never told or permitted to "authenteo" anyone explicitely at any point in Scripture. Men (and women) are not even supposed to "exercise authority over" or "rule over" each other in The Faith (Luke 22:25-26), though men and women should mutually "exercise authority over" each other's bodies in marriage. (1 Cor 7:4)

Thirdly, there is evidence that "authenteo" and it's related noun "authentes" meant "to perpetrate a crime" or "to murder" or "to be a murderer" before and perhaps during the time of Paul. It was not until much later, particularly in Patristic writings (Christian writings) hundreds of years after Paul, that "autheneo" began to take on the meaning of "positive authority or rulership".
This is significant, because many Patristic writers were known to be slightly to extremely misogynistic in their worldviews, and they would have had plenty of reason to gradually skew the meaning of "authentein" to mean proper authority, because there was a strong desire to keep women out of authority in many, if not most Churches from around 200-300 AD onward.
Before Paul however, the meaning of the word would not have been affected or skewed in such a way, and it is therefore more wise to look at the material before or very close to the time of Paul than to use much later (largely Patristic/Christian) uses of the word that would have a greater possibility of heavy bias.

See this article (the discussion of "authenteo" begins at about the middle of the page) to help you get a better understanding of authenteo/authentes and it's history, in addition to information supporting it's connotation being "murder" or "perpetrate a crime".

Also, see section 5 of my last post, which contains more information about "authentein", and see Chapter 20 of Dr. Philip Payne's book "Man and Woman, One in Christ" for a scholarly discussion of authenteo, it's proper range of meaning for 1 Tim 2:12, and why "have/use/exercise authority has become a popular rendering despite the historical evidence against it (has to do with mistakes and misrepresentations in scholarly materials on this subject that are only now being corrected, especially through the use of technical searchable databases that were not available before).

Surprisingly, Paul does mention murder multiple times in 1 Tim, in conjunction with The Law and sound teaching. (1 Tim 1:8-10) Despite this, I do not feel that "authentein" means precisely murder in this instance, because Paul could have just used one of those other words for "murderer" if that's what he wanted to say, or use another verbal word for "kill" or "murder" like "phoneuo" (even though Paul never uses this word, except when he directly quotes the Old Testament law about murdering.).
I do think it is possible that Paul meant a figurative murdering of some kind, like in a similar manner to how we say "your killing me" when we mean we are getting irritated or dominated or harmed verbally. I also think it is possible that authenteo may mean to commit a crime, or perpetrate a crime, or be the mastermind behind a crime. That would make sense in the context, but there are probably better options, like "to domineer/boss around/act like an autocrat".

Regardless, I don't think this word can mean a general exercise of properly delegated authority.


archo, to rule or reign, be first.

archon, ruler, prince, leader, governor: I am pretty sure that the one time this word may be used for Church leadership (Rom 13:3), it is referring strictly to secular/worldly rulers, "higher authorities" and "the authority" (with a definite article, like "the government"), because these same rulers and authorities "bear the sword", which is not Church discipline, but capital punishment. These authorities are also the ones to whom we pay taxes to, and tribute.

arche, beginning, initial starting point, first, ruler, magistrate.

hegemon, governor, commander, leader: This word is taken from the word hegeomai, but it is used to refer mostly to worldly governors, especially those who, as "institutions of man", take vengeance on evildoers on God's behalf.(1 Pet 2:14) They are clearly designated as worldly governors in almost every case, Matt 10:18, Matt 27:2, 11, 21, 27, 14-15, Matt 28:14, Mark 13:9, Luke 20:20, Luke 21:12, Acts 23:24, 26, 33, Acts 24:1, 10, Acts 26:30, 1 Pet 2:14, but in Matt 2:6 it is used of Judah's leaders and Jesus. Therefore it is not used of those in the Church as a title of rulership.

basileus, emporer, king, ruler: just like it sounds, wordly kings and supreme rulers.

kathegetes, leader, teacher, guide, master: We are expressly forbidden to call ourselves this, whatever it precisely means. The only Kathegetes we have is Christ. (Matt 23:10)

kurios, lord, master, title of respect like "sir": Used of God and Christ extensively. Sarah called Abraham "kurios" once and obeyed him (1 Pet 3:6), but Abraham also was told to obey Sarah by God another time (Gen 21:12), and "kurios" can also simply be a title of honor like "sir", given to any man of distinction (which Abraham was). Also used of people who were masters of slaves in the flesh (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1), but this is not a Church office or designation.

despotes, used of absolute masters, owners: This word is used of God, but also of masters of slaves in the flesh, like "kurios". (1 Tim 6:1-2, 2 Tim 2:21, Titus 2:9, 1 Pet 2:18)

kuriotes, lordship, dominion, dignity, divine lordship: Used apparently always in Scripture to denote either angelic rulers or government (worldly dominion, governing lords).

When you look into "authority" in the New Testament, is there any whiff of "man is by creation ruler and authority over woman" if you don't make "head" = lord/master/authority over?
Is there a hint that there is some indignity about a man submitting, respecting, and being a servant toward a woman, because that is primarily the role of women to men? Or that a woman should not Agape her husband as her own flesh, live with him in understanding and honor him, and give herself up for him in sacrifice because that is primarily the role of men?
(Women are never told directly to "Agape" their husbands, only to "philandros", "be fond of/friend of/love men". But all believers are told by Jesus to Agape each other, so a wife must do this to her husband. And I think therefore it is thus similar to the topic of submission and men.)

Do we see an authority and a dignity that is only the man's in Scripture, which a woman is inferior to?
Or do we see a call for all to submit, for all to serve, for all to be humble, for all to consider others before themselves, for all to yield to their leaders, and to avoid exercising authority and becoming lords of each other in the faith? Without doubt, "lording it over" is also precluded, along with usurped autocracy.
But we find really only a minor difference in typical word usage between man and woman, for even in marriage there is mutual submission and mutual "giving oneself up" for the other (what is "giving oneself up" but a kind of submission?).

Did Christ come to be served and not to serve? Did Christ come to be submitted to but not be subject to God, to other people, and to death itself? Christ washed and served the Church and gave Himself up for her; He even learned obedience through His sufferings, despite being a Son (Heb 5:8).
Yet, He is God, and therefore He is unlike any other husband in many ways, being Lord of all and perfect, needing no "ezer", unlike Adam. But stunningly, He counted it a proper thing to submit to His own, and for His own, in the time of His humiliation (The Incarnation).

Now of course, the time of His subjection is over, and He reigns and will reign Supreme with His Father on His Throne. It goes to show you that being subject and obedient can be an act of the greater to the lesser, as well as an act of the lesser to the greater. The first will be last, and the last will be first.(Matt 19:30, Matt 20:16, Mark 10:31, Luke 13:30) The younger shall be served by the older. (Rom 9:12, Luke 22:26, Luke 9:48 ) God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. (1 Cor 1:27)

I just keep becoming more convinced that we are One in Christ in more than just our opportunity to inherit salvation. Studying these things has also given me a new appreciation for Christ's humility and therefore God's humble nature, as well as fixing some of my deficient thinking about The Church's destined authority.

I want to make it clear that I am by no means anti-authority, I absolutely believe in being submissive to authority, and even obedient unless asked to sin. I absolutely believe in submitting to Church Elders and Overseers, and Deacons; but I also believe it's appropriate to do so with every believer, as long as it's not unto sin. Furthermore, I believe wives should submit in all things to their husbands when appropriate (not into sin) by respecting him and loving him , and husbands should submit when appropriate to their wives by giving up their own desires (dying to selfishness) for the good of their wife. What do I think this looks like in practice? You guessed it, submitting to one another; mutual submission.

I can't see any reason why women shouldn't have proper authority and serve in Ministry (like Phoebe, Junia and Priscilla), since submission does not preclude authority (all must submit to one another, and even Elders should submit to each other, shouldn't they?), nor does esteeming others as superior to yourself and preferring others before yourself in honor mean you cannot teach or exhort them. Plus, I've already given manifold evidence in my last post that "authentein" does not restrict women from proper authority.

Here is another interesting blog article about Church authority that may be of help: http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/authority-in-the-church/

By the way, if you are using the WOT (Web of Trust) addon, don't be scared off of newlife.id.au just because of the red ring. It was hacked in 2010 apparently, but it is safe now and can be a very helpful resource, so I recommend bookmarking it.

So, I leave you with these words of mutual (allelon) Love.

John 13:34  A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

John 13:35  By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.