Dialogue with John Starke on authority 1 & 2

(Note: There is a nice little tie-in to the word as wisdom in this post.)

My dialogue with John Starke began last December when he picked up a comment I made on Denny Burk's blog and ran with it. (I am excerpting here a very small part of the interaction, but John may refer back to other points that he raised),

On Denny's blog, I had written.

Since, in Greek “power” and “authority” are one and the same word, how can Christ be equal to God in power, but not in authority. If the Son is eternally in submission, he is not equal in power and glory.

John responded,

This is sort of a perplexing argument since the Greek word for power is usually “dunamis” and authority is “exousia”. The common way of expressing the power of Christ or God the Father is using the word “dunamis” , not “exousia”.

At the time I was not sure of the reason why "power" in English means the same thing as "authority" in Biblical texts. However, I did finally realize that the creeds come to us through Latin, and in Latin the Greek word exousia was translated as potestas, and this word was then translated into English as "power."

Therefore, in any creed which descends from an original Latin creed, or through Latin from the Greek, the word "power" is a translation of exousia, which we now would translate as "authority." In the Latin Vulgate, exousia was always translated as potestas, and dunamis was almost always translated as virtus.

In Theodore Beza's Latin translation of the NT exousia was translated as auctoritas. In the KJV then, we can see that exousia was translated into English as both "power" and "authority." There was no apparent attempt to differentiate the two. Here is an example,

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. (Matt. 7: 28-29). KJV

Compare this with the parallel text in Luke, again from the KJV:

And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power. (Luke 4:32)

In Greek, both of these passages have the Greek word exousia. And this is why I claim that "power" and "authority" are the same word in Greek - exousia. Perhaps I could have phrased it better. I would say that in the KJV both "power" and "authority" translate the Greek word exousia. I also claim that since the creeds are descendent of Latin documents, "power" has the meaning that it had in the underlying Latin. And that would be potestas - exousia.

Last fall I expressed surprise and some incredulity that many of those who sign the doctrinal statement of the ETS, which says "equal in power and glory," do not believe that Christ is equal to the Father in authority.

Part 2

A further part of our discussion relates to Bruce Ware's claim, in Father, Son and Holy Spirit page 80, that Augustine affirms the subordination of the Son with the trinity. Ware writes,

Augustine affirmed, the distinction of Persons is constituted precisely by the differing relations among them, in part manifested by the inherent authority of the Father and inherent submission of the Son.

I claim just the opposite, that Augustine, De Trinitate iv:20, affirms that the Son is equal in authority to the Father,

because He was not sent in respect to any inequality of power*, or substance, or anything that in Him was not equal to the Father; but in respect to this, that the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son; for the Son is the Word of the Father, which is also called His wisdom.

*Since the underlying Latin for "power" is potestas, I understand it to mean "authority."

In conclusion, I understand the dialogue between John Starke and myself in this way. I suggest that the early church fathers and the doctrinal statement of the ETS affirm that the son is equal to the father in authority within the trinity. John does not.

From my point of view, this limits the discussion enough that we don't have to wrangle over every exegetical point, or make extravagant truth claims about the trinity; but simply discover whether there is any support in the early church fathers for the relationship of authority and submission existing eternally within the Godhead.

John commented recently on this post,

I am convinced that when the early fathers spoke of eternal generation, this would be equivalent to our understanding of authority in function.

John has also suggested that I read Peter Schemm on this topic, and I intend to do that, as possible.

The Son - equal in power but not in authority?

I have for quite some time, been following an argument in recent complementarian circles regarding the authority of the Son. Bruce Ware, in his book, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (page 152) wrote,

The Father, then, as supreme authority over even his own Son and the Spirit, is the one to whom we gladly, but humbly, address our prayers.

However, the Evangelical Theological Society, of which Ware is president, has a doctrinal basis statement which declares,

God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

Denny Burk blogged about this recently, and I asked a series of questions, which went unanswered there. However, I am grateful that John Starke has taken the issue up under Suzanne McCarthy and the Son’s Submission to the Father.

John writes,

So, to express that there is a difference in authority but not in power between the Son and the Father is not unthinkable. McCarthy argues the opposite. She wonders how the Son can be “equal in power and glory, but unequal in authority, and how is this derived from the Scripture?”

It is true, I did ask that question. But the focus of my interest is on the English translations that were prevalent at the time that the doctrinal basis of ETS was formulated, I am guessing in 1949. If we take John 17:2 as one example, previous translations of the Bible do not differentiate between the "power" of the Son, and the "authority" of the Son.

What if those who formulated the doctrinal statement of the ETS actually intended to say that Christ was equal to God in exousia, since exousia, the Greek word most often translated as "authority" is also often translated as "power" in the KJV and RSV.

καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. (KJV)

since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. (RSV)

We can see the same thing in Latin, German or French translations of the Bible. One must face the reality that theologians like Augustine, Luther and Calvin did not argue for a clear difference between "power" and "authority."

selon que tu lui as donné pouvoir sur toute chair, afin qu'il accorde la vie éternelle à tous ceux que tu lui as donnés. (Louis Segond)

Gleichwie du ihm Macht hast gegeben über alles Fleisch, auf daß er das ewige Leben gebe allen, die du ihm gegeben hast. (Luther)

sicut dedisti ei potestatem omnis carnis ut omne quod dedisti ei det eis vitam aeternam" (Vulgate)

However, we can see that since the NIV, 1973, - a translation supposedly of dynamic equivalence - "power" and "authority" have diverged in English in accordance with the underlying Greek.

For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. (NIV)

since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.” (ESV)

It seems clear to me that any statement that Christ is less than God in authority, while equal to him in power, can only have taken on common acceptance subsequent to 1973. But the Evangelical Theological Society has been around since 1949. I would be very interested in knowing if their doctrinal basis has shifted since 1949, and if most members realize that Christ is now not equal in authority to God, but only in power.

I always like to know what Bible translation a theological statement is based on. Curiously, many people cite theologians without referencing the Bible version or translation on which they are basing their theology.

I hope John Starke will take on this puzzle and perhaps find a clear article delineating when exactly Christ became less than God in authority, while retaining equality in power.

Bruce Ware and the Westminister Confession

Thanks to Peter's comments on the preceding post, I have found that the ETS doctrinal statement is based on an answer to a question in the Westminster catechism. This, in turn, is based on the Westminister Confession.

In the unity of the Godhead head there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God Son, and God the Holy Ghost.1

In Deitatis unitate personæ tres sunt unius ejusdemque essentiæ, potential ac æternitatis; Deus Pater, Deus Filius, ac Deus Spiritus Sanctus.

Potentia

Potentia is the liturgical Latin equivalent for potestas, meaning authority. The meaning of potentia in Lewis and Short includes the following -

• might, force, power.
• ability, faculty, capacity
• political power, authority, sway, influence
• the rule of an individual, monarchical power,
• supreme dominion, sovereignty,

I do not believe that the Son can be equal to the Father in power and under him in authority. This is consistent with what we know about the word kephale. It has no meaning of "authority over" in the Liddell Scott lexicon. There is not one occurrence prior to the New Testament of kephale meaning to have "authority over" one's own people. That is why it is not in the lexicon.

I was not aware that for many years, in sitting under the leadership of Dave Short and Jim Packer, that I was being taught by those who would nuance the fundamental creeds of historic Christianity. I am very disappointed at my own naivete.

My difficulty with Kevin Giles is that he attempts to demonstrate that power and authority mean the same thing in English. Whether they do or not is completely irrelevant. The fact is that "power" or potestas in the Vulgate and the creeds represents exousia in Greek, and this is now translated into English as "authority." In English it is possible for "power" and "authority" to have distinctive meanings. In classical and liturgical Latin it is not. (Potestas translates exousia and is translated into English as "power.") And this is what the creeds were written in.

When I left David Short's church, he pressed me to read Grudem's kephale study. I was unimpressed. I was unaware of exactly how divergent the Christianity of that church had become.

In my opinion few members of the congregation are aware of this controversy. However, last spring Bruce Ware spoke at a local pastors' conference with Dave Short. A younger pastor preached the doctrine best formulated by Ware in our church last summer. I do know that a couple of people walked out publicly. I have no first hand knowledge of further reaction, but I would not be surprised if some resistance emerges.

Rights and the Christian: authority and rights

"Rights" and "authority" are from the same Greek word, exousia. When Paul talks about the personal rights of an apostle, or the authority of an apostle, he uses the same word. In English "authority" can mean the right to have others obey you. That is how it is often used. Rights are the authority you have to act for yourself, or have the freedom to act on your own.

A person with authority, has the authority to act on their own, but also has control over the actions of others. A person with authority, can not only control their own actions, but also influences the actions of others. However, in Greek, both of these concepts are covered by the word exousia, to have the authority, right or the entitlement to act, or control the actions of others.

When we discuss the notion that men and women should have "equal rights" this is the same as saying that men and women should have "equal authority." If a doctrine says that women should not have authority equal to male authority, then by definition, women do not have equal personal rights to men. Essentially, some Christians are teaching that women do not have equal rights in the home and church.

It is interesting to see how some teach women to "lay down their personal rights" and honour male authority.

True Woman Manifesto

Men and women are both created in the image of God and are equal in value and dignity, but they have distinct roles and functions in the home and in the church. (9)

We are called as women to affirm and encourage men as they seek to express godly masculinity, and to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church. (10)

Marriage, as created by God, is a sacred, binding, lifelong covenant between one man and one woman. (11)

When we respond humbly to male leadership in our homes and churches, we demonstrate a noble submission to authority that reflects Christ's submission to God His Father. (12)

Selfish insistence on personal rights is contrary to the spirit of Christ who humbled Himself, took on the form of a servant, and laid down His life for us. (13)

This manifesto makes it appear selfish for a woman to insist on her rights, but noble for her to uphold the rights of her husband. Is there an equivalent document which asks men to lay down their authority and uphold the rights of their wives? No, the Danvers Statement and the Southern Baptist statement also call for women to submit to the authority of the husband.

While one may argue that Christ has himself modeled the "laying down of personal rights," nowhere do the scriptures say that women were created as weaker vessels in order to best model the laying down of rights; and men were created as stronger vessels, so that they may maintain authority and not lay down their rights. In fact, this appears to be based on the assumption that might makes right.

No Such Custom

On the one hand I would like to give this up and never hear the words head covering again. On the other hand, this is probably a passage that has more variant translations than any other in the Bible. Therefore, it intrigues me. Can you believe that I step back, to enter the text, and forget that I am involved, as one who is a pawn of the word?

Here is the little research I have found time for. There is no text variant in verse 16, the Greek says "There is no such custom." As far as I can see, it was the RSV that first brought in "no other practice" and it also used a text variant in verse 10, which is now recognized as being the weaker choice, 'veil' rather than 'power'.

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. KJV

If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God RSV

But if anyone is disposed to be contentious - we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. NRSV

If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. ESV

and here is verses 10 in the RSV.

That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

This translation 'other' has had a powerful influence, but it is based entirely on surmise.

-------

On the meaning of verse 10, it appears to me the a woman may have on her head one of several things. First, a sign of her own authority, second a sign of someone else's authority, and third, simply authority, or since it is her own, it is 'liberty, freedom of choice or right to act'. This is the first meaning of εξουσια in the lexicon. This is first and foremost, the most straightforward of all translations.

Now see what Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood does with this lexicon.

Furthermore, it is not at all strained to see exousia in verse 10 as "sign of authority" or "symbol of authority." The standard lexicon for New Testament literature sees such a symbolic understanding of exousia as a viable possibility. BADG, page 278 #5 ....In an example very similar to 1 Corinthians 11:10, Diodorus of Sicily (1.47.5, written ca. BC 60-30) refers to a stone statue that has "three kingdoms on its head (echonton treis basileias epi tes kephales)," but it clearly means in the context that the statue has three crowns, which are symbols of governing kingdoms. We can conclude, then, that it is not at all unusual for something on the head to be a symbol of something else. Recovering

So I will quote BADG, page 278, #5

Various opinions are held concerning the mng. of 1 Cor. 11:10 Many now understand it as 'a means of exercising power'.

There is then a discussion of the "three kingdoms" as above, and then this statement.

"The veil may also have been simply a symbol of womanly dignity."

There is no discussion in BADG of a woman having a symbol of someone else's authority on her head. However, the quote from Recovering suggests, but does not clearly state, that it does.

Shall we torture the text any longer? Shall we torture the lexicons as well? Not today, but some day, it would be well worth the time to revisit this passage and review the rhetorical questions, the play on words, both 'head' and 'glory', the chiastic structure, and so on.

It is clear, however, that whatever women had, it gave them the right to pray and prophesy in the assembly. The veil had nothing to do with silence, that comes later. The veil is only associated with authority and submission in its association with the argument of the "head" in verse 3. It is only by understanding "head" as an authority/submission relationship that authority and submission are read into the rest of the chapter.

But what is the relationship of God to Christ? Let us remember that Christ submitted unto death. It was the incarnation and death of Christ that was his submission. Is that how we see the man and the woman? Shall the woman submit unto death? Is that the beauty of headship? I do not read authority and submission when this chapter talks about the head.

I read a different relationship altogether, that God gave Christ everything, absolutely everything, because God is the head of Christ.

The submission and death of Christ is indeed part of the Christian story, but it is not under discussion when the Bible says, "The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman, man, the head of Christ, God."

A power on the head? 1 Corinthians 11:10

Sequel to: Difficult verses; 1 Corinthians 11

When I read this verse for the first time (in the Dutch NBG translation) I was very puzzled about it's meaning. In Dutch it reads something like:

For this cause the woman ought to have a power on the head because of the angels. (1 Corinthians 11 :10)

Wow! That sounds heavy. A power on the head... But, what is it, that power that a women apparently ought to have on her head? (In Dutch it sounds just as strange as in English.)
The NIV is a bit more clear:

For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. (1 Corinthians 11 :10 NIV)

But there is a problem with this translation. The word sign is not found in the source text! The translators have tried to translate this text in harmony with their interpretation of the relations between men and women. (The equality of men and women is a rather novel idea!)
Therefore, the Greek word for power (exousian) was interpreted as the authority under which the woman is. The meaning of exousia is:

power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases

The idea that here we are dealing with someone else's authority (allegedly over the woman) is foreign to the Greek.
The TNIV correctly translates:

It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.

In this passage (1 Cor. 11:3-16), willingly used by traditionalists to demonstrate the authority of men over women, the word power (exousia) is only used one time. And in that occasion it is the woman who owns that power. I assume that head in this verse has a literal meaning. (Would it be figurative, then the hierarchy would be the other way around, for as we read in verse 3, her head is the man!) Taken literally this verse could mean that (in principle) the woman can decide for herself what to do with her head (long hair, short hair, bald, veiled...)

Soon we will look at how this fits in the context and what those angels have to do with it.

The original post in Dutch can be found here.

The Women's Bible

I am not inspired to write much at the moment, but I can offer this informative post by April DeConick on Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.

Kurk Gayle adds this important citation from Elizabeth Cady Stanton,

It does not occur to them that men learned in the languages have revised the book many times, but made no change in woman's position. Though familiar with 'the designs of God,' trained in Biblical research and higher criticism, interpreters of signs and symbols and Egyptian hieroglyphics, learned astronomers and astrologers, yet they cannot twist out of the Old or New Testaments a message of justice, liberty or equality from God to the women of the nineteenth century!

But it was another blogger who first recommended that I read the Women's Bible, a few years ago. Thank you.

I think the tensions remain today, as they were then between Stanton and Anthony. There are women forging a biblical feminism out of a literalist approach to the Bible. And then there are others who reject the Bible entirely. My only concern is that the true equality of women, as those who bear authority on par with men, not be compromised. In Greek, the word exousia is related to not only authority, but also rights, permission and liberty. If women are denied equal authority, they are also deprived of equal rights, equal permission, and equal liberty.

Bruce Ware and historic Christianity

I have been concerned that some might believe that Bruce Ware had said that Christ was not equal to God. However, he strongly affirms that the Son is equal to the Father in essence. Yet he clearly states that the Son has a distinct role.

To confirm some of what Dr. Ware has said, I looked at Father, Son and Holy Spirit where he wrote,

Yet notice one more detail. Paul begins his prayer bowing his knees neither to the Son nor to the Spirit but to the Father, "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." The Father then is the Sovereign Ruler over heaven and earth, controlling even the very names that every creature is given. From this position of sovereign supremacy, it is the Father who has the authority to grant this prayer's fulfillment, and so ultimately all glory and thanksgiving must go to him.

Because of this, Paul prays to the Father that the Spirit will enlarge the likeness and experience of Christ in those who believe. As Paul's prayer so clearly indicates, then, the Spirit works in our sanctification to bring honour and glory to the Son, to the ultimate glory of the Father.

From this it appears to me that Ware affirms:

1 The Father has sovereign supremacy above Christ.
2 The Father is supreme in authority over Christ.
3 The Father uniquely has authority to grant answers to prayer.
4. All thanks and glory go to the Father.

I note that the doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Theological Society is this.

God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

The Athanasian Creed says,

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

Sed Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas.

Augustine writes,

For he was not sent in virtue of some disparity of power or substance or anything in him that was not equal to the Father, but in virtue of the Son being from the Father, not the Father being from the Son.”*

non secundum imparem potestatem uel substantiam uel aliquid quod in eo patri non sit aequale missus est, sed secundum id quod filius a patre est, non pater a filio.

Here are extracts from the Lewis and Short Latin dictionary.

Maiestas

• greatness, grandeur, dignity, majesty


• sovereign power


• the paternal authority

Potestas

• Political power, dominion, rule, empire, sovereignty


• Magisterial power, authority, office, magistracy
  
• have lawful authority and jurisdiction

In addition to this the Latin word potestas uniquely translates the Greek word exousia in the Vulgate and must be presumed to mean "authority. " I do not see how it can be shown that Augustine did not say that the Son was not unequal to the Father in "authority."

I suggest that majesty and power are synonyms of sovereignty and authority. A study of Latin will demonstrate that potestas did indeed mean authority, and maiestas meant sovereignty. Christ is equal to the Father in authority and sovereignty according to historic Christianity.

I believe that historic Christianity taught that Christ was equal to his Father in authority, power, sovereignty, dominion and rule.

Bruce Ware and the Trinity: Response to John Starke

John Starke has mentioned an article by Bruce Ware ,written in 2006, which pertains to authority and submission within the trinity. My first reaction is that I am relieved to see him clearly differentiate the quality of the relationship which exists between human beings and the Father and the Son in the Trinity. He writes,

The equality of essence among the members of the Trinity, then, is greater than the equality that exists among human beings or among any other finite reality. For example, my wife, Jodi, and I are equally human, in that each of us possesses a human nature. That is, her nature is of the same kind as my nature, viz., human nature, and so our equality surely is real as an equality of kind. But the equality of the three divine Persons is even more firmly grounded. Here, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each possesses not merely the same kind of nature, viz., divine nature; rather, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each possesses fully and eternally the identically same nature. Their equality, then, is not merely an equality of kind but an equality of identity.

This is much more representative of what Augustine writes in De Trinitate IV,

In such wise that, whereas four things are to be considered in every sacrifice—to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, for whom it is offered,— the same One and true Mediator Himself, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, might remain one with Him to whom He offered, might make those one in Himself for whom He offered, Himself might be in one both the offerer and the offering. 8

He was not sent in respect to any inequality of power, or substance, or anything that in Him was not equal to the Father; but in respect to this, that the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son; for the Son is the Word of the Father, which is also called His wisdom. What wonder, therefore, if He is sent, not because He is unequal with the Father, but because He is a pure emanation (manatio) issuing from the glory of the Almighty God? For there, that which issues, and that from which it issues, is of one and the same substance. For it does not issue as water issues from an aperture of earth or of stone, but as light issues from light. For the words, For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, what else are they than, she is light of everlasting light? For what is the brightness of light, except light itself? 20

What I fail to understand is how the relationship between the Father and Son, both masculine, and one an emanation of the other; pertains to the way a husband would treat a wife, who is another distinct human being. As God provides the Son as an emanation of himself, to reveal himself to mankind and to be the offering for sin; does man send woman into the fray as a revelation to the world and an offering for sin?

I persist in viewing this as one of the most inhumane and ungodly teachings on the face of this earth, that the wife is to be sacrificed, willingly or not, at the will of the husband. Or was the Son not sent to be an offering? But Augustine says this was the purpose of his being sent.

My second observation is that Bruce Ware in no way demonstrates that he is dealing with the Latin text of Augustine. Ware writes,

Finally, Augustine also affirmed that the distinction of persons is constituted precisely by the differing relations among them, in part manifest by the inherent authority of the Father and inherent submission of the Son.

This is directly contradicted by Augustine, when he writes,

For he was not sent in virtue of some disparity of power or substance or anything in him that was not equal to the Father, but in virtue of the Son being from the Father, not the Father being from the Son.

Ware does not in any way acknowledge or respond to the simple fact that when Augustine wrote this in Latin, using potestas for "power", he was using the Latin word for "authority" in the Greek. That is, potestas is the translation in the Vulgate for exousia - authority. In the trinity, there is no disparity of authority, according to Augustine.

It is difficult to dialogue with an idea that contains such fundamental weaknesses. Ware does not acknowledge that as light is sent by the sun, so is the Son sent by the Father, but the sun has no need of authority over the light, because they are one in substance.