Authority 7: one another

In his letter Grudem remarks that "one another" in "submit to one another" means that some submit to others. Grudem writes,

My argument for Ephesians 5:21 is that "being subject" to someone in the sense intended by Greek hypotassō is a one-directional activity. In that sense it is like the action of "killing one another" - in the nature of the action of killing, one person kills and the other is killed. The dead person does not rise from the dead after a few minutes and kill the other person, nor could every single person kill every single other person. Killing one another rather has the sense "some to others," in that some were killing others.

I thought I would do a rough search in English for "one another" in the scriptures. I found the following,

discuss with one another
say to one another
ask one another
trample one another
accept glory from one another
stare at one another
love one another
degrading their bodies with one another
inflamed with lust for one another
devoted to one another
honor one another
livein harmony with one another
pass judgement on one another
accept one another
instruct one another
greet one another
agree with one another
encourage one another
serve one another
bear with one another
be kind and compassionate with one another
speak to another with psalms, etc.
submit to one another
in your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had
forgive one another
admonish one another
hate one another
spur one another on to love
do not slander one another
don't grumble against one another
offer hospitality to one another
clothe yourselves with humility toward one another
have fellowship with one another
lay down our lives for one another

I do not see one instance in which one class of person is to follow these commands towards another class of person. I do not believe that Christians are broken into two classes, male and female, and female are to submit to male, and male are to have authority over female. That is the implication of the interpretation that some Christians are to submit to other Christians.Quite frankly, I don't see how Christianity would be a revolutionary religion if that were the case.

The teaching to serve and offer hospitality to one another is surely that one person offers hospitality to another and later in return, the other offers hospitality. Each offers hospitality and service out of their ability to do so.

Authority 6: returning to the evidence

This is the evidence on αυθεντεω which Grudem discusses. There really isn't anything else.

1. Scholia Graeca in Aeschylus, Eumenides 42a (first century B.C.): "The murderer, who had just committed an act of violence [authenteō ]," where authenteō (perfect participle) means "to commit violence" or "to murder."

2. BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): "I had my way with him [authenteō ] and he agreed to provide Calatytis the boatman with the full payment within the hour."

3. Philodemus, Rhetorica II Fragmenta Libri [V] fr IV line 14 (first century BC): "These orators ... even fight with powerful ( authenteō ) lords." (This is a hypothetical reconstruction of a fragmentary text.)

4. Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos III.13 [#157] (second century A.D.): "Therefore, if Saturn alone takes planetary control of the soul and dominates (authenteō ) Mercury and the moon ..."

What about this evidence? According to Grudem Linda Belleville quotes this evidence to prove that αυθεντεω means "misuse authority". Of course, it is the same evidence that Grudem and Kostenberger use to prove that αυθεντεω means to "exercise authority". I do not believe that the evidence supports either case.

Grudem writes this about the first quote,

But the first example should not be considered relevant for this discussion, since the comments on Aeschylus, Eumenides found in the Scholia Graeca are from a 10th century A.D. manuscript.²¹ Belleville gives the reader no indication of why she claims a date of "first century B.C." for this 10th century A.D. reference.

The second quote is the one that is listed in the original study by Baldwin under "compel, to influence someone." and Grudem agrees with this assessment. Ev. Fem & Biblical Truth. page 677 - 680. According to Grudem other translators suggest "prevail" and mention that this is a hostile relationship involving insolence. The fact that Baldwin was able to find someone who would provide a translation with "exercise authority over" has no relevance whatsoever to the argument. As Grudem says, page 680, "The translation of this text is disputed."

The third quote is from the Philodemus fragment. The problems with it are so manifold that I am surprised to find it quoted at all. It no longer exists except as a hand-made facsimile. The word authentein is reconstructed within this fragment. Grudem writes,

In the third (the fragmentary manuscript), the meaning, "authoritative lords" makes good sense, and it would be impossible to demonstrate the meaning "lords who misuse authority." Baldwin's gives the translation, "those in authority."

This is not valid information. In fact, there is no evidence that there is any word which can be translated as "lords" in this fragment. Baldwin quotes Hubbell's summary of what might be in this fragment if we knew what the words were. There is no translation and no paraphrase, only a condensed abstract of a general idea. Grudem cannot claim that this fragment has been translated because not enough of it remains.

About the last reference Grudem writes,

In the fourth example, Saturn rules or exercises authority over Mercury (the text is talking about the influence of the planets and no sense of "misuse authority" would be appropriate: Saturn does not "misuse its authority" over Mercury). Baldwin gives the translation, "Saturn ... dominates Mercury and the moon,"²⁴ which is an appropriate way to speak of the relative influence of planets, but once again we find no meaning like "misuses its authority."

While there are many later quotes which supply the meaning of dominate or control in a negative way, there is no actual proof of the meaning of this word apart from its use in astronomy. As far as I can see, one can only prove an amoral use of power such as dominate, for authentein. The truth is that I do not find any command in the Bible for men to behave like this in the church. I do not believe that this is intended to be the benign and appropriate exercise of the teaching gift.

Clearly, in 1 Tim. 2 Paul instructs men not to fight with each other and women not to dominate. There does not seem to be any reference to men dominating in a positive way and thus exercising their authority. Nothing is said about this. Neither would we assume that because Paul does not instruct women not to fight, that they may fight.

I do not believe that it is warranted to postulate a meaning of either "misuse authority" or "exercise authority"for authentein. It is time for those who think they know what this word means to acquire humility and admit that there is no evidence other than "use personal power to make something happen." Is that what Christian leaders are supposed to do? Show me the scripture for this.

It is about time that 1 Tim. 2:12 be translated properly and that people stop talking about a women not "having teaching authority". Teaching is a gift and has authority if it is based on knowledge of the word. There is no other authority.

Authority 6: trampling or loving one another

There are two ways to write about reciprocity. If we love one another, then the person who loves can also be loved. If we kill one another, there is a group of people, within which some people kill other people, but no one person kills the same one who kills him or her.

Two views of submit to one another, in the words of Wayne Grudem,

Everyone agrees that allēlōn has a "reciprocal" meaning. The question is what specific kind of "reciprocal" meaning the term implies. Of course when a writer says that a group of people "love one another" or "care for one another" or, conversely, that a group of people "were killing one another" or that they "were trampling on one another," the meaning is always in some sense reciprocal, because in every case some in the group do something to others in the group. In that sense the meaning of "one another" is reciprocal - the group acts upon itself, in contrast to saying that the group "loves other people," or that the group "was killing other people."

What Belleville fails to distinguish, however, is that sometimes everybody in the group does something to everybody else (loving one another, for example), and sometimes some people in the group do the action to others in the group (killing one another, when some are killing and others are being killed). In English we use "one another" for both senses, and we say they were "loving one another" or they were "killing one another." In Greek likewise, the term allēlōn can be used in both cases. The kind of activity involved determines the exact sense of reciprocal allēlōn that is intended.

My argument for Ephesians 5:21 is that "being subject" to someone in the sense intended by Greek hypotassō is a one-directional activity. In that sense it is like the action of "killing one another" - in the nature of the action of killing, one person kills and the other is killed. The dead person does not rise from the dead after a few minutes and kill the other person, nor could every single person kill every single other person. Killing one another rather has the sense "some to others," in that some were killing others. Trampling on one another is a similar example: some trample on others, so the group can be said to be "trampling on one another." Waiting for one another when some people are late is the same idea: some wait, and some are waited for.

Submitting to one another should be interpreted in the sense that people trample one another, not in the sense that people love one another.

Belleville says she is unable to understand this distinction in meaning, and therefore she rejects it as a possibility. She says,

Wayne Grudem's claim that allēlous ... in Ephesians 5:21 takes the "common" meaning "some to others" ... boggles the lexical imagination.... And how exactly Galatians 6:2 ("Carry each other's burdens"), 1 Corinthians 11:33 ("When you come together to eat, wait for each other"), and Revelation 6:4 ("To make the people [on earth] slay each other") support such a "common meaning" is likewise incomprehensible.¹⁴

But is it really that difficult to understand that Paul in Galatians 6:2 did not want every single person in the churches of Galatia to carry every other person's burden (each person would be carrying hundreds of burdens!), but that he wanted some to help others as they had need? Is it really "incomprehensible" that in 1 Corinthians 11:33, Paul wanted some (who were on time) to wait for others (who were late), not that those who were late should wait for those who were on time? And is Belleville really unable to understand that in Revelation 6:4 some were killing and some were being killed (rather than the impossible idea that every single person was killing every single other person)? These are straightforward understandings of these passages. Belleville's only objection is to say that she finds them "incomprehensible."

Now with respect to Ephesians 5:21, our conclusion is (1) that allēlōn often takes the sense of "some to others" within a group, when the activity described is by nature a one-directional activity, and (2) that hypotassō always indicates a one-directional submission to an authority. Therefore we do not need to invent a new, unprecedented meaning for hypotasso in Ephesians 5:21. It takes a common, ordinary meaning, "be subject to an authority," and allēlōn takes a common, ordinary meaning, "some (in the group) to others (in the group)."

No reciprocity here. Apparently there is no situation in which I bear the burden of someone else, who bears my burden with me.

To return to the original question, it is significant that Belleville has brought forth no counterexamples for this sense of hypotassō as one-directional submission to an authority.

But Belleville's point is that Christianity introduces this concept of reciprocity. It is significant that there is no command in the Christian scriptures to use or have authority one over the other, except in an reciprocal situation.

While one cannot prove reciprocity in submission from a direct quote, one can most certainly prove reciprocity in authority. Since the complementarians themselves set up an authority-submission paradigm, I would think that this would satisfy them as proof. 1 Cor. 7:3-5,

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5^(C) Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again,^(D) so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Is someone going to say that this use of "one another" is not reciprocal? It is distressing to see how the reality of being male and female is warped by the eternal model of authority-submission. But it is doubly distressing to see how the scriptures are also misunderstood and misrepresented.

If authority can be given mutually to each over other, then likewise submission. That is the mystery of Christianity. How sad to see this message is missed by some.

Authority 5: Chrysostom

Homily 10 on Colossians by Chrysostom

See how again he has exhorted to reciprocity. As in the other case he enjoins fear and love, so also does he here. For it is possible for one who loves even, to be bitter. What he says then is this. Fight not; for nothing is more bitter than this fighting, when it takes place on the part of the husband toward the wife. For the fightings which happen between beloved persons, these are bitter; and he shows that it arises from great bitterness, when, says he, any one is at variance with his own member. To love therefore is the husband's part, to yield pertains to the other side. If then each one contributes his own part, all stands firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband becomes yielding. And see how in nature also it has been so ordered, that the one should love, the other obey. For when the party governing loves the governed, then everything stands fast. Love from the governed is not so requisite, as from the governing towards the governed; for from the other obedience is due. For that the woman has beauty, and the man desire, shows nothing else than that for the sake of love it has been made so. Do not therefore, because your wife is subject to you, act the despot;(αυθεντεω) nor because your husband loves you, be thou puffed up. Let neither the husband's love elate the wife, nor the wife's subjection puff up the husband. For this cause has He subjected her to you, that she may be loved the more. For this cause He has made you to be loved, O wife, that you may easily bear your subjection. Fear not in being a subject; for subjection to one that loves you has no hardship. Fear not in loving, for you have her yielding. In no other way then could a bond have been. You have then thine authority of necessity, proceeding from nature; maintain also the bond that proceeds from love, for this allows the weaker to be endurable.

I like the way Chrysostom created reciprocity. I would comment on this passage further but I haven't found the Greek text for this yet. Chrysostom carefully balances the power between husband and wife throughout. Its too bad reality isn't like this, but IMO he tried.

This passage also indicates one example of how authentew can be used to mean "misuse of power." From what I have read the meaning of "use power over" is emerging for authentew. Not always in a negative sense, but still the use of power. I don't think men should use power over women, nor women over men.

Authority 4: The fragment's non-existence

I was made aware recently that the Philodemus Fragment does not actually exist, although there is a hand-made copy of it. It is hard to see how this fragment could be called evidence for anything.

However, I find that it is mentioned at least twice on the CBMW website. Wolters mentions it in A Semantic Study of authentes and its Derivatives,

It is possible, however, that the text should read authent[ai]sin instead of authent[ou]sin, in which case we have a form not of the verb authentew, but of the noun authentes.64 If we do read the verb, then its meaning here, according to standard lexicographical reference works, is ‘rule’ or ‘have authority over’.65

65 See S. Sudhaus (ed.), Philodemi Volumina Rhetorica (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1896), II, p. 133, lines 12-15. The Herculaneum papyrus fragments in question (now known as P.Herc. 220) are no longer extant, although a hand-drawn copy was published in the nineteenth century. For an extensive bibliography on P.Herc. 220, see M. Gigante, Catalogo dei Papiri Ercolanesi (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1979), pp. 107-108. It is usually assigned to Book V of Philodemus’s Rhetorica, which is being prepared for publication by Matilde Ferrario of Milan; see her ‘Per una nuova edizione del quinto libro della “Retorica” di Filodemo’, in Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Papyrology, Athens, 25–31 May 1986 (2 vols.; Athens: Greek Papyrological Society, 1988), I, pp. 167-84. However, P.Herc. 220 has been tentatively referred to Book VII in T. Dorandi, ‘Per una ricomposizione dello scritto di Filodemo sulla Retorica’, ZPE 82 (1990), pp. 59-87 (85)

There is no internal evidence which makes the meaning of authent[ai/ou]sin explicit and certainly Hubbell's translation for authent[ou]sin is "powerful" and not "exercise authority." Note that Wolters does not make this clear, but only says "then its meaning here, according to standard lexicographical reference works, is ‘rule’ or ‘have authority over’". This quote does not actually support any particular meaning at all, as far as I know, since too little of the fragment was ever available. This citation simply must be dropped from the debate - it cannot be used by either side.

However, more has been written about this fragment. In An Open Letter to Egalitarians (Revised 2003): A Consideration of Linda Belleville's 2001 Response Grudem writes,

In the third (the fragmentary manuscript), the meaning, "authoritative lords" makes good sense, and it would be impossible to demonstrate the meaning "lords who misuse authority." Baldwin's gives the translation, "those in authority."²³

Baldwin may have given the meaning "those in authority" but clearly Grudem has not yet understood that Baldwin misunderstood the translation. Quoting an error is unhelpful, but it seems that readers are willing to take Grudem's word that Baldwin's study has validity. "Authoritative lords" might make sense, if we knew the word was authentew and if we knew the word following was, in fact, "lords." I suspect that the fragment would sound just as good if we translated the word in many other ways. It is irritating to see the flawed study by Baldwin being quoted as evidence for anything. I would like to see something a little more scholarly.

Grudem has an interesting point here,

When I referred to the meaning "misuse authority" in my first article, I also used the term, "domineer" to speak of such misuse. This was because the word "domineer" means, "To rule over or control arbitrarily or arrogantly; tyrannize."²⁵ But this English word "domineer" must be distinguished from the word "dominate," which has no connotation of misuse of authority, but just means, "To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power."²⁶ Because "domineer" (a negative term) and "dominate" (a neutral term) sound so much alike in English, perhaps it is misleading to use "domineer" to indicate a misuse or abuse of authority .

Part of the difficulty is that there is no clear difference between "power" and "authority" in Greek. Possibly authentew could be translated as "dominate" in English and that would be acceptable to both sides. Complementarians would understand by it that a woman could not "govern by authority" , and egalitarians would understand that a woman could not "govern by power", because no one should "govern by power".

I don't see any point in lobbying for any particular interpretation at this point, but as a translation "dominate" seems to be a good "neutral" candidate. Maybe I will see it differently later. The way it stands now, complementarians have their interpretation and it restricts women, egalitarians have theirs and it entails equity. If neither one can be proven then we are each responsible for behaving according to our conscience.

Authority Part 3: Fragment and Paraphrase

A continuation of the Philodemus Fragment -

I have suggested setting aside authentein in 1 Tim. 2:12, as proof that a woman should not have authority, because the evidence for the meaning of this word is very obscure. I have found and reproduced in images the Greek fragment and the English paraphrase for one of the two most cited pieces of evidence for authentein meaning "exercise authority". It is this fragment from Philodemus. My intent is to share this information with any who come here to view it.

The first two images here are from Philodemi Volumina Rhetorica pages 161 and 162 in the electronic version and pages 133 and 134 in the book.

The second two images are from The Rhetorica of Philodemus the preface and page 32 of the electronic version and page 304 in the book.

The fragment has over half of the words missing and it is clear that this is a rough paraphrase. In the third image the middle paragraph serves as a paraphrase for fragment IV.

Click on the images to enlarge.

In the preface, Hubbell writes that

"he is far from positive that the correct rendering has in all cases been attained. ... It would perhaps be more exact to call it a paraphrase than a translation. While it has been possible in general to translate almost literally, there are many passages where the papyrus is so fragmentary that nothing more than an approximation is possible, and the gaps must in some cases be filled entirely by conjecture. At times it has seemed best to condense some of the more prolix paragraphs."

It is evident by the amount of text which is reconstructed, and by relative length of the manuscript and the paraphrase, that this is one of the "more prolix paragraphs" and has been greatly condensed.

One suggestion might be to assign authentein the meaning which it had in astronomy and astrology texts in the second century - to dominate or domineer. This is the translation used by Jerome in the fourth century. I don't know if it is possible to find out what was used in the old Latin texts.

Authority Part 2: the Philodemus Fragment

I have been in a discussion of the meaning of authentein in 1 Tim. 2:12 on Denny Burk's blog and he has now decided to moderate out any further discussion on my part about the evidence for authentein. I wish to post here some of the evidence and resources which I have collected.

Denny recommended that I read Grudem's book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, to see the evidence for authentein meaning "exercise authority". I have done this and found that the reference to Philodemus is incorrect. I am posting the resources for this today and will pursue the discussion as I find the time.

Here is my comment #70 in full from Denny's post,

By way of explanation, Denny commented to me,

“Once again, I would direct readers to Kostenberger’s study. It’s very convincing.”

I don’t know if I have read the right article by Kostenberger. However, I read this one.

http://biblicalfoundations.org/pdf/Studies12.pdf

In the footnotes, Köstenberger provides the only two pieces of lexical evidence which he thins are relevant. He says,

41These two references are: Philodemus (1st cent. BCE): “Ought we not to consider that men who incur the enmity of those in authority (συν αυθεντουσιν) are villains, and hated by both gods and men”; and BGU 1208 (27 BCE): “I exercised authority (Καμου αυθεντηκοτος) over him, and he consented to provide for Calatytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.” For full Greek texts and translations, see Baldwin, “Appendix 2” in Women in the Church, 275–76. (in the PDF page 13)

The first citation is a reference to Philodemus. However, authentein is definitely not translated as “those in authority” but as “powerful lords” or something of the kind. Several lines later, there is a reference to “those in authority” but not in connection to authentein. It seems there has been a mix up.

The second citation it the one that Grudem suggests should be translated as “compel”. Therefore, in spite of Köstenberger’s footnote, neither of these two citations gives the obvious meaning “exercise authority”. Whatever the meaning is, I would like to see it properly cited.

And here is # 69,

The Philodemus quote is a bit difficult, since it is, as I said, a fragment, and the phrase is a quote from an unknown source, so undated, I would presume.

But the phrase is “fighting with powerful(?) lords(?)”

διαμαχοντοι και συν αυθεντ[ου]σιν αν[αξιν]

Since anax is not in BDAG, I am guessing that it is not a Hellenistic term at all.

My guess is that it is a Homeric term, but that is just a guess. But maybe the word isn’t anax, it is reconstructed also.

The entire fragment is not translated but Hubbell gives a precis of sorts. It is all available on the internet, so you can translate this yourself and see if authentein has a positive or negative meaning. But it most certainly is not translated as those in authority, as Kostenberger claims. “Those in authority occurs further down in the piece.

I think that if this quote is being used to shore up the translation “exercise authority” then it should be properly translated, possibly by a secular and non partisan scholar. But I don’t really think that anything new will be revealed from a fragment.

Philodemi Volumina Rhetorica

and

The Rhetorica Philodemus.

Do you have the reference?

My guess is that it is a more or less neutral term referring to the exercise of sheer might in this case, a secular power with no moral right attached to it. That is a concession BTW, it could mean usurpers - who knows?

Comment # 75,

Denny,

Unless you can assure me that Andreas has corrected his citation of these two references, it is not worth my time and money to acquire the book. Basic accuracy must be attended to.

If you have the book, then it would be helpful at this point to cite how Andreas deals with Baldwin’s study.

I have to assume at this point, given your reluctance to respond, that there is no evidence to support the meaning “exercise authority” for authentein.

To whom will Jesus say,

“Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.” Luke 19:17

I claim that God gives authority to the one who is faithful in a very little.

You claim that God gives authority to the male.

Denny responded with,

Suzanne,

If that is your assumption, then your assumption would incorrect. The simple truth is that I have spent a lot of time going back and forth on this thread, and I simply don’t have time to keep it up. Yes, there are alternate translations of the passages you cite. I could get them for you and type them out, but I’m not going to. You can read them in the appendix 7 of Wayne Grudem’s book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis of More Than 100 Disputed Questions. What you’ll find if you survey the over 300 uses of this term (all of them are listed in Grudem) is that “exercise authority” is a possible rendering for some texts within the timeframe you’ve cited. Let me encourage you to investigate some of that evidence.

For those who have been watching this thread, I am going to have to exit at this point. It’s becoming too time consuming. There are plenty of answers to the questions that Suzanne is asking, most of which are provided in the Grudem book I cited above. I hope that interested readers will take time to investigate this matter fully.

Thanks,
Denny

Denny then started moderating comments and I was unable to let him know that Grudem makes the same error. I did actually publish that error earlier in the discussion. I would be willing to continue this discussion if anyone asks for further references.

Authority Part 1

I propose that 1 Tim. 2:12 be removed from a discussion of authority until after all else has been explored. This is, first, because the word αυθεντειν in Greek had no connection with the word εξουσια the word which is usually translated authority. Second, the Latin Vulgate translated αυθεντειν as dominare, and Luther as herr sein, to be the lord. Third, in English this word was translated as "usurp authority" at a time when a usurpation was a serious crime.

I propose that the first basis of authority in the church be based on baptism. The following is from Luther's Appeal to the Ruling class.

To call popes, bishops, priests, monks, and nuns, the religious class, but princes, lords, artisans, and farm-workers the secular class, is a specious device invented by certain timeservers; but no one ought to be frightened by it, and for good reason. For all Christians whatsoever really and truly belong to the religious class, and there is no difference among them except in so far as they do different work.

We all have one baptism, one gospel, one faith, and are all equally Christian. For baptism, gospel, and faith alone make men religious, and create a Christian people. When a pope or bishop anoints, grants tonsures, ordains, consecrates, dresses differently from laymen, he may make a hypocrite of a man, or an anointed image, but never a Christian or a spiritually-minded man. The fact is that our baptism consecrates us all without exception, and makes us all priests.

When a bishop consecrates, he simply acts on behalf of the entire congregation, all of whom have the same authority.

Every one who has been baptized may claim that he has already been consecrated priest, bishop, or pope, even though it is not seemly for any particular person arbitrarily to exercise an office. Just because we are all priests of equal standing, no one must push himself forward and, without the consent and choice of the rest, presume to do that for which we all have equal authority. ....

Hence we deduce that there is, at bottom, no other difference between laymen, princes, priests, bishops, or in Romanist terminology, between religious and secular, than that of office or occupation, and not taht of Christian status. All have spiritual status, and all are truly priests, bishops, and popes. Bu Christians do not follow the same occupation.

I accept that Luther taught that women should be quiet and submissive and not teach. However, this is a discussion of the concept of authority in the abstract. Luther does not present a theory of authority that excludes women because authority is based on baptism. We now allow women to hold office in the secular world but not in the church.

On what basis is authority in the world and in the church differentiated? On what basis are offices of authority withheld from women, if all have authority through their baptism.

We say that women have the same gifts of teaching but may not hold the office because they do not have authority. However, a gifted women who is baptized has both baptism and gift. She ought then to have the occupation, but simply lacks being appointed by men as an office-bearer. And where does it say in the scriptures that a woman shall not bear office?