In one of my games, there as a punishment called "silencing" basically, all the chat features would be disabled so that there was no possible way to communicate in-game. Sometimes bloggers can block their foes, effectively silencing them.
And while we we say that we can't make an argument based on silence - all too often, it speaks volumes. In the ancient world, being silenced or shut up was one and the same as losing honor. Always having an answer, a response and always winning the last word was honorable. Not having an answer, or a response or the last word was shameful. Jesus' followers wrote the Bible in such way where he never lost a debate. That's high praise.
Anyway, today my e-mail told me that somebody had written a response to a comment I made months and months ago. Sadly, months ago, I was blocked, silenced really, and I couldn't post a reply if I wanted to. Well, not on the site itself. So I thought I'd look back on the conversation and say whatever I want right here, right now. So here I go:
I said: (something irrelevant/unimportant) ... I will tell you that aside from kephale there is a word in these verses
that says that the person referred to has authority; it was used by the
centurion speaking to Jesus, when he said "for I am a person under
authority, when I say come here, a person comes. When I say do this, a
person does it." It's the word exousia and it always refers to the
subject of the sentence, not the object. It's used in the verse 'for a
woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels'. I
just find it odd that the same word being used to describe being under
authority shows in one instance a centurion who while being 'under
authority' actually wields authority and gives out commands. Yet when
this woman is 'under authority' she has no power to wield authority is
and is forbidden from giving out commands. If Paul wanted to say in no
uncertain terms that man was 'the leader of' the woman, Christ was 'the
leader of' man, and God was 'the leader of' Christ, then archon would
have been the word to use - but he used kephale. I'm not sure that the
argument that leader or authority is meant in the head verses is a
strong one given the word choice. (New Thought: The verse in question can't really mean that women have to wear a veil / head covering / token of the authority of the woman's husband over her, but people keep on saying that because it's what they believe it to say and they've put so much weight on it that they don't realize that it can't support their arguments. What the verse literally says is that: "For this reason, the woman ought to have power on her head because of the angels." Because the woman is the subject of the sentence - the doer of the action, she has authority. Even looking at the grammar of it, it's not possible that it's suggested in the passive that somebody else has authority over her. That would make her the object - the receiver of the action and authority is a word that just isn't used that way.)
Person A replied: Jamie Carter, it seems you would advise Paul to use the much more
clear word "archon" for leader rather than the word "kephale" for head
if he wants to talk about hierarchal authority here. That got me
meditating on the question - why would Paul prefer the word
head/kephale, both here and in Ephesians 5?
But I am blocked - silenced - and unable to comment on that site ever again. Sure, I could start a brand new E-mail address, new Discus account and start all over again - but I suspect it wouldn't be long before they get around to blocking their devil's advocate all over again. I just hope they don't interpret my silence as not having an answer, because I do. I just can't tell them what it is. But at least I get a few ideas for a blog while I"m at it.