Believe it or not, what I said came from a complementarian, not an egalitarian. Basically he was saying that egalitarians like the rendering of the KJV "usurp authority"; rather than other versions that use "exercise authority".
This person agreed with egalitarians that "usurp authority" has a different meaning than "exercise authority".
This person is very much a complementarian like you and I, but he believes the KJV is wrong in this particular verse.
Tom,
The CONTEXT (1Tim 2:11-15) establishes the demarcation of gender; male and female and the subjective role of the female to the male. We might call this "functional subordination", i.e., as saved individuals before God they are equal (cf. Gal 3:28), but in the relational aspect, e.g., home and Church, women are subordinate to men and under their authority. It is this
authority that Paul is addressing focusing upon the aspect of teaching in the assembly of the saints in corporate worship. Men are given God-ordained and established authority and women are forbidden to do so. The word Paul uses in 1Tim 2:12, which the KJV renders as "usurp authority" is
authenteo. Arndt, Bauer & Gingrich,
A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 120c, defines this word as: "have authority, domineer [over someone]". FYI, the noun form of this word,
authentas, means "master". Thus either translation is accurate; "usurp authority" or "to exercise authority"
over a man. The meaning is the same. A woman is forbidden to take upon herself that authority which God has given to men only. For a woman to do so is to
exercise authority which she is not authorized to have or do, which would entail subjugating men to her, aka: usurping authority.
Methinks this person is nit-picking over semantics.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
