***
What does the Bible say about women in the church? Are wives inferior to men, to be controlled and ruled over by men? Does the Bible say women cannot lead or teach? Can they teach men?
***
Yesterday, I was reading an old article from Doug Wilson in which he mentioned this:
The Bible does give a father and husband true authority in his family. But it also gives the elders of the church true authority over that family.
Because Wilson self identifies as a Christian patriarch, I fully expect him to make comments like that, but I looked at the verse he referenced: Hebrews 13:17
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Having blogging about spiritual abuse for nearly two years, I would guess that this verse is the most widely twisted verse used by guru church leaders to help keep their flock in line. I’ve never been to seminary, but using simple Bible helps online, I was quickly able to learn that a better translation for the text using text would be:
Listen to or be persuaded by those who guide you and yield to them, for they watch out for your souls. . .(which I covered in this article a while back).
Another controversial verse which domineering men have used to exert their authority over women is 1 Timothy 2:12. The idea is that if it’s in the Bible written as such, we need to accept it as such.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one who was deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1 Timothy 2:11-15.
Gail Wallace from The Junia Project blog wrote a very informative article, Defusing the 1 Timothy 2:12 Bomb, completely challenging the traditional school of thought which defends male-only leadership. Kudos to the men who decide to read a scholarly article written by a ::::woman::::.
Gail’s article is very interesting and questions the dogmatic teachings that we hear from so many church leaders today.
Here is one challenge:
Interpretation should be consistent with the rest of the passage under study. As Groothuis notes “It is inconsistent to regard the dress code in 1 Tim 2:9 as culturally relative, and therefore temporary, but the restriction on women’s ministry as universal and permanent. These instructions were part of the same paragraph and flow of thought.” Similarly, if we insist that verse 12 is applicable today, to be consistent, that ruling should apply to the whole passage, including verse 15 (women shall be saved through childbearing). I find it concerning that most people who claim that 1 Timothy 2:12 is clear and applies today usually don’t have a clue as to what the verses that follow mean and how they should be applied.
I encourage you all to read the article and see for yourself. Wallace’s conclusion:
The bottom line is that in light of current biblical scholarship it’s time to acknowledge that there are too many problems with this passage to continue using it as a weapon against women called to church ministry.
Be sure to read the great information in the comments. Please check it out.
***
Ok, along these lines, I found a video excerpt from Bishop N.T. Wright. In this video, Dick Staub interviews N.T. Wright following the release of his new book, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. In this short excerpt, the subject of women in the local church is addressed. (Sorry, I’m unable to embed the video.)
The basic idea is why are we using Paul’s words for final rules on authority? Why is the church making important church teachings based on maybe one verse of Paul’s without looking at the context of all of his other verses.
H/T to Bill Kinnon for the heads up on the N.T. Wright videos. The full interview with N.T. Wright can be found here: A Four-Part Conversation on N.T. Wright’s“Paul and the Faithfulness of God.”
**
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Q
You ask…
2 – What Christian books if any would you recommend?
I NO longer recommend books for folks to read…
Let them make their own mistakes… 😉
My only recommendation are those 66 books that God gave us to read…
Eventually, as folks read The Bible, looking for “Truth,” they will realize…
“The wind (Spirit) shall eat up ALL thy pastors” – Jer 22:22
“God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people” – Jer 23:2
Eventually, as folks read The Bible, they will realize…
That it is God’s people who are lost – Lost Sheep…
Led astray by “THEIR” pastors, THEIR teachers, THEIR guru’s…
Jer 50:6
“My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
**their shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*
1 Pet 2:25
For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLike
Q
You ask…
“3 – Do you attend church and if so which one/ones?”
Well, I think when You say church – and I say Church…
It just ain’t the same thing… 😉
You are asking a question that can NOT have an answer from the Bible.
Let me answer that question with a question.
In the Bible, Did one of His Disciples ever – “attend church?”
That’s what folks are taught to do in the…
501 (c)3, Non-Profit, Tax $ Deductible, Religious $ Corporation,
the IRS calls church.
But – Is NOT taught in the Bible…
You orthodoxy, sound doctrine, guys, also teach the folks…
To Pray – Pay – Stay – and – Obey. Lots of control. manipulation.
And teach, demand, lots of stuff about “church – NOT in the Bible… Why?
In the Bible – Did any of His Disciples?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Go to* Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Join* a Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Lead* a Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Plant* a Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Attend* a Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Tithe* to a Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Look for* a Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Teach* Go to Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Bring their friends* to a Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Believe in the Trinity, in a Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Apply for Membership* in a Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Call themselves a Leader* in a Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Build, or buy, a building* called Church?
Did any of His Disciples? – *Give silver, gold, or money* to a Church?
*Become – Pastors, in Pulpits, Preaching, to People, in Pews, in a Church. 😉
That sounds like what happens Sun Morn in the –
501 (c)3, Non-Profit, Tax $ Deductible, Religious $ Corporation,
the IRS calls church.
BUT – Is NOT found in the Bible.
If Jesus did NOT teach His Disciples to do any of these things?
If NOT one of His Disciples did any of these things?
Why do you?
How can this, errr, stuff be orthodox if it is NOT in the Bible?
You need to ask Jesus – Lord, what does this word church mean?
LikeLike
Q
You might want to ask Jesus…
If the books, authors, you would recommend have beome your “Idols?”
“Idols of your heart? And now you’re following Mere Fallibe Humans?
And NOT following Jesus?
Joh 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Ezekiel 14: 1-11, talks about the “Idols of your heart.”
3 Son of man, these men have set up **their idols in their heart,**
and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face:
should I be enquired of at all by them?
4 Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them,
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Every man of the house of Israel
that setteth up **his idols in his heart,** and putteth the stumblingblock
of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the LORD
will answer him that cometh **according to the multitude of his idols;**
(Seems when ya gots yourself some “Idols” God talks a little differenty.)
5 That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart,
because they are all estranged from me through **their idols.**
6 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD;
Repent, and turn yourselves from **your idols;**
What books would you recommend? Do you have lots of them?
What authors would you recommend? Have they become your “Idols?”
Why are you NOT recommending Jesus? To read?
The author and finisher of our faith? – Heb 12:2…
LikeLike
Q
Now, I can recommend some excellent folks whose writings are excellent…
Folks who have experienced the darkness of human leaders, and survived…
And, continue to behold the light, and search for the “Truth” that is in Jesus…
And, whose names are written in – The Book of Life. And know Jesus…
And, the Jesus in me, recognizes, and likes, the Jesus in them…
These believers, His Ekklesia, His Disciples, His Called Out Ones, His sheep…
That I have learned a lot from – and thank God for…
Q – You would do well to read and re-read what these ladies have written.
Julie Anne
Lydia – Seller of purple
Kathi
Bridget
Hannah Thomas
Barb Orlowski
Rebecca Matthews
waitingforthetrumpet2
uriahisaliveandwell
jkpvarin
Serving Kids in Japan
Mandy
Marsha
Patrice
BeenThereDoneThat
Gail – akascared
Alison Rowan
Yes – The same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead…
Lives in these ladies…
And – In Christ WE, His Sheep, His Disciples, are ALL “ONE.”
Neither Male nor Female…
LikeLike
“I really value you saying that it’s been helpful, since I’m VERY new at communicating anything like this. I spent 27 years incubating and was never allowed to speak it out in my previous church.”
Alison, You did a beautiful job and it is the message that needs to be spoken and heard. We are blessed you shared those beautiful truths that have been silenced for too long. You did not “sound” new at communicating. :o)
LikeLike
Amos, I had tears in my eyes when I saw my name on that list. Thank you.
LikeLike
Thanks again
If it’s any use here, I will copy what I’ve just posted to one of the die-hard complementarians on Linked-In. He was still banging the same beat on the same tiny drum of His from 2 Tim 3:16 and that God is not speaking any more.
so I replied with
“I do agree that no new scripture will ever again be penned by man or taken from any man’s mouth. God is satisfied that what has been written is complete, as a collection of histories, prophetic utterances, psalms, covenant with the Sons of Israel and its accompanyng Law, now SUPERCEDED by His covenant with His own sons (generic term for male and female!) born again in Christ with its accompanying commandments to ‘believe on the Name of His Son and to love each other’ (1 Jn 3:23). Best of all, He revealed what studying scrolls alone could never do He SHOWED us what He is like. He sent Jesus to undo all the effects of the Fall freeing us from sin and condemnation through faith in His sacrifice and placing us into Christ, the Anointed One. He revealed this marvellous mystery of being in Christ to His apostles who taught it and wrote in their letters, not only the perfection of our salvation, but also how to live it out together. He also showed us the glory to come at the summation of this age.
I hope we are in agreement on all that!
BUT, not every thing written by the apostles is doctrine for us now. Careful reading of the text shows that a significant part of the letters was taken up in exposing and refuting errors and heresies that were being propagated and sometimes quoting them. For example ‘eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die’ – words of Paul, but immediately recognisable as the Words of Isaiah that he is quoting, (but obviously not endorsing!) Not so recognisable are quotes from the Talmud, like ‘let your women keep silent, for they are not permitted to speak, but they are to be submissive, even as the law (Talmud, not Torah) says.’ Neither of these instructions, I believe were ever from God to us for us to obey. They are indeed in the inspired writings of Paul for REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION (of error) and instruction in righteousness – by doing the opposite!
THE WORD MUST BE RIGHTLY DIVIDED!! That is the WHOLE problem of why we disagree! The Word is not at fault – it is indeed perfect. It is us mishandling it, that causes the problem!
Hiding behind 2 Tim 3:16 and making a universal, blanket application of all scripture, for all ages, for all people, is itself, ERROR. It puts you in danger of being those described by Paul in the very passage in which is found your trump card scripture. When read in its proper context, it carries a different significance. 2 Tim 3 :13-17 says ‘But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work – including exposing imposters and their doctrines of demons, exposing deceit and reproving error!
God IS still speaking today, interpreting the scriptures CORRECTLY, by His ACTIONS in choosing whom He anoints and commissions to do His work. He also speaks by the ‘unction from above’, the witness of His Spirit in our hearts. We would do well to heed Him!
Indeed, there is a very sad history in the church where mishandled scripture has been used by ‘imposters’, power hungry wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing, to propagate all sorts of outright heresies as well as subtly erroneous doctrines (my personal belief here based on my experiential knowledge of God’s heart and rightly dividing the Word) like Complementarianism, Patriarchy and Cessationism. No personal sleight intended, brother!
I hope that you will not be offended by my forthrightness, but will seriously consider my point, for the sake of harmony in His Body and what you will have to say when you stand before Him. The same goes for me, too.
I look forward to your reply.
Respectfully
your sister, Ali”
Maybe Q would like to reply?
LikeLike
Patrice
Do you experience those Isaiah 50:4 waking moments? Very precious, waking to hear your Lover’s voice speaking softly in your spirit! Just the right words! Just the right clarification! Just a stunning piecing together of truths that bring joy!
This one made me laugh out loud and I thought you might appreciate it too.
I went to bed thinking about your He/She way of understanding God. I remember the joke about Adam being only the prototype, while Eve was the perfect version. 😀 I wondered how could a rib taken from all male flesh produce something biologically female? Only if God included something unique from Himself alone that didn’t originate in Adam’s body!
I was woken with the thought.. “that’s right, I gave you my own ‘X-Factor’…you also have ‘Eggs-Factor”….you do have that Extra-Factor that men don’t!!” Yaaaaay, Jesus!
LikeLike
Bravo Alison! Did die-hard respond or delete?
Awww, thanks A.Amos Love. Always love how you bring it back to the scriptures, and I find it odd or should I say telling how the Q’s of the world rarely debate with you!
LikeLike
Shucks . . . Thank you, Amos. That was lovely.
LikeLike
Amos, no Christian has ever said that to me before. Thanks!
LikeLike
Gailakascared
Surprisingly, he did…..and didn’t!
Here’s his ‘brush off and assert myself in a change of subject’ reply
“Sister Alison: I would reply by saying ditto my earlier comment since there is nothing in your writing that require addressing. So back to the earlier writings I wrote. All Scriptures are God breathed, and all are intended to teach God’s perfect will for our life, our personal conduct and our response to God. The immutable word of God stands higher than His very name.
Using the word, Rightly Dividing does not mean that that person is actually doing so. Because one quote something does not mean he or she has accomplished a task. So I stand by my earlier statements. God was very careful to instruct Adam not to allow his wife to rule over him. The Apostle Paul rightly understood that eternal instruction reiterated in 1 Timothy 2.12…
I truly loved my mother, she was a beautiful woman inside and out. I truly loved my wife who was even more beautiful inside and out. 40 years of marriage, giving and receiving respect. I got married very young and my wife taught me quite a bit and so did I, but this is not what the Apostle was referring to here to Timothy, it was the headship, the male priest for the home, the source of blessings for the family as well as the Church. To truly understand how God works, its critical to have an intimate study of the Old Testament. (That comment is VERY telling, show you why in a while)
Many of our contributors believe that there is no difference between the male and female in the home. However, I have been visiting the correctional facilities over many years, went as far as joining a team to establish peer mediation in the maximum prison in New york. Ask these young men especially how many parents they had at home growing up and then you can begin to understand the need for an authority in the lives of young children and the home. Speak to successful people and they will tell you of the father who set a high standard and quite often didnt take a no for an answer. My father was one of those and I improved on his teaching, so mine bore much more fruit than his.” (How dishonouring of His own father… the arrogant p*g!)
Utterly incredible, isn’t it? He runs a hierarchical, patriarchal, women-wear-head-coverings church in the Dominican Republic – hence the language being a bit unclear.
What shocked me most was how his undivided word brings the idea of priesthood into the New Covenant. How demeaning and insulting is his attitude to women that WE NEED A MAN (husband or not) TO MEDIATE BETWEEN US AND GOD???!!! It now makes sense of an earlier attack he made on a comment of Barb’s
“Dr. Barb. I trust that you are genuinely asking a question, may I attempt to answer?.
Your assumption that:
“So many people miss that FACT there is no prohibition against women leading or teaching men in the OT. Think about it…but now we have Jesus Christ, through Paul making a NEW more restrictive law for his daughters in the New Covenant? Does that make sense? After the Cross, it is MORE restrictive for women than in the OT?”
Here is the simple answer: Exodus 23.17 ” Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God. Also the same Scripture in Exodus 30:12 Deut. 16.16 All these Scriptures clearly says all your males shall appear before the Lord. Women were not allowed to directly participate in offering before the Lord on behalf of their family or their nation.
We may even go further to say, only the Jewish men were able to appear before the Lord, with the Priest, born levites only were able to present the peoples gifts to the Lord…”
So according to him, I AM ‘NOT ALLOWED TO DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE IN OFFERING BEFORE THE LORD ON BEHALF OF MY FAMILY OR MY NATION’! WHAT???
I would do better as a muslim than be a member of his bastardised church!!
My assessment: he is too deceived to reason with. 2 Tim 3:13 par excellence …tragically, for his congregation…and for him when he has to account for all the abuse he has inflicted in the Name of Jesus. I weep!
LikeLike
Sorry, folks for letting my anger and disgust colour my writing above. It was inappropriate language in places, forgive me.
LikeLike
I don’t know, Ali, I actually thought it was appropriate. But I never did go to charm school.
LikeLike
Alison: Yes, find your voice! Keep talking.
That is why I love the Internet: In blogging, I found my voice.
LikeLike
“So I stand by my earlier statements. God was very careful to instruct Adam not to allow his wife to rule over him. The Apostle Paul rightly understood that eternal instruction reiterated in 1 Timothy 2.12… :
Ali, This one shows his total ignorance early on. This is so far off the mark it is hardly worth the time to even present the Greek use of authenteo or the historical context. He needs his false interpretation to be a man.
But a BIG one is the use of the word “eternal”. This is the real scary part and gives you a clue. This is a form of Morrmonism. And back before they redid their website CBMW had many articles that carried bits of Mormonism and even JW teaching. That is how bad it has gotten.
So what do we do with the word “eternal” as used in his context? Eternally married in a separate but equal relationship for eternity? Would that be to a woman’s first husband abuser or the second husband?
Eternal hierarchy between sexes in the New Kingdom? Or will there be eternal “pastors”, elders?
These folks are very ignorant and dangerous. They promote lies about God to help them feel important and powerful. They need it like a junkie needs his fix. These are usually the types who don’t change their minds. Their beliefs are phallocentristic.
LikeLike
Ali – All
Ali writes @ FEBRUARY 15, 2014 @ 7:05 AM…
“I remember the joke about Adam being only the prototype,
while Eve was the perfect version.”
Well, HardyHarHar – BUT – Let me speak in defense of the male.
All this *gobbledygook, by knuckledragging males about women….
It’s really NOT our fault… 😦
*Gobbledygook – language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible
by excessive use of *abstruse technical terms;
(Yeah – we like tech terms)
*Abstruse – difficult to understand; obscure:
NO really – It’s NOT our fault.
It’s God’s fault. — Look, right there in Genesis…
Gen 2:21
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept….
God put Adam, the male, in a deep sleep…
It never says He woke him up again. 🙂
Looks to me like …
These Screwy-Louie males have been sleep walking ever since… 😉
LikeLike
And they have become – A Nightmare…
LikeLike
Ali
This was really good…
“ I wondered how could a rib taken from all male flesh
produce something biologically female?
Only if God **included something unique** from *Himself alone*
that didn’t originate in Adam’s body!
I was woken with the thought..
“that’s right, I gave you my own ‘X-Factor’…
————-
This should cause some head scratching…
Among the – Orthodoxy – crowd.
How great, how cool, when you receive “Revelation” directly from…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLike
“Here is the simple answer: Exodus 23.17 ” Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God. Also the same Scripture in Exodus 30:12 Deut. 16.16 All these Scriptures clearly says all your males shall appear before the Lord. Women were not allowed to directly participate in offering before the Lord on behalf of their family or their nation.
We may even go further to say, only the Jewish men were able to appear before the Lord, with the Priest, born levites only were able to present the peoples gifts to the Lord…”
When it comes to the OT we really need to eat our Wheaties. We see a total descent into Patriarchy AFTER the Fall. It is one of the horrible consequences of the fall. And Eve bears a lot of responsibility because she “turns to Adam instead of God”. Defining Teshuqa in Gen 3 is not what most folks have been taught. See this chart:
Click to access teshuqa_chart.pdf
And God works with, around and through sin all through the OT. But too many interpret this as God “controlling every molecule” which is another reason why that belief is so dangerous.
The OT is written with a totally pagan backdrop and if that is hard to accept read the code of Hammurabi and compare it to the law of Moses.
We gasp as kids reading the story of Abraham almost sacrificing Issac. But the pagans said their gods demanded child sacrifice. Yahweh did not but he wanted obedience to His perfect love. Abraham can trust Him. That story is a juxtaposition between the false pagan gods and the One True God, Yahweh. (Note the animal sacrifice after that)
Most of us were never taught the cultural context with which to read the OT. So the whole “priest” system and male system in the OT is another juxtaposition with the pagan culture. Women bled and that made them unclean in that culture. Another problem is that after being led out of Egypt, we forget when reading they had been living among pagans with many gods for generations. The worst part is that the Israelites were supposed to be influencing culture with the true Yahweh but instead were becoming a part of it.
The problem boils down to too many people have been taught that God forces us to think His way and is a determinist. (this is why I especially despise Calvinism, Augustine, etc) He does not. He works through, around and with us. He comes to us speaking our language and using our cultural context to communicate with us. Without this understanding of Yahweh, He becomes a cruel monster who sees women as less than men in the OT.
When the truth is— the Satan hates women even more than men because Messiah was promised through the seed of woman.
What is really sad is how many men help Satan— thinking they are on God’s side. I find that particularly scary for them.
LikeLike
Amos,
Uhm, I hardly know what to say… I’m so honoured to be on that list of esteemed women you made. Though I doubt that I belong there, and for two reasons.
First, I’ve never been through anything near the kind of abuse (physical, emotional, spiritual) that so many of these wonderful women have. A bit of bullying in school, mixed messages in childhood, maybe some recent mistreatment at the hands of former employers — that’s the extent of my experience with abuse. But theirs? It astonishes me that so many of them have come through it still trusting in God, and wanting to know Him.
Second, (and this is a bit embarrassing to say)….
It’s a list of women, as you say. I’m a guy.
XD
Seriously, though… I’m always happy to know that things I’ve written here have resonated with someone. Having been relatively sheltered from suffering, I often wonder if I have anything to offer those who’ve endured brutal hardship, of a kind that I can’t even imagine.
As I continue to contribute here, I hope that God will give me wisdom and compassion enough to be tender to all the broken-hearted, because I know He is.
Thanks again for your warm words, Amos. You’re a light in the darkness here.
LikeLike
Serving Kids in Japan
Ooops… How awkward…
Now blushing with embarrassment….
Thanks for letting me know
LikeLike
Funny! 🙂 This is what happens when you don’t wear gender specific pseudonyms, Serving 🙂 haha
Serving, you’ve been around since my lawsuit days and I’ve always appreciated how you have contributed here, supporting survivors, getting angry at abusers and just being a great guy to “hang” with. Thank you!
LikeLike
Serving in Japan, How wonderful! You know, I have long contended that if we all went by neutral monikers there would be mass confusion as to gender of the commenter.
That should tell us something.
Our gender differences are biological facts to celebrate and have nothing to do with intelligence or spiritual position.
LikeLike
No doubt. Look at the confusion with Q recently.
LikeLike
JA, I have an old friend who years back commented on an SBC pastor blog as “Larry”. Oh boy was it hilarious. She is well read and educated and debated them on comp doctrine. They treated “Larry” with grudging respect while disagreeing. Larry could match them on exegesis and they had to concede some points.
However any poor women who might screw up the courage to comment there, who did not agree with them, got hammered. They only accepted women who agreed and that acceptance was thought of as “dear sister, you are one of us”. Very few women even dared comment there.
I would send you the link but that blog was deleted a few years back. My friend did it to prove a point. They really do “listen” to men but tend to ‘dismiss” women out of pocket. They don’t even know they are doing it as it is that ingrained. They would howl to the roof tops they don’t dismiss women but they do.
That was back in about 2005 and I do think the internet has changed some things in that respect. It is not as bad as it used to be in some circles.
But it is something to keep in mind when going to church.
LikeLike
Lydia
You do not cease to amaze me. A great knowledge, but handled with such wisdom and love!
In the last two months, the Linked-In blog got me thinking about what Frank Viola calls ‘the limiting passages’ to women’s ministry found in Paul’s writings. With my amateur research I found references to authentein and its apparent meaning inferred from the Gen 3:16 and 4:7 as a desire to overpower. I read the teshuqa article/chart and wonder whether the use of the word ‘lust’ has changed in our English common usage, too. I was reminded of the KJV (and NKJV that I use), of Gal 5:16-17 ‘Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh, for the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh:and these are contrary to one another…’
My current understanding is that Gen 3:16 set in motion the battle of the sexes as a cursed consequence, definitely NOT a command to Adam ‘to rule’ over Eve. They are now, ‘contrary to one another’, but that was not God’s perfect design. She had been taken from his SIDE, close to his heart… not his heel! She was his most suitable co-worker to assist and be complementary in their joint rulership over creation, but the curse of the Fall set them competing for dominance over each other! As far as I can recall, all NT references speaking directly to the marital relationship all redress the balance so that husband and wife ‘dwell with understanding…being heirs together of the grace of life.’ Most are also in passages that have ‘submitting one to another’. Because of the astonishingly exact matching of 1 Tim 2:8-14 to 1 Pet 1-7, I read that this passage was not meant to be ‘man’ and ‘woman’, but translates more perfectly as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. I do NOT have to be submissive to ALL men!! Incidentally, I thought submission was delighted deference to another, not coerced capitulation!
Would it be pushing a paraphrase into our modern vernacular, too far to translate 1 Tim 2:12 as ‘I do not permit a wife to nag or manipulate her husband, but to listen respectfully (to his point of view)?? IF, there is meant to be a parallel with 1 Pet 3:1-2,4 where a beautiful, gentle, non-combative spirit in a saved wife will win over her unsaved husband ‘without a word’, then the ‘in silence’ is appropriate in 1 Tim 2:12. Just observations, but don’t know how they’d stand up to rigorous scholarship!! Perhaps you or any of you other scholars, can help?
All in all, the only One who correctly interprets it is the One who wrote it. He helps us thickos out by DOING what he means! He DOES anoint women with a life-giving, bondage-breaking ability to teach truth that sets captives free including any men that hear them.
Quod erat demonstrandum!
LikeLike
Amos, you bless me too, as Lydia does..THANK YOU!
ps, Lydia, being a newcomer, I don’t know what/who CBMW refers to.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Just a technical question about the website here. I’ve been rather spoilt by the neat Linked-In way of finding the end of the thread. It has a ‘jump to most recent comment’ link. Ever considered something similar?
Notwithstanding, the whole of this site, this refuge and healing it provides, this place of companionship that affirms and strengthens, this safe space to give voice to long silent thoughts goes beyond price. Thank you so much for being here for us,
LikeLike
“I thought submission was delighted deference to another, not coerced capitulation!” –Ali
Perfect.
LikeLike
“You do not cease to amaze me. A great knowledge, but handled with such wisdom and love!”
Thank you so much!. That is the first time anyone has said that. There are a lot of bloggers who would disagree with you! Especially those who defend the determinist god paradigm which I think puts victims in horrible cognitive dissonance and keeps them in bondage to moral chaos if they dare think it through to its logical conclusions concerning depravity and free will.
” I read the teshuqa article/chart and wonder whether the use of the word ‘lust’ has changed in our English common usage, too. I was reminded of the KJV (and NKJV that I use), of Gal 5:16-17 ‘Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh, for the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh:and these are contrary to one another…’ ”
From my research, which is not exhaustive, It was a Monk named Pagnino around the 1300’s who translated it to desire and that became the norm and an interpretation easier to turn back on Eve claiming she “desired to rule over Adam”. When in fact, it was the opposite. She followed Adam out of the Garden as predicted….not prescripted by a determinist god..
“Would it be pushing a paraphrase into our modern vernacular, too far to translate 1 Tim 2:12 as ‘I do not permit a wife to nag or manipulate her husband, but to listen respectfully (to his point of view)??”
Not really from my perspective. Authenteo is much more sinister than that. It is only used once in the NT n that passage. There are other words for authority over that the Holy Spirit could have inspired to communicate authority over. something with Archon or Exousia which is used in other passages in the NT.
Authenteo communicates “compel” it has a “force” to it that is sinister and leads to death. I tend to see it as “murderous teaching” because it makes sense within the context concerning the fertility cult of Artemis big in Ephesus, the verses on childbearing and reference to Adam being formed first. The fertility cult taught that Eve was formed first. It is not a stretch to think that converted pagans, especially a woman would still look to the fertility cult if she feared childbirth which every woman did back then. Paul says she will be saved by “the” childbearing as in Messiah. He is doing one of his play on words.
Older translations have used “domineer” for Authenteo which does not quite get it. I can imagine Paul using such a sinister word for this woman’s teaching (the grammar is singular–“A” woman) because of the pagan roots of her teaching. Pagan beliefs that lead to death…not everlasting life. I use the word teaching because Paul says, “Let her learn” and “I am not now permitting this woman to teach men”. (She and they which is gune and aner is often translated husband and wife)
As we have only side of the convo in this passage, because of the grammar, use of unusual word and cultural context, it is most likely a husband/wife situation where she is pregnant and wanting to follow the fertility cult prescriptions because she fears death. We also knows that Paul shows mercy to those who are deceived out of ignorance but no mercy to those who deceive on purpose in chapter one.
” IF, there is meant to be a parallel with 1 Pet 3:1-2,4 where a beautiful, gentle, non-combative spirit in a saved wife will win over her unsaved husband ‘without a word’, then the ‘in silence’ is appropriate in 1 Tim 2:12. Just observations, but don’t know how they’d stand up to rigorous scholarship!! Perhaps you or any of you other scholars, can help?”
Again, the grammar is singular and not for ALL women. This fits with chapter one where he talks about those deceived out of ignorance (like himself once) and those who deceive on purpose. He wants her to “learn” not talk/teach.
The big mistake is interpreting this passage for ALL women for all time when the grammar is singular. It simply does not fit with women being full heirs or those women prophesying in 1 Corin 11. .
LikeLike
“ps, Lydia, being a newcomer, I don’t know what/who CBMW refers to.”
Council on biblical manhood and womanhood. They wrote the Danvers Statement back in the early 80’s and coined the Orwellian term: Complementarian.
LikeLike
Thanks so much for taking time to give me some satisfying answers – the sort that don’t stretch and contort the Word to fit a theory, but just ‘click’ into place.
Yes, that troublesome woman in chapter one does seem to be the object of that rejoinder and definitely not all women/wives. Shame, I thought the parallel with 1 Pet 3 was rather neat, but there are still aspects where the plural ‘wives’ verses do tally perfectly.
Also, (but is it too much of a stretch) to interpret the 1Tim ‘holy hands’ lifted in prayer ‘without wrath’ as an exhortation to husbands to lift hands that have not been lifted in anger against their wives …. witness any domestic violence and those unholy hands are used! Again paralleled with ‘dwell with and give honour to your wife as the weaker vessel’ in 1 Pet … Again, just another thought to toss in your direction and I’m glad you’re made of quality rubber that returns them gently!
Gary,
Can’t take much credit for that one liner… one of those Isaiah 50:4 waking thoughts again.
LikeLike
Isaiah 50:4:
The Lord God has given me
the tongue of those who are taught,
that I may know how to sustain with a word
him who is weary.
Morning by morning he awakens;
he awakens my ear
to hear as those who are taught. (ESV)
Wow.
LikeLike
Ali says, “I remember the joke about Adam being only the prototype, while Eve was the perfect version.”
I’m not sure it’s just a joke. In the creation account each step is increasingly glorious. Woman was created after Man. Man is the glory of God. Woman is the glory of Man, as a flower is the glory of a plant. Which is to say that Woman is the glory of the glory of God. Solomon portrayed Wisdom as a Woman. I dare say that Woman expresses all that is most glorious in the nature of God. While Man has his place, Woman is the giver, sustainer and, certainly, the nurturer of human life. I dare say that, generally speaking, Women is more merciful and compassionate than Man. Man may be express of God’s power, but Woman is the expressions of His beauty, and beauty is more glorious than power.
Even in God’s announcement of the consequences of their sin, Eve’s state seems less egregious than Adam’s. It was announced that Adam (and, therefore, Man) would seek to dominate Eve/Woman, i.e. to exercise the prerogatives of a small “g” god over Eve/Woman. As I understand it, the fault of the Woman was that she would have an excessive desire to be loved by Adam/Man–perhaps in the sense of replacing God with Adam/Man in her affections.
LikeLike
Ali – All
Ali – I’ve been enjoying your words and the way you think.
And, the way you depend upon, and give the credit, the glory, to…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
I do have a challenge with something you, and many others, think and say…
And – I would like to challenge you, anyone…
I would like to know from you, from anyone, where, in the Bible, is it…
Written about “the Fall?” “The effects of “the Fall?” “The curse of the Fall?”
Or, where in the Bible it says – Adam and Eve Fell?
You write @ FEBRUARY 14, 2014 @ 3:54 PM…
“He sent Jesus to undo all “the effects of “the Fall”
freeing us from sin and condemnation through faith
in His sacrifice and placing us into Christ, the Anointed One.”
You write @ FEBRUARY 16, 2014 @ 11:39 AM…
“the curse of “the Fall” set them competing for dominance over each other!”
I can find “the serpent” being cursed…
Ge 3:14 …Because thou hast done this, “thou art cursed” above all cattle…
And after God listens to Eve blame the serpent…
God believes Eve, and the serpent is cursed…
After Eve spoke – The Serpent didn’t have a leg to stand on…
And, I can find, the ground being cursed…
Ge 3:17 …Thou shalt not eat of it: “cursed is the ground” for thy sake…
But – In the Bible, I can NOT find this infamous “the Fall.”
Or, “The Curse of the Fall.” Or, “Adam and Eve Fell.”
But – I cudda missed that… 😉
Can anyone give Bible references to “the Fall? “The curse of the Fall?
“The effects of “the Fall?” “Adam and Eve Fell?”
Just wondering…
Thanks
LikeLike
“Again paralleled with ‘dwell with and give honour to your wife as the weaker vessel’ in 1 Pet … Again, just another thought to toss in your direction and I’m glad you’re made of quality rubber that returns them gently! ”
Ha! The weaker vessel here is quite the conumdrum, isn’t it? It is positional? Biological? Intellectual?
I doubt any of us would describe Jael as a “weaker vessel”. :o) Deborah? Abigail?
I tend to see this as mapping to the idea of “head” which is used all the time metaphorically in NT. If we see it as the first century reader would, we would see it as more of a “source”. In the first century they looked upon the literal head on your shoulders as the “source” for your body as in eating, smelling, seeing, etc. They also looked upon the heart as the place were thinking/decisions took place. It was not until about 100 years after Paul that it was discovered the brain controlled the limbs of our body and that thinking started to change.
Unless a woman was wealthy in that culture, she needed a “source” to provide her needs/safety. That “source” was the husband. And let’s face it, it was not like she could run down to the Ephesus spouse abuse center or apply to attend the Ephesus community college to work toward independence if she was in a bad situatioin. She had to make the best of it.
LikeLike
Which one is the weaker vessel here?
LikeLike
I would “submit” that there is something “spiritual” here, rather than carnal. Most of us Christians tend to see things in the carnal realm, instead of putting on our spiritual lenses.
I might suggest seeing things from this stand point:
1. The two are one 2. God is one 3. Oh, before I forget, BOTH man (Adam) and woman (Eve) was “created” at the same time. The ONLY thing that came second was the FORMATION of Eve, not the creation of Eve. People seem to miss this, telling everyone that Eve was “created” after Adam. NOT TRUE. Re-read Genesis 1 again. Male and Female created. THEN in Chapter 2 God FORMED Adam…THEN God FORMED animals that he CREATED before he created man[KIND]…THEN God “formed” Eve that he CREATED at the same time that he CREATED Adam.
4. John 17 where Jesus wants everyone to be “one” just like he and the Father are ONE. 5. Note that Peter states that Paul states things that are hard to understand…this gives a hint that we are to RE-INTERPRET what he states to the spiritual, not the carnal. Case in point 1 Corinthians 11. What do we REALLY see in 1 Corinthians 11? Head coverings for women? For some people, sure, that’s what they see. Dig deeper. IF people dig for the spiritual, this has nothing to do with head coverings at all, nor does it have anything to do with women or men.
For all have sinned and fall short of the GLORY OF GOD. WHAT IS THAT GLORY OF GOD?
6. Also…both sexes are created in the image and likeness of God. Men, get in touch with your feminine side, because God has one.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
And on ice skates!
I am certainly not the “weaker vessel”, as defined by John Piper, when standing next to him. :o)
LikeLike
Alison, one more thing that we often forget. Peter was married but seems to have rarely been home to take care of his weaker vessel. Seems strange, huh?
LikeLike
Thanks for raising that, Amos!
“After Eve spoke – The Serpent didn’t have a leg to stand on…” 😀 very good!
Peculiar how we absorb churchese and spout it without thinking!! We all take it for granted that it’s a shorthand label for the consequences of them breaking God’s one commandment, and as such it has served a useful purpose for… how long? … centuries? (Lydia would probably know!)
Do you know what? I just caught a glimpse of something soooo precious! God’s expression and tone of voice and how it changed between speaking to the serpent and then to them. I’d always envisaged the guilty kids in the headmaster’s office, each being torn off a strip and punishments being dished out – the odious duty of a law enforcer. I can hear His fearsome, stern pronouncement on the serpent justifiably locking him up with a phrase of his immutable, creative Word as a curse, forever.
Then he turns to His precious daughter, deserving of the same, but what father can CURSE his own children? So He doesn’t, instead declaring, this time with a tone tempered with sorrow, that her conception and childbearing must now be with pain. That one special ‘X-Factor’ she had inherited directly from her Father, that
defined her as unique from Adam had to be effected. How utterly tragic! BUT NOT AS IMMUTABLE AS A PERMENANT CURSE. (I really can’t tell if I’ve managed to explain what just flashed through me, then… do you get it?)
He turns and with the same sorrowing tone to Adam, declared consequences, not on himself, but on the works of his hands to provide for his family now they cannot enjoy ‘the rest of God’, simply harvesting the abundant fruits of Eden. (Praise God, that the curse on the Earth will be broken and creation will be freed from the bondage to futility that God placed on it (Rom 8:19-22)! When the Sons of God enter their own Glory and authority on their return with the King of kings they will rule with Him ‘fill the Earth and subdue it, having dominion over’ creation once again.)
Have to make the family meal, now. May be back with more later.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Another of your gems of wisdom that has helped make sense of the brick wall I keep banging into with that Complementarian:
“The problem boils down to too many people have been taught that God forces us to think His way and is a determinist. (this is why I especially despise Calvinism, …”
He has justified the approach to unquestioningly obeying EVERY written word, without the Egalitarian modifications and ‘excuses’, because he wrote “God breathed His thoughts into their minds and they then wrote them down”. In other words, they were His dictaphones! No freedom, no personality, no individual ‘flavour’ or ‘style’ or ’emphasis’ or cultural understanding, just inerrant, perfect dictation. Thus saith the Lord, “Think this! Write this!” What a monster, that God is.
Even in the OT prophetic utterances it is fairly easy to guess from the language style, choice of metaphor and subject whether it was Davd or one of the other psalmists, Likewise the major prophets ‘sound’ different to each other, too. Inspired, but NOT dictated!
No wonder he is so unbudgable and blind!
Thank you
LikeLike
Kind of off- topic by now, but I must have missed Q’s answers to Q’s 3 important Qestions. You know– the ones for which “Jesus”, “the Bible”, and “the Church” are NOT satisfactory answers, according to Q. I even “bit” and provided the sort of answers he required, hoping for some reciprocity… 😦 😦
LikeLike
Hubby Chris just found this BRILLIANT article on interpreting scriptures!
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/8-rules.html
How to get the Complementarians to firstly READ it, then let its blantantly clear truth set them free from their slavery and blindness. They have deified their dogma above the Living God. The ‘deity’ behind their dogma is demonic and ONLY produces bad fruit and bondage. Worst of all it insults the One in whose Name they claim it to have final authority, claiming their interpretations are the very will, heart and mind of the Saviour who was tortured to set all man- and womankind equally free!
I wonder where they will try to hide from the wrath of the Lamb.
LikeLike
“Kind of off- topic by now, but I must have missed Q’s answers to Q’s 3 important Qestions. You know– the ones for which “Jesus”, “the Bible”, and “the Church” are NOT satisfactory answers, according to Q. I even “bit” and provided the sort of answers he required, hoping for some reciprocity… 😦 😦 ”
Dave, I hope your answers were acceptable to the “Q”. I think he is still at the gym. Or perhaps he just wrote us all off as heretics. :o)
LikeLike
“He has justified the approach to unquestioningly obeying EVERY written word, without the Egalitarian modifications and ‘excuses’, because he wrote “God breathed His thoughts into their minds and they then wrote them down”. In other words, they were His dictaphones! No freedom, no personality, no individual ‘flavour’ or ‘style’ or ‘emphasis’ or cultural understanding, just inerrant, perfect dictation. Thus saith the Lord, “Think this! Write this!” What a monster, that God is.”
I have actually heard pastors teach that Moses wrote the Pentateuch!
On a side note: I have often wondered if God actually made Paul include in his letter to the Galatians that some of their men should cut of their ******.. (wink)
LikeLike
Ali
Thanks for sharing that.
I love when Jesus deposits these precious pearls in folks.
Seemingly out of no-where.
Or, Seemingly out of Jesus, who is Now-Here. (“ do you get it?”) 😉
You write @ FEBRUARY 17, 2014 @ 9:30 AM….
“I just caught a glimpse of something soooo precious! God’s expression and tone of voice and how it changed between speaking to the serpent and then to them….
…(I really can’t tell if I’ve managed to explain
what just flashed through me, then… do you get it?)”
Well, I Think, Maybe, Kinda…
Reminds me of when I saw, understood, “the Ten Commandments”
To be “The Promises of God” that He puts in our mind and on our heart…
Out of His great Love for us – And NOT *the Law* to be obeyed.
Heb 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, saith the Lord;
** I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts:**
and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Here’s the first Commandment – How I first understood it – And, how…
“God’s expression and tone of voice and how it changed” for me. 😉
Exodus 20:2-3
I am the LORD thy God,
which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
When I was a child, good ole Sunday School, “The law,” Ten Commandments, sounded like thunder and lightning coming out of Heaven from an angry God. “I am God and thou better not have any other Gods before me or I’ll squash you.” And helped to promote a debilitating “Fear of God.”
BUT, NOW – Spending time with Jesus. Experiencing His Mercy, His Forgiveness, His Love… And knowing, God so wants a loving relationship with us that He would write his laws on our heart and on our mind. For me, “His law” now becomes a wonderful promise to us in love. Now that first commandment sounds like this:
“I’m your God, and I love you so completely, I brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of bondage, freed you from “The Religious System,” that in your whole life you will never be able to find anything or anyone that will be able to satisfy you the way I can. As you experience, again and again, My Love, you will NEVER want to have any other gods before me. I will be your all in all. Come to me and receive of My Love.”
Yes – Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Because – ALL other god’s have fallen short…
And – the best God, the very best Loving God – Is…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
(“ do you get it?”)
LikeLike
Hope I haven’t put the dampers on – it’s all gone a bit quiet!
Hope this will bless you as much as it did me .
This morning I woke with ‘spirit, soul and body’ and knew immediately how it connected to Adam and Eve and helped me make sense of God’s words to them – and thus to the rest of the scriptures about male/female relationships in the Body of Christ.
The consequence of sin on Adam and Eve effected them spirit, soul and body;
1.Darkness entered their spirits which entered the ‘death’ of separation from God and the Tree of Life
2. Their souls were put under subjection to that darkness leading to all the self-serving, self-preserving disharmony of relationship between people.
3. They lost dominion over God’s created world so their physical condition became one of hardship, pain and eventual death.
Points 2 and 3 are the summary of what God said to both of them, NOT as an edict, NOR a curse on themselves – which is as binding as prophecy. However, the curse on Satan stands forever even unto the Lake of Fire.
On point 1 – effects on the spiritual realm, now reversed by the sacrifice of Jesus – a PAST event – and the New birth. Being baptised by the Spirit of God into the history and Body of Christ and made to be partakers of the Divine Nature once again, we enjoy full access to the Tree of Life and unbroken communion with our triune God.
On point 3 – effects on the physical realm. The curse on the Earth not producing as it should to serve the creatures and man is described in Rom 8:19-23. Only at the summation of this age, when Christ returns with us, His bride will the Earth be freed from the curse with which God put it in bondage. Even better, this FUTURE salvation of our death-doomed, physical bodies redeemed and reformed into bodies ‘like unto His glorious body’ frees womankind from the consequences of sin – pain in conception and childbirth and also frees mankind from the drudgery of battling nature to survive. Dominion over and harmony with Creation will be restored to us as co-regents with the King of kings!
On point 2 – effects of sin on social, emotional, mental realm and how it damages relationships. What God said to Eve was a description of how her relationship to Adam will change. Now cut off from the life and love of God, that should have been flowing from the Light and communion with God in her spirit she will have to strive and compete with Adam in self-serving and self-preserving effort. Exactly the same for Adam, but he would dominate the ‘weaker vessel” – the bully!
Good News, this is the PRESENT, on-going aspect of Christ’s work – the salvation of our souls. All relationship dysfunction comes from a lack of love – God’s self-sacrificing agape love that prefers another’s welfare and interest above its own. This is the essence of submitting one to another in the fear of the Lord. What God described to Eve is SO obviously NOT GOD’S WILL! It is the action of SIN in a soul disconnected from Agape love. Both Eve striving to dominate Adam and Adam dominating Eve are SINS against love. In Christ, we are now reconnected to that Love of God shed abroad in our hearts. We are learning to let that force of Love dominate and reshape our thinking and actions. This is the process of ‘saving our souls’…. and it can be achieved, pretty well as we mature.
I don’t know if I’ve lost in too many words what I wanted to communicate!
Instructions in the Letters on marital relations are all designed to restore the harmony of ‘being heirs together of the grace of life’, side by side with mutual submission – delighted deference to each other; wives to stop nagging and manipulating in order to control the relationship; husbands to be not overbearing or brutal in order to coerce capitulation. We WORK TOGETHER AND PREFER ONE ANOTHER IN LOVE as God intended!
Hope you caught it!
LikeLike
You’ve done a flurry of posting while I did my writing!
Yes Amos, I got it too. 🙂
LikeLike
I haven’t had time to read all the posts but have perused them and thought I would reply to some of what I have read.
lydiasellerofpurple, asked where the verse “God of green” was in The Message.
Here is the post –
“Though The Message is often considered a paraphrase, it is not explicitly; The Message was translated by Peterson from the original languages”
How did he get “God of green” from the original? That’s weird.”
Very weird. What verse are you talking about? While we are on this topic where did translators get the word “office” for some in the body of Christ? It is not in the Greek either.
Answer – Romans 15:13
The NASB
Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The Message
Oh! May the God of green hope fill you up with joy, fill you up with peace, so that your believing lives, filled with the life-giving energy of the Holy Spirit, will brim over with hope!
There are many verses like this, Eugene Peterson has stated he translated this from the original; it appears he has an agenda.
As far as the word office goes they were appointed to a function and I am not aware of a better word for the original. Are you?
Dave A A, I was directing those questions to A. Amos Love but you and others replied and asked me to do the same so I’ll answer the best I can.
What current popular Christian figure/figures do you most agree with?
None really, I do like John MacArthur, not because I agree with him on everything e.g., Calvinism and the Reformed Church, and intellectualism, etc., but because I do not have to work hard to figure out what he believes, he’ll just tell you.
What Christian books if any would you recommend?
If they are not already in your library –
The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns
Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald
The Complete Word Study New Testament by Spiros Zodhiates
Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: With
Topical Index by W. E. Vines
Do you attend church and if so which one/ones?
It has been difficult finding a church because of the current church system/systems e.g., the mega churches, the for profit churches and the current rise of New and Neo Calvinism etc. and the lack of any meaningful accountability, so none right now, some will say it is me but it’s not, it’s them.
As far as a women’s role in the church –
Galatians 3:28 in context is about justification (how one is saved, i.e., by grace through faith, and all come on that same basis regardless of status, race, or gender) it is not about the roles of women or men.
Being saved from sin does not change God’s created order –
Genesis 2:18
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
Although there are pertinent verses –
1 Corinthians 11:2–16
2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ….
1 Corinthians 14:34–35
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church….
1 Timothy 2:11–12
11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
12 aBut I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
If you want; you can paste
svchapel.org/resources/articles/23-doctrine/563-the-role-of-women-in-ministry-part-1
into your browser and begin a short 3 part read on this ‘topic’.
LikeLike
“There are many verses like this, Eugene Peterson has stated he translated this from the original; it appears he has an agenda.”
Perhaps green is his favorite color? Hee Hee. . I would argue that like Peterson, most translators have had an “agenda” over the ages. Just read church history for a clue. In fact, many translations have been politically motivated. The KJ was very politically motivated because of suspicions over King Jimmy’s Catholic mum. The Holman was motivated from the NIV charging the SBC/Lifeway high royalties. We could go on and on concerning translations and “agendas”. Some good and some bad. The God of green hope is way too bizarre world for me! Thanks for pointing it out.
“As far as the word office goes they were appointed to a function and I am not aware of a better word for the original. Are you?”
The functions need a special word? Perhaps some wanted a more hierarchical word to make the “important” people? (wink)
One “pastors”. One “teaches”. Is teaching an “office”? One oversees (which means being fed to the lions first, btw). The are “doing” words not “being” words. Not offices. In fact, the pastoring function should be temporal as those one shepherds move on to maturity and off the milk. (often past the one pastoring)
LikeLike
“Galatians 3:28 in context is about justification (how one is saved, i.e., by grace through faith, and all come on that same basis regardless of status, race, or gender) it is not about the roles of women or men.”
Keep reading. We are adopted to “sonship” which means FULL heirs of everything if you understand how that works in the Hebrew mindset. Gifts, Promises, etc. It is not just about salvation, my friend. It is the whole enchilada.
“Being saved from sin does not change God’s created order –
Genesis 2:18
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
Ezer kegndo means partner comparable/suitable. It is a mirror sort of image. The word Ezer is used to describe God. It even has warrior connotations which fits the dominion part. And don’t forget Gen 1 where BOTH are created in His image and called “human”. Why would their order of formation matter? Does that mean cows are more important than Adam? :o)
“Although there are pertinent verses –
1 Corinthians 11:2–16
2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ…”
If this verse was talking about pecking orders in the Greek then God would be first, Christ second and man next then woman. God would NOT be last. It is not about that at all. He is talking about “head” which can be interpreted as “source” and makes much more sense within the context of that time and considering the passage is about “head coverings”. So many misuses of 1 Corin 11! Incredibly, it is one of the passages Bruce Ware uses to affirm ESS!!
“1 Corinthians 14:34–35
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church….”
Well we have a problem. Because back up in 1 Corin 11 the women are prophesying in the body and the question was “do we cover our heads or not”. Since we know that these verses sound eerily familiar to what is in the Talmud/Mishna then we can conclude they are questions Paul is being asked. We know this beccauses of how he answers in verse 36. What???? Was the word of God given ONLY to you??? The King James ironically gets this one the best:
“36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?”
Check the Greek. Paul is being sarcastic.
We also know not only because of women prophesying in chapter 11 but because the word for “silent” means not one sound. Not even singing. Like the synagogue rules.
(Some translators acknowledge that there are questions Paul wrote and answered in Corinthians and some have quotes around some of them. Translator bias?)
“1 Timothy 2:11–12
11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
12 aBut I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”
Already went through that one several comments ago. the grammar is SINGULAR not for all women for all time. I also gave the historical context for Ephesus.
You need to do some of your own homework and stop listening to gurus with an “agenda” to keep the sisters silent. Satan is thrilled, though.
LikeLike
Let’s also be reminded that it is not women in general that are to be silent. It is wives, not women, not woman.
Let’s also be reminded that the woman was made for man because man could not live without a woman. It is NOT GOOD that a man be alone. Why? Why is it not good? Is it because the man would have no one to boss around? Or is it sexual hormones? Or did God want the two to be one and share their intimacies with one another? What, Q, is the “creative order”?
Some MEN in this religion thought process would have a problem with my daughter being in the US Military. I don’t, and I am proud. But they would use the argument that it goes against God’s “creative order”, that a woman is to be in subjection to a man. I look forward to my daughters advancement to where men are saluting her, and she is giving orders, and I don’t care what religious nut cases has to say about God’s “creative order”.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Thank you Q for lifting your veil a bit… it helps me understand you better and (maybe surprisingly) I find I am in accord with some of your outlook.
Lydia, as ever, picks up all the points I would have and answers them better than I too. if it’s any help, I’ve noticed that Gal 3:28 is one of thirteen reasons I found to identify 1 Cor 14: 34-35 as Paul’s sarcastic rebuff of talmudic teaching and synagogue practice.
Also it is VERY helpful to read Gal 3;26-8 “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” ALONGSIDE 1 Cor 12:13 “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” and ALONGSIDE 2 Cor 5:16-18 “Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ”
There can be no doubt whatsoever that being put/baptized into Christ is speaking of the new birth/creation. We are now new, cleansed spirit beings, now partaking of the Divine nature, who possess souls and live in flesh. It is clear that the outward casing, with its genitalia, is NOT what we are, nor is it to be taken into any account regarding our status/ privileges/real life in Christ!
LikeLike
Q,
Maybe I am missing something, but you do not seem to quote Jesus in support of your misogynistic views. I dare say Peter nails you when he writes:
There are some things in them [Paul’s letters] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16b, ESV)
LikeLike
Q,
You issue this challenge: “As far as the word office goes they were appointed to a function and I am not aware of a better word for the original. Are you?”
If you will tell me what the Greek word is being translated as office, I will tell you the better English word. And don’t try to beat around the bush. We know from that books you recommend that you have the resources. Look it up. Give us a straight answer.
LikeLike
Q,
On February 13, 2014 @ 1:36 PM you write concerning Eugene Peterson and his The Message, “How did he get “God of green” from the original? That’s weird.” Except that you now admit that what Peterson really refers to is “the God of green hope.” That’s two different things.
If you can’t honestly portray what Eugen Peterson writes, why should we trust you in anything else? What other corners are you cutting in order to make your (essentially misogynistic) points?
LikeLike
Amen, Ali!! Thanks for putting that comment together. It becomes crystal clear seeing the verses side by side.
LikeLike
“There can be no doubt whatsoever that being put/baptized into Christ is speaking of the new birth/creation. We are now new, cleansed spirit beings, now partaking of the Divine nature, who possess souls and live in flesh. It is clear that the outward casing, with its genitalia, is NOT what we are, nor is it to be taken into any account regarding our status/ privileges/real life in Christ!”
Amen!
Ali, I can remember having an aha moment when studying this issue and thinking of how so many make limiting women in the Body a salvic issue. It is that important to them. I got to thinking if it is that big of a problem then why wasn’t this made clear in every letter? How did the women in the body in Philippi know the new rules? There are not enough examples and in the 1st Century it took ages to get a letter. Seems Paul and the others would have made sure they knew and mentioned it in every letter since it is a sin for women to teach men.
LikeLike
“If you will tell me what the Greek word is being translated as office, I will tell you the better English word.”
Good point, Gary. Could adding a word not there at all be a translator “agenda”?
LikeLike
“Could adding a word not there at all be a translator “agenda”?”
I would call it translator deceit. I will grant that we must make allowances in cases of ambiguity or other grounds of uncertainty, but there comes a point where they are tinkering with what they tell us are the very words of God.
LikeLike
Q
You ask – and answer the question…
“Do you attend church and if so which one/ones?
It has been difficult finding a church because of the current church system/systems e.g., the mega churches, the for profit churches and the current rise of New and Neo Calvinism etc. and the lack of any meaningful accountability, so none right now, some will say it is me but it’s not, it’s them.”
Hmmm? Seems there might be some hope for you after all… 😉
BUT – What means this – “attend church?”
And – Did any of His Disicples – “attend church?”
Did any of His Disciples – Go To Church? Join a church? Tithe to a church?
LikeLike
Just a note in regards to the word “Office”
We all have an “office”
Romans 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
The word Office is in the KJV several times, both in the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek scriptures. 45 times. Priest, Bishop (superintendent), deacon.
Luke 1:8 priest’s office 2407 Perform his function Luke 1:9 priest’s office 2405 Sacerdotal function Romans 11:13 Mine Office 1248 Attendance (as a servant), aid, service Romans 12:4 Not the same office 4234 act or function 1 Timothy 3:1 Office of a Bishop 1984 Goes with the word Bishop, which is defined as “superintendent”, which means “overseer” (Stephen was an overseer to make sure that the widows were fed, hence Stephen was a Bishop). 1 Timothy 3:10 Office of a deacon 1247 To be an attendant, i.e. wait upon (menially or as a host, friend or [figuratively] teacher 1 Timothy 3:13 Office of a deacon 1247 To be an attendant, i.e. wait upon (menially or as a host, friend or [figuratively] teacher Hebrews 7:5 Office of the priesthood 2405 Sacerdotal function
1 Timothy 3:13 Office of a deacon 1247 To be an attendant, i.e. wait upon (menially or as a host, friend or [figuratively] teacher Hebrews 7:5 Office of the priesthood 2405 Sacerdotal function
________________________________
LikeLike
Sorry Gary and Lydia, but this is where I come to Q’s defense.
The Linked-In blog has been exploring the nature of the ‘structure’ of the NT church and how FAR our western, hierarchical, gentile system has taken it from its original, vibrant organic reality. Every member, every joint should be supplying their own contribution of the life of Christ to the whole whenever they meet. A well prepared hymn/prayer/sermon sandwich is NOT new testament church life. Neither is a pastor with elders under him and a bishop/overseer over him all passing authority down a chain of command OVER people. ‘Offices’ do not exist in the NT as such.
One of giftings/unctions/anointings/functions could be a more suitable and biblical choice of word. They are gifts from Christ (Eph 4:8,11-16) to grow the people up so that THEY can minister. If the Apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher have done their job well, they won’t be needed any more because the people would have matured past babyhood and are now ‘adult’ co-workers too. Reading the Acts and letters gives no indication that any of these gifted people, whether male or female, ever permanently took up residence in one particular church. That job of immediate, on-going personal care was given to the elders and the deacons, who between them pastored, taught, evangelised and SERVED the flock, leading by standing among them as good examples, not by being an authority OVER the flock. There were people who had appointed the elders (like Timothy and Titus) in the background to be called on or to step in when needed. The deacons were selected by the flock themselves (Acts6:3).
Loads more that I can say from my own church experience in a UK Housechurch of the 70’s, my own and other’s thorough study of the subject and Greek words involved. But that’s enough for now.
Hope I’ve raised a few questions! 😉
LikeLike
Ed you posted while I was writing.
I’m guessing that the middle section has been pasted from Strongs but the KJV use of the word ‘office’ is tragically open to misunderstanding. WE, in our day, equate it to gentile rulers holding a ‘term of office’ a paid or unpaid place of authority over people. This is not the understanding that the NT believers would have had, nor was it intended by the writers, I believe.
LikeLike
Q
Thanks for answering these questions @ FEBRUARY 12, 2014 @ 2:56 PM…
And, answering them correctly – A nice change of pace for me… 😉
You write…
As far as your questions go –
“I’ll ask you – A few simple questions…
In the Bible – How many of His Disciples called themself – pastor/leader?
How many of His Disciples had the “Title/Position” – pastor/leader?
How many of His Disciples were, Hired or Fired as a – pastor/leader?”
None, Peter did call himself an Elder.
———–
Yes – None – Is the correct answer…
In the Bible, NOT one of His Disicples called themself pastor/leader.
In the Bible, NOT one of His Disicples had the Title/Position pastor/leader.
That’s one of the main reasons I NO longer “attend church” built by Men.
The Commandments of Men, The Doctrines of Men, The Traditions of Men.
The 501 (c)3, Non-Profit, Tax $ Deductible, Religious $ Corporation…
That the IRS calls church.
These guys runnin the show have taken many Titles NOT in the Bible.
Titles will separate – Titles will elevate…
Titles are used to control and manipulate…
“Titles” become “Idols” ………………. “Idols” of the heart. Ezek 14:1-11 KJV
“Pastors” become “Masters” ………. A No, No, Mat 23:10 KJV
I NO longer believe WE, His Ekklesia, His Sheep, His Disicples…
Should call an IRS $ Corporation – The Church of God. How about you?
Why NOT call it what it is? –
Where folks go on Sunday morn is – A Corporation? A Business?
And jesus calls Himself the “ONE” Shepherd.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16
One Voice – One Fold – One Shepherd – One Leader
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLike
Yes Amos, Q’s quite OK in places!
LikeLike
Ali,
That’s why I put the Strong’s definition…although in MY OFFICE, I want one with a big window with a VIEW.
Well, I don’t know many people who view the word office any other way than the way that it is defined in Strong’s. Q said function, and I do say that I agree based on the definitions.
But, since you bring up a salary in order to perform those functions, I agree with you.
We should all get paid for being an usher, candle lighter, stacking chairs, flower arranger, janitor, etc. Those are all functions. The guy behind the pulpit shouldn’t be the the only one drawing a paycheck.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Ed
Ha ha. But I’m questioning the whole western concept of a building which requires all those people to facilitate a man to pontificate from a pulpit as a Sunday morning’s entertainmen!t
LikeLike
I like alliteration – and gender equality, so amend the above to ‘a proliferation of people in posts to promote a person to pontificate from a pulpit as a Sunday morning performance!
🙂
LikeLike
In the paraphernalia of priestly posturing, perhaps?
LikeLike
“Romans 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: ”
Ed, Just for grins and food for thought…cos I know you don’t like to do the Greek.
If we look at an interlinear on that verse, the Greek is “praxis” which means “practice” in English. It is a “work” a “function”. A “doing” word not a “being” word. A “being” word like Emperor, pharaoh, King, etc. It could easily have said ‘all members do not have the same function’. How does one “practice” an office?
It was a translation choice and not a good one. The irony is that the word “officer” is used many times in the NT to refer to the Greek chain of being hierarchy.
Another example is 1 Tim 3:10 and 13 in the KJ use the phrase “office of deacon”. There is no “office” at all in either passage. Not even the word “praxis” because deacon is “serving”. A function/doing word. The Greek read in those passages read more like “let them that be serving….or “through serving”.
Sounds very different. Not so formal and hierarchical. Like the Greeks who loved to ‘lord it over”. Another problem is that word meanings change over time so we have to be careful not to read too much into words which I think you understand perfectly but others do not. Some pastors see their “office” as Supreme commander of the
Worms. :o)
LikeLike
Wow…lot’s of “P” words there. Say that fast 10 times.
I think what you might mean is “Yes-men”?
I attend 2 church’s on Sunday, and from those church’s, it is not the way that you describe.
If I were a “member” of either church, then I have “voting rights”, even when it comes to electing an elder. They are pretty good at this. But I am not a member. No one has to be a member, but membership only shows that a person obligates himself at one church, and therefore, they (the members) have a voice as to how things are run.
If you notice in regards to Stephen, he was elected…along with a few others…to wait on tables (Superintendent, aka Bishop).
In what you describe, only a select few have that right, as if it is a government run organization, hence “organized religion”.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
“We should all get paid for being an usher, candle lighter, stacking chairs, flower arranger, janitor, etc. Those are all functions. The guy behind the pulpit shouldn’t be the the only one drawing a paycheck. ”
Ed, If ANYONE is going to be paid, please let it be us nursery workers!!! :o)
LikeLike
“The Linked-In blog has been exploring the nature of the ‘structure’ of the NT church and how FAR our western, hierarchical, gentile system has taken it from its original, vibrant organic reality. Every member, every joint should be supplying their own contribution of the life of Christ to the whole whenever they meet. A well prepared hymn/prayer/sermon sandwich is NOT new testament church life. Neither is a pastor with elders under him and a bishop/overseer over him all passing authority down a chain of command OVER people. ‘Offices’ do not exist in the NT as such.”
Ali, I totally agree. In fact, I would say from what we know and can search out, the NT church was a beautiful mess of all kinds from different ethnic and political stratas of society with lots of wrangling between Jews/Gentiles….. including lots of women who were new to being in the same room with men who were not their family! Posers came in early like Ananias and Sapphira (now there is a lesson on submission!) and I think we can safely say that only because of the Holy Spirit did it grow and spread like wildfire. How else could it with a bunch of uneducated sub human woman and Jews/Gentiles together when just prior— that was considered taboo?
I don’t normally recommend this guy but he goes into the history we can glean from the NT on how it worked/did not work and why we get it so wrong about “church”. It is an interesting read. I think you will love it.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:gZ7ZAb3obpYJ:frankviola.org/elders.htm+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjFZYRFPHtfipF9LLHr5rMVCtt5-NuZVz8FVhWVnBPUUqaWrxdb4xrw9H9QGGCB3g8xqQa2hWf867iskLkkTNA3fNJuElLprv_54sGNFQoSsYDtXIYF4vdtNc1nVc3Uyl_IhF7W&sig=AHIEtbT07sgqvOKnR-8RjBOYHbPyyxKpOg
Oops, looks like I need to learn how to use tiny url.
LikeLike
No kidding. I had to laugh at all the people who used to try to talk me into nursery duty. They ASSumed that because I had a lot of kiddos that I LOVED hanging around other people’s undisciplined, sometimes snot-nosed kids. I’m sorry, that was just not the case. In fact, I did not put my kids in nursery for the following reasons:
1) – they would put me on the mandatory rotation to babysit
2) – people would their sick kids to the nursery even when the rules say not to
3) – the one time I took my kid to the nursery, that kid got sick from the other sick kid
4) – my sick kid came home and one by one, it was spread to all the kids – – – not on the same week, but consecutive weeks – that one mistake haunted me for 6 weeks
5) – I go to church to get fed spiritually. Remember, homeschooling moms rarely get to get away from their own children.
Boy, I have an attitude, huh?
LikeLike
No JA, you don’t have an attitude. The same church will think you are horrible for staying home with a sick kid when in reality you are “loving your neighbor”. :o)
I always thought the mom with the most kids needed the break.
LikeLike
chapmaned24,
I think you bring up a good point about your daughter being in the military; and I guess wanting to see the same kind of thing in the church.
Bringing the worlds thinking into the church is a big problem, attacking the church from the outside makes it stronger, attacking the church from the inside hurts it greatly.
As business developed the the corporate structure with it’s hierarchy and big pay for the top; men brought that into the church, as the world sought out more rights for women it has been brought into the church, now gay rights seems to be the big issue and there are those who want to bring it into the church.
Proponents for these issues write tons of books and articles to support their positions arguing about words and such and people thinking it sounds fair fall for it.
It would be best to keep the world and the world thinking out of the church.
LikeLike
Lydia
Read the Frank Viola article. Yes it’s good, but theoretical. (His twelve theses are hypothetical and unworkable as stated with the magic number of twenty) The British churches were doing what he theorizes 40 years ago, but sadly lost the plot with the Shepherding Movement.
One of the overseers that helped guide and father my own Housechurch, was a saintly old man – a brave ex-AOG minister who was disavowed when he spoke at
the 1968 General Committee and told them their set up of committees and oversight was unbiblical and stifling the Life of God from the people and that they should disband.
His occasional visits always brought a deepening of the anointing among us and on one occasion the Shekinah came. As a recent convert from atheism I, a teenage girl, could hear and contribute what the Spirit was saying to the church, as much as the Elders who sat among us. All the spoken gifts of the spirit were operating freely among us as well as just knowing that starting a certain song or reading a passage or praying or exhorting or sharing an insight from scripture was all ‘in the flow’ of what God was saying to us. No wonder Satan was keen to derail it and propagated the hierarchical ‘Shepherding’ heresy that caused so much well intentioned ‘advice’ ending up as abusive intrusion.
I was delighted to find that one of his sons, Ian had compiled a website that included transcripts of his dad, George Deakin’s sermon notes and a scan of the original typewritten notes that George read out to that AOG committee. I’ll give you the link, but really the first two pages can be skipped since they are more specifically addressed to the AOG committee. The rest is quite pertinent.
Click to access The_Nature_Place_and_Function.pdf
The next article is, I think, a better look at the definitions of the Greek words and a lot of very keen observations from Acts and the letters as to how the people with the responsibility of care for the Church actually functioned. It works, because that was what God DID among us – imperfect as it was then, but enough to give me a taste of the ‘genuine’. This one is easier to read!
Click to access Offices_of_Elders_and_Deacons.pdf
Hope you enjoy being inspired!
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
It is true that everyone who is born of God is blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realm.
Yet the sexes remain and will until the resurrection (Mark 12:25)
Until then women in the church should remain feminine and men masculine.
LikeLike
“women in the church should remain feminine and men masculine.”
Real men treat women as equals, kind of like Jesus with the woman at the well. Kind of like Jesus who didn’t send Mary back into the kitchen when she chose to join the men listening to Jesus teach.
LikeLike
Q,
The resurrection only gives us a new outer casing. My born again spirit in the likeness of God’s male/female wholeness is already like the angels and there is no marrying or being given in marriage in the Age to come. Many of us have already tasted the powers of that Age through our spirits, united to the Holy Spirit who inhabits eternity. The Kingdom of God is already among us evident and experienced by many of us in power, not words only and in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Blessings of that age be on you too.
LikeLike
“As business developed the the corporate structure with it’s hierarchy and big pay for the top; men brought that into the church, as the world sought out more rights for women it has been brought into the church, now gay rights seems to be the big issue and there are those who want to bring it into the church.”
Let’s see…money, women and gays. Three big sins in the church. So being a woman functioning in the Body is akin to love of money and ordaining homosexuals.
LikeLike
“Read the Frank Viola article. Yes it’s good, but theoretical. (His twelve theses are hypothetical and unworkable as stated with the magic number of twenty) The British churches were doing what he theorizes 40 years ago, but sadly lost the plot with the Shepherding Movement. :”
You lost me here about the twelve theses. Guess I did not pick up on that part or perhaps he changed the article.
LikeLike
“It is true that everyone who is born of God is blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realm.”
Spiritual gifts are only for women in heaven?
“Yet the sexes remain and will until the resurrection (Mark 12:25)”
Well I agree with that because they are a biological fact but not sure what that has to do with our spiritual life. Is there a pink and blue salvation?
“Until then women in the church should remain feminine and men masculine.”
Oh dear. Who defines that in detail? it is not exactly spelled out in specifics. Should women cover their heads when they prophesy? Is that part of the femininity you refer to? Is the stage pulpit a piece of sacred masculine furniture? Would a woman reading scripture to the /Body be considered teaching men and unfeminine? Piper says yes. So at what age do boys become men that women can no longer teach them so as not to be in danger of becoming masculine. 12? 14? 18? We really need to know these things so as not to break the rules. There could be a lot of SS teachers out there in mortal sin of being masculine. :o)
LikeLike
Q, You had said: “It would be best to keep the world and the world thinking out of the church.”
My response: What is “worldly”? Females in the military? How was that defined and concluded by you? What is your source of scripture that states Women, Thou Shalt Not Join The Military?”
If you really get down to it, I was doing woman’s work as a man. Do you know how much cleaning that I did in the Navy? Isn’t that a woman’s work? Isn’t typing a woman’s work? How about filing?
Who defines “worldly”.
I once debated a religious nut case in regards to 3 days and 3 nights. I KNOW NUMBERS, and the rules pertaining to numbers (no, I am not talking the book of numbers in the Torah).
He tried to tell me that I shouldn’t think of interpreting Bible math using “worldly sailors logic”.
All of you people who use the word, “Worldly” need to take a chill pill, because I do believe that you define “WORLDLY” a lot different than the rest of us CHRISTIANS. Your example of the homosexuals is OUT OF CONTEXT of the debate here, having nothing to do with THIS topic.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
“Until then women in the church should remain feminine and men masculine.”
And short people should remain short and the tall people should remain tall. And people with gifts in organization should remain organizers and those with gifts in teaching should remain teachers. And those with children should remain parents and those who are children should remain parented.
I’m getting the hang of this. Sweet!
LikeLike
“My response: What is “worldly”? Females in the military? How was that defined and concluded by you? What is your source of scripture that states Women, Thou Shalt Not Join The Military?” ”
Uh oh. I suppose it was worldly (and unfeminine!) when Deborah was leading those guys into battle!
But wait, It seems Q buys into the thinking there are new laws in the New Covenant about women. Now it is a sin because she is to be what someone/somewhere defines as feminine.
So now we know, according to Q, God wanted Deborah to sin by brining in worldly principles and for being unfeminine by leading battles. Don’t even ask about Jael. :o)
LikeLike
“And short people should remain short and the tall people should remain tall. And people with gifts in organization should remain organizers and those with gifts in teaching should remain teachers. And those with children should remain parents and those who are children should remain parented. ”
Brill!!!
LikeLike
Q
Warning – Warning – Retracting somewhat hopeful statement about Q…
Back to – NOT so sure about Q… Q even sounds dangerous… Oy Vey!!! 😦
In my comment to Q @ FEBRUARY 19, 2014 @ 8:41 AM…
I wrote to Q…
“Hmmm? Seems there might be some hope for you after all… 😉
Referring to Q’s comment under the question he first asked…
“Do you attend church and if so which one/ones?
And Q answers that question with something, finally, that makes sense… 😉
“It has been difficult finding a church because of the *current church system*/systems e.g.,… so none right now, some will say it is me but it’s not, it’s them.”
Because Q pointed out the failings of the “current church system” – I wrote…
“Hmmm? Seems there might be some hope for you after all… 😉
Because, Today, there are NO “current church system/systems” I’ve seen that teach what Jesus taught His Disciples, in the Bible. NONE, NOT one. Today “church systems” have “church leaders,” pastor/leader/reverends. BUT – In the Bible there is NOT one of His Disciples who called themself “church leader” or pastor/leader/reverend. And Jesus taught His Disciples NOT to be called, Teacher, Leader. You are ALL brethren, servants.
So, I thought there was a glimmer of hope for Q… 🙂
BUT – After Q writes @ FEBRUARY 19, 2014 @ 12:48 PM…
“It would be best to keep the world
and the world thinking out of “the church.”
The worlds thinking is NOT in The Church of God, The Body of Christ. The worlds thinking is in The 501 (c) 3, Non- Profit, Tax Deductible Religious Corporation, the IRS calls church.
AND – After Q just makes stuff up @ FEBRUARY 19, 2014 @ 12:51 PM…
“Until then women in *the church* should
remain feminine and men masculine.” 😦
And, “women in *the church* should remain feminine” is…
Where, in the Bible? Can WE, His Disciples, His Sheep, just make stuff up?
I figure, Q does NOT know the meaning of the word “Ekklesia,”
And how to use it. Sounds like Q is in bondage to “Traditions of Men.”
Church, in the Bible, refers to people, God’s people, His Ekklesia, His Called Out Ones, His Ambassadors, His Kings and Priests, His sons “Led” by the Spirit, NOT “Led” by Mere Fallible Humans. Assembled, Un-Assembled, Home Alone, Traveling,
Church, in the Bible, NEVER refers to, a Building, an Organization, a Denomination, or a 501 (c) 3, Religious Corporation, that the IRS calls church.
In the Bible, NO one, Goes to church, Joins a church, Tithes to a church.
God’s people become “The Church of God” – “The Body of Christ”
And – Our “ONE” Shepherd – Our “ONE” Teacher – Our “ONE” Leader – is…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLike
Ali
You ask…
“In the paraphernalia of priestly posturing, perhaps?”
My mother was correct – I should mind my P’s and Q’s…
And I liked your P’s – Jesus said “My P’s I leave with you.”
I give you P’s – NOT as the world gives, And Jesus is the Prince of P’s…
Yes – The Persisting Problem of priestly posturing preachers
Points to the Pulpit. Yes – It’s because of The Pulpit,
And who procured the power to be – The Pulpiteers…
It’s the “Pulpit.” Pul… Pit… Puuuullll…. Piiiitttt…. A funny word. Yes? 😉
See, The “Pulpit” is really from the “Pit.” And the Pull-Pits job is to “Pull” preaching pretentious pastors into the “Pit.” Just get rid of the “Pulpit” and “The Pulpiteers” and the Problem is Prevented. 😉
Today, The whole Sunday Service revolves around the “Pastor in a Pulpit”
Jesus calls the Pompous Religious Leaders The Woe People – He says…
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, “Hypocrites”
Hypocrite – is Strongs – #5273 – hupokrites –
And – It means – an actor under an assumed character (stage-Player)
Is NOT todays Preaching Pastor required by tradition to be a Stage Player?
The Poor Pastor is Praised or Pummeled on their Performance in a Pulpit as a Stage Player. Here is this Poor Person with the “Title” “Pastor/Reverend” NOT found in the Bible. Required by tradition to Perform Sunday morning Par excellence. And nothing less by the Patrons who are Paying him to Perfect them. 😉
Hasn’t anyone ever wondered? Why? In the Bible? There is NOT one
Paid – Professional – Pastor – in a Pulpit – Preaching – to People – in Pews?
That certainly was NOT the way Jesus taught “His Disciples.” Seems Jesus hit the streets. 😉 And. Paul recommends that ALL can Participate in 1 Cor 14:26, Each one has a teaching, a revelation. And ALL believers can, and are expected to Participate. – I like Paul – a lot.
After experiencing many different kinds of “the church of man”
“Today’s Corrupt Religious Systems” – It becomes evident that…
Paid – Professional – Pastors – in Pulpits – Preaching – to People – in Pews…
Prevent – Public – Participation – and – Promote – Passive – Pew – Potatoes….
Procuring – Power – Profit – Prestige – for the Prevailing – Parsing – Pastor…
Pressuring – you to – Pray – Pay – Stay – and – Obey… 😉
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16
One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLike
Amos,
Did you notice how on February 18 Q allowed as how he had only perused the comments, but then went on at great length to regale us with his opinions. It seems Q only wants to be heard. He only wants to be the center of attention.
LikeLike
Also, I don’t think that Q believes that there are Christians in any church. The only Christians in church is the church that HE, Q, chooses to attend, therefore, he refuses to attend.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
Gary W
Good observation….
“It seems Q only wants to be heard.”
And it seems, this mysterious Q does NOT like to talk about
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
Only when he believes Jesus, the Son, is to be in submission to the Father.
And trys to convince this “Their is a divine order in the Godhead,”
Q then writes…
“Isn’t submission an essence of Christianity?”
“Jesus said the Father was greater (in authority) than He was,”
“Jesus is in submission to the Father, husbands are to be in submission to Christ and women are to be in submission to husbands.”
Which you quickly corrected – Using the Name – Jesus…
“Actually, no. **Jesus** is the essence of Christianity.”
And Q NEVER answers that – that Jesus is the essence of Christianity.
Point out the Son is called “The Everlasting Father” – Silence…
Q says you can see submision in baptizim
Baptising in the name of the Father, The Son, the holy spirit.
Ed Points out – All of His Disicples baptized in the name of Jesus – Silence…
Point out Jehovah, in the OT is our Father, our Saviour, our Redemmer…
And John is preparing the way for Jehovah, And Jesus shows up – Silence…
NOPE – Q doen’t really talk about Jesus – From experience…
Doesn’t like to give Jesus the preeminence in ALL things…
Doesn’t like to lift jesus up – So He, Jesus can draw ALL to Himself…
Giving jesus the preeminence might go against his “Tradtion.” 😉
Jer 50:6
“My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
**their shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*
1 Pet 2:25
For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLike
Amos
Perspicuous perfection!!
Lydia
Sorry for confusing you. I had not made it clear that a while ago, I had read the Viola article. I had mistakenly recalled it being Viola who wrote the Starfish Manifesto and the Twelve Theses…. but then I was wrong AGAIN because it was Fifteen Theses and the author was Wolfgang Simson. Simson has been heralded as a visionary thinker on reshaping our ideas of ‘church’ and has put his thoughts simply in
http://www.simsonwolfgang.de/html/15_theses.html
and more thoroughly in
Click to access starfishmanifesto_simson_2008.pdf
The latter is the whole book and I must admit I didn’t read much of it.
He seems to me to be trying to reinstate the best of the British Housechurch, but I think what we had at the beginning was better.
Amos would have LOVED it – a veritable dream come true for him. There were NONE of those pesky ‘P’s no, not one! (apart from People and Pray) There WAS Power, Peace, righteousness and joy in the Holy Ghost, because the King of the Kingdom was among us, speaking through ANYbody. We sailed where the Wind took us with only an occasional light touch on the tiller from one of the elders when needed. God met with His people and His Presence was, well, ‘addictive’.
Won’t say much more now, but only encourage you to follow up George Deakin’s insight on the NT church and how it functioned…. because God approved of it when George showed us how. I believe it could probably have continued in like fashion, but the enemy planted the ‘Hierarchy’ heresy and oppressed the people with, what we nick-named ‘Heavy Shepherding’.
The whole question of women ministering or not, or having a responsibility of care for the flock in whatever capacity, evaporates when the organic nature of the Body of Christ is recognised. She is a Living ‘Being’ joined to the Head, each individual part being in direct communication with the Head and supplied with spiritual life and sustenance through the members around it. All should grow up in Him to a place of ministering Life, themselves to others as God chooses and anoints.
This is more than theory. It is VERY precious!
LikeLike
Ali
Ahhh Yessss – good ole Wolfgang Simson – A wonderful human being…
And here is his Starfish Vision. a shorter version of his Manifesto.
Click to access TheStarfishVision.pdf
And the Wolf is certainly a visionary…
Just take a little LQQK see – Where the MONEY goes in the Wolfs Vision…
Wanna-guess – I’ll give you three guesses – Who collects the Money?
To Who? Do WE, His Sheep, His Ekklesia, His Disciples, give God’s money?
So the Apostolic Projects can be advanced? – And To distribute as they see fit?
Yup – WE, His Sheep, are to give MONEY to the apostles – Only the apostles.
WE, His Sheep, are to give it to the Starfish Foundation. Run by the Wolf.
Yup – Check out the section “III: Kingdom Economics” at the PDF above.
Here is the Wolfs vision for MONEY on page 40, of Starfish Vision.
2. Who collects the money?
Money has “a life of its own”: left to be without a master for only a few seconds, it immediately develops a mammon-shaped dynamic. This is why it is so important to **purposefully submit money** under the royal rule of Jesus. And **his imperial government makes it abundantly clear** who are the people to whom money is to be entrusted: **it was given to the apostles, to nobody else.**
To ensure that it becomes “money with a mission”, apostolic money, **the money was to be laid “at the apostles feet”**, never at the feet of pastors, evangelists, parachurch ministries or charity (Acts 4:35). If God is the banker, **the apostles are the tellers at the cash counter,** assigned as stewards of God **to receive the money entrusted to God.** Feet of apostles (plural) speaks of a redeemed plurality of apostles, not a single Christian star.
And what are the odds that the Wolf considers himself an apostle?
And being the wonderful apostle he is, The Wolf, on pg 83, sets up “Apostolic Foundations” you can give to. “directed by a regional board (amongst them Thomas Giudici and Wolfgang Simson)”
Starfish Foundation
Since 2008 the Starfish Foundation is functional as a financial instrument of the Mission Starfish, including the goal to facilitate the development of **similar apostolic foundations** in many other regions of the world. **The Starfish Foundation** is registered in Switzerland and directed by a regional board (amongst them Thomas Giudici and Wolfgang Simson) as well as an international senate of persons of integrity and experience, functioning as an advisory board.
To financially participate in the Starfish Vision, you can send checks made out to “Starfish” to the following
postal address:
Starfish
PO Box 1248 79397 Kandern Germany
wire amounts directly into the Starfish account
Switzerland:
Starfish Verein
Postfinance Bern (= bank) account no. 60-516665-9
IBAN: CH1609000000605166659 SWIFT Code: POFICHBEXXX Clearing Nummer/BLZ: 9000
or use our website and online donation portal: http://www.starfishportal.net
Ali – If you’re interested…
I’ve got lots more questions and answers on the Wolf and his Vision. 😉
LikeLike
A. Amos Love,
You seem to be espousing some form of Modalism in your posts.
Also as far as your reference to Q –
“Doesn’t like to lift jesus up – So He, Jesus can draw ALL to Himself…”
I believe you are referring to –
John 12:32 “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”
That verse refers to the method of his death; read the next verse-
32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” 33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.
I think you were saying that I don’t want to exalt Jesus as the savior but that is simply not true and a very wrong assumption.
And
chapmaned24 said –
“I don’t think that Q believes that there are Christians in any church.� The only Christians in church is the church that HE, Q, chooses to attend, therefore, he refuses to attend”
Wow, this is an assumption and nothing could be further from the truth. The churches I have been to are full of Christians just many times being led by worldly people that have found a good ‘gig’ and market for other worldly people and soon you have anything but a church.
What would you call making and writing assumptions about people that are completely false?
At least poor form.
I have shown people what some on here have assumed about me and it was so far off they cracked up laughing.
LikeLike
Q,
My statement was rhetorical. You COULD go to church, but you choose not to. Why? If there are Christians in a local church, GO. I go to two local churches regularly on Sundays. Why won’t you at least attend ONE on a regular basis? What was your previous response to that question?
Secondly, I am quite certain that you will find, if you look hard, that there are many people who question your three people playing the role of one God routine that you hold so dear. Some dead guys decided what everyone must believe, at a meeting that I didn’t attend, nor was I invited, nor do I have a say in the matter. And they have the nerve to call that Orthodox. Do the Jews believe that the Holy Spirit is God? YES. Do they address that as the 2nd person of God? NO. I stand by the Jews who believe in one person, one God, thank you very much. And, I can back it up as I already did. Spirit(Father), Body (SON), soul(MIND of Christ). There is your three in one. If THAT is modelism, so be it. ONE PERSON.
Ed
________________________________
LikeLike
chapmaned24,
That is Modalism! Google Sabellianism.
The funny thing I have noticed is that people who want to help the abused often find themselves attracting people who are rebellious and without sound doctrine, not just the abused; not having sound doctrine themselves they have to rely on what seems fair or right; to many of these end up going liberal having no compass.
I hope better for this blog owner.
If you want to deal with ‘spiritual’ abuse and such you are obligated to know the bible and have sound doctrine or it is just eisegesis instead of exegesis.
To much room for the birds.
LikeLike
Thanks for your concern, Q. For the record, I am friends with people of different beliefs. I just keep in mind where they are off 😉
LikeLike