Women on Trial

Women on Trial

Women on Trial by Cheryl Schatz

I have just uploaded onto youtube 6 approximately 10-minute clips from my 2006 talk in Pennsylvania at the Witnesses Now for Jesus Conference.   I have added the videos below.
The first clip includes the testimony of Lorri MacGregor who is a former Jehovah’s Witness who God called into ministry after she left the Watchtower.  She had a huge struggle with God because of her belief that women could not be teachers.  The talk is called Jehovah’s Women on Trial – are you ready to be challenged?  It is a simulated court case against two Biblical women using the charges against them by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  You will likely see a lot of similarities in the charges because they can also be found in complementarian churches.  I trust that many people will be challenged to start to think outside of the box because of these clips.  This will be the post where we can discuss the clips.

Women on Trial part 1

Women on Trial part 2

Women on Trial part 3

Women on Trial part 4

Women on Trial part 5

318 thoughts on “Women on Trial

  1. Poor Eve. All these built up accusations against here without a shred of evidence and even there being proof of her innocence! What a shame that she should be treated with such disdain.

  2. So, if stepping out from under her ‘spiritual leader’ is a sin, then Eve sinned before The Fall. Isn’t that a giant monkey-wrench for some folk’s theology?

  3. Yes, it is a real problem. It not only creates sin before the fall, but it creates a sin that neither Adam, Eve, God or any of the Biblical writers exposes. That is quite a conundrum.

  4. “That is quite a conundrum.” You understate that so well, Cheryl. LOL

    Have you ever been able to directly question any comp leaders/teachers about this…uhhh, hemmm… little problem?

  5. I wonder if we could persuade Mark to enter back into the discussion and give us his explanation on the matter?

  6. “Conundrum” is an understatement. I’d love to hear what Mark has to say on this one. It seems like one has to twist oneself into an impossible hermenutical pretzel in order to “prove” that Eve was out of submission before the Fall. (Warning: Commencing rant). It’s one of those questions that exposes some of the comps as litle more than power-hungry egomaniacs, who manipulate the Scripture to serve their self-centeredness, instead of submitting to it and serving their wives. (Sorry, needed to get that off my chest. Rant concluded).

  7. “Yes, it is a real problem. It not only creates sin before the fall, but it creates a sin that neither Adam, Eve, God or any of the Biblical writers exposes. That is quite a conundrum.”

    Not to mention what they are really saying about God since He did not tell us this in His Word. that is the scary part. Adding to HIS Words to get preeminance for themselves.

  8. Quick question?

    What is it you want me to do? Do i watch all 3 videos or one? If only one, which one are people discussing?

    Thanks

  9. Ok i watched the first one. Thats all i have time for atm. There didn’t seem to be much to drastically discuss at this stage. I’m guessing that comes in the next couple of videos.

    I would like to state my position on woman ‘teaching’ because there is ovbiously alot of different ideas about this out there. Do i think a woman can be gifted to teach…yes. Do i think God doesn’t want women to teach men…no.

    I believe that we all teach each other at different times and in different ways. It is inevitable that men will sit under women teaching at various times and places. Where i do not believe a woman should teach is in the church. The 2 main texts concerned here are generally 1 Tim and 1 Cor 14. Both of these texts are within the framework of church worship and propriety, therefore that is why i believe Paul is restricting women teaching in that specific place.

    ‘Teaching’ is thrown aroung loosely regarding sunday school, youth, mission to try and show how ridiculous a comp position is. Realistically though this is not the setting of Pauls letters, so we should not throw into the text all other various instances of teaching which we might think of.

    I do think God has gifted women to teach, i also believe he has put a parameter around that in regards to Church worship. Hope this clarifies my position a little.

    Look forward to watching the rest of the videos, although i may struggle to understand the weird accents these people have 🙂

  10. Mark,
    Weird accents? No way, my friend. We speak English up here in Canada. Not sure yet what you “blokes” speak 😉

    Let me ask you about women not teaching in “the church”. There were no church buildings nor where there pulpits in the time that Paul wrote to Timothy. Are women allowed to teach in their own home?

    I will try to get the other segments up later this week. I am quite interested to see how you will do on our jury duty. Will you find the women innocent or not? We are sitting on pins and needles to know what you decide. Thanks for agreeing to watch the segments. They should prompt some good discussion.

  11. Hi Mark,

    I would like to add some questions to Cheryl’s.

    If it is appropriate for women to teach men “at different times and in different ways”, but not teach men in “the church”, then how are women and men supposed to figure out what those different times and ways are? Where is the scriptural “guide” that says when, where, and how it is ok for women to teach men?

    Also, what do you think it is about “the church” that would make Paul designate it off limits for women to use their teaching gifts? What are the unique “when’s”, “where’s”, and “how’s” that set “the church” apart? And why do those “when’s”, “where’s”, and “how’s” disqualify women from using their gifts when other “when’s”, “where’s”, and “how’s” qualify them? And, to tie in the first question yet again, where does scripture outline all of this?

  12. “I believe that we all teach each other at different times and in different ways. It is inevitable that men will sit under women teaching at various times and places. Where i do not believe a woman should teach is in the church. The 2 main texts concerned here are generally 1 Tim and 1 Cor 14. Both of these texts are within the framework of church worship and propriety, therefore that is why i believe Paul is restricting women teaching in that specific place.

    ‘Teaching’ is thrown aroung loosely regarding sunday school, youth, mission to try and show how ridiculous a comp position is. Realistically though this is not the setting of Pauls letters, so we should not throw into the text all other various instances of teaching which we might think of.”

    Mark,
    Brick and mortar do not a Church make. Believers are the Church.

    “On the sabbath day we went outside the gate by the river, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down and spoke to the women who had gathered there. A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.” And she prevailed upon us. (Acts, chapter 16:13-15)

    Can we deny that these women were the first congregation of Philippi? The first Church of Philippi?

    Not all Christians were Jewish converts; not all met in synogogues.

  13. “I would like to state my position on woman ‘teaching’ because there is ovbiously alot of different ideas about this out there. Do i think a woman can be gifted to teach…yes. Do i think God doesn’t want women to teach men…no.”

    How is the leap made from Eve to women not teaching in church?

  14. Mark, so since you believe that women can teach men, then Eve could teach Adam, as long as they weren’t in church?

  15. If women can teach men (Eve could teach Adam since they weren’t in church) then how could women not teaching in church be based on a creation ordinance or “role”?

  16. Pinklight,
    In keeping with your questions, we should then question whether there is a “role” at all. It may appear that Mark is convinced not about “roles” but about a building. If it isn’t a “place” of worship then women’s teaching isn’t forbidden. Is it possible to challenge his position by saying that it isn’t a “role” prohibition but a “place” prohibition? That is…men’s “place” is in the church. Woman’s “place” is in the home and in the schools and the rented halls, etc.

    But the puzzling part to this equation is that there is no mention of Christian buildings in the New Testament. No “place” of church is listed so how could women be banned from teaching in a “place” that didn’t exist? The church (and this is a term regarding the people not a building) met in homes and by the river and anywhere else there was safety.

    Also it would be odd for Paul to ban women from teaching in the assembly (amongst the believers) when 1 Cor. 14 allows all to use their God-given gifts to teach all so that all are edified. There are so many unanswered questions when we take 1 Timothy 2:12 as a universal law even if we downgrade it to the law of a “place”.

  17. Kay,
    You asked:

    It seems like one has to twist oneself into an impossible hermenutical pretzel in order to “prove” that Eve was out of submission before the Fall….(Have you ever been able to directly question any comp leaders/teachers about this…uhhh, hemmm… little problem?

    When I have asked these questions on other forums/blogs I either get silence back or else answers that assume their position without even trying to prove it. The only challenge they offer is that God talked to Adam first. But this proves nothing unless God defines this as meaning what the comps want it to mean. There is no direct or indirect command for Adam to rule Eve or to take his authority over her at their creation and if we think we can add to God’s Words a meaning from silence then we could “prove” that women should now “rule” man because God approached Mary first and then Joseph was contacted only after Mary was already pregnant. Buttress that with the fact that women were the first apostles sent out to give the men the message of the resurrection. Should we be “proving” that these very special things “prove” that women are to “rule” men and must now take authority over them? That would be ridiculous! One gender ruling the other gender in either direction is not a godly command in the Bible and no amount of reading into the text even by who was created first is good enough as a proof.

  18. Lin said:

    Adding to HIS Words to get preeminance for themselves.

    Unfortunately the fact that the Scriptures have been added to and the result is that men alone are given a preeminent position and women alone are restricted shows that the old sin nature is still an issue. When we determine to love one another preferring one another in brotherly love, we won’t insist on preeminence nor will be lord it over others to force them to be silent. When we do as Jesus told us to do – service with love, we will not follow the deeds of the flesh.

  19. The issue of the two Marys would seem to be a sticky one for comps – and especially for the patriarchialists. Not only did God not consult with Joseph prior to Mary, He did not consult with Mary’s father either.

  20. “and no amount of reading into the text even by who was created first is good enough as a proof.”

    I wonder why it seems to stop there in regard to “roles” and doesn’t include Adam not being deceived making the situation about creation AND the fall. If “roles” can be determined by one then why not the other? So we’re talking about creation and fallen “roles”. Now that makes sense since fallen roles oppose creation roles??

  21. Paul said “for Adam was created first..AND Adam was not deceived…” We can’t leave out any words, including a conjunction connective word.

  22. “Is it possible to challenge his position by saying that it isn’t a “role” prohibition but a “place” prohibition?”

    Yes, it would be a “place” prohibition based on creation order (not role because to be created is not a role) and one’s treachery.

  23. Senior pastor (the one that women are exempt from because the pastor teaches) is that a creation role too?

  24. Hi, Cheryl. I’ve been following these video posts with interest and am astonished at how much comp teaching has in common with JW teaching. Really!

    I’ve worked as an overseas missionary most of my life, and in the process learned several other languages. So I understand firsthand how important the grammar issues in video 4 are. In Spanish, for example, the masculine plural noun is used any time a mixed group is meant. A crowd of 99 women and 1 man would be addressed with masculine terms. So in church, unless they are talking about a women’s retreat, the nouns are always masculine. Greek works the same way. Masculine plural nouns, even ones like “brothers” and “sons” can also include “sisters” and “daughters.” “Anthropos” as you point out, means humans, and “pas” (all) and “tis” (anyone) are free of gender. Tis, for example, is the word Paul uses in 1 Tim 3 when he writes, “if anyone aspires to be an elder. . . ”

    And, Cheryl, even “aner” can sometimes include women! In the video your text has it correctly–it usually means “man” but not always. Peter’s speech in Acts 2, for example, starts with the plural form of aner to address the crowd listening to him. According to three Greek dictionaries I have (Strong’s, Bauer’s and Freiberg’s) aner has as one of it’s meanings a generic idea of person or human.

    These struggles with translation are part of what has fueled the recent TNIV controversy. Among many other changes, one of their purposes was to translate those masculine plurals into English in a way that communicates to English-speakers what the Greek means: males and females. And I don’t know if you’ve posted this already or not, but the TNIV is being discontinued. I’m recommending to all my friends that they get one now while they can.

    On the CBE website complementarian Greek scholar Craig Blomberg has an excellent article which delves into the issues of translation and gender. Here’s the link: http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/tniv-untold-story-good-translation. He holds to the complementarian position, yet favors an English translation that enables us to see what the Greek text means, just like you did in showing that the salvation verses apply to everyone, not just men.

    Thanks, Cheryl, for sticking with this and pressing forward!

  25. Leanne,
    Thanks for your kind comments!

    My talk that I made into youtube videos was done in 2006 and at that time I had far less Greek/Hebrew resources than I do now. Although the term “aner” is usually used for males alone, it can be used generically and although I didn’t know that in 2006, I added the fact that it can be generic in the visual text so that it would be properly noted.

    Last night I finished loading my new upgrade to Logos Bible Software 4. I upgraded to the platinum version and the new version of Logos is mouth dropping amazing. It is going to be hard to pull myself away from all-out Bible study. If I am missing for long periods of time, just visualize me at my computer in the Logos system because that is likely where I am when I am not video editing and doing all other kinds of ministry.

  26. I am teaching on Eve and Genesis tonight at our small group women’s Bible study. My topic will be how God has brought the necessity of faith even in the very beginning. I will likely do another post on the faith angle later on as I have time. There are so many ways to see the importance of paying attention to what God has said and to understand why He said it.

  27. “Last night I finished loading my new upgrade to Logos Bible Software 4. I upgraded to the platinum version and the new version of Logos is mouth dropping amazing.”
    Cheryl,
    I confess…>green with envy< :0l

  28. Ok i have now watched video 2 and have a few thoughts/ comments.

    1. I’m not very familiar with the Jw’s or there theology, so i can only go off what is presented in these videos. I do not agree that Eve ‘sinned’ by talking to the snake. If this was true the fall would be insignificant and the bible wrong. I do not believe that, so i am not willing to accept that Eve sinned pre-fall.
    2. I would also not use the Levitical priesthood as ‘proof’ for my argument for the headship of Adam in the garden. The priesthood does show us something about Leadership and its requirements/who was aloud to do it etc, but i don’t think it supports the JW view either.

    Cheryl, im assuming you are the Narrator? If so, i am also concerned at a few things you had to say apart from the accent 🙂

    Your whole argument for this video around the priesthood if i can put simply was this ‘The Levitical Priesthood was the foundation and it was supposed to spread to everyone (women included) not just men’. If this is what you were saying i disagree.

    1. The ‘covenant’ nation Israel is not the same as the Levitical Preisthood. You attempted to argue your view from Exodus 19 where Israel is called a ‘kingdom of priests’, to show how women are essentially included into the priesthood- they are not. The covenant community was chosen as God’s people to be a nation of preists in the sense of projecting God’s glory to the world. This of course included men, women, children as it does now. ‘The Church’ i.e covenant community has the same role to fill. The metaphor for a nation of priests is symbolic of their role as Gods chosen people and i think you have confused it with the role of Levitical men wrongly.

    2. The Levitical Preisthood was established as God’s priests to fulfill the role of the Hebrew cultic system, i.e temple. This role could only be performed by men of the tribe of Levites. No women were aloud to perform this role, nor men from another tribe. The Levites were set aside by God for this role.

    Therefore i am concerned how you confuse the two in an attempt to show that women were just as much ‘priests’ as the men. This is simply not the case. The role given to the Levitical priesthood should not be confused as the same role/idea as the kingdom of priests, or the ‘royal priesthood’ of the New Testament. We all have the role of being Christ’s representatives here on earth as did the Hebrews, but the role of priests belonged only to men in the OT. Likewise the positions of elder/pastor are only held by men in the NT and we should follow that. All it really did was show a poor biblical theology.

    Thanks

  29. Also, lke the majority of you i believe the church is ‘the body of believers’, not a building. Sorry, i should have clarified that.

    Paul in writing those letters was addressing a church and a pastor of a church. Both the immediate contexts of the passages refer to the ‘formal’ if i can call it that assembly of believers. Not bible study, not youth, not mission, not bible college, but ‘church’. Simply stated with the exponding of Pauls comments regarding eldership and how i see that role in the bible, i conclude that men should only be in that position teaching in the church.

    That said there number 1 priority should be to humble themselves and do everything in their power to make their ‘church’ as much like Christ as possible. They should teach the word faithfully and be submissive in character and action to their sheep. They should never lord it over or demand things, but they also have the auhtority to make decisons knowing that one day they will give an account for what they do.

    That is my rant

    Pinklight,

    i believe Genesis shows us something about Adams headship not about teaching. In both mine and my wifes understanding of the scriptures i am the ‘head’, but it doesnt mean she can’t teach me or show me things in the bible or be able to have an opinion. Headship isnt about domination, Christ revealed it is about love and submission and doing everything in my power to make my wife more like Him. If husbands dominate, it is not representative of Christ and is really fulfilling Gen 3. I dont think we should confuse teaching between spouses and the teaching roles involved in churches.

  30. “Both the immediate contexts of the passages refer to the ‘formal’ if i can call it that assembly of believers. Not bible study, not youth, not mission, not bible college, but ‘church’.”

    Are not bible study, youth group, missions, and bible college classrooms “assemblies of believers”? What differentiates these from the type of assembly Paul is addressing? If indeed these can not be classified as “church”, where are the scriptural guidelines that define who can teach in these other “contexts”? What differentiates these different assemblies of believers from “church” which makes it ok for women to teach in them but not in “church”? Where are the defining what’s, where’s, when’s, and how’s that guide us to know when we can accept women teaching and when we can’t?

  31. “Paul in writing those letters was addressing a church and a pastor of a church. Both the immediate contexts of the passages refer to the ‘formal’ if i can call it that assembly of believers. Not bible study, not youth, not mission, not bible college, but ‘church’. Simply stated with the exponding of Pauls comments regarding eldership and how i see that role in the bible, i conclude that men should only be in that position teaching in the church.

    That said there number 1 priority should be to humble themselves and do everything in their power to make their ‘church’ as much like Christ as possible.”

    Hmmm. If the “pastor” is so important, then who was the ‘pastor’ of the Corinthian church? The Phillipian church? And so on. How come ALL the Epistles were not written to the “pastor” or Elders if leadership/authority structures are so very important to the Body?

    “Pastor” is a spiritual gift. Not an ‘office’.

  32. Thanks for your response Mark 🙂

    “I dont think we should confuse teaching between spouses and the teaching roles involved in churches.”

    On what basis at creation, since your view is about “roles” established from creation, is a woman prohibited from teaching in church? Let me put it another way, What in Genesis tells us that women cannot teach in church? Or how about, What “role” established at creation prohibits a woman from teaching in church?

    “Headship isnt about domination, Christ revealed it is about love and submission and doing everything in my power to make my wife more like Him.”

    Where in the Scriptures did Christ reveal that “headship” (rather than “kephale” translated “head”) is about a husband doing everything in his own (!) power to make his wife more like Christ – be a servant?

  33. I capitalized one of your words Mark to make a point.

    “That said there number 1 priority should be to humble themselves and do everything in THEIR power to make their ‘church’ as much like Christ as possible.”

    There’s the idea of personal (rather than a work or the Spirit’s) power again. What is it about a person’s OWN power that can make anyone more like Christ??

  34. “That said there number 1 priority should be to humble themselves and do everything in THEIR power to make their ‘church’ as much like Christ as possible.”

    I overlooked…it also says “THEIR” church. Is this a pattern of thinking for you, Mark or have you just chosen the wrong words to convey your beliefs? Or am I really to take you as meaning that Pastor’s have churches and husbands are to use their own personal power to make their wives like our example who is Christ, a servant.

  35. What’s with the use of the word “power” to begin with? Why are you using this word regarding husbands and pastors? Husbands and pastors have power? Well, what kind of power do they have?

  36. Two more question, Mark (at least for now) ;P

    Where is it written in Scripture that husbands and pastors have “power” that the rest of the members of the body do not have? Or what kind of personal (human) power do the Scriptures say they have that the rest of humanity does not?

  37. Mark,
    I have very little time tonight to respond. I will try to do so tomorrow.

    The one question I have for you is your statement:

    Paul in writing those letters was addressing a church and a pastor of a church.

    Can you please point me to the documentation from 1 Timothy 1 where Paul is addressing a church? Also where do you get the idea from that Timothy is the “pastor” of the Ephesian church? Timothy was not the “pastor” but an apostolic representative who was in Ephesus temporarily to correct the problems. Paul didn’t leave Timothy behind to be the “pastor” but he was left behind to stop the false teachers from giving out their error. The book of 1 Timothy is a personal letter from Paul to Timothy to encourage him and give him some direction regarding problem people and problem situations. If you have any documentation that Paul was actually writing to a church instead of his “son” in the faith, then I would be willing to see what you have.

  38. Let me address people 1 at a time…

    Pinklight,

    I think you are trying to push what i was saying to mean something else. Of course i don’t think we do things in our own ‘power’. Maybe my australian terminology is interfering in this concept. The point is, in both situations the husband/elders/leaders put others first and dont lord it over others/wives.

    Lydia,

    Pastor is both in my opinion. You do not want someone as a pastor who is not gifted to be there. Also it is an office. Overseer/elder/ shephard all convey the same meaning as ‘Pastor’. Don’t let our English translations and bias’ against roles interfere with terminology conveying the same things. Perhaps you want to dispute like many that there are no such offices at all in the New Testament? I’m not sure? As far as i know Paul is VERY interested in overseers/elders/presbyters/deacons which were all present in the early church and his letters.

    gengwell,

    if you think there is no distinction in the ‘church’ and other ministries i am very confused. Are you suggesting that Paul was writing to bible studies and youth groups etc. Surely not! What is the early church based on…the synagogue? There is most definately a ‘formal’ church in Pauls writing and this is precisely the context of what i am saying about men teaching. IF you think this is not the context of 1 Tim and 1 Cor please show me why?
    The reason why i dont think there are no other guidelines for who leads ot teaches in other circumstances is because it doesnt matter. This is precisely my view. Paul only restricts a woman from the formal teaching/leading of the church.

    One last question for everyone. Do other people agree or disagree with Cheryl’s understanding of the priesthood?

  39. The church by definition is the body of Christ.
    Christ is with us when two or three of us gather together.

    “There is most definately a ‘formal’ church in Pauls writing and this is precisely the context of what i am saying about men teaching. IF you think this is not the context of 1 Tim and 1 Cor please show me why?”

    Perhaps, Mark, if you have some evidence for a “formal” church (whatever that is) you might share it with us. It is harder to prove something is not there than prove something is there!

  40. Cheryl,
    Paul is addressing a church in 1 Cor and the pastor of the church in 1 Tim. 1 Timothy is a pastoral epistle not an epistle addressed to a church like 1 Cor. Therefore there is no need to find evidence in Tim to show that it is addressed to a church because that is not what i believe. Maybe i should have been a bit clearer, sorry.

    That said, this is what i understand about Paul’s 3 pastoral epistles (1,2 Timothy, Titus). They were all written toward the end of his life. They are called ‘pastoral’ because both Timothy and Titus were co-workers with Paul in his ministry. At the time of writing, Timothy served in Ephesus and Titus in Crete.

    Timothy was now the pastor representing Paul in the large church of Ephesus, constituting many congregations. Timothy was young and probably felt some reluctance to lead the church (1Tim 4:12, 15-16). In addition there were potential problems with false doctrine and superstition coming into the church ( 1Tim 1:19,4:1-3,5:15,6:20 and Acts 20:28-30). Note the ONLY false teachers we know of are Hymenaius and Alexander, both men. Timothy’s role included instructing the elders and deacons, guarding against false teachers, caring for the widows and importantly 4:13- “devote yourself to the public reading of scripture, to preaching and to teaching”.

    If this is not a description or ‘role’ of a pastor/presbyter/overseer i will be astonished. Timothy should most definitely be described as the ‘pastor’ of the Ephesian Church when Paul wrote this letter. Any attempt to say otherwise is really just ignorance of the facts.

  41. Dave,

    1 Corinthians 1:2- To the Church of God in Corinth.
    2 Corinthians 1:1- To the Church of God in Corinth

    Not to mention all of Pauls other epistles addressed to Churches. Not also to mention all the historical evidence to show that believers gathered in homes or synagogues in a ‘formal’ way.

    Also 1 Cor 14:26- ‘when you come together…All of these things must be done for the strengthening of the Church’. The whole context of this letter is addressed to the church, and chapter 14 particular the gathering of believers in a ‘formal’ way.

    Maybe you think Dave that Ryde Pressie should give up meeting together on Sundays in a ‘formal’ way. BUt surely that would be contradicting Hebrews 10:25- “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing.”

    Dave do you disagree that 1 Cor 14 is in the context of a ‘formal’ church setting? Also do you agree with Cheryl regarding the Levitical Priesthood idea in video 2?

  42. I think we first need to work out what each other is talking about, but at Ryde Pressie I am not sure if we have what you call a “formal”church meeting. It is one of the times during the average week that we meet together as a church. It is no more formal than what we call our “Small Church” meetings during the week, or what we call our “Kid’s Church”. Nor is it more formal than things we do where we have not attached the word “formal” – like our dvd night, our kid’s club and teens, or even my “open office” time each week where someone comes for a chat. All of these things are church, and they are all a part of Ryde Pressie church and the Body of Christ.

    1 Corinthians 1:2- To the “Formal” Church of God in Corinth?
    2 Corinthians 1:1- To the “Formal” Church of God in Corinth?
    Hebrews 10:25- Let us not give up “formally” meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing?

    I thought there just had to be two or three gathering together in the name of Jesus. I know they told me at college that there had to be the regular practicing of the sacraments and a number of other ingredients, but even “formal” church gatherings do not do all these things everytime they meet.

    What exactly makes the gathering in homes in the NT “formal”?

    With regards to your last couple of questions I will hold off commenting for now, but I did have one more thing to say…

    “Pastor is both in my opinion. You do not want someone as a pastor who is not gifted to be there. Also it is an office.”

    I am not sure what you mean by office, as the word does not appear in my Bible, but being a pastor is specifically mentioned in scripture as a gift (Eph 4). If a person is gifted by the Holy Spirit (given to the church by Jesus), what else is there that they need to be? Please don’t say male!! 😉

  43. “Pastor is both in my opinion. You do not want someone as a pastor who is not gifted to be there. Also it is an office. Overseer/elder/ shephard all convey the same meaning as ‘Pastor’. ”

    There are tons of hirlings out there doing ‘formal’ church. That is why we are having this discussion.

    Pastor is actually mentioned once in the NT yet has become the single most important function in the church since when? Since
    Constintine when the church was legalized and these ‘offices’ became important to men?

    What is the difference between a pastor and a teacher/evangelist/preacher/missionary, etc. As an example, scripture defines Stephen as a deacon but we know he stepped outside that box big time.

    What exactly does ‘pastor’ mean in the NT? And how does that line up with how it is defined now?

    Where do we see one main pastor for each Body in the NT? How do we know there were not many in the Body? Let me give you a recent example. A missionary in South American country that is very backward wrote me about one of my comments on another blog about the spiritual gift “pastor”. As they are starting churches in the jungles and discipling people, they are totally relying on the Holy Spirit to bring forth spiritual gifts in the believers as they grow and start other churches. A surprising thing has happened. Women are being gifted as ‘pastors’ (shepherds) to new believers. They are ‘pastoring’ these new believers. This happened naturally from prayer, worship and study. They do not even know what a formal office of pastor would look like because they have not been corrupted by traditions. They are simply operating in their gifting. It is not them. It is the Holy Spirit.

    It is a function that comes from the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. And yes, they are ‘pastoring’ men who are new believers.

    (One of my contacts says the same thing happens in the underground church in China. Many men have to go into hiding or go to prison. They do not have the luxury of roles)

    But let’s face it, our goal should be mature believers who go on to “pastor” others. To make it an official office for a few means we cut the Holy Spirit out. We have made it into a man made tradition and office. That is the truly sad part.

    Don’t let our English translations and bias’ against roles interfere with terminology conveying the same things. Perhaps you want to dispute like many that there are no such offices at all in the New Testament? I’m not sure? As far as i know Paul is VERY interested in overseers/elders/presbyters/deacons which were all present in the early church and his letters.

  44. “if you think there is no distinction in the ‘church’ and other ministries i am very confused. Are you suggesting that Paul was writing to bible studies and youth groups etc. Surely not! What is the early church based on…the synagogue? There is most definately a ‘formal’ church in Pauls writing and this is precisely the context of what i am saying about men teaching. IF you think this is not the context of 1 Tim and 1 Cor please show me why?”

    Mark,
    Isn’t Bible study a time of worship by entering into the presence of God’s Word?
    Why do you catagorize the preaching to or teaching of youth/children as less ‘formal’ or authoritative than other times believers gather to worship/learn the Word?
    Why would it be o.k. to allow something less than authoritative teaching of the most gullible, most easily influenced people in the Church?
    (“Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves.”)
    There were no church buildings in Ephesus. Houses for Christian worship did not begin to be built until two hundred years after the days of Paul, and were not general until Constantine put an end to persecution of Christians. In Paul’s day churches met, mostly, in the homes of Christian people. You may recall also that the Philippian church had its first meeting by a river and the second in Lydia’s home.

  45. Mark,
    “On the sabbath day we went outside the gate by the river, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; and we sat down and spoke to the women who had gathered there. A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.” And she prevailed upon us. (Acts, chapter 16:13-15)

    What is not ‘formal’ Church about this?
    What is not ‘formal’ about Paul speaking the Truth, people believing the Word, and a baptism?
    “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

  46. Mark,

    I agree with Dave that the “church” is any collection of believers and that Christians “do church” in many different ways, both formal and informal. But, let me continue my line of questioning based on your definition. You still have not answered what it is about church that distinguishes it from other gatherings of believers that makes teaching by women improper in church yet proper in those other settings. For example, you say it is appropriate for your wife to teach you at home. What is it that distinguishes your home from church that would make such teaching in your home appropriate but make the very same teaching inappropriate at church?

  47. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority, except that authority over wives which has been given to husbands, in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go inside the synogogues and cathedrals at 10:30 a.m. on Sunday morning and make disciples of all those who show up for formal services, baptizing them in the baptismal font at the front of the sanctuary building, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and pastors then preach a sermon to them telling how to obey everything I have commanded you. Matthew 28:18-20 TRV (The Rant Version) 🙁

  48. Mark,
    You said:

    1. I’m not very familiar with the Jw’s or there theology, so i can only go off what is presented in these videos. I do not agree that Eve ‘sinned’ by talking to the snake. If this was true the fall would be insignificant and the bible wrong. I do not believe that, so i am not willing to accept that Eve sinned pre-fall.

    Mark, that is excellent! Then you would agree with me that the woman was not under obligation to ask permission from her husband to either speak to the serpent or to make a decision for herself? For I believe, as the bible teaches, that Eve’s sin was none other than her eating of the forbidden fruit.

  49. Mark,
    Continuing on, you said:

    2. I would also not use the Levitical priesthood as ‘proof’ for my argument for the headship of Adam in the garden. The priesthood does show us something about Leadership and its requirements/who was aloud to do it etc, but i don’t think it supports the JW view either.

    The priesthood was about offering sacrifices and it was designed for one family. It says nothing about leadership since there were no qualification of gender or family in the leadership of the Prophets or the Judges. These were chosen and given leadership by God Himself.

    Cheryl, im assuming you are the Narrator? If so, i am also concerned at a few things you had to say apart from the accent 🙂

    Well, my friend, I am always happy to deal with the concerns. Yes, I am the narrator. It was a talk that I gave to an ex-JW convention in 2006.

    Your whole argument for this video around the priesthood if i can put simply was this ‘The Levitical Priesthood was the foundation and it was supposed to spread to everyone (women included) not just men’. If this is what you were saying i disagree.

    What I was saying was what the Bible says about the nation of Israel. The Priesthood started out as the “Levitical” Priesthood. It was one tribe alone. But it was not meant to stay this way because God promised Israel that they would be a nation of priests just as God said that the body of Christ are all priests.

    1. The ‘covenant’ nation Israel is not the same as the Levitical Preisthood. You attempted to argue your view from Exodus 19 where Israel is called a ‘kingdom of priests’, to show how women are essentially included into the priesthood- they are not. The covenant community was chosen as God’s people to be a nation of preists in the sense of projecting God’s glory to the world. This of course included men, women, children as it does now. ‘The Church’ i.e covenant community has the same role to fill. The metaphor for a nation of priests is symbolic of their role as Gods chosen people and i think you have confused it with the role of Levitical men wrongly.

    It is interesting that the family of Levites who are priests is literal but the nation as priests is a “metaphor”. It isn’t a “metaphor”. The fact that God says that if Israel would obey Him, that He would make the entire nation a kingdom of “priests” shows that God is not withholding service from some because of their family line or their gender. Mark, this is not dealing with the text in an honest way. You are just disregarding what God has said by calling it a “metaphor”. Where does God say that the priesthood of Israel is “symbolic”? Can you back up your claim that there are “real” priests and only “symbolic” priests? The onus is on you to prove that there is only symbolism.

    Is the body of Christ “symbolic” priests or do we have a spiritual function as priests in the kingdom? Certainly we do not sacrifice animals on the altar but that is unnecessary since the one true sacrifice has been offered and the sacrifices have been abolished.

    2. The Levitical Preisthood was established as God’s priests to fulfill the role of the Hebrew cultic system, i.e temple. This role could only be performed by men of the tribe of Levites. No women were aloud to perform this role, nor men from another tribe. The Levites were set aside by God for this role.

    That is correct. However in this was a temporal duty and there is a higher position coming. God said that the nation would be priests “to ME” and in the New Testament we are offering up our own bodies as a living and holy sacrifice and this is our spiritual service of worship. We are a kingdom of priests serving God in this temple (our body) to the service of the entire body of Christ.

    Rom 12:1 Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.

    This higher position, higher than the Levitical priesthood is available to all without restriction in the body of Christ. Israel has not yet come to the place where they are all priests to God since they are in disobedience until now. But one day they will also fulfill God’s mandate for them and they too will all be priests.

    If God calls us real priests and offering up our body to him is a real duty of that priesthood, then who are we to say that our priesthood is only “symbolic” and that it is less than that of the Levitical priesthood? It is not less than the first priesthood. It is greater.

    Therefore i am concerned how you confuse the two in an attempt to show that women were just as much ‘priests’ as the men. This is simply not the case. The role given to the Levitical priesthood should not be confused as the same role/idea as the kingdom of priests, or the ‘royal priesthood’ of the New Testament. We all have the role of being Christ’s representatives here on earth as did the Hebrews, but the role of priests belonged only to men in the OT. Likewise the positions of elder/pastor are only held by men in the NT and we should follow that. All it really did was show a poor biblical theology.

    I am not saying that the Jewish women “were” priests. I said that if Israel obeyed God, he promised that all of them would be priests. They never got to that point so their women had not yet come into the priesthood of Israel. Although you say that the “role” of priests belonged to men alone in the Old Testament, I showed you from the scriptures where this was not the way that it was meant to stay. It was not meant to remain a closed position only with one tribe and only men. It was always meant to be open to the whole nation.

    You see, the priesthood was a place of holiness where the priests had to keep themselves clean. No one could minister without be cleansed. The nation was not yet ready to be in that position, but God promised that one day they would be clean – all of them. This is a very precious promise and in the body of Christ we are all clean by the blood of Christ. All of us have been given the position of priests and as ones cleaned and ready for service, none of us are held back by the uncleanness of sin. So while God started out with only one tribe that was “clean” and fit for service, He would spread to the entire nation so that all are “clean” and fit for His service. To disregard this is to say that God’s promise of service for the entire nation has no real merit.

    Think about it this way – if the priesthood was always and only for men alone then it would be improper for God to promise it to women in any shape or form. He would have to call their service something else because women then would not be able to be priests whether symbolic, actual or spiritual. It would be disallowed. You have to deal with this. Why were women said to be part of the priesthood? Why are you so willing to dismiss this very important chapter in favor of restricting God’s service to men alone? Is it possible that your own prejudice has kept you blind so that you cannot accept the high calling of women alongside their brothers?

    Secondly the Bible never says that “pastors” and “elders” can “ONLY” be men. The Bible could have clearly said that if that was the case. But it does not. More about that later.

  50. Mark,
    You said:

    Paul in writing those letters was addressing a church and a pastor of a church. Both the immediate contexts of the passages refer to the ‘formal’ if i can call it that assembly of believers.

    As I said in a previous comment, 1 Timothy was not addressed to a church at all. It was a private letter to Timothy and Timothy was not the pastor of this church. He represented Paul in ministry where Paul needed him and he was temporarily in Ephesus to correct a problem, not to pastor a church. While 1 Timothy is what tradition calls the “pastoral” letters, it doesn’t mean that the recipients were “pastors” but that Paul was writing letters in a pastoral way – letters of encouragement and instruction to individuals.

    Each of Paul’s letters is explicit regarding the audience to whom it is written. In Corinthians, Paul is writing to the body of believers. In 1 Timothy, Paul is not writing to the body of believers. He could have written to them all if he wanted. But instead of writing to the entire body, Paul writes to one person alone with individual instruction.

    The term “formal” regarding the meeting of the body is not in the scriptures. There are no meetings of the body that are called “informal”. In fact as Dave has pointed out, wherever two or three believers gather together is a gathering of the church and the Lord Jesus promised to be in each gather of believers even if the gathering is as small as two.

    Tradition has taught us that there must be men (elders) leading the gathering of believers or else it really isn’t church. This is the same thought that the Jewish oral law provided for the synagogue. They were disallowed by their own law (not God’s law!) from having an official synagogue unless there were at least 10 men present. This is why the women gathered outside the gate.

    Act 16:13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled.

    With an understanding of Jewish history, we can clearly understand why these women were not in the synagogue. They were outside by the river because there was not enough men to qualify for a “formal” assembly. But God has no such restrictions. An all women assembly is indeed considered as a “place” of prayer by Paul and the other apostles.

  51. Mark,
    You said:

    Not bible study, not youth, not mission, not bible college, but ‘church’.

    Bible studies are “church” as they are assembly of the believers. The early church met in homes and they studied and spoke on the bible just as we do in our own homes. If you are going to restrict women in “the church”, then you will also have to restrict women speaking in the assembly of believers in their own homes.

    Simply stated with the exponding of Pauls comments regarding eldership and how i see that role in the bible, i conclude that men should only be in that position teaching in the church.

    Aside from whether women can be elders or not, the fact is that the Scripture nowhere says that only elders may teach. Women may indeed teach in the assembly of believers according to 1 Cor. 14 where Paul encourages all to prophesy so that all may learn.

    I would like to ask you to prove that only elders are allowed to teach in the assembly? Where do you get such a strong stand from? Which scripture says this?

    That said there number 1 priority should be to humble themselves and do everything in their power to make their ‘church’ as much like Christ as possible.

    The assembly of believers is as much like Christ as possible when each one is allowed to exercise their own gift just as Paul instructed in 1 Cor. 14. Paul said that we are not to forbid the speaking of the gifts. The question I have is why are so many men willing to forbid the gifts that God has given? Are they not grieving the Holy Spirit by restricting His work and His gifts?

    They should teach the word faithfully and be submissive in character and action to their sheep. They should never lord it over or demand things, but they also have the auhtority to make decisons knowing that one day they will give an account for what they do.

    The teaching of the word in a faithful manner was not restricted to those who are “called” elders. No one in the assembly is to lord it over others nor as they to take authority over anyone in the assembly.

    Headship isnt about domination, Christ revealed it is about love and submission and doing everything in my power to make my wife more like Him.

    You are so right when you say that being “head” is not about domination. Kudos to you! However I disagree with you that being “head” means to make your wife more like Him. You have no power to do that. You place is to conform yourself to be like Him. Your wife’s responsible is to conform herself to be like Him. You can influence your wife and she can influence you to follow Jesus, but just as Adam was not called to speak for Eve, you will not be called to speak for your wife or be responsible for her. This is a faulty tradition that the church has accepted for a long time, but which has no foundation in the Scripture.

    I dont think we should confuse teaching between spouses and the teaching roles involved in churches.

    The Bible doesn’t talk about teaching “roles” and the word “role” is not even found in the Bible. Instead the Bible talks about “gifts”. We are all responsible for our gifts and no member of the body is to restrict others from using their gifts. The only restriction that is ever given regarding the gifts is based on what is beneficial for all. Speaking in another language without an interpretation and long periods of another language (more than three speakers) is not working to edify the church. Other than that, the gifts are to be embraced and welcomed and used. They are not meant to be restricted or held back from others in the body depending on their gender, their race or their social standing.

  52. If indeed these can not be classified as “church”, where are the scriptural guidelines that define who can teach in these other “contexts”?

    Excellent question gengwall!

    I find these back and forth questions and answers very stimulating. This is the way we should always be able to hash out these kinds of disagreements – with dignity and respect and passion. It is iron sharpening iron and it is very beneficial to all of us.

    I am going to take a break now and go back to editing the last video clip so that I can get it uploaded today.

    Mark, I hope that you will continue to work through the clips and give your feedback. I appreciate the things that you say and especially the places where we have agreement. At least you are not one of those hard-nosed hardliners who make a woman fearful of saying anything lest she might be considered teaching a man. That is a humble attitude that you have in allowing a woman to teach you “unofficially” at least! Carry on and I will be back to this discussion later.

  53. Thanks gengwall for catching that. I corrected the error. That’s what I get for not checking my own writing. I am trying to get a bunch of stuff done today and I didn’t read over what I have written. If there are a bunch of errors, then that is why. Just let me know. I should have egg on my face for rushing this morning. 😉

  54. No problem (btw – spam word: helper – lol) I am the worst when it come sto typing too fast and making errors (I left the preceeding error in palce on purpose to show a typical mistake…and I left the error in these parenthesis in place as well, just to be thorough.) And that doesn’t even include my many plain old spelling errors.

    The discussion is proceeding nicely. I will leave everybody’s line of questioning to them and concentrate on the main bone I have to pick with Mark – what makes “church” so special that women can’t teach there, but they can present the identical teaching to an equivalent (and even possibly, identical) audience (adult men) if the setting is not “church”?

  55. “- what makes “church” so special that women can’t teach there, but they can present the identical teaching to an equivalent (and even possibly, identical) audience (adult men) if the setting is not “church”?”

    And how do we know if there was just one Body of believers meeting in homes in Corinth? Perhaps there were several. I can remember reading some archeologists who said that the typical 1st century home could have crammed about 35 people in. There would be no pews, no stage, no altar, no pulpit. One home was excavated in Ephesus that had obviously been remodeled to fit in 70 or so people.

    As we read in 1 Corin where Paul advised that several prophesy and some others judge what was said is so alien to our tradition, we can hardly imagine such a thing.

    We would not really think of this as a church today. How much of tradition is our filter for these rules and roles of ‘pastor’/elder? 1 Corin does not say only pastors or elders can prophesy. Elders would be the most spiritually mature. They would look the most like the salt elements of Matthew 5!

    Was Lydia, being the first convert in Europe, not allowed to teach men in the Body that met in her home?

    It seems the 1st century church was quite informal.

  56. “I think you are trying to push what i was saying to mean something else. Of course i don’t think we do things in our own ‘power’. Maybe my australian terminology is interfering in this concept. The point is, in both situations the husband/elders/leaders put others first and dont lord it over others/wives.”

    I understand your main point, Mark. But by what means then do husbands and pastors have to make wives and sheep more like Christ? What are you saying? If it’s not in your own power then what is it? And what Scripture do you get this idea (whatever it is) from? How does any person become more like Christ? What are you saying, if it’s not one’s “own” power? Do people only become more like Christ through husbands and pastors? Or do they mainly become more like Christ through husbands and pastors or is their best chance to become more like Christ through husbands and pastors?

  57. The comments are extensive so i will reply the best i can…

    1. Obviously i believe that there is a ‘formal’ type gathering demonstrated in Pauls epistles, and many don’t. I have shown why i believe this but no one has given any evidence to conclude that 1 Cor 14 is not directed to a ‘formal’ type gathering. Likewise do any of you bother going to church on a sunday? IF you do, why do you bother, if Sunday ‘Church’ is the same as bible study and the like. Your own actions if you go to church, contradict your own view.

    2. Cheryl, i don’t see prophesying in Cor as the same as teaching. If that is what your bible exposition looks like in your church i would be very intrigued to visit one day. There are many different types of ‘prophecy’ outlined in scripture. We ought not bulk them together under the banner of ‘teaching’ or preaching. If you think we should, please show how scripture does this? Also i have repreated said that 1 Tim was written to Timothy not a church. If you can outline from 1 Timothy how is role is not a ‘pastor’ from what Paul is instructs him to do please also show?

    3. The term ‘Pastor’ is an office of the NT. IT derives from the idea of shephard/prebyter/overseer. It is not man made tradition. In fact im a bit sick of being referred to traditon all the time. It’s in the bible. Maybe we should question who is more influenced by society, the comp view or egal view? I’ll leave the answer up to you.

    4. Cheryl, again i totally disagree with your understanding of the priesthood. Exodus 19 is actually the only occurance where the 2 hebrew words form together ‘kingdom of priests’. The Levitical priesthood could only ever be done by men from the tribe of Levi-scripture teaches this. Calvin summarises Israels adn Christians role as ‘Prophet, Priest and King’. Symbolically we are a kingdom of priests- we represent God on this world. Priesthood imagery and symbolism is used all throughout scripture. If we are to always take it literary you contradict yourself. You used Exodus 19 as ‘proof’ but then said the Hebrew priesthood never came to fulfilment? Did God lie or fail with Israel in your view? If Romans 12 is literal why dont we literary sacrifice ourselves. Like it or not, the ‘priesthood’ is symbolism and should not be used as supposed evidence to support the view that women can be pastors/elders.

    you said “Can you back up your claim that there are “real” priests and only “symbolic” priests? The onus is on you to prove that there is only symbolism.”

    yes i can- scripture only ever had men from the tribe of Levi a ‘priests’ in the real sense. If you think women filled this role show me. THe rest of Israel was symbolised as kingdom of priests- all genders included. How else could God say that they were a kingdom of priests if it is not understood this way. It would make God a liar and untrustworthy. How do you reconcile this? Jesus came as the great and final sacrifice, and instituted the ‘kingdom of God’. Is this literal or metaphoric Cheryl? Peter saids in his first letter “But you are a chosen PEOPLE, a royal priesthood, a holy NATION, a people belonging to God, that you may DECLARE THE PRAISES OF HIM WHO CALLED YOU OUT OF DARKNESS INTO HIS WONDERFUL LIGHT”. If this is not metaphorical for our role as ‘priesthood’, how is it then literal. The fact is, you have entangled the literal Levitical Priesthood of the Hebrew cult with the with the metaphorical understanding of the people of God as a kingdom of Priests.

    Again i would be very interersted to hear Daves view on this. I will be very surprised if he supports your view here Cheryl. Covenant theology is very well understood in Prebyterian circles, in Australia anyway. Also no body else has said anything about this issue. DO people support Cheryl’s view on this?

    Just a quick side note. Acts 16 is not the establishment of the Phillipian Church, nor is it a ‘church’ gathering. Verse 13 tells us that they were looking for a place of Prayer. They met Lydia, evangelised to her and baptised her. This is evangelism/mission not a church gathering. We see elsewhere (Acts 8) with the Ethiopian Eunuch where baptism follows evangelism and witnessing. This is a very weak argument unless you want to conclude that Phillip and the Ethiopian where having a church service aswell?

    The fact is Cor is addressing a formal church gathering. Please use relevant ‘proof’ texts to show otherwise.

    Kay you asked “Why do you catagorize the preaching to or teaching of youth/children as less ‘formal’ or authoritative than other times believers gather to worship/learn the Word?”

    My answer, because Paul does. Again 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim are church gatherings. What you and others here are classifying as church are not what Paul is discussing. If you can disprove this please do? The fact is, both texts are in the context of believers gathering together in a ‘formal’ way, what is appropriate and what is not!

    I believe the onus is up to all of you to show how the Levital Priesthood should be understood as literarily growing into a kingdom of Priests where men from other tribes and any women would have been aloud to perform the sacrificial system of Israel. Also it is up to all of you to show how Paul is NOT addressing a formal gathering in these 2 texts.

  58. woops,
    this…
    We see elsewhere (Acts with the Ethiopian Eunuch where baptism follows evangelism and witnessing.

    was supposed to read like this…
    We see elsewhere (Acts 8)…

    sorry

  59. “The point is, in both situations the husband/elders/leaders put others first and dont lord it over others/wives.”

    Do you mean that by husbands and leaders/pastors/elders putting others first that people become more like christ, have the best chance to, or just mainly? Putting others first is a principle for all and not just for husbands or leader/pastor/elder and so I’m wondering what the principle has to do with husbands and leaders/pastors/elders making people become more like Christ? It is Christ like to put other first, and so is this the main responsibility of just leaders or all christians? What about putting others first has to do solely with husbands leaders/pastors/elders?

  60. “The term ‘Pastor’ is an office of the NT”

    If it is an office then when each pastor dies they must be replaced or the office is left empty intell the it is filled. Pastor is a gift, along with Apostles, teachers etc., and they are gifts to the church as Eph 4 says. These people are gifts to the church. This is what Eph 4 says and since the people themselves are gifts how can what Christ gives be Offices? So Christ has people in line to fill the offices once they are opened back up? Christ gives offices or gifts to his church in Eph 4?

  61. Can a pastor (a gift given by Christ to the church, Eph 4) be an elder? Ofcourse, l if one desires and meets certain character qualifications. So all those who desire to be an elder and meet the character qualifications can just assume office? How many offices are there open for pastors, teachers etc that can be filled at any one time?

  62. Just a note that the last segment to the talk on women on trial is now up. I pray that it will help many find freedom in their God-given gifts and also help men embrace their sisters in Christ without prejudice.

  63. Mark,
    You said:

    The reason why i dont think there are no other guidelines for who leads ot teaches in other circumstances is because it doesnt matter. This is precisely my view. Paul only restricts a woman from the formal teaching/leading of the church.

    If I understand you right, you believe that a woman can instruct men in Bible study in her own home or in any other venue except for a traditional worship service in a church. If I understand you right, then you are on our side in a lot of ways. I am wondering if you take any active part in helping dispel the wrong teaching that says that women cannot teach the Bible to men any where at any place for any reason? Are you willing to back up your sisters in Christ and help to free us from restrictions that hurts both women and men in giving and receiving God’s gifts?

  64. How many offices are there open for pastors, elders and teachers in the church that can be filled at any one time? ;P

    Teacher must be an office too since women aren’t allowed to teach in “church”. It’s the offices that are reserved for men. I get it.

  65. Yes Cheryl, i would be willing to back you up in those circumstances. Although i disagree with you that woman can preach in church, i have no problem with a woman leading a bible study, leading youth, sunday school etc.

    Ultimately these things still fall under the spritual head of a man i.e pastor/elder adn i think that is the whole point. Women are still able to exercise their giftings, but I believe Paul restricts them where i have already said.

  66. “Ultimately these things still fall under the spritual head of a man i.e pastor/elder adn i think that is the whole point. Women are still able to exercise their giftings, but I believe Paul restricts them where i have already said.”

    What is “the spritual head of a man” category? How do pastors and elders fall under this category? And how does a restriction on women teaching in church fall under this category??

    Pastors and elders are not the kephale of anyone and you would have to provide scriptural support for the idea that they a kephale. Are you saying that they are the “head” of their church and this is why a woman cannot be a pastor or teach in church?

  67. “Ultimately these things still fall under the spritual head of a man i.e pastor/elder adn i think that is the whole point. Women are still able to exercise their giftings, but I believe Paul restricts them where i have already said.”

    If this is the whole point, Mark then that’s really what I want to talk about. 🙂

  68. Mark, you have mentioned 1 Corin 14 several times. Can you tell me which passages make you think of it as a ‘formal’ church situation?

  69. “the spritual head of a man” “i.e pastor/elder”

    Mark, you say “the spiritual head of a “MAN” rather than “husband” and so I’m asking if you have 1 Co 11 in mind verses Eph 5 since without a doubt Eph 5 talks about husbands specificaly rather than unmarried men. You must have in mind at least one of those scriptures since they are the ONLY ones that use the term “head” regarding men. Or maybe I’m lost somewhere in bewteen your theology. And how do you connect either text to pastors and elders?

  70. Mark,
    I had a big long answer to some of your points and then I accidentally typed over it and lost it. I will just summarize this point:

    Timothy should most definitely be described as the ‘pastor’ of the Ephesian Church when Paul wrote this letter. Any attempt to say otherwise is really just ignorance of the facts.

    Timothy travelled with Paul from one place to another and together with Paul he wrote letters to the Philippian church and to the Colossians. If you do a word search on Timothy you will find that he ministered to Paul and then Paul sent him out to the churches to find out how they were doing. He would then go back to Paul to minister to him again. Timothy was not “the” pastor at Ephesus. He was an apostolic representative of Paul’s who spent his time ministering to Paul, overseeing the condition of the churches and reporting back to Paul, writing letters with Paul to the churches and at least once in Ephesus he stayed behind after Paul left to clean up some of the remaining problems. He did not remain on as the pastor of Ephesus, but moved on as Paul had need for him.

    Paul’s letter to Timothy was personal and he call Timothy “his child in the faith” and not the “pastor of Ephesus”.

    1 Tim 1:2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Note the ONLY false teachers we know of are Hymenaius and Alexander, both men.

    Not true. The ONLY false teachers that are named are the deliberate deceivers. The misled and deceived are not named so we do not know what gender they are were. And you have forgotten one of the most famous false teachers who was a woman.

    Rev 2:20 ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

    Paul follows the pattern of the Holy Spirit to name the deceivers and leave the deceived false teachers unnamed.

  71. One other thing that I should say about the work of an overseer is that Paul said that all may desire to attain to the work of overseer 1 Timothy 3:1. The work is not an “office” that is limited to only a few but all may desire the work. Jews, Gentiles, slave, free, male, female…all may desire the good work of overseeing.

  72. Mark,
    Ahhh….I just hate when I lose my comments. Oh well, if what I was commenting on that I lost comes up again, I will work on reconstructing my comments. 🙁 Maybe I should work on restricting my comments to a shorter version so that I don’t lose as much 🙂

    1. Obviously i believe that there is a ‘formal’ type gathering demonstrated in Pauls epistles, and many don’t. I have shown why i believe this but no one has given any evidence to conclude that 1 Cor 14 is not directed to a ‘formal’ type gathering. Likewise do any of you bother going to church on a sunday? IF you do, why do you bother, if Sunday ‘Church’ is the same as bible study and the like. Your own actions if you go to church, contradict your own view.

    Mark, you say “formal” but the assemblies in the early church were nothing like what we have in our “formal” church. Instead of one speaker with all just as listeners, everyone had an opportunity to edify the church. Going to a larger building on Sunday is wonderful because many more people are able to meet that way. But the other smaller gatherings of the church are just as good. They are more intimate and everyone gets to speak out. Our “church” services on Sunday are tradition and not necessary to meet in a large building. Many people today have opted out of the large (please excuse me for the dear pastors who read this as I am not trying to offend you) institutional one man dog-and-pony show. Small groups and home churches are becoming far more common place.

  73. Mark, continuing on:

    2. Cheryl, i don’t see prophesying in Cor as the same as teaching. If that is what your bible exposition looks like in your church i would be very intrigued to visit one day. There are many different types of ‘prophecy’ outlined in scripture. We ought not bulk them together under the banner of ‘teaching’ or preaching. If you think we should, please show how scripture does this? Also i have repreated said that 1 Tim was written to Timothy not a church. If you can outline from 1 Timothy how is role is not a ‘pastor’ from what Paul is instructs him to do please also show?

    Prophesying has to have some element of teaching in it because Paul says that when everyone does this, then everyone learns

    1 Cor 14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;

    If people are learning, then they are being taught. I don’t think we should have to back away from that.

    Paul instructs Timothy as his son in the faith as one who ministers to Paul and goes out to serve the assemblies as Paul sends him for one reason or another. That is an apostolic representative as he represents Paul to the congregations and reports on the congregation’s well-being back to Paul. Timothy is never called a pastor.

  74. Mark,

    3. The term ‘Pastor’ is an office of the NT. IT derives from the idea of shephard/prebyter/overseer. It is not man made tradition. In fact im a bit sick of being referred to traditon all the time. It’s in the bible. Maybe we should question who is more influenced by society, the comp view or egal view? I’ll leave the answer up to you.

    The “office” is a tradition but is not scriptural. I think that if you had Biblical proof that there was such an “office” of pastor, etc, then you would have given it by now. The only “office” that is said that needed to be filled was the “office” that Judas held as one of the 12 who was picked by Jesus as an apostle.

    I think that we should just leave the issue of “office” for now since you have brought no Scriptural proof of such an office and just saying that it is there in the Bible is no substitute for proof. Here I like to test all things and to hold fast to what is true.

    As far as who is influenced by society, all we have to do is go to the third world (India, Africa will do) and see how the society holds women back and in so many places they refuse to allow women to learn or to be teachers. We are way too cloistered in our own society that we miss what goes on in the “real” world.

  75. Mark, I am loving this conversation. Thanks for hanging in….

    4. Cheryl, again i totally disagree with your understanding of the priesthood. Exodus 19 is actually the only occurance where the 2 hebrew words form together ‘kingdom of priests’.

    God says more about this special priesthood:

    Isa 61:6 But you will be called the priests of the LORD; You will be spoken of as ministers of our God. You will eat the wealth of nations, And in their riches you will boast.

  76. Mark,

    The Levitical priesthood could only ever be done by men from the tribe of Levi-scripture teaches this.

    Then tell me what the “Levitical priesthood” will be doing during the future reign of Christ when there is no more animal sacrifices? Let me answer you: They will be joined with their brothers and sisters in the national priesthood as “ministers of our God”.

  77. And to carry on…

    Calvin summarises Israels adn Christians role as ‘Prophet, Priest and King’. Symbolically we are a kingdom of priests- we represent God on this world.

    Romans 12:1 says that our service is “spiritual” not as “symbolical”. It is a spiritual service in ministry. You just can’t make it go away. We are fellow heirs with you, my friend, and our service to the Lord and to the body is of equal value.

  78. I noticed that keeping my comments shorter, I am saying “Mark, Mark, Mark” a whole lot more. Hope you like your name used a lot 🙂 Anyway if I get tired of saying “Mark” then just know it is for you unless I use someone else’s name.

    If we are to always take it literary you contradict yourself. You used Exodus 19 as ‘proof’ but then said the Hebrew priesthood never came to fulfilment? Did God lie or fail with Israel in your view?

    No, God didn’t lie. He still has the promise for them. He said “if” and “if” is conditional. When they align with God’s conditions, they too will fulfill their calling as priests.

    If Romans 12 is literal why dont we literary sacrifice ourselves. Like it or not, the ‘priesthood’ is symbolism and should not be used as supposed evidence to support the view that women can be pastors/elders.

    We are literally offering our bodies as a sacrifice. It isn’t on an altar made of stones, but it is an offering. It isn’t symbolic. Just as those who literally offering their bodies to sin, we literally offer our bodies for righteousness.

    Romans 6:13 | and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

    Or are you thinking that those who offer (or present) their bodies to sin is not anything that is literal but only symbolic? I don’t think you will find symbolic sin in the list of sins but literal sins are sure there.

    ou said “Can you back up your claim that there are “real” priests and only “symbolic” priests? The onus is on you to prove that there is only symbolism.”

    yes i can- scripture only ever had men from the tribe of Levi a ‘priests’ in the real sense. If you think women filled this role show me.

    You misunderstand me. I didn’t say that women would join in with the Levitical priesthood nor did I say that God’s promise came to pass. It did not. On the contrary, the Levitical priesthood would be part of the whole – the priesthood of the nation and “if” and “when” Israel meets God’s conditions, they will all be “ministers” for God.

    THe rest of Israel was symbolised as kingdom of priests- all genders included. How else could God say that they were a kingdom of priests if it is not understood this way.

    Hey, my friend, that is not a “proof”. It is just a statement without proof. And remember that God spoke about a future time when they would be priests. Since it hasn’t happened yet, what proof do you rely on that makes one priesthood literal and the whole as symbolic? If all are “ministers of our God” then is that not literal?

    It would make God a liar and untrustworthy. How do you reconcile this?

    It is easy to reconcile. It hasn’t happened yet for them. It has happened for us. We (the body of Christ) are all priests. We are all “ministers of our God”.

    Peter saids in his first letter “But you are a chosen PEOPLE, a royal priesthood, a holy NATION, a people belonging to God, that you may DECLARE THE PRAISES OF HIM WHO CALLED YOU OUT OF DARKNESS INTO HIS WONDERFUL LIGHT”. If this is not metaphorical for our role as ‘priesthood’, how is it then literal. The fact is, you have entangled the literal Levitical Priesthood of the Hebrew cult with the with the metaphorical understanding of the people of God as a kingdom of Priests.

    Other then what I have already said, we are literally declaring the praises of Him who called us out of darkness. Every time you give your testimony and praise God, you are literally declaring God’s glory and His praise. It isn’t symbolic. It is literal and spiritual. It is our spiritual service.

    I think the problem that you have, Mark, is that you think that a priest “serves” only by killing lambs and offering bloody sacrifices. This was a temporal duty of a few. But the permanent duties that Israel will come into will not revolve around the death of an animal, but of spiritual service as witnesses of the LORD God Almighty. The work of a priest in animal sacrifice was merely a shadow of the reality which is in Christ. The priests pointed towards Christ by offering of the animals in death and the priests after Christ point back to the bloody sacrifice on the cross. The priesthood has changed with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

  79. Mark,
    You said:

    Again i would be very interersted to hear Daves view on this. I will be very surprised if he supports your view here Cheryl. Covenant theology is very well understood in Prebyterian circles, in Australia anyway. Also no body else has said anything about this issue. DO people support Cheryl’s view on this?

    I hear a “call” for help. Anyone is welcome to jump in if they want.

    What I would like to add is that the priesthood of the past was the symbolic. It symbolized Christ. Although the work was literal, as they had animals to kill, the service was symbolic in that no animal death ever took away sin.

    Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

    Our work now is giving glory to God in the reality that the symbolism merely pointed to. We have the privilege of giving out the good news about the gospel in the way that it was fulfilled in Christ.

    Just a quick side note. Acts 16 is not the establishment of the Phillipian Church, nor is it a ‘church’ gathering. Verse 13 tells us that they were looking for a place of Prayer. They met Lydia, evangelised to her and baptised her. This is evangelism/mission not a church gathering.

    Mark, you need to read some more Jewish history. I don’t think anyone is claiming that it was a “Christian” church, but it was an assembly of believers in God. It was the ONLY way that they could meet without enough Jewish men to constitute a legitimate synagogue. It certainly was a witnessing opportunity for the Apostles, but this begs the point because the women were holding unqualified Jewish assemblies. This is the point that is being brought up. Not that they were already Christians, but that they lead in prayer and worship.

  80. The fact is Cor is addressing a formal church gathering. Please use relevant ‘proof’ texts to show otherwise.

    If by saying that “formal” is the gathering of the believers together in worship and service, then we will not dispute that. However the fact is that women are prophesying in what you call a “formal” church gathering. That disproves your point that women are not allowed to teach men in the assembly. I would point you to my answer to Mike Seaver’s effort to try to prove that “prophesying” was not teaching or preaching and where I refute his arguments from the Greek. http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/09/02/mike-seaver-cheryl-schatz-10/ Also my evaluation of the entire debate with Mike Seaver listed here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/09/19/evaluating-schatz-seaver-debate/ I just don’t have the time to rewrite everything that I already wrote during that debate. I know that you are a busy fellow, but if you do have time to evaluate my arguments, I would love for you to do so. And if you have any questions after going through the material, I would welcome questions.

  81. ok i think we need to clarify a few things…

    it seems like Dave and Cheryl are expecting me to find the term ‘office’ in the NT to back my claim. I have no intention of trying to prove such a thing because its not there. The point i am making is just because the word isnt there, doesn’t mean the picture/meaning is portrayed. Pastors/Elders/ Deacons are all offices in the sense that they are positions/roles within the church structure.

    Cheryl, im not denying woman are part of the ‘priesthood’. I’m simply saying that your understanding of the priesthood is not correct and should not be used as support for your view. The priesthood is metaphorical for the people of God as a whole. The Levitical priesthood was a designated role, for designated men to perform. In answer to your question, the Levitical Priesthood became void at the sacrificial death of Christ, once for all. The need for the Hebrew cult is no longer necessary.

    Hence why i disagree with you using it for your view and likewise i disagree with you using the ‘prophesying’ of 1 Cor as evidence for your view. Neither is being accurate of the overall biblical picture of prophecy and priesthood.

    Again, just because Paul doesn’t call timothy a ‘pastor’ doesn’t make his role void. You have yet to show how his role was NOT that of a Pastor. The reality is you can’t. He was acting in a Pastoral position regardless of whether Paul called him ‘Pastor Timothy’ or not. After all where is ‘Trinity’ in the bible? You should not be so quick to dismiss stuff just because the word isn’t there. The meanings are clearly present.

    Let me clarify one thing. The only false teachers we know about in Ephesus, where Timothy is ministering, are men. An argument from silence is hardly as convincing as we what we are actually told.

    pinklight,

    you asked

    “What is “the spritual head of a man” category? How do pastors and elders fall under this category? And how does a restriction on women teaching in church fall under this category??”

    This category falls under the man i believe because men are the only ones aloud to be elders/pastors. We can engage in a discussion about the relevant texts for this but atm i’m trying to concentrate on these videos, but im sure we will get there at some stage. The restriction falls to women teaching because women are never given that position and Paul does not permit women to teach in those settings. Thats my position anyway.

  82. Again 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim are church gatherings. What you and others here are classifying as church are not what Paul is discussing. If you can disprove this please do? The fact is, both texts are in the context of believers gathering together in a ‘formal’ way, what is appropriate and what is not!

    Mark, I think that the questions you have received on where instruction would be for “informal” meetings is a key question that has been asked of you. I haven’t yet read your latest answer so pardon me if I am behind a little. The fact is that any gathering of Christians to study the Word of God, give of their gifts to edify the body and to pray for one another is “church”. I don’t recall Paul or anyone else saying that the gatherings of the believers don’t qualify as Christians assemblies (or church) unless they have missing elements added.

    Also it is up to all of you to show how Paul is NOT addressing a formal gathering in these 2 texts.

    Since two or three Christians are guaranteed the Lord’s presence and since two or three may operate in edification, worship with prayer and bible reading and each person’s service in edification, the scriptures don’t limit “church” to large gatherings and neither should we. Place, amount of people, gender, social standing were not limitations of what qualifies as the gathering of the “church”.

    I believe the onus is up to all of you to show how the Levital Priesthood should be understood as literarily growing into a kingdom of Priests where men from other tribes and any women would have been aloud to perform the sacrificial system of Israel.

    If I believed that, then the onus would be on me. While I have stated that the whole nation would be a kingdom of priests, I never once said that I believed that they would all be killing lambs. I just go with what the scripture says in that they would all be “ministers of God”. I didn’t say that these ministers all had to be killing the lambs and offering a bloody sacrifice. The old priesthood is not the highest order of priests. That part of the priesthood was always meant to be abolished. Yet the priesthood continues in Christ without animal sacrifice and as priests we are all equal and they too, when they come into faith will be in the fulfillment of what God gave to them when they were not yet faithful.

  83. “The fact is, both texts are in the context of believers gathering together in a ‘formal’ way, what is appropriate and what is not!”
    Mark,
    Do believe there is a certain minimum limit on the number of believers that constitutes a ‘formal’ Church gathering? If so, where do we find that verse? Or do you believe the rabbinical law’s 10 man minimum still applies?

  84. Mark,
    I love you for this:

    Yes Cheryl, i would be willing to back you up in those circumstances. Although i disagree with you that woman can preach in church, i have no problem with a woman leading a bible study, leading youth, sunday school etc.

    You are a dear brother in Christ. What I am looking for in being “backed up” is to fight with us with those who try to restrict us. I am very happy that you support us, but if you are willing to engage those who try to hold us back, that would be the very best “back up”.

    Ultimately these things still fall under the spritual head of a man i.e pastor/elder adn i think that is the whole point. Women are still able to exercise their giftings, but I believe Paul restricts them where i have already said.

    Why do giftings need to be restricted by men? If God doesn’t want a woman to be a pastor, then all He has to do is not gift her. It seems to me that if God gifts, then His gifting is His permission and any man who would stand in the way of God’s Spirit is hurting the one who gave us the gifts.

    Also as pinklight has already said, there is no such thing as a “head” of the church other than Christ. No man is ever installed into the “head” of a church and any who would take this “calling” are actually usurping Christ’s headship. There is one head and no other. If a man comes to “support” a woman who is leading and teaching the Bible, that is appreciated. But women do not need to be spiritually protected since we do have direct communication with God just as men have.

  85. Cheryl, now i am confused,

    in the video the claim rests that the Levitical priesthood was the firstfruits of the true priesthood and israel failed in producing the proper priesthood, but now you say it was meant to happen this way and you agree with me that women were never meant to be literally slaughtering the animals.

    So is it literal or metaphoric? You seem to be changing your opinion all the time.

    If the whole nation was to be a kingdom of priests and the priests literal role was to slaughter animals why are you no back tracking and saying women were never meant to be in that role?

    Either you believe that the priesthood of Exodus 19, 1 Peter is metaphoric for the people of God or it is literal, so that women can perform the priestly duties? Previously you saw the priesthood as literal but now you seem to be saying it is literal?

  86. Mark

    it seems like Dave and Cheryl are expecting me to find the term ‘office’ in the NT to back my claim. I have no intention of trying to prove such a thing because its not there. The point i am making is just because the word isnt there, doesn’t mean the picture/meaning is portrayed. Pastors/Elders/ Deacons are all offices in the sense that they are positions/roles within the church structure.

    Okay, so “office” is not in the Bible. But “role” isn’t there either. Pastor is clearly a gift but “position” is another term that is not in the Scriptures. Everything is “gift” based not position, not role, not office. I can guarantee you that “gift” is there in the Scriptures but you are going to have a really hard time as you find nothing for any of the other terms.

    Again, just because Paul doesn’t call timothy a ‘pastor’ doesn’t make his role void.

    There are no “roles” but there is the work of an overseer. Any can desire this work and those who do desire it must study to show themselves approved unto God a workman that does not need to be ashamed. This is a “good” work.

    You have yet to show how his role was NOT that of a Pastor.

    He isn’t called a pastor and he didn’t stay in Ephesus to tend the sheep. His work was primarily that of overseeing the work of clearing up the error, getting the deceived taught and inside the church where they could be nurtured and then he moved on to serve Paul in other areas. Do you agree?

  87. By the way a pastor is a “gift” and an overseer is a mature Christian who desires the good work of oversight. Oversight is by qualification and pastor is by gift.

  88. Pretty soon I will need to take a break and minister my friendship to my husband who likes to see me once in a while 🙂

    Mark,

    Let me clarify one thing. The only false teachers we know about in Ephesus, where Timothy is ministering, are men. An argument from silence is hardly as convincing as we what we are actually told.

    Actually I will say that your argument is from silence. Just because a woman is not named as one of the deceivers does not mean that there were not false deceived teacher(s) that were women. In fact not a single false deceived teacher is named. Only the deliberate deceivers are named, so the group of the deceived are not accounted by their gender or their names so we cannot prove anything other then that Paul stopped them from teaching because of his love and his assurance that those who were operating in ignorance and unbelief as he himself had operated, would also qualify for the great mercy that God gives.

    atm i’m trying to concentrate on these videos

    Mark, did I tell you lately that you are appreciated? I really, really appreciate you taking the time to review my work and to ask questions and challenge me. This is helpful for all of us and I believe that it honors the Lord Jesus as we seek to be iron to each other.

  89. Okay, one more before I attend to my sweetheart who is waiting for me.

    in the video the claim rests that the Levitical priesthood was the firstfruits of the true priesthood and israel failed in producing the proper priesthood, but now you say it was meant to happen this way and you agree with me that women were never meant to be literally slaughtering the animals.

    Mark, my friend, you have misunderstood the video clips. What I said was that the Levitical priesthood was the “foundation” that was set up with only men and only one tribe. But Israel was promised that they would all be given the ability to be in God’s special priesthood as all of them would be “ministers of God”. I never said that Israel failed in “producing the proper priesthood”. Not at all. What I said was that they failed to be faithful to God. They did not obey Him nor did they fear Him. They went out to other “lovers” and God said that He would “love them no more” as that special possession of His very own. In fact God divorced Israel and Israel never did what God said she should do to be that special priesthood.

    So is it literal or metaphoric? You seem to be changing your opinion all the time.

    Honestly I find you very cute. The only reason that you think that I am changing my mind is because you did not understand my position.

    The thing that I try very hard to do, and I am not perfect but I really do try, is to understand the opposing position and then present my own. When I did the research for my WIM DVDs, I went to CBMW and to John MacArthur’s org (his right hand man was the one who answered my emails) and to others. I always looked to and respected the complementarians by giving them my work to critique. If I misunderstood then I wanted to be corrected. I didn’t ask them to agree with me, just to help me understand their view and not to misrepresent it. Since I took their own words and their own writings, I kept very careful to show them the honor that they deserve as fellow Christians. At the same time I very strongly disagreed with them and carefully explained from the Scriptures where they were wrong. No one is able to correct me in my own exegesis unless they do it from the Scriptures which is my own straight edge that I highly trust.

    If the whole nation was to be a kingdom of priests and the priests literal role was to slaughter animals why are you no back tracking and saying women were never meant to be in that role?

    I never said that they were to be in that “role”. God defines His own terms and He said that the nation would be “ministers to Him” and to the nations. This is the highest place that they could be in and it would come if they were faithful. God Himself called this work as the “priesthood”. I want to be faithful to His Word and agree with Him. That is my position and I have not changed. Perhaps you have changed a little by coming alongside me in understanding. That is a godly thing to do.

    Okay, I am off now to fellowship with my husband. Go ahead and continue to dialog and ask questions of whatever. Mark, I can hardly wait until you get through all the clips. You will still be my brother whether you agree with me or not, but I look forward to us being a little bit closer to the center and a little bit closer to understanding one another when you are done.

    Thanks again!

  90. pinklight:“What is “the spritual head of a man” category? How do pastors and elders fall under this category? And how does a restriction on women teaching in church fall under this category??”

    Mark:This category falls under the man i believe because men are the only ones aloud to be elders/pastors. We can engage in a discussion about the relevant texts for this but atm i’m trying to concentrate on these videos, but im sure we will get there at some stage. The restriction falls to women teaching because women are never given that position and Paul does not permit women to teach in those settings. Thats my position anyway.

    Hi Mark,

    Okay, so the pastor/elder fall under the category of the spiritual head of a man ( 1 Co 11 and Eph 5) because you believe that men only are the ones allowed to be pastors and elders. Now it sounds like your talking in circles! And then also say that women being restricted from teaching also falls under the category of the spiritual head of a man because they are never given that position? Which position? You mean since the wife is not the head of her husband and since the woman is not the head of the man therefore women are restricted from teaching? Is that what you were trying to convey above? Or were you saying that women are restricted from teaching which falls under the category of the spirtual head of the man because they are never given the position of pastor or elder? And what setting are you referring to above?

    Go ahead and concentrate on the videos. I’ll just re-post this comment of mine soon so that we can pick up here when you can.

  91. “Pastors/Elders/ Deacons are all offices in the sense that they are positions/roles within the church structure.”

    The ONLY picture of the church Mark, given in scripture of it’s “structure” is a BODY with different members – hands, head, eyes, feet etc, of which we are all memebers. Now if you can find a different picture portrayed by the scriptures themselves then I’d like to see this other kind of “structure”.

  92. Pinklight,

    i do feel like i am going around in circles because i seem to be saying the same thing over and over again. I apologise if it gets confusing, but i think its because i am confusing myself trying to answer everyone one. Maybe if everyone can limit their resposes to 2 or 3 words it might help :)- but im guessing this is impossible. Let me perhaps try and summarise my position.

    1.Kingdom of Priests is metaphorical for body of believers (Jewish or CHristian depending on which Testament)
    2. This metaphor should not be used in conjunction with the Levitical priesthood to emphasise that woman are now incorporated into roles from which they were earlier excluded i.e specific roles given to specific men.
    3. Only men are to be elders/pastors from what Paul saids.
    4. This leadership of the church is analgous to the ‘headship’ of the husband, which is analogous to the headship of Christ. This is the prodimate theme of male leadership portrayed throughout the bible.
    5. Since the leaders of the church are the teachers of the church, and since 1 Cor and ! Tim are in the context of church gatherings i believe women should not be in that position.

    I might have to agree with Cheryl and take a break for now. If i get a chance to respond again to peole i will, if not i will comment next after i watch video 3. Wow, i just realised, im only up to number 3- seems like it never ends.
    Cheryl, you should get some sponsors who give you money everytime someone comments 🙂

  93. I turn my back for a minute and the comments go nuts! How am I supposed to read all this?!?!

    Mark, I am unable to watch the videos for technical reasons, and so I was wanting to hear more of Cheryl’s explanation regarding her view of priesthood. All that I have read that Cheryl has said, I agree with. I might add that I do not see it conflicting with covenant theology, the way I understand it.

    1 Peter gives us a great picture of priesthood and sacrifice, very similar to Romans 12. I believe that through the holy Spirit my life is a fragrant offering to God in a very real way.

    To be very plain and simple, there is only one “type” of church in the NT. I believe when the Etheopian Eunuch asked to be baptised that him and Phil were doing church. It only takes 2-3 for Christ (head and body) to be there!

    Mark, I do not think you would need to go to Cheryl’s church to meet people who believe prophecy is preaching. At the recent Flourish Conference Craig Tucker (Pressie Minister) said this, I have read Gordon Chang (Anglican Minister) say the same on his blog, and I know there are a number of lecturers at the PTC who hold the same/similar view.

    The Bible is clear that the husband is the head of the wife, and that CHrist is the head of the church. Nowhere does it say that men in general or pastors/elders are the head of women in general. This CANNOT be assumed from scripture! This is also a timely reminder that we await your own evidence that “kephale” is linked to “authority”. 😉

  94. Just a few thoughts:

    1. The debate on what ‘prophesy’ means is a conumdrum for the comps which is why they try to give it different definitions even in the NC. They ignore that even the Puritans taught that it was preaching in the NC. Keep in mind that the early Christians had no NT scripture. Some had letters. They were using the OT.

    2. The Holy Priesthood is another conumdrum for comps who spend a lot of time trying to play it down and teach there is a chain of command structure within the Priesthood of the NC.

    Nine years ago, Al Mohler tried to get The words ‘Priesthood of believer’ taken out of the Baptist Faith and Message. The best he could do was to get them to add an ‘s’ to it. Why the ‘s’? It is pretty sad. Here is an article about this debacle:

    http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/7_17/pages/bfm_meaning.html

    This and much more is why I have a hard time trusting comp teachers. Especially the celebrity ones who make a very good living off of it. I have been around too much of this hermeneutic wrangling to take their teaching seriously.

    If the Holy Priesthood in the New Covenant is ‘metaphorical’ then we are in big trouble. I agree with Cheryl that other side, the sin part, is certainly not metaphorical. Neither is the Holy Priesthood.

    But the comps want to play it down because it hurts their authority/follower structure not just in marriage but in the “Church”.

    I cannot be a priest in the Holy Priesthood and still have a human layer between me and Jesus Christ. That is why ‘head’ is ridiculous as being interpreted ‘authority over’. All humans are depraved sinners only saved by the exact same grace. There is no special class of ‘head’ designed to be the spiritual authority of another human. That is the beauty of the Priesthood. There are only new believers and more mature believers. A man conferred title does not make one a more mature believer. Only the gifting of the Holy Spirit confers giftings. Anyone can go to seminary and get a title.

    Anyway, that dog won’t hunt so the Royal Priesthood is played down, twisted and deemed metaphorical. The problem is that the temple veil was torn in two on the cross to prove this distinction. They do not like it but I, a woman, am a priest in the Priesthood of believer. There is NO human layer between me and Jesus Christ.

    This is not a position of authority over other humans but a living sacrifice to our precious Lord. It just makes me a lowly servant saved by grace serving the Lord.

  95. The NT churches certainly did not view ordination as we do. The Great Commission is the only apostolic succession ordained by Christ, and it applies universally to all believers. In the early Church , when they recognized that a person possessed certain gifts necessary for a needed work, the congregation affirmed and “set apart” that person for the task by the laying on of hands. (Acts 13:1-3)

    No seminary, no tests, no interviews – the person was already using their gift. Timothy is instructed to “not lay hands on anyone hastily.” In other words, be sure the person has the gift first.

  96. “No seminary, no tests, no interviews – the person was already using their gift. Timothy is instructed to “not lay hands on anyone hastily.” In other words, be sure the person has the gift first.

    Kay, What better way to prove that God’s ways are not our ways than to have the uneducated (not the cream of the rabbinical crop) take the Good News to the Jews and the most educated rabbinical cream of the crop (tutored by Gamaliel) take the Good News to the Gentiles? :o)

  97. Hmmmm. Everytime I present a series of questions to Mark I seem to be ignored. Or maybe it is just that my little line of inquiry is overshadowed by weightier issues and scads of comments. But I am nothing if not persistent. I will try a third time.

    Mark – what is special about formal church that makes it a setting where women teaching is inappropirate when the identical teaching by a woman in other settings would be deemed appropriate? For example – why can your wife teach you at home, but cannot present the identical teaching to you in formal church? What are the specific differentiators of church vs. other contexts that disqualify women from teaching in church but allow them to teach in those other contexts?

  98. “What better way to prove that God’s ways are not our ways than to have the uneducated (not the cream of the rabbinical crop) take the Good News to the Jews and the most educated rabbinical cream of the crop (tutored by Gamaliel) take the Good News to the Gentiles? :o) ”

    “Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.” ICor.1:26-31

  99. I like gengwall’s question, and for me it is where we probably need Mark to focus for a second (or two!). It seems that the idea that his wife can teach him, but not teach “in church” is a big idea that Mark is yet to prove.

    Mark has suggested that we need to show how 1 Cor 14, etc as NOT about formal church gathering, yet my understanding of discussions like this is that the burden of proof should be on Mark. So I would like to ask Mark if he can find any scriptural difference between “the Church at Corinth” and Priscilla teaching Aquila, or Phil baptising the Eunuch.

    It so happens that I have scriptural evidence that there is no difference. Jesus said that when two or three gather in his name he will be there. He can only be there if he is represented as head AND body.

    I must go and watch my son play cricket!

  100. Ah, my spam word for this one is “leader”. 🙂

    The issue of 1 Timothy 2:12 being a restriction in a “church” building has a problem. The problem is the reference to creation. Where was the “church” in the garden of eden and where was the “home”? If Paul’s reason for the prohibition had something to do with creation and deception, then we either restrict women from teaching men anywhere (because of creation) or we understand that the restriction is not universal. If you watch my video clips you will see that I give multiple reasons for why Paul’s restriction could not be a universal law as it fails everything that is required to establish a universal law. Paul was such a good detail person and he surely would not have failed to present this new “law” to the church if there was such a law. The fact is that how, where, when, why and to whom the prohibition was written are all clear indications that the prohibition absolutely could not be a universal law for all women for all time, in all places and for all reasons.

    So the bottom line is that we are either to pay attention to the details of the text and see that it is a situation in Ephesus that Paul was dealing with or we will have to restrict all women from teaching men in any way at any time and in any place. You just can’t forbid women from teaching in a church building and then link it to creation. The comp argument that wants to allow for home teaching will stumble over the “creation” reason and I don’t think that Mark has given any valid reason women should be allowed to teach at all.

  101. “You just can’t forbid women from teaching in a church building and then link it to creation.”

    Woman was created to not teach in a church building.

    Says who, where and why?

  102. “Ultimately these things still fall under the spritual head of a man i.e pastor/elder adn i think that is the whole point. Women are still able to exercise their giftings, but I believe Paul restricts them where i have already said.”

    I still want to talk about this! 🙂 I want to talk about what the whole point is.

  103. So how did Eve know that she could teach Adam in the garden but certainly she couldn’t teach him in the “church” because that wasn’t allowed by creation? That would mean that women’s gifts are both legal and illegal. Now we really need a Christian Talmud to find out if there are other areas where our gifts are illegal. Seems to me that this kind of thinking is illogical and brings fear lest we find ourselves sinning against a secret law that never tells women what they can and cannot do. Should it be trial and error? If a woman is struck by lightning then that activity must be illegal? How are we to know for sure? Which Christian should be the next pope that determines once and for all what is allowed for Christian women and what is not? It just doesn’t make sense.

  104. “So how did Eve know that she could teach Adam in the garden but certainly she couldn’t teach him in the “church” because that wasn’t allowed by creation?”

    Wow, now that’s a question!! 🙂

  105. “So how did Eve know that she could teach Adam in the garden but certainly she couldn’t teach him in the “church” because that wasn’t allowed by creation?”

    Maybe Eve knew that she could teach Adam but just not when God was present with them (under a tree).

  106. You know pinklight, I think you have hit on something profound. The church building represents God. And women cannot teach in the presence of God. She must not be clean enough to minister in the presence of God. Very profound, indeed.

    Now it is time to test all things by God’s word. What does it say?

  107. “Now it is time to test all things by God’s word. What does it say?”

    That women’s voices are filthy in church. 🙂

  108. But wasn’t that exactly what the Talmud did say? (well, okay, not the bit about the church, but about the woman’s voice being filthy. . . . )

  109. Just a quick response as i dont have much time. Gengwell i will give you a more detailed answer soon.

    I am astonished at the extent that people ignore the obvious. Both 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 ARE in the context of a formal type church gathering. Dave i said earlier how i see this in 1 Cor so please look there. Chapter 2 of Tim is a focus on public worship. Chapter 3 then goes on to give the qualifications for the church leaders. It is all about the ‘formal’ church. Perhaps try and read the text!

    Dave i have no doubts that Jesus is present when we meet together. In fact isn’t His spirit with us ALL the time. The point is clear, both the passages above are in the context of a more formal church gathering, and that is where Paul restricts the women from teaching. Dave your quote of Jesus shows little but an ignoring of the context of passages. PLease show me FROM the passages how this is NOT a formal type church gathering context?

    Cheryl, the reference to creation doesnt cause a problem for my view- rather the opposite. The reason only a man should be an elder/pastor/preaching is because the man is in effect the ‘head’ and this is to be shown in the body of believers and leadership. It is exactly the same way Paul uses creation in 1 Cor 11, to show that the husband is the head of the wife. I think the problem lies with your view. Why would PAul even bother talking about Genesis in either text if we are to accept the egalitarian position?
    Also your whole post #116 really shows me that you don’t look at the overall biblical picture and attepmt to disprove my position by trying to cram all information out of 1 small passage. Please give proper arguments or critiques.

  110. gengwell you asked of me

    “Mark – what is special about formal church that makes it a setting where women teaching is inappropirate when the identical teaching by a woman in other settings would be deemed appropriate? For example – why can your wife teach you at home, but cannot present the identical teaching to you in formal church? What are the specific differentiators of church vs. other contexts that disqualify women from teaching in church but allow them to teach in those other contexts?”

    First of all Paul differentiates. The teahcing restrictions are in the context fo a formal church so that is how i read it. Also the teaching that is presented at home, in studies etc ar not IDENTICAL to that presented in a church. Bible studies are about discussions not 1 person presenting the passage in an expository fashion. Again you are confusing everything in an attept to prove a point, but the reality is, the bible has differentiated such things.
    Phillip is evangelising to an un-converted Ethiopian. Paul does the same to Lydia. However this is not the purpose nor the context of 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy. Lets not confound all the scriptures all the time to always be saying the same thing.

    Paul resticts a woman in ‘church’, but admonishes us to be teaching and encouraging and be building each other up. I am simply obeying the bible.

  111. Mark,
    I don’t have much time right now, but in answer to your point about this being forbidden to women:

    1 person presenting the passage in an expository fashion.

    I have always taught in an expository fashion – verse by verse explaining the meaning in the passage as well as bringing up the cultural issues that affect the understanding of the early Christians. I have done this both in my home and at church at pastor’s invitation. Am I sinning against God because I teach in an expository fashion?

  112. “The point is clear, both the passages above are in the context of a more formal church gathering, and that is where Paul restricts the women from teaching.”

    Mark, Are you referring to the passage in 1 Corin 14 about women keeping silent in the church? If so, can you point us to the law Paul refers to?

  113. “First of all Paul differentiates. The teahcing restrictions are in the context fo a formal church so that is how i read it. Also the teaching that is presented at home, in studies etc ar not IDENTICAL to that presented in a church. Bible studies are about discussions not 1 person presenting the passage in an expository fashion. Again you are confusing everything in an attept to prove a point, but the reality is, the bible has differentiated such things.”

    Mark,
    I really, really would appreciate it if you would quote the exact phrases, words or verses in the chapters that show the context to be “a ‘formal’ church.” That would clarify our misunderstanding.

    And again, do you believe there is a minimum limit on the number of persons constituting “a formal church” gathering? If so, what is that number?

  114. There were no church buildings in Ephesus. Houses for Christian worship did not begin to be built until two hundred years after the days of Paul. No Christian church building was known until about 340 AD. Paul stayed with Lydia in her house. He and the rest of the new believers held ‘church’ in her home and possibly others, but no synogogue or church building is known to have existed there at that time. How can that not be ‘formal’ church? – they had no other choice. There was no St. Georges Presbyterian Church there, no First Baptist, no cathedral of any sort.

    Do you think our fellow believers in the underground Church of China, and places like it, are never really having “formal church”?

  115. Cheryl,
    Again you are playing semantic games with my words. If you have any legitimate claim to show that there is no difference between Pauls letters and Acts 16 for example please provide.

    Lin,
    I’m very familiar with the ‘supposed law’ arguments of 1 Cor 14. ATM it is not really my concern, perhaps a bit later. If you likewise have any supporting evidence to show that Paul is NOT addressing a formal gathering of believers please show me.

    Kay,
    1 Corinthians 14:26. Paul addresses when they ‘come together’. He rattles off hymn singing, word of instruction, revelation, toungues- “All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.” This is clearly instructions about the complete gathering of believers, ie formal church not about Paul evangelising to Lydia, not about 2 or 3 people gathering together in a bible study because such things are for the benefit for the church- all believers in Corinth. How can these things be strengthening for the church if only a few people are there? It is ridiculous to see this any other way.

    Regarding Timothy see my post above. Paul’s instructions are about corporate worship-formal gatherings and significantly who can/can’t teach, who can/can’t be elders/deacons.

    Also Kay you said
    “Paul stayed with Lydia in her house. He and the rest of the new believers held ‘church’ in her home and possibly others, but no synogogue or church building is known to have existed there at that time
    1. Where does it say in Acts 17 that they held church there with ‘possible others’?

    Quick question for Dave,
    You said this a while ago…
    “I think we first need to work out what each other is talking about, but at Ryde Pressie I am not sure if we have what you call a “formal”church meeting. It is one of the times during the average week that we meet together as a church. It is no more formal than what we call our “Small Church” meetings during the week, or what we call our “Kid’s Church”. Nor is it more formal than things we do where we have not attached the word “formal” – like our dvd night, our kid’s club and teens, or even my “open office” time each week where someone comes for a chat. All of these things are church, and they are all a part of Ryde Pressie church and the Body of Christ.”

    Just wondering when you have your ‘small church’ do you sing hymns, talk in toungues and prophecy? Do these things happen in your kids clubs, youth groups, even in your office. My i would be impressed if everytime your assistant pastor walks in you start singing hymns and prophecying together. The reality is 1 Corinthians 14 is addressing the ‘formal’ gathering of believers.

  116. Mark! You said

    “Both 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 ARE in the context of a formal type church gathering. Dave i said earlier how i see this in 1 Cor so please look there. Chapter 2 of Tim is a focus on public worship. Chapter 3 then goes on to give the qualifications for the church leaders. It is all about the ‘formal’ church. Perhaps try and read the text!”

    To just clarify, I have just attempted to read through all your comments and yes, you certainly do tell us how you see these texts, but you have never shown or indicated what in the passage causes you to draw the conclusions you draw. I have read the texts (thanks for your encouragement for me to read my Bible 😉 ) but I do not reach the same conclusions you do.

    Now I have suggested at least twice that the burden of proof is on you to show that scripture differentiates between different types of church settings. The burden is not on me to prove what is not there…just ask Athiests!

    What I can try and explain though is the Biblical concept that church is NOT dictated by what we do or by where we meet, but rather who it is that meets and for what purpose. Now, as you said, Jesus’ Spirit is with us all the time. That is correct. His Spirit is with you when you are alone, and when you are with others. The question is, when is Jesus with you in Spirit AND Body i.e. fully with you? Answer – when you are with at least one other Christian in Jesus’ name! It is then that Jesus is with you. Otherwise, what was the point of what Jesus said about when two or three gather together in his name? The church is his body.

    Mark, you have suggested that I have ignored the context of passages. I am always open to learning the truth, so please tell me what context I have ignored, I would like to know. Something I am confused by is how strongly you have spoken about people like me ignoring context and not reading the passage, and yet you have failed to bring forth one specific statement or an explanation of a context that allows you to let a woman teach a man everywhere but in a ‘formal’ church. To put it simply, I think you are trying to make a distinction that is not there!

  117. “Just wondering when you have your ‘small church’ do you sing hymns, talk in toungues and prophecy? Do these things happen in your kids clubs, youth groups, even in your office. My i would be impressed if everytime your assistant pastor walks in you start singing hymns and prophecying together. The reality is 1 Corinthians 14 is addressing the ‘formal’ gathering of believers.”

    Mark, are you suggesting that if you do not do ALL these things then it is not a ‘formal’ gathering? If this is the case then I am not sure if any church in the PCA ‘formally’ gathered today, because I do not imagine there was speaking in tongues in any of them.

    You would be surprised at what I would do if my assistant pastor walked in…I don’t have one, so if one walked in I might well go into ecstatic utterances!!

  118. “How can these things be strengthening for the church if only a few people are there? It is ridiculous to see this any other way.”

    So the whole church has to be there for it to be formal? You might need to wait for Jesus to return for this to happen. We were a bit down on numbers today 😉

    Mark, every time believers meet in the name of Jesus they should be an encouragement to one another (I know you know Hebrews 10:25). At different times the Body involves itself in different activities, usually depending on the gifts that people have when they meet – essentially as the Spirit leads.

    I posted before without realising you had…sorry…hope I have not done it again now…

  119. According to Gen 2 only Adam was instructed about the tree. IN gen 3 we know that Eve knew the command so we either must think Adam told her, or God told her. According to Cheryl’s video she believes God told her. Perhaps this could be true but is this not also an argument from silence, as the bible NEVER tells us that God spoke directly to Eve about the command. No where does Gen tell us that God commanded Eve…. about not eating the fruit. The natural flow of the passage is to assume it was Adam who instructed her. Does this then make Eve’s statement void? Not at all. Adam simply told Eve what God had told him. So i agree with the JW’s that is was more probable that Adam was the one who told Eve, but again i wouldn’t push the significance of this too far as the JW’s seem to have done. I wouldn’t say that God only communicated with the man.

    It is interesting that Eve introduces in 3:3 but “God did say”… even after telling the serpent in verse 2 something that God also told her- the account of Gen 1:29. Perhaps this is deliberately done by the author to emphasise a point. I noticed you didn’t discuss this in the video Cheryl. Should we assume in your view Cheryl that God didn’t say what Eve quotes in verse 2? It is also interesting that Eve follows the serpents lead by referring to Yahweh as ‘God’, not ‘Lord God’. Is this perhaps another subtle insight by the writer? Maybe it is discussed in later videos and i’m getting ahead of myself.

  120. “1. Where does it say in Acts 17 that they held church there with ‘possible others’?”
    “How can these things be strengthening for the church if only a few people are there? It is ridiculous to see this any other way.”

    Mark,
    I’m not seeing where I mentioned Acts17…but the ‘possible others’ I was thinking of were the Philippian jailer and his household ch.16.

    So, how do we determine when we have enough believers together to have “formal church”? Do you have a specific number in mind?

    If only a handful of people are gathered, don’t they need to be strengthened?
    Can you give one verse that specifies the number of believers that is necessary?

  121. Dave,

    no i am not saying we need to be speaking in tounges to be in a ‘formal’ church. The point is simple. The gathering of the assembly of believers i.e church is different to our other weekly so called ‘church’ things. You might like to say they are not, but the activities we do in each, indicates that they are.

    I agree that Jesus is with us in spirit and body because we are his body, but Paul is not addressing 2 brothers hanging out together. He’s giving instructions to the church, the ‘whole’ body of Corinth if i can put it that way.

    If you can’t see the differnet contexts of the bible regarding evangelism, mission, church then there isn’t much more i can say to help you. If you continue to think that 1 Cor could essentially be applied to you and me when we catch up for coffee thats fine, but i totally disagree.

  122. #129 Mark,

    You said:

    Again you are playing semantic games with my words. If you have any legitimate claim to show that there is no difference between Pauls letters and Acts 16 for example please provide.

    The difference between the assembly is that one is a Jewish assembly where the people needed the gospel preached to them and the other assembly of believers need the ministry of the body.

    I don’t understand your attributing to me “semantic games”. However I do appreciate your challenge to prove that there was an assembly of (Jewish) believers in Acts 16.

    Acts 16:13 (NASB) And on athe Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled.

    The fact is that the apostles had presuppositions. Their presupposition was that whenever there was no quota for a establish Jewish synogague, there would be a public meeting where the Jews would meet together for prayer and the reading of the Torah. This public meeting would be at a place outside of the city but also at a public place.

    John MacArthur, who is a strong complementarian, records these observations in his MacArthur Study Bible:

    16:13 to the riverside. Evidently, the Jewish community did not have the minimum of 10 Jewish men who were heads of households required to form a synagogue. In such cases, a place of prayer under the open sky and near a river or sea was adopted as a meeting place. Most likely this spot was located where the road leading out of the city crossed the Gangites River. women who met there. In further evidence of the small number of Jewish men, it was women who met to pray, read from the OT law, and discuss what they read.

    Prayer, reading of the bible, and biblical discussion were considered a proper Jewish assembly although it was an unathorized synagogue since it was only women without 10 qualified men to establish a Synagogue. So it was a bonafide outdoor assembly of believers (Jewish ones who apparently feared God since they accepted the gospel).

    Since the Jewish people were used to these kinds of assemblies and the Christians were mostly Jews in the beginning, it would have been logical for them to meet just as they did before for assemblies of believers with the women praying, reading the Word and giving their discussions on that Word. Paul also gave women the right to speak forth concerning the Word of God in these assemblies. He never forbid women to speak God’s Word.

    Since you, yourself, have said that 1 Cor. 14 is a formal gathering of the church and since the women were allowed to speak forth the Word of God, what do you base your reasoning that women may not give a verse by verse explanation of God’s word in the assembly?

    I agree with Dave that I have yet to see you actually get into the text and use it to give your reasoning. You see to want to remain with generalizations while we are digging into the text. Is there a reason for your hesitation? Is your conscience perhaps bothering you that if you discuss a particular text and listen to our (women’s) interpretation that you might be sinning?

  123. “1 Corinthians 14:26. Paul addresses when they ‘come together’. He rattles off hymn singing, word of instruction, revelation, toungues- “All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.”

    Mark,
    So, are you saying that you understand this passage to mean that ALL these things he lists must be done each time during the gathering of believers in order for it to be a “formal church”?

  124. Kay,

    sorry i did mean chapter 16- thanks for spotting my mistake. NOne the less you didn’t answer my question where does it even talk about church in that chapter. Since you didn’t respond i’m assuming you relalise you were reading into the text a ‘church’ that was mentioned.
    Interestingly about the Phillipian Jailer, Paul went back to his house aswell and baptised him and his household aswell. Was this church aswell? Was there then 2 churches within the space of a few days in Phillipi? One at Lydia’s and one at the Jailers?

    I’m not suggesting a certain number needs to be present for ‘church’. But the activities we do in a gathered assembly is different to other situations and again Paul is addressing the gathered assembly.

  125. Kay,
    again no that is not what i am suggesting, but it was what was happening at the ‘formal’ church in Corinth at that time, because their church had those gifts.

    Are you denying that the context i’m providing is NOT addressing the gathered body?

  126. Mark,
    You said:

    According to Gen 2 only Adam was instructed about the tree. IN gen 3 we know that Eve knew the command so we either must think Adam told her, or God told her. According to Cheryl’s video she believes God told her. Perhaps this could be true but is this not also an argument from silence, as the bible NEVER tells us that God spoke directly to Eve about the command.

    How could this be an argument from silence since Eve said “God said”. It would certainly be an argument from silence if you believe that “Adam said” because no one refers to that. But “God said” is either the truth and God indeed did tell her, or she lied. Which do you prefer? If she lied, for what reason did she lie? Who tempted her to lie? Why wasn’t she corrected by God?

    Perhaps this could be true

    It is the ONLY evidence that we have about who told Eve. I think that it is wise to believe Eve.

    the bible NEVER tells us that God spoke directly to Eve about the command.

    That is not true. What you perhaps mean is that God isn’t quoted directly. He is quoted indirectly and this is good enough to say that God spoke to Eve.

    No where does Gen tell us that God commanded Eve…. about not eating the fruit. The natural flow of the passage is to assume it was Adam who instructed her.

    If God would have told her only the exact same food to eat as He told Adam (He spoke to her and gave her additional foods to eat in addition to what He had said to Adam), and we ignored Eve’s claim that God said, there is still the problem of the additional information that God gave to Eve that is not directly quoted to Adam in chapter 2. Either “God said” this to Eve just as He also spoke to them both and gave them additional foods to eat outside of what He gave to Adam or Eve is a liar because there is no evidence that Adam told Eve that she couldn’t touch the fruit. But Eve said “God said” and I believe her.

    The natural flow of the passage is to assume it was Adam who instructed her.

    It isn’t natural at all unless one assumes that God wouldn’t stoop to speak to a woman. And we would also have to assume that Eve lied. I don’t think that this is the natural flow of the passage because it would be really hard to prove that Eve sinned before she ate the fruit.

    Adam simply told Eve what God had told him. So i agree with the JW’s that is was more probable that Adam was the one who told Eve, but again i wouldn’t push the significance of this too far as the JW’s seem to have done. I wouldn’t say that God only communicated with the man.

    You are giving me your opinion, but you will have to deal with the fact of the additional instruction by God and where this came from because it isn’t quoted in chapter 2. I am very grateful that you admit that God only communicated with the man. Now with admitting this fact, can you see any reason why God would directly tell Eve what she could eat but fail to tell her what she could not eat?

    Okay I am going to start another comment here so that this one isn’t too long.

  127. Cheryl,

    your comment #137 is a whole lot of assumptions which is not in the text of Acts 16. Frankly i don’t see how you read out of Acts 16 that women were aloud to bring forth the word of God. Also i don’t see how that has any connection to what Paul is addressing in 1 Cor 14.

    Frankly i have shown why i believe a woman should not preach in the church. I’m not really sure what else you expect of me to show.

  128. Mark,

    Perhaps this is deliberately done by the author to emphasise a point. I noticed you didn’t discuss this in the video Cheryl. Should we assume in your view Cheryl that God didn’t say what Eve quotes in verse 2?

    Mark I think you misunderstand me again. I am not saying that God didn’t say those words to Eve. I am saying that Eve quoted God. She didn’t paraphrase Him by saying “God told me” she simply said “God said” and she quoted exactly what he told her. I believe her. Do you have any reason to charge Eve with sin. I think that you should have a look at clip number 4 to get the full picture. It may clear up any misunderstanding that you may have about what I am claiming.

    It is also interesting that Eve follows the serpents lead by referring to Yahweh as ‘God’, not ‘Lord God’. Is this perhaps another subtle insight by the writer? Maybe it is discussed in later videos and i’m getting ahead of myself.

    God wasn’t called by Yahweh God until much later in the history of mankind. Eve did not know this term.

  129. “Interestingly about the Phillipian Jailer, Paul went back to his house aswell and baptised him and his household aswell. Was this church aswell? Was there then 2 churches within the space of a few days in Phillipi? One at Lydia’s and one at the Jailers?”

    Mark,
    I thought we had established many comments back that the Believers are the church. Not buildings with certain numbers of parishoners in them. Didn’t we? 🙂

    Perhaps they remained separate congregations or perhaps Lydia’s and the Jailer’s households met together, we do not know, I agree.

    But, what would keep either group from being the Church whether God had them remain separate or joined? Either way, it’s the people who are the Church.

  130. Cheryl,

    Is it not legitimate for Eve to say “God said” if it was Adam who told her what God said- i don’t think so, it is still God saying it.

    ” But “God said” is either the truth and God indeed did tell her, or she lied.”

    She is not lying if Adam told her what God said. You are disregarding this possiblity. It could be equally true and not make Eve a liar nor make her a sinner before the fall.

    “If God would have told her only the exact same food to eat as He told Adam (He spoke to her and gave her additional foods to eat in addition to what He had said to Adam), and we ignored Eve’s claim that God said, there is still the problem of the additional information that God gave to Eve that is not directly quoted to Adam in chapter 2.”

    So you believe Cheryl that God gave Eve some ‘extra’ information, is this correct? Can you explain more for me what you mean by this.

    “It isn’t natural at all unless one assumes that God wouldn’t stoop to speak to a woman”

    This is barely worth commenting on because you know this is not what i believe. God gives instructions to 1 person all the time, to pass on to others i.e preaching, prophecy, toungues

  131. Mark,
    You said:

    your comment #137 is a whole lot of assumptions which is not in the text of Acts 16. Frankly i don’t see how you read out of Acts 16 that women were aloud to bring forth the word of God. Also i don’t see how that has any connection to what Paul is addressing in 1 Cor 14.

    Actually I quoted from John MacArthur, a complementarian, in his MacArthur Study Bible and he gave the exact same interpretation as I did. I am wondering if you have a problem with having a complementarian agree with me that women were reading and commenting on the Bible in a public Jewish assembly?

    Now I understand that you may not like that. Sure, that’s fine. But when a complementarian agrees that this is what is going on in a public Jewish assembly, you might want to think about why you are threatened by that. Neither John nor I are claiming that it was a Christian assembly by the river. But it was a public gathering where women were leading in prayer and bible reading.

    Frankly i have shown why i believe a woman should not preach in the church. I’m not really sure what else you expect of me to show.

    You have given us your opinion. What I would actually like is a verse by verse exegesis of the passage that shows where you get your view from in the context. I don’t have a hard time doing that. I do it all the time and I trust the Scriptures.

    It is okay if you don’t want to do that. I am not going to push you, but perhaps you could just tell us that you decline to exegete the passage for us.

  132. “If you continue to think that 1 Cor could essentially be applied to you and me when we catch up for coffee thats fine, but i totally disagree.”

    Well, for starters we would need to drink coffee in Jesus’ name 🙂

    So, Mark, it is ok when we meet for this coffee for you to speak in tongues without me interpreting? After all, it is not formal church, and according to you these passages only provide rules for formal church.

    Mark, I understand fully where you are coming from. When I was at the PTC I was told there was a list of ingredients for church to be church. I am not new to this thinking, I just do not agree. Sometimes we will do some of these things, other times we will not, but if you attempt to make a definite list of what must be done each time then you end up in a mess. After all, some things in the list require the Holy Spirit to move. The problem this leaves you with is what are your rules for when a woman can and cannot teach a man?

    Something I did not learn at Bible College was the way the Body works in the little things. I believe that in our church it is very much what happens in the smaller meetings and during the less formal atmosphere that the real work of the Spirit and the body takes place. When I listen to someone over a cup of coffee how they are struggling with addiction, and remind them of the love and forgiveness and freedom found in Jesus – this is Church! It mightr involve prayer, looking at specific Bible verses, investigating what they say…

  133. “again no that is not what i am suggesting, but it was what was happening at the ‘formal’ church in Corinth at that time, because their church had those gifts.
    Are you denying that the context i’m providing is NOT addressing the gathered body?”

    Mark,
    Yes, I agree, it is a gathering of the Body.
    So, then only some parts of what Paul tells the Corinthian church is for us, since we don’t meet the same gifts criteria?
    Then, how do we determine which parts are for us?

  134. Cheryl,

    “I am saying that Eve quoted God. She didn’t paraphrase Him by saying “God told me” she simply said “God said” and she quoted exactly what he told her. ”

    No, she misquoted God by introducing the words “and you must not touch it”.

    I think also you missed my point. In 3:2 she tells the serpent what we see in Gen 1:29, but then introduces verse 3 with “but God did say”… Did God not say what was in verse 2? OF course he did, but that subtle “but God did say” which was actually NOT what God did say is something significant.

    Regarding whether or not she knew the term Yahweh is insignificant. Of course she didn’t, that wasn’t known till God revelaed his name to Moses. But none the less, the writer of Genesis is using it in the early chapters of Gen, and the ‘Lord’ is dropped first by the serpent, then by Eve. You need to better to reconcile this than just dismiss that Eve didn’t know the term.

  135. Mark, I am glad that you are still keeping up with us! Again, I think it would be good to do clips 3 & 4 together.

    Is it not legitimate for Eve to say “God said” if it was Adam who told her what God said- i don’t think so, it is still God saying it.

    The grammar would have to change for that. The way the inspired text is written, Eve is quoting God directly. If Adam had told her what God said, how would she be able to quote God directly? Rather she would have said, “God told Adam” or “Adam said” but she certainly could not quote God is God had not spoken directly to her. It isn’t possible for the grammar to add in an intermediary in the mix. It is a direct quote.

    She is not lying if Adam told her what God said. You are disregarding this possiblity. It could be equally true and not make Eve a liar nor make her a sinner before the fall.

    But God didn’t say this to Adam in chapter 2. Did Adam lie? Or did God tell them both what they could and couldn’t eat in chapter 1? If He told them both, just as the told the both additional things that they could eat, it would not be necessary for Adam to tell Eve because she was there too to hear God.

    The most natural flow of the passage is that God spoke to Eve directly at the time when He told them both additions on what they could eat. There is no natural flow that would create an indirect quote from God through Adam. The grammar won’t allow that.

    Why is it so easy for you to have God give Adam additional information than what is quoted in chapter 2 but not have God also give Eve this information? Is it possible that you have a little bit of prejudice towards the woman thinking that Adam alone deserved to hear the command directly from God and Eve did not?

    On to the next comment.

  136. Cheryl,

    I don’t have a problem with the Jewish context outlined by MacCarthur, but i fail to see how you can link this as a ‘church’ the same as Corinthians.

    I’m happy to do exegesis for you, but i thought we were trying to discuss the videos? The issue remains that i have shown that these 2 texts are addressing a formal type setting, and no one has been able to show otherwise from these texts.

  137. Mark,

    So you believe Cheryl that God gave Eve some ‘extra’ information, is this correct? Can you explain more for me what you mean by this.

    Sure. Thanks for asking!

    In chapter 2 God spoke to Adam directly and told him that he could eat the fruit from any tree except for one.

    One of the new things is in chapter 1 when God spoke to both Adam and Eve, He gave the additional information that they could eat from every plant on the face of the earth that had that yields seeds in addition to the fruit from the trees that yielded seeds. He did not say these things to Adam originally but added these things when they were together.

    This is barely worth commenting on because you know this is not what i believe.

    Actually I don’t know you well enough to know what you do and don’t believe about Genesis. But thanks for educating me, I always appreciate these discussions!

    God gives instructions to 1 person all the time, to pass on to others i.e preaching, prophecy, toungues

    I don’t think that God only speaks to one person. It is already proven that God spoke to Eve in Genesis 1 so the issue is whether he gave her the full meal deal or kept her in the dark about what she couldn’t eat. If you move on to clip number 4, I won’t have to type so much! 😉

  138. “No, she misquoted God by introducing the words “and you must not touch it”.

    Isn’t saying that God said something He did not say a lie?

  139. Mark, Mark, Mark, what are we to do with you?

    No, she misquoted God by introducing the words “and you must not touch it”.

    My friend, no one, not a single soul in the Bible said that Eve misquoted God. That is not true. She quoted God accurately and God did not correct either a lie or a misquote. There is no evidence at all that this was a misquote. It is a faulty tradition in the church.

    If you could just finish listening to the rest of the clips, I think you will have a larger context of the proof. Are you game? Oh my goodness, or can you only take a little bit of me at a time? 😉

    I would think that if you can read what I text, you can listen too. Go ahead and finish listening.

    I think also you missed my point. In 3:2 she tells the serpent what we see in Gen 1:29, but then introduces verse 3 with “but God did say”… Did God not say what was in verse 2?

    Verse two is a paraphrase because Eve says “we”. But then she changes to the direct quote and says “you”. If she was quoting Adam she would say “we may not touch the fruit”, but the exact quote is ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'”

    God said “You”, Eve’s first paraphrase says “we”. The quote comes exactly at the spot where Eve said “God said”. Does this clear things up?

    OF course he did, but that subtle “but God did say” which was actually NOT what God did say is something significant.

    God did say that they may eat from everything tree in the garden that had fruit that bears seeds. Every tree. The only tree that she couldn’t eat from was the one which had fruit which didn’t bear seeds. The one without life in it. But they were not to test that fruit. They had to take God by faith that this one tree did not have fruit with seeds in it.

    But none the less, the writer of Genesis is using it in the early chapters of Gen, and the ‘Lord’ is dropped first by the serpent, then by Eve. You need to better to reconcile this than just dismiss that Eve didn’t know the term.

    The writer of Genesis knew God as Yahweh. But there is nothing wrong in calling God as “God”. Unless you can show where this wasn’t allowed. God did not blame Eve for calling him “God” so I think this one has fallen to the ground too. Let’s not make an issue of something that God fails to make an issue of.

    Okay, on to the next comment.

  140. “In chapter 2 God spoke to Adam directly and told him that he could eat the fruit from any tree except for one.

    One of the new things is in chapter 1 when God spoke to both Adam and Eve, He gave the additional information that they could eat from every plant on the face of the earth that had that yields seeds in addition to the fruit from the trees that yielded seeds. He did not say these things to Adam originally but added these things when they were together.”

    I still don’t understand your position, but i will watch the video.

  141. “The issue remains that i have shown that these 2 texts are addressing a formal type setting, and no one has been able to show otherwise from these texts.”

    Mark,
    Even if they were a formal setting, we already established that it was directed at a specific group (the Corinthians) that had a different set of criteria and different set of problems than a church congregation today.
    I’m sure you are not suggesting that women should still cover their heads and several should speak in tongues and some should interpret. Right?

  142. Mark,
    You said:

    I don’t have a problem with the Jewish context outlined by MacCarthur, but i fail to see how you can link this as a ‘church’ the same as Corinthians.

    I didn’t say it was a “church”. I said that it was Jewish religious assembly. And my point is that if women did lead in these Jewish public assemblies and the Apostles were looking for such Jewish public assemblies and found one with the women leading, this is an excellent example that these women did not believe that God forbade them from leading in worship and the apostles did not correct them or reprimand them. You can agree with that, can’t you?

    I’m happy to do exegesis for you, but i thought we were trying to discuss the videos? The issue remains that i have shown that these 2 texts are addressing a formal type setting, and no one has been able to show otherwise from these texts.

    My video clips do not talk about “formal” settings and your term has not been defined by the context since you haven’t discussed an exegesis of the passage. Perhaps we can do that later.

    Go ahead and review the next clip and we can move on.

  143. OK video 4…

    I agree with you Cheryl regarding the Greek grammar. The JW’s are quite silly really to assume such a case as that. It seems quite evident they read alot of things very literally.

    But concerning the second point in the video i disagree. We need to keep in mind that Moses is writing this not Adam or Eve. He is writing for the Hebrews insprired by the Spirit to show them the origins of the world and the fall. Be careful not to read things to literally. Who were your anonymous quotes from by the way Cheryl? I do think Eve added to God’s word, but i do not think it was a sin nor was she a liar, because scripture testifies to her being ‘decieved’ at the fall. What i see in this passage is this.
    1. Moses, the writer of Genesis, when writing chapter 3 introduces some very subtle hints in the text. For example, the serpent refers to Yahweh as ‘God’ not ‘LORD God’. Why does the writer do this? Equally interesting is that Eve does the same thing? Is this a hint form the writer that Eve is beginning to listen to the serpent rather than the “LORD God’?
    2. She also adds “and you must not touch it”. Another subtle hint that Eve is further leaning toward the serpent rather than God.
    3. The serpent tells her she will not surely die, and so then she eats and then becomes sinful, despite being decieved by the serpent.

    I think this is the writers subtle hint to show us what happened in the garden, how Eve followed the serpent rather than God. She did add to the words of God, but under the deceptive influence and conversation with the serpent.

    Why would God give them the same command in chapter 1, but then give Adam and Eve seperate ones in chapters 2 and 3. In fact where does it even tell us that God commanded Eve anything about the tree of knowledge- it isn’t there?

    So Cheryl im sorry, but i must disagree on this point, although i do agree on the earlier Greek grammar issue with ‘anthropos’ and the masculine gender. I would really like you to consider why YHWH is dropped by the serpent and Eve in this passage a bit more rather than just dismissing it.

  144. Ahhhhh, Mark, you dragged me back. My floor needs washing! But I only came back to look….

    Here goes, and after this I really am leaving and turning off my computer so I don’t get tempted to look. 😉

    1. Moses was the human author, but GOD Almighty wrote Genesis. It is not only inspired, but no one could know of the details of creation without a direct revelation of God. Just as God gave Moses the inspired order of creation and all the things that happened before Adam was on the earth, so He too gave him the inspired conversation with God’s direct quote given by Eve.

    I guess you must be more on the liberal side, because I believe Genesis literally and I have seen the complete harmonization of Genesis creation account without contradiction and without error. I believe it and I believe God.

    As far as Yahweh God, the serpent nor Eve could have used the term or else God was a liar. He said:

    Exo 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.

    No one knew the name YAHWEH until much later when God revealed it. If the serpent and Eve had quoted that Divine name then the worldly would have known him and the patriarchs would have known Him by this name. And then God would have been a liar. But the truth of the matter is that God didn’t reveal His name and if it was in the early part of Genesis it would have been an inaccurate addition.

    2. She also adds “and you must not touch it”. Another subtle hint that Eve is further leaning toward the serpent rather than God.

    There is not one piece of evidence that Eve added these words to what God said. How could she have been “leaning toward the serpent” since the serpent didn’t ask her if she was not allowed to touch the fruit?

    3. The serpent tells her she will not surely die, and so then she eats and then becomes sinful, despite being decieved by the serpent.

    Not only did Eve not add to God’s words, but God would have sinned if He had not disciplined her. He says that those who add to His words will be found a liar. Eve was not found a liar and those who say that she added to God’s words have not a single piece of evidence to prove this fact. If we charged people with sin with no evidence how can they be found guilty? It is a sin to add to God’s words so either Eve was guilty before she ate the fruit or she did not add to His words. Which will it be? There was no temptation to add to God’s words. She quoted Him and God did not call her to task for this serious “sin”.

    Lastly you once again say that the serpent “dropped” God’s name of YHWH. This is simply not true. God had not given His name out so the talking serpent did not know it. Eve did not know it. It was God’s later revelation and so we cannot charge Eve with dropping the name “YHWH” when she clearly had never, ever heard that name before.

    I hope that you will continue to listen to the end and take the challenge that I give. I am praying that God will do a work in your heart that I cannot do. His spirit can cause you to think about the inspired Scriptures and turn aside from faulty tradition that has no witness for the prosecution.

    Okay, with that I am (really, really this time), over and out.

    Warmly and with God’s great grace,
    Cheryl

  145. Oops this original comment went missing…

    Okay, while Mark is watching the video clips, I am going to bow out for tonight. I have company coming tomorrow and yikes (!) my house isn’t clean yet. Naughty Cheryl needs to work into the night to prepare the food and clean the dust bunnies!

    I will join you later tomorrow night or as I am able when my company leaves.

    Blessings to all,
    and to all a good night!
    Cheryl

  146. spam word – vital

    In Genesis 3 the text itself shows the time when Eve was deceived which was when she went to eat because of how she saw the fruit. The text shows her deception through her eyes. That’s the evidence that shows at what time she became deceived which wasn’t when she was just answering the seprent’s question.

  147. When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

  148. Now video 5,
    Who exactly is the prosecution- JW or CBMW or both? That’s a side interest.

    Now the first thing to note is in Acts 18 it is ‘they’ who explain to Apollos. I’m sure you don’t dispute that Cheryl but your video very much emphasised that it was Priscilla.

    The second thing I want to comment on has to do with the CBMW quote you used. I can’t speak entirely for them but I’m not sure if you understood it properly. You entirely missed that the restriction is on the ‘ministry’ of the woman. They are not to teach a man doctrine or to exercise authority over a man IN A CHURCH. This is significant Cheryl; in fact it actually supports my view for understanding this passage. I felt you either missed this or dismissed this and focused on the ‘anytime, anyplace’ stuff without realising the context of their quote is in relation to the church. Now if I am correct in assuming they are looking at 1 Timothy in the church situation, then your whole argument against it with Priscilla falls to pieces, because you have mis-quoted from the beginning. But is this what CBMW were saying, am I quoting them right or is Cheryl quoting them right? From ‘Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’ pages 69-70

    “When Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent,” we do not understand him to mean an absolute prohibition (what you call a law here Cheryl) of all teaching by women…Then, of course, there is Priscilla at Aquila’s side correcting Apollos…If Paul did not have every conceivable form of teaching and learning in mind, what did he mean? Along with the fact that the setting here is the church assembly for prayer and teaching (1 Timothy 2:8-10; 3:15), the best clue is the coupling of “teaching’ with “having authority over men.” We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonour the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders.”

    So I really do think you mis-quoted them. Therefore your whole approach seems wrong. If you quote them wrong to begin with, your argument is hardly trustworthy nor persuasive. The whole approach to find a law in the Old Testament was not even relevant because they were not citing for such a law. So the question I pose it this Cheryl, Did you deliberately mis-quote them and pull small words out of the larger context or was it accidental?

  149. Pinklight,

    you brought up another good point. Eve saw it as desirable for gaining wisdom. She is listening to the lies of the serpent, edging closer to him and falling further from God. All before she even eats the fruit and becomes a ‘sinner’.

  150. Cheryl,

    Just cam across some interesting information while do some study for a philosophy exam…thought you might be intereseted and could comment. It is in regards to Eve’s conversation with the serpent.

    “First, she exaggerates the prohibition. God never commanded that they not touch the fruit (3:3). Second, she omits the name of the tree, that is, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Third, she adds to the commandment by giving the location of the tree “in the middle of the garden”. Fourth, the woman minimizes the penalty by saying “lest you die”, when in fact God had said “you shall surely die” (there is a double verb in Hebrew not present in the woman’s statement). And, finally, she minimizes her privileges by proclaiming “we may eat” of the fruit of the trees; God had said that they “may eat freely” from the trees (again a double verb appears for emphasis).”

    continuing on “He (serpent) saids “you will surely not die!” (3:4; note that the serpent uses the double v

  151. sorry pressed enter accidently

    …continuing on “He (serpent) saids “you will surely not die!” (3:4; note that the serpent uses the double verb when the woman does not). This is the lie from the beginning that Jesus refers to in John 8:44…She sees that the tree is “desirable”- the hebrew term used in the Ten Commandments of coveting (Ex 20:17).” ‘Revolutions in Worldview pg. 56-57’

    Cheryl, do you really think that the hebrew grammar can actually support your view? The conversation between Eve and the serpent gives us a worldview into the situation. There are subtle hints of her early distortion of the word of God.

    Let me share with you something a great Anglican man shared with me over here. “If you come across a ‘new’ teaching you’ve either been revealed to something no-one else has ever seen or more likely the teaching is wrong”. Unfortunately i feel your teaching here falls in the later category.

    Also you must be the first person to ever call me a liberal…interesting?

  152. Cheryl,

    Just another point for you to consider in reation to Yahweh not being in Eve’s language.

    You commented

    “As far as Yahweh God, the serpent nor Eve could have used the term or else God was a liar. He said:

    Exo 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.

    No one knew the name YAHWEH until much later when God revealed it. If the serpent and Eve had quoted that Divine name then the worldly would have known him and the patriarchs would have known Him by this name. And then God would have been a liar. But the truth of the matter is that God didn’t reveal His name and if it was in the early part of Genesis it would have been an inaccurate addition”

    Lets look at Gen 4 right after the fall. Let’s focus on verse 1 where Eve commented on Yahweh.

    “She said, “With the help of the LORD(YHWH) i have brought forth a man.””

    How do you attempt to get around this one? Is not Eve calling God Yahweh, the very name not given till Moses. According to your comment above God must be a liar! Perhaps you need to take a closer look at your position here on Genesis and dismiss the notion that Eve was given a seperate command that scripture does not record. The weight of biblical evidence is against you.

  153. “They are not to teach a man doctrine or to exercise authority over a man IN A CHURCH. ”

    So, in a formal church setting (whatever that is), can you tell me at what age boys becomes a men and women cannot teach them? I cannot find that reference in the NT. Would it be 12, 13 or perhaps 18?

    I think your side needs a Talmud so we can all know what is church and what isn’t. :o)

  154. Mark,

    Would this passage from 1 Corin 14 be considered ‘formal’ church:

    29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

    1. What human in the formal ‘church’ decides who are prophets?
    2. Who in the formal church gets to ‘judge’ what was said?
    3. It says ‘all’ can prophesy one by one. Is that allowed in your formal church or is one guy preaching to many?
    4. In this passage we can see that Paul thinks it is orderly to have many speak if they are quiet when others speak. Is your formal church doing this?

  155. Mark, Concerning your comments about Eve being told by Adam instead of God, why do you ignore what is said about this in Genesis 1?

  156. “you brought up another good point. Eve saw it as desirable for gaining wisdom. She is listening to the lies of the serpent, edging closer to him and falling further from God. All before she even eats the fruit and becomes a ’sinner’.”

    Yes, that’s how she saw the fruit, Mark because she is deceived at that point by the serpent’s lies. She had told God that the serpent deceived her. This was the truth that she was deceived by the serpent’s lies. It is not surprising how she saw the fruit then. Her being deceived isn’t what made her a sinner, eating was, but she ate because she was deceived. So this all still goes to show at what point she was deceived by the serpent which was the point when she started believing what the serpent told her.

  157. She ate because she believed the serpent’s lies while Adam on the other hand did not believe the lies about the fruit that the serpent told.

  158. Cheryl:“I am saying that Eve quoted God. She didn’t paraphrase Him by saying “God told me” she simply said “God said” and she quoted exactly what he told her. ”

    Mark:”No, she misquoted God by introducing the words “and you must not touch it”.

    Problem is Mark, the reason why she could not have misquoted God’s command given to Adam in Gen 2 is because when God speaks to Adam the “you” is singular and logicaly so. But when Eve quotes God she quotes God with the plural “you” since she is not quoting what God told Adam singularily as she wasn’t even created yet when God gave him the command, since there was no way for her to know what God commanded Adam. If she wanted to quote what God told Adam then she would of had to use the singular “you”. And the serpent did not even ask Eve what God commanded the man in the singular “you”. The serpent asked what God said about the both of them because the serpent too uses the plural “you”.

  159. Lin,
    Regarding your post # 169, remember that what i am saying is that i think Cheryl mis-quoted the CBMW. IF you don’t agree with me show me how she didn’t. If she has mis-quoted them, then her argument has failed from the beginning.
    You might think my view needs a Talmud, but all i am saying is this. Women should not teach in the gathered assemblies, it should be the resposiblilty of the pastor/elders who are to be men according to scripture. Seems pretty straight forward really.

    About your comment #170, i have already said that i don’t think the prophecying here should be considered the same as teaching. In fact the bible separates them as different spiritual gifts, and no my church doesn’t perform like that. We don’t have people prophecying and speaking in toungues because no one is gifted that way, but still the Corinthians did, and Paul is describing orderly worship conduct for the assembly when gathered together.

    Now about Genesis 1, i am not ignoring it. God did speak to both of them about what they could eat. Chapter 2 however reveals what they can’t eat. Chapter 2 is almost a zoomed in version of the creation account of humanity. We only have recorded that God spoke to Adam about what not to eat, so i’m following the bible here. It is most natural to assume Adam passed on the information to Eve. If Eve was given a ‘seperate’ command where is it recorded in the bible? Why is her command such a distortion from the one God gave to Adam? Anyone who supports Cheryl’s view here needs to reconcile these things.

    Pinklight,

    If you really believe what you are saying it is contradictory. Why, because what Eve saids, is not actually what God said to Adam-it is different. So we cannot claim an argument on the plural ‘you’ because the supposed 2 seperate commands given to Adam and Eve are actually different.
    So if Eve is saying that God said these things to her about both of them, how can that be. This is not what God told Adam. So if you stick to this argument you are actually saying Eve lied by telling the serpent that God had said these things to Adam aswell, and thus she is sinful before the fall.

    I think the greater weight of evidence lies in the ‘traditonal’ understanding of this scripture. The writer is subtly showing us how it was the Eve became deceived.

  160. “If you really believe what you are saying it is contradictory. Why, because what Eve saids, is not actually what God said to Adam-it is different.”

    Mark, “different” is not the same thing as a contradiction. What Eve said God said does not contradict what God said to Adam when Adam was alone. What God said to both of them in Gen 1 also does not contradict what God said to Adam when he was alone. So that all three commands are different doesn’t matter.

    Not only is there more given to eat, in Gen 1 (since Adam was only given garden trees vs all trees on the face of the earth) there is also more prohibtion when Eve quotes God. God can add and take away whenever he wants to.

  161. “This is not what God told Adam. So if you stick to this argument you are actually saying Eve lied by telling the serpent that God had said these things to Adam aswell, and thus she is sinful before the fall.”

    The prohibiton that Eve said God said in not what God originaly told Adam. So what. God didn’t originaly tell Adam he could eat from all the trees on the face of the whole earth either!

  162. God said what Eve said he did to Adam as well yes, but when they were together (!) since Eve is using the plural “you”.

  163. “Now about Genesis 1, i am not ignoring it. God did speak to both of them about what they could eat. Chapter 2 however reveals what they can’t eat.”

    On the timeline, chp 1 where God gives both food to eat (fruit with seed from trees on the face of the entire earth) comes after God commanded Adam when he was alone. Gen 1 which says that they can only eat fruit with seed reveals what they cannot eat – fruit without seed.

    “If Eve was given a ‘seperate’ command where is it recorded in the bible?”

    She was not given a seperate command alone at some point when she was not with Adam – because she says God commanded THEM (plural “you”).

    “Why is her command such a distortion from the one God gave to Adam? Anyone who supports Cheryl’s view here needs to reconcile these things.”

    Without a contradiction there is nothign to reconcile. “Difference” is far from what a contradiction is.

  164. So pinklight,

    so essentially you are saying that the command we have recorded given to Adam by God doesn’t really count, because at some other time which is not recorded, God gave them both another command which was similar to the first but with all this extra stuff? Is this what you are saying? I’m not sure whether Cheryl thinks this new command was given to both or to just Eve, perhaps she can comment? Therefore you don’t need to reconcile the differences? Why do we even bother having the command given to Adam with such a view? I think you need to better than this to reconcile your view. You have not discussed why Yahweh is dropped by the serpent and Eve, nor have you discussed the grammer of the double verbs which are used for emphasis.

    This whole argument is based on theories of some conversation we do not even have recorded

  165. Mark,

    Why is it natural to assume that Adam would inform Eve about the fruit and not God? Do you think God would not want to talk to his daughter, but just his Son?

    How do you deal Mark with there being two different 10 commandments recorded in the OT? Off topic? Don’t think so 😉

  166. “Regarding your post # 169, remember that what i am saying is that i think Cheryl mis-quoted the CBMW”

    Mark, if there is one thing I do know for a fact it is that most people do not really know what all CBMW is teaching. One reason is because many of their contributors teach in quite a few venues. And the list of legalisms for comp/pat is so long no one can keep up!

    We have to assume that CBMW affirms their teaching on this same subject in other venues. Did you ever read the CBMW article that talks about male headship in heaven? That is right! You heard it right. They have all kinds of Mormonistic and JW type of teaching over there. Did you read the article where Piper says that if a woman is working in a secular job and has male reports that she should never command them to do tasks. She must ‘suggest’ so it would not appear she is directing a man to do anything? Catch that one?

    “You might think my view needs a Talmud, but all i am saying is this. Women should not teach in the gathered assemblies, it should be the resposiblilty of the pastor/elders who are to be men according to scripture. Seems pretty straight forward really.”

    Where does it say men only? To get that definition one would also have to believe that it means no single men or married men without kids. You think it means that, too?

    It really is not straightforward when one looks at the context within the entire Word and the Inspired grammar. I do believe the Word is inerrant but I do not think translators are inerrant.

    What about the age thing? At what age should a boy be that a woman is not allowed to teach him?

    And what exactly makes a formal and informal gathered assembly according to 1 Corinithians? Is there an example of an informal assembly somewhere in the NT so we can understand better?

  167. Dave ,
    I think it is natural to assume Adam told Eve because we only have 1 account where God commands anything in regards to not eating from the tree of knowledge. Perhaps God did speak to Eve about it at another time, but there is no biblical record of that, so im more comfortable going with what’s there. Your second question seems abit silly really. Of course God can talk to his ‘daughter’ too. There is just no record of it, so why are we saying He did.

    I’m assuming your refering to Exodus 20, and Deut 5, but i’m not really sure what you are suggesting/asking? Can you clarify?

    I see that your also swerving the grammatical issues of Cheryl’s in the early chapters of Genesis. Can you explain how you see these chapters?

  168. Lin,

    I’m assuming you dis-agree with me about Cheryl mis-quoting CBMW? You seem to wash this off by saying ‘who knows what they teach’ essentially. I’m not surprised really.

    But let’s be honest, one cannot argue as Cheryl did in the video if she was wrong to begin with. That’s the truth of the matter. If she did mis-quote them, and im still waiting to here what Cheryl thinks about this, her argument is invalid and essentially untrustworthy.

    If people really are interested in the ‘truth’ perhaps lets try and be honest when we make mistakes.

  169. “Your second question seems abit silly really. Of course God can talk to his ‘daughter’ too. There is just no record of it, so why are we saying He did.”

    Sorry to appear a bit silly, but some think that there was a chain in command thing happening, I was just wondering if you shared that view. At the same time, just because there is no record of it does nto mean that he didn’t. When you say no record of it, how do you explain the plural “You”. Also, if we only go with the command given to Adam, then why could Eve not eat of the fruit? It would be adding to the command to say Eve could not as it was only directed at Adam. Surely she had to have been told by God or at least God must have given further instructions to Adam to pass on that we are not told about. God never said to Adam to tell Eve about it, to tell Eve that she shouldn’t according to chapter 2.

    I was referring to Exodus 20 and Exodus 34. My point is that not all the commandments are the same. There are two new tablets and the covenant is renewed and some of the commands are the same, and there are 10 commands…but they are not all the same. So, was there something God said regarding the “law” that we are not told about? Or do we assume that Moses is decieved and got the second lot wrong? Or is there more info we do not have? Or is our understanding of the law fundamentally wrong?

    I am not “swerving” anything! As I cannot view the videos I can only involve myself in the conversation at a level that the discussion makes appropriate. I do hope to view them eventually, but I am sure Cheryl will deal with the issue before then. Also, Hebrew grammar was never my strongpoint! Perhaps that is swerving? 😉

  170. Mark,

    There have been a lot of comments here that I have missed since I was gone. I will try to catch up from here and there, maybe not in order.

    First of all, you keeping saying things like:

    Perhaps God did speak to Eve about it at another time, but there is no biblical record of that, so im more comfortable going with what’s there.

    Why are you saying that there is no Biblical record of God talking to Eve? Just because it isn’t a narrator saying, “And God said…” doesn’t mean that we don’t have a record of the event. Eve quotes God directly using the words that He spoke to her. She used the term “you” (plural) instead of “we” or “us” as if it was Adam who passed on the command. Since her record of the event is the Biblical record unless her testimony is impugned by proper evidence that she is telling a lie, then we must accept that Eve told the truth and her quote of God’s words to her and Adam are the Biblical record of the event.

    It appears to me that you have already indicted Eve for sin that has not been proven, which is exactly what the “court case” was about from my speech. All I am asking you for is the biblical evidence for her sin. I will shortly deal with the things that you have said that have nothing to do with sin.

    By the way you did ask who were the two anonymous people who I quoted regarding comments on my DVD series. The first one was a Southern Baptist pastor who wrote me after seeing the DVDs and he was very convicted about the way that he had treated women. He repented of his attitude and felt that I needed to know.

    The second quote was also from a pastor. This pastor is in a denomination that does not let women lead Bible studies where men are students. For him to make a public change of his position would have caused him to be removed from his position as pastor in the denomination. I have kept both pastor’s names out of the public realm as I do not want to cause either one of them trouble. They will need to make a move on their own and in their own time.

  171. Mark,

    Regarding whether or not she knew the term Yahweh is insignificant. Of course she didn’t, that wasn’t known till God revelaed his name to Moses. But none the less, the writer of Genesis is using it in the early chapters of Gen, and the ‘Lord’ is dropped first by the serpent, then by Eve. You need to better to reconcile this than just dismiss that Eve didn’t know the term.

    First of all, I need to note that Abraham did not have the OT Bible so Genesis had not been written so God indeed was telling the truth when He said that He did not reveal His name to him. However I was wrong to think that God couldn’t have revealed himself to Eve this way and Mark you have pointed out a verse that I had not paid attention to – Genesis 4:1. It is clear from the Scriptures that Eve did have God’s revelation about His name as she used it in faith believing God that He was indeed going to bring the deliverer through her. It is an amazing thing for some that God would reveal His name to a woman when He had not revealed Himself by this name to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Amazing that a woman got this revelation and yet they did not!

    But what about her calling him only “God” when the serpent talked to her? Is this showing that she was taking the side of the serpent against God? Of course not. It is an invalid point unless you want to claim that Moses was also taking the side of the serpent.

    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    Gen 1:2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
    Gen 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
    Gen 1:4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

    “LORD God” doesn’t even show up until Genesis 2:4. Up until then Moses just calls him “God”. Moses was not aligning himself against God or for the serpent by calling God as “God” and since Genesis is fully inspired, God apparently has no problem in inspiring this name for Himself.

    It would be reading into the account that Eve was against God and siding with the serpent just by her calling God as “God”. There is no charge of sin for this and it is completely invalid.

    No, she misquoted God by introducing the words “and you must not touch it”.

    There is no claim in the Bible that this witness misquoted God. In fact requiring Adam and Eve not to touch the fruit was demanding an act of faith on their behalf because in chapter 1 God gives them permission to eat from every tree that has seed bearing fruit. That means that if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had seed bearing fruit, then they were given permission to eat from it. But since God told them that they were not allowed to eat from this tree then they knew that it must not have seed bearing fruit yet they must not touch it to test the fruit themselves. They had to believe God that this fruit did not have life within it without testing to see if that was true.

    Tradition says that women are not to be trusted as witnesses but God not only made Eve a witness (she gave God’s command not to touch the fruit), He also made women the first witnesses of the resurrection. It is an amazing thing that we can accept the women’s testimony of the resurrection yet so many of us fail to believe God’s first witness. We have been taught that Eve either lied or that arbitrarily added to His word (which is a serious sin) without any evidence that her testimony was found to be a lie by God Himself. We believe men’s tradition rather than God’s word. I think that it is time to believe God that He will find as liars those who add to His word and the fact that He did not find Eve to be a liar makes God the key witness that Eve was not a sinner before she ate the fruit.

  172. Mark,
    You asked:

    Now video 5,
    Who exactly is the prosecution- JW or CBMW or both?

    “Human tradition” is the real prosecution with the JW brand of tradition contributing all of the charges except the last one and with CBMW’s brand of tradition agreeing with the JW’s on some of the charges and adding the last charge of their own.

    Now the first thing to note is in Acts 18 it is ‘they’ who explain to Apollos. I’m sure you don’t dispute that Cheryl but your video very much emphasised that it was Priscilla.

    While most scholars believe that Priscilla was the main teacher of the two as Luke breaks tradition by listing her name first in Acts 18:26 where the corrective teaching is introduced, the fact that she is listed as a woman correcting and teaching a man is the key point that must be emphasized. If she knew the OT Scriptures forbid a woman from teaching a man (and no such law has been found in God’s law) she surely would not have taught Apollos. The fact that she was free to teach a man and correct his errors goes against CBMW’s rules that say that a woman cannot do things in a way that is teaching him. She has to be careful even in giving direction to a lost motorist in case she might be found teaching him.

    The second thing I want to comment on has to do with the CBMW quote you used. I can’t speak entirely for them but I’m not sure if you understood it properly.

    Well, I am glad that you realize that you can’t speak for them. I did have communication with them regarding the material that I put into my DVD set and they requested a review copy. They have never corrected me on the DVD or told me that I didn’t understand them properly. In fact in email communication they made it very clear that even in a home bible study a woman is not allowed to be the Bible teacher. She may comment at the study and she may even give her Bible views but she cannot be the Bible teacher.

    I asked CBMW if a man can watch a woman teaching the bible on DVD and they said that he may watch her however he is not allowed to gather with his other male friends and watch a woman teaching on DVD because the would be seen as if she is their Bible teacher and this is forbidden by the Scriptures.

    Since I have had direct communication with CBMW and have not been corrected on my understanding of their view, then perhaps it is you that misunderstands. CBMW restricts women far beyond being a pastor or elder. She may not be a Bible teacher to men even in her own home. Unless I misunderstood what you have written here on this blog, this would put CBMW and yourself at odds regarding women teaching Bible studies to men.

    You entirely missed that the restriction is on the ‘ministry’ of the woman. They are not to teach a man doctrine or to exercise authority over a man IN A CHURCH. This is significant Cheryl; in fact it actually supports my view for understanding this passage.

    Mark, what you fail to realize is that CBMW believes as we do that “church” is not necessarily in a building but wherever Christians gather together in Jesus name. We are the church. IT is not a building. They realize this so they forbid a woman from teaching other believers if they are male believers even if she is teaching them in her home and not in a church building. This is why they can easily say that a woman is not allowed to teach men in any place, at any time for any reason.

    We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonour the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders.”

    This is CBMW’s position. Women are not allowed to teach men in “settings” or “ways” that dishonor the calling of men to be the teachers and leaders. A “setting” of Bible study in a home is not allowed for a woman to teach men. She may facilitate the bible study by asking questions but she may not be the teaching of the study. If you think that your position that it is only in a “formal” setting in a church, then my friend, you are going to be very surprised. I recommend that you send them an email and ask them if a woman may teach the bible verse by verse to men in a bible study in her home. They will tell you that she is not allowed to be the bible teacher of a man even in her own home.

    So I really do think you mis-quoted them. Therefore your whole approach seems wrong.

    Mark, what are you going to do when you find out that I have not misquoted them and that they do forbid women from teaching the bible to men in a home setting? Are you going to do something about this or are you going to say nothing and let men restrict women’s teaching in ways that you do not believe the Bible restricts women? Are you willing to stand up and defend women bible teachers? Or are you going to be silent?

  173. Mark,
    To carry on with your questions:

    If you quote them wrong to begin with, your argument is hardly trustworthy nor persuasive. The whole approach to find a law in the Old Testament was not even relevant because they were not citing for such a law.

    First of all, Mark, let me tell you that I do my homework. I went right to the source with CBMW. I also gave them a first run copy of the DVD set so that if they felt that I had not quoted them correctly then they could correct me before the DVDs were replicated. I received no such correction. I think that is an important point regarding my integrity. Are you willing to admit that it is a very honorable thing to go to the source and submit your work for their evaluation? There are lots of people these days who are unwilling to do that. I am not saying that everyone should. I am just saying that this is what I did. I think that you should be willing to commend me for that.

    Also, I chose to send my DVDs to complementarians first before they were publicly released so that if they found errors that needed correcting, that I would be corrected by the opposition before I went public. The second anonymous Pastor that I quoted on my youtube videos was one that agreed to be one who would test me for errors. He thought that my work on the hard passages on women would be easy to blow off. He was very surprised at the quality of the work and as he said, it really stretched him. He was not able to poke holes in my argument and he felt that he needed help. He received 5 additional copies of the DVDs to give to his fellow pastors and theologians to see if they were able to help him refute the material. None of them had even a word of correction (they were all complementarians) and the common response that he got back was that the DVDs were well done.

    Another complementarian pastor who helped me with the Greek was also concerned that I would be loving and kind to the opposition. I told him that I intended to treat my Christian brothers with respect and this comp pastor was the very first to receive the DVDs for a critique. This is what he wrote as a public recommendation for my DVDs:

    The story of creation tells us that both man and woman were made in the image of God. All people are given intrinsic value in the miraculous act of creation, and all people are loved passionately by God, regardless of gender, race, age, education, economics, etc. However, though men and women are equal in value and purpose in God’s eyes, there are passages in the Bible that raise the question of whether or not God limits the roles that are available to women in a local church family. Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free examines this question in a thoughtful and persuasive way. Through clear, concise teaching and multimedia, this series provides an excellent presentation of the arguments in favor of a woman’s freedom to serve in all roles of Christian leadership according to God’s leading. Though I disagree with the theological conclusions of this series at several points, I found the series very helpful in understanding the issues involved from a different perspective. Without a doubt, the presentation is offered with tremendous respect, integrity, and grace.
    -Dr. Scott Heine, Compass Church, Goodyear, Arizona

    In private he told me that he was very glad that we had met and he considered me his friend. I have great respect for Dr. Heine and especially that he would be willing to let his name stand in a public way in support of the integrity of my work.

  174. Mark,
    You wrote:

    Pinklight,

    you brought up another good point. Eve saw it as desirable for gaining wisdom. She is listening to the lies of the serpent, edging closer to him and falling further from God. All before she even eats the fruit and becomes a ‘sinner’.

    Being deceived is very serious but it is not a sin unless there is an action taken. When Eve was talking with the serpent, she was not yet deceived and in sin until she looked at the fruit and started to doubt God.

    Remember that God told her that the food that was permissible for them was only the fruit that had seeds? Her deception gave birth to unbelief when she looked at the fruit and judged it “good for food” by looking at the outside. She did not test it by the life giving seed even once she disobeyed God by touching the fruit. She tested the fruit by the lie and she fell into transgression. When you place Eve’s sin further back by removing LORD from God’s name, or by adding to God’s words, you are judging her as a sinner before she ate the fruit. Tradition that is faulty will blind our minds from seeing the truth of God’s words and cause us to be in unbelief about the innocence of Eve as a witness for God.

  175. Mark,

    First, she exaggerates the prohibition. God never commanded that they not touch the fruit (3:3). Second, she omits the name of the tree, that is, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

    This is tradition. Just as God spoke additional things to Adam and Eve in chapter 1, God also identified the tree in a different way to Adam and Eve. He identified the specific tree to them by location. When God spoke to Adam, He did not identify the trees location. However just as pinklight has said, there is no contradiction at all in what God said. He said it in different ways and at different times, but the things that He said in chapter 1 and the things that He said to Adam and Eve that Eve quotes in chapter 3 do not contradict what God said to Adam in chapter 2.

    Fourth, the woman minimizes the penalty by saying “lest you die”, when in fact God had said “you shall surely die” (there is a double verb in Hebrew not present in the woman’s statement).

    The penalty is not minimized by God telling them both that they will die if they eat the fruit and not giving the double verb. Die is die whether it is said twice or once. This is faulty reasoning and I am surprised that those who understand logical fallacies would not be able to pick this up right away. Sometimes I wonder if intelligent men may be wanting to hear that Eve had all these faults and was not a good witness. It surely must make them feel that only men can represent God since a woman representing God will only get it wrong. But those who may feel this way have not thought about how these serious sins that they are charging Eve with are a serious misrepresentation of God’s that He must rebuke. The fact that God did not rebuke Eve and no apostle or Biblical writer mentioned these “sins” seems to bypass them. Is it possible that there are a lot of men who are inherently prejudiced against women without consciously knowing that they are inwardly prejudiced?

  176. Mark,
    To continue on with your comments:

    And, finally, she minimizes her privileges by proclaiming “we may eat” of the fruit of the trees; God had said that they “may eat freely” from the trees (again a double verb appears for emphasis).”

    Again Eve was quoting from what God told her and God surely has the ability to say things in a different way. In fact when He tells Adam and Eve additional things that they can eat, He doesn’t say “eat freely” at all. God says:

    Gen 1:29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

    This is very different than how God gave His permission to Adam in chapter 2. There is no contradiction and to accuse Eve of being a false witness is a pretty serious thing. She was a witness of God and God never accused His witness so why should we?

    She sees that the tree is “desirable”- the hebrew term used in the Ten Commandments of coveting

    This is the deception that the woman was under. She was not “coveting” the fruit as if she was “coveting” something that was forbidden to her. She no longer believed that the fruit would cause her to die. Eve believed the lie that the fruit was good for her. She believed that it was permissible because it looked good. The test now was how it looked, not whether it had seeds or not. She was deceived.

    Cheryl, do you really think that the hebrew grammar can actually support your view? The conversation between Eve and the serpent gives us a worldview into the situation. There are subtle hints of her early distortion of the word of God.

    Yes, I believe that the Hebrew grammar supports my view because Eve speaks the truth before she is deceived into believing a lie. There is no proof of deception when Eve first speaks to the serpent. Mark, do you actually believe that Eve distorted God’s word and God failed to reprimand her for this distortion? Why do you think that God failed to prove her a liar?

    Let me share with you something a great Anglican man shared with me over here. “If you come across a ‘new’ teaching you’ve either been revealed to something no-one else has ever seen or more likely the teaching is wrong”. Unfortunately i feel your teaching here falls in the later category.

    Well, thanks for sharing that with me. The fact is, though, that the charges against Eve are what is “new”. Neither God nor Adam charged Eve with adding to God’s word. This is a “new” sin that is found in no version of the Bible. It is a faulty tradition that distorts God’s word and those who follow it have not thought through God’s requirements for the proof of sin. I feel that it is my obligation to speak the truth in love with those who have been deceived about false tradition. If I was the one who was in the wrong, I would sure like to be corrected. In fact I freely admitted that I was wrong in my understanding that Eve did not intimately know God’s name. In Genesis 4 it is clear from the text that she did know it. I, for one, am never ashamed to admit whenever there is evidence that I am wrong. After all, none of us is perfect. I believe that it is an honorable thing to admit to a misunderstanding when the Scriptures are there to correct us. I am wondering how willing complementarians are to admit their own misunderstanding?

  177. Mark,
    You said:

    Also you must be the first person to ever call me a liberal…interesting?

    There are egalitarians who are very liberal in their view of Genesis too. I happen to believe the Word of God as it is written and I believe that God inspired the words and the grammar for a reason. He said what He meant and if He meant something else He would have said it another way. While I understand that there are some who will not accept this, I believe that accepting God’s Word as literal unless the context shows that it means something else is a good way to keep from being deceived by those who want to twist God’s word. I sincerely do not want to be deceived.

  178. Pinklight,

    Problem is Mark, the reason why she could not have misquoted God’s command given to Adam in Gen 2 is because when God speaks to Adam the “you” is singular and logicaly so. But when Eve quotes God she quotes God with the plural “you” since she is not quoting what God told Adam singularily as she wasn’t even created yet when God gave him the command, since there was no way for her to know what God commanded Adam. If she wanted to quote what God told Adam then she would of had to use the singular “you”. And the serpent did not even ask Eve what God commanded the man in the singular “you”. The serpent asked what God said about the both of them because the serpent too uses the plural “you”.

    Excellent reasoning from the Scriptures! Bravo!! This is an excellent example of how one reasons from the inspired grammar and follows it through to its logical conclusion in the text.

  179. Mark,
    You said:

    You might think my view needs a Talmud, but all i am saying is this. Women should not teach in the gathered assemblies, it should be the resposiblilty of the pastor/elders who are to be men according to scripture. Seems pretty straight forward really.

    This view contradicts Paul’s view in 1 Cor. 14 where in the “gathered assemblies” he gives women freedom to prophesy so that all may learn

    Also nowhere does the Scripture say that only men may teach the assembly or that only pastors may teach the assembly of believers. In the list of gifts, the gift of teacher is not given only to men and nowhere does the Scripture say that men are not to learn from female teachers. While teaching may not be prophesying, prophesying certainly includes teaching. If you checked out my response to Mike Seaver, you will see the lexical proof that prophesying encompasses both teaching and preaching.

    Now about Genesis 1, i am not ignoring it. God did speak to both of them about what they could eat. Chapter 2 however reveals what they can’t eat.

    Chapter 1 also reveals what they cannot eat. They cannot eat from any tree that has fruit that is not seed bearing. This is prohibited in the way that God spoke it by removing this kind of fruit from the permission list. No permission given = prohibition.

    We only have recorded that God spoke to Adam about what not to eat, so i’m following the bible here.

    Really? How do you explain Genesis 2:16?

    Gen 2:16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
    Gen 2:17 but …

    You said:

    It is most natural to assume Adam passed on the information to Eve.

    How can it be “most natural” when Eve is quoted as telling us that “God said You shall not…” How is the plural term “you” a natural fit as coming from Adam?

    . If Eve was given a ‘seperate’ command where is it recorded in the bible?

    Genesis 3:2,3 It is her own testimony that is recorded in God’s inspired Word about God’s Word to both Adam and Eve.

    Why is her command such a distortion from the one God gave to Adam?

    It isn’t a distortion. It is additional information that never contradicts God’s original command given to Adam alone.

    Anyone who supports Cheryl’s view here needs to reconcile these things.

    I think that I have proven Eve’s correct witness. Now it is time for a challenge to you. Prove that God’s Words to Eve are not an addition but a contradiction to what was given to Adam. I think it is time to put your money where you mouth is. No disrespect meant, just a Canadian term for a request to prove your charge of sin.

    If you really believe what you are saying it is contradictory. Why, because what Eve saids, is not actually what God said to Adam-it is different. So we cannot claim an argument on the plural ‘you’ because the supposed 2 seperate commands given to Adam and Eve are actually different.

    “Different” is not a problem. Contradictory is. You have not proven that the words of God are contradictory. If “different” ways for God to say what is permissible for Adam to eat is not allowed, then please explain why God is not charged with being “different” i.e. contradictory in Genesis 1 where God adds the qualification that only fruit that has seeds may be eaten. Was he lying when he told Adam that he could eat the fruit from every tree in the garden except for one? Or is the different way of saying it the same thing i.e. only one tree had fruit without without seed therefore they were allowed to eat from every tree except for one?

    It seems to me that you would have no problem with any of this if you did not have your stakes pinned on Eve misrepresenting God. Is there any other doctrines that you believe in that require Eve to misrepresent God and if you admit that Eve told the truth, then another doctrine would have to be discarded? I am very interested in understanding what causes you to hold to such an evil nature of the woman before sin entered the world. It seems to me that prejudice might not be the full reason if perhaps the “fall” of Eve before she ate the apple so ties into another doctrine that you cannot admit that you may be wrong. So I am asking if this belief of yours is tied into something else that I have not picked up on? What am I missing?

  180. Mark,
    You said:

    I think the greater weight of evidence lies in the ‘traditonal’ understanding of this scripture. The writer is subtly showing us how it was the Eve became deceived.

    Mark, I wish you no disrespect, but you have not given any “evidence”. You have just repeated speculation about some “sins” of Eve’s that are not listed in the Scriptures. Speculation is not evidence no matter how much we would like it to be.

    pinklight:

    Mark, “different” is not the same thing as a contradiction. What Eve said God said does not contradict what God said to Adam when Adam was alone. What God said to both of them in Gen 1 also does not contradict what God said to Adam when he was alone. So that all three commands are different doesn’t matter.

    Yes, exactly. Mark has yet to prove that different is the same as contradiction. There are examples of “different” accounts in the gospels of the same event, but apologists always agree that a “different” viewpoint is not the same thing as a contradiction. If we go by what Mark has told us about “different” then we would have to say that the gospels contradict one another because the accounts do not match. I don’t think so.

  181. I don’t know if I get much of a chance to comment if at all for some days, but I just have to say that even though the serpent is asking the woman what God said regarding the both of them because he uses the plural “you”, the serpent is speaking to the command that was given to Adam which I can see by the precise word choice and the flip flop that he does to the command that was given to Adam.

    The serpent places the words of God’s prohibiton “you must not eat” onto what God did give Adam for food “any tree in the garden”. If one compares the exact words God spoke to Adam and the exact words the serpent used when he asked Eve his question, one can see what the serpent is doing. Then add that to the fact that Adam was with her – now we have a situation where Adam knows what the serpent is referencing, but Eve does not, and that Adam did not speak up is part of the reason why Eve was deceived. Talk about a tangeled mess.

    Put yourself in Eve’s shoes. God commanded you and your husband (or wife) at some point in time not to do something. But God commanded your husband (or wife) not to do something but of which you have no idea about. Then when the tempter asks something in relation to what God commanded your husband (wife) of which you know nothing about, and your husband (wife) is there with you but says nothing or deosn’t speak up, it would support or cause for an idea that going against the command is safe. Make sense?

    For sure, there is aboslutely NO WAY that if Adam was with Eve, that he could have been deceived by the serpent’s craftiness since the serpent’s craftiness is revealed in his question when compared to the exact words God commanded the man. Adam knew the exact words of God that he was commanded and the serpent was twisting them which Adam could no doubt see.

    So Eve gives a defense for God after the serpent asks her his question, Adam doesn’t speak up fully aware of what’s going on, Eve doesn’t think twice since her husband just goes along with it in the sense of not saying anything and bame she next looks at the fruit through deceived eyes. (But God did speak to her and Adam together according to her testimony and she also lacked knowledge about creation and the Creator that Adam did not lack therefore she was deceived into believing that the both of them (just like the serpent said) could become like God plus Eve was created after Adam so Adam was able to experience God acting as Creator yet again (his first experience was with the animals) when woman was made from him – so Adam knew the difference between Creator and created since he was created first.

    Hope I expalined it well enough, but that’s the short of it!

  182. Mark,

    so essentially you are saying that the command we have recorded given to Adam by God doesn’t really count, because at some other time which is not recorded, God gave them both another command which was similar to the first but with all this extra stuff?

    Who said that God’s command to Adam doesn’t count? As far as the fruit permitted in the garden, the command to Adam allowed the exact same fruit as the command given to Adam and Eve.

    I’m not sure whether Cheryl thinks this new command was given to both or to just Eve, perhaps she can comment?

    Eve’s quote was the plural “you” so her testimony was that God spoke to both of them. It wasn’t a “new” command about what to eat. It was additional information about what they could eat outside the garden and the “old” command about what to eat and what not to eat spoken in a different way but which left the same fruit as permissible and the same fruit as not permissible as what was given to Adam.

    Why do we even bother having the command given to Adam with such a view?

    He needed to know what he could and couldn’t eat during the time that he was in the garden before Eve was created. If God had allowed Adam to eat from the forbidden tree without warning him and Adam died, whose fault would that have been?

    This whole argument is based on theories of some conversation we do not even have recorded

    You keep saying that the conversation was not recorded. That is not true. It is recorded by a female witness (Eve). The recorded words of God in chapter 1 are by a male witness (Moses). Some are willing to say that the male witness got the creation account wrong and some will only say that the female witness got it wrong. I choose to believe that God’s testimony by the record of the creation and fall is accurate as written down by Moses and spoken by Eve. I have yet to see any evidence that my faith in God’s record is wrong.

    Lin,

    Mark, if there is one thing I do know for a fact it is that most people do not really know what all CBMW is teaching. One reason is because many of their contributors teach in quite a few venues. And the list of legalisms for comp/pat is so long no one can keep up!

    You have that one right!! Whew a long list indeed! The male headship in heaven really blew me away. But then it is consistent with the teaching that there are restrictions on women as long as men and women are descended from Adam and Eve. Since we will always be resurrected descendants from Adam and Eve, in essence they are teaching in RBMW that there are eternal restrictions on women. I just don’t get how godly brothers in Christ can swallow this and not see it as an addition to the Scriptures.

    Mark,

    Perhaps God did speak to Eve about it at another time, but there is no biblical record of that, so im more comfortable going with what’s there.

    The problem with this Mark, is that the record is there through the female witness and in order to state that God did not speak to Eve at another time, one must accuse Eve of adding to God’s Word and/or completely distorting His Word. Are we allowed to accuse people of sin like this when God has not spoken about that alleged “sin”? I believe that this treads on dangerous territory and it sets a precedence that allows men to restrict women’s bible teaching when the Scripture does not give godly Christian women such restrictions.

  183. Mark,

    But let’s be honest, one cannot argue as Cheryl did in the video if she was wrong to begin with. That’s the truth of the matter. If she did mis-quote them, and im still waiting to here what Cheryl thinks about this, her argument is invalid and essentially untrustworthy.

    If people really are interested in the ‘truth’ perhaps lets try and be honest when we make mistakes.

    Mark I have suggested that you write CBMW and ask them if a woman is allowed to teach verse by verse or biblical doctrine to men in her own home. You have made reference to my own argument as untrustworthy and whether you meant it this way or not, you are accusing me of lying. I would think that if you are really interested in the truth that you would admit that you made a mistake in saying that what I claim is untrustworthy. I assume that you are a decent and godly brother in Christ so I also assume that you will be upfront and give a public apology when you get the information straight from the horses mouth. Thanks in advance for your consideration and your humility in admitting your mistake.

  184. Dave,
    I’m still not following with the commandments line? I’m not sure what you are trying to say in regards to Genesis.

    Cheryl,
    I appreciate your lengthy resposes and i also appreciate your willingness to be shown where you were wrong. I think you were a bit sneaky though now saying Eve was somehow like Mary after Jesus return being revealed something special- or being trusted or what ever you were trying to say there. Interestingly Noah also calls God Yahweh in 9:26
    “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem…”

    Let me explain a little how i understand this and the reference with Eve calling God LORD in Gen 4. If i’m reading you right, you are saying now after i have corrected you that God somehow also revealed his name to Eve before Moses. IF we take this line of reasoning we also find he revealed himself to Noah aswell. I don’t think God did that, let’s say i don’t read it that literary.

    Think about this. When was the ‘torah’ written? Moses wrote it after God had revealed his name to Moses. Now you rightly pointed out earlier that God had never revealed his name before then, so what’s going on here? Did God lie? I don’t think so. I think Moses the author of these books is simply using the name Yahweh revealed to him and inserting it into the text that he is writing, so that we have references to Yahweh before Yahweh is even revealed. I think this makes much more logical sense. Moses is simply using the name he knows when under the inspiration of the spirit is writing Genesis, therefore he can rightly insert it into the text.

    Now about Eve. I’m not charging her with sin before the fall. I believe the bible here that sin entered once they ate the fruit. So what am i to make of the verse in Proverbs that talks about adding to Gods words.
    First of all we need to differentiate which words. Is it God’s actual spoken words? Is it his written words? Is it Jesus since he is called the word? If i understand the OT properly and perhaps i don’t, but all the OT writings, including Proverbs need to be understood within the covenantal framework. What is the covenantal framework? Obeying God’s commands and live- disobey and be exiled basically? Therefore i think that proverbs here is referencing the written word of God, the ‘torah’ as this is the covenantally revealed ‘word of God’. In fact we get the same warning at the end of Revelation.
    But i guess the question is, is this plausible? You might say no, but i think it is. For example in Romans 2 Paul differentiates between those who are under the law (torah) and those who are not. Those under the law are judged according to the law, those not under the law are not judged according to the law because they didn’t have the law. They are still held accountable because they are sinners and hae God’s glory revealed in creation, but they are not judged according to the law.
    Now if proverbs is to be understood covenantally, it is referencing the law (torah). This written law is God’s revelation and cannot be added to. But people prior to the law being given were not obligated to the law, how could they be. Therefore Adam and Eve are not under the obligation of torah and we should not read covenantal conditions into the genesis account. Hope this makes sense.
    So i see Eve as being described by the writer of Genesis, giving subtle grammatical hints at what was about to happen. She did not add to the word of God in terms of the proverbs verse because that must be understood covenantally. She was deceived by the serpent and led into sin. I do not see this as though women are somehow more easily deceived or anything like that. Eve simply chose to listen to her own desire rather than God’s.

    Let me make one last point. I DO NOT SEE THE CHURCH AS ONLY A BUILDING. Is that clear enough for everybody. And also Cheryl, how can i be a traditionalist and a liberal. BY definition liberals reject tradition????

  185. I bet by the time i write this something else has posted up. Its near impossible to keep up.

    Cheryl,

    i never accused YOU of being untrustworthy. In fact i asked if you deliberaterly or not mis-quoted them. From your response i would obviously say it was undeliberate. My reasoning was this, if it is a misquote the information is untrustworthy. PLease dont think i think your untrustworthy, far from it. I think your wrong on alot of things, but untrustworhty- definately not

  186. Dave,

    Also, if we only go with the command given to Adam, then why could Eve not eat of the fruit? It would be adding to the command to say Eve could not as it was only directed at Adam. Surely she had to have been told by God or at least God must have given further instructions to Adam to pass on that we are not told about. God never said to Adam to tell Eve about it, to tell Eve that she shouldn’t according to chapter 2.

    Excellent point! If Mark wants to disavow any conversation that is not directly quoted by Moses, then he is in a conundrum since he has no direct command for Eve not to eat the fruit except for Eve’s testimony using the plural “you”. Puzzling indeed and a hole that I don’t see Mark climbing out of.

    I was referring to Exodus 20 and Exodus 34. My point is that not all the commandments are the same. There are two new tablets and the covenant is renewed and some of the commands are the same, and there are 10 commands…but they are not all the same. So, was there something God said regarding the “law” that we are not told about? Or do we assume that Moses is decieved and got the second lot wrong? Or is there more info we do not have? Or is our understanding of the law fundamentally wrong?

    Excellent point one that I will have to remember! Thanks!!!

    As I cannot view the videos I can only involve myself in the conversation at a level that the discussion makes appropriate.

    I do hope that you will get to watch them eventually. If there is something that I have missed responding to, then perhaps it will be pointed out to me.

  187. Hi Mark,

    In regards to the law and the covenant. Abraham was considered righteous because he believed God, not because he kept the law…I believe Paul makes that clear in Romans. Speaking of Romans Paul makes it clear that the Gentiles (those without the Torah) have the law written on their hearts. This means whether or not you have the written word, scripture, the Bible or not…in your heart there is written the basic expectation God has with regards to how we live. All mankind, it would appear, have this which is why there are none without excuse, and also why there are none without sin…as the law increases sin!

    Now I confess that I am not really sure what your point is, but I see some problems with some of your logic. Perhaps this is because i still need to watch the vids? 🙁

    I should prob be quiet and let Cheryl do her stuff…Go Cheryl!

  188. I have something to add to my last comment. According to the exact words that the serpent choose to use after his question which is when he next lies to Eve he is also twisting the command that God gave to Adam.

    The point is (which is a scary thought), Eve could not witness the craftiness that the serpent was pulling off which is part of why (other reasons why include that she lacked knowledge of the Creator and the created that Adam did not) she was deceived while on the other hand Adam could see it full blown because God gave the command to him when he was alone.

  189. I meant:

    I have something to add to my last comment. According to the exact words that the serpent choose to use after his question which is when he next lies to Eve he is CONTINUING to twist the command that God gave to Adam.

  190. Botom line – if she knew the command God gave to Adam in the singular she wouldn’t have been deceived based on his craftiness, though she could have still been deceived based on her lack of knowledge.

  191. Mark,

    I think you were a bit sneaky though now saying Eve was somehow like Mary after Jesus return being revealed something special- or being trusted or what ever you were trying to say there. Interestingly Noah also calls God Yahweh in 9:26
    “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem…”

    Mark, I don’t think that you realize that such words like “sneaky” actually come across as judging my motives. I am not going to take offense but I can’t promise what will happen if I wake up on the wrong side of the bed 😉

    As far as the prophecy of the seed of the woman, there are some commentators who connect Genesis 4:1 with Genesis 3:15 as Eve’s belief that her child was the promised seed. I will only quote one reference here along with Luther:

    The closing phrase of v. 1, “with the LORD,” implies that this was a statement of faith by Eve based on Gen. 3:15. This is the first use of the name YHWH by itself. The next time it appears alone is in worship by the line of Seth in 4:26.
    Vol. 1A: How it All Began: Genesis 1-11. Study Guide Commentary Series

    See also Luther’s rendering of Genesis 4:1 as Eve saying that she had given birth to “a man Jehovah”. This is what I was referring and believe me that I was not being “sneaky”.

    It is interesting that God allowed some of his faithful ones to know Him by His name. Noah being one and Eve being another. Very interesting especially because of the promise through the woman.

    Let me explain a little how i understand this and the reference with Eve calling God LORD in Gen 4. If i’m reading you right, you are saying now after i have corrected you that God somehow also revealed his name to Eve before Moses. IF we take this line of reasoning we also find he revealed himself to Noah aswell. I don’t think God did that, let’s say i don’t read it that literary.

    I have no problem being corrected when I am wrong. I hadn’t actually done a study on this one, but we know that without a Bible and without God’s revealing of Himself, one cannot know Him and His name. I am sorry that you don’t take the Bible as literally as I do. At least you cannot call me a liberal because of the high view of Scripture that I hold to.

    Think about this. When was the ‘torah’ written? Moses wrote it after God had revealed his name to Moses. Now you rightly pointed out earlier that God had never revealed his name before then, so what’s going on here?

    He had not revealed Himself by this name to Abraham, Isaac, etc but since we must allow Scripture to correct us, He did reveal Himself to Eve and Noah by His name.

    I think Moses the author of these books is simply using the name Yahweh revealed to him and inserting it into the text that he is writing, so that we have references to Yahweh before Yahweh is even revealed.

    Nah. That would be wrong to add it into a direct quote of Eve’s. If you can have a man noodle with quotes then what else has been noodled with by Moses. Nope, I don’t buy it.

    I think this makes much more logical sense. Moses is simply using the name he knows when under the inspiration of the spirit is writing Genesis, therefore he can rightly insert it into the text.

    Now you are claiming that the Holy Spirit put words into Eve’s mouth that she didn’t say? That the Holy Spirit is guilty of noodling with the text? No way. I don’t buy it. Honestly these are the kind of answers that I would expect to be credited to “liberal egalitarians”. Are you sure that you actually think that it is okay to noodle with the quotes and then blame God? Or are you just trying to pull my leg to see if I would agree with you and end up more liberal than I claim? I don’t hold to that kind of Scriptural addition. It is God’s Word. He said that we are not to add to His Word or take away from it. It is a very serious sin.

    Now about Eve. I’m not charging her with sin before the fall. I believe the bible here that sin entered once they ate the fruit. So what am i to make of the verse in Proverbs that talks about adding to Gods words.
    First of all we need to differentiate which words. Is it God’s actual spoken words? Is it his written words?

    The Bible is God’s Word. The book of Revelation takes God’s prohibition and makes it apply to the entire book Rev. 22:18. It wasn’t just the quotes from God Himself but the entire book, which of course is God’s word.

    What is the covenantal framework? Obeying God’s commands and live- disobey and be exiled basically? Therefore i think that proverbs here is referencing the written word of God, the ‘torah’ as this is the covenantally revealed ‘word of God’.

    Are you seriously trying to say that it is perfectly okay to add to the words of the LORD God if He speaks to you, but not okay if someone writes His Word down??? You are kidding, right? Sounds like the hiss, “Did God actually say that you can’t add to His spoken word or did He really say that it is only His written word that you can’t add to?”

    As far as getting into the covenantal theology, let’s leave that aside for this blog. It is outside the scope of this subject and I highly doubt that those theologians who believe in this brand of theology would be willing to sign on the dotted line to agree with you that men can add to God’s spoken words without God’s judgment. It comes across that God didn’t really care much for His spoken words just the ones that got written down. But when we see the 10 commandments given to Moses, we find that God spoke them and wrote them down showing that His speaking and His writing and equal. God’s Word is His Word.

    So i see Eve as being described by the writer of Genesis, giving subtle grammatical hints at what was about to happen. She did not add to the word of God in terms of the proverbs verse because that must be understood covenantally.

    That is the most creative disregard for God’s command in Proverbs that I have ever seen. Go ahead and tell this to God in the judgment. I am not planning to stand next to you in case you get a lightning bolt.

    She was deceived by the serpent and led into sin. I do not see this as though women are somehow more easily deceived or anything like that. Eve simply chose to listen to her own desire rather than God’s.

    Whew, at last some things that I can agree with! Thanks, Mark!!

    Eve was indeed deceived by the serpent and in her deception she fell into sin. I am so glad that you don’t see women as more easily deceived because of the serpent lied to Eve.

    However I don’t agree with this:

    Eve simply chose to listen to her own desire rather than God’s.

    Eve didn’t “listen” to her desire, she listened to the lie. This is the power of deception – it causes you to act in unbelief. Eve no longer believed God’s word and the lie now became the truth to her. It was not the lie or just her desire that made her eat. It was “the truth” that she now embraced. Funny how many cults call their religion “the truth”. It is the old satanic lie once again that takes deception and dresses it up as the truth to be held to and embraced.

    Let me make one last point. I DO NOT SEE THE CHURCH AS ONLY A BUILDING. Is that clear enough for everybody.

    Then what has a building got to do with the prohibition? Is your statement that the church is not “only a building” mean that the church is a building plus the people? Or is the church nothing to do with a building at all? Could you please clarify where a church building stands?

    And also Cheryl, how can i be a traditionalist and a liberal. BY definition liberals reject tradition????

    By definition liberals take texts that have no relation to symbolism and have no interpretation in the Scripture as symbolism and they wipe away the inspired Words of God. No longer is history historical and no longer are quotes, real quotes. They can be massaged and added to until they can are something other than God intended. The interpretation then is not God’s revelation but man’s guess what God was really getting at. Sort of inspired guesses which really lift up the Sovereignty of God (or not). Note, that was Canadian late night sarcasm. Hope you don’t mind. 🙂

  192. Mark,

    I bet by the time i write this something else has posted up. Its near impossible to keep up.

    Yah, I know what you mean. I was gone for part of the day and I could hardly keep up too. I guess it doesn’t help that you are the lone complementarian commenting here. Maybe you could send in some of your seminary buddies. Have them watch the video clips and then put in their two cents worth. Or what is the Australia coins called?

    i never accused YOU of being untrustworthy. In fact i asked if you deliberaterly or not mis-quoted them.

    Mark, my friend, this is like me asking you if you beat up your wife accidentally or on purpose when you never laid a finger on her. You keep assuming that I misquoted CBMW when I did not. I have already told you that they consider a woman teaching men in her home as part of the prohibition from creation that includes teaching the body of Christ even in a woman’s home. Go ahead and ask them the questions and then we won’t need to go around this bush another time. The prohibition to them is not just about a “formal” gathering in a “formal” church building. It also includes the church meeting together for bible study in another place, at any time, for any reason. Is this clear enough?

    From your response i would obviously say it was undeliberate. My reasoning was this, if it is a misquote the information is untrustworthy.

    So as my quote is accurate then my information is trustworthy. Good enough.

    PLease dont think i think your untrustworthy, far from it. I think your wrong on alot of things, but untrustworhty- definately not

    Okay then. Glad to know that you see me as a worthwhile person who is not untrustworthy. But maybe I am just like Eve in that I can’t get my quotes down right??

    Nah, Eve and I checked our sources. We both got it right. 😉

  193. Mark,
    By the way, I just wanted to let you know that despite that little piece of uncharacteristic sarcasm of mine, I still like you! Got to give you credit for hanging in with us and reading over 200 comments! There might be a special crown in heaven for putting up with all of these egalitarians, eh?

  194. Dave,

    In regards to the law and the covenant. Abraham was considered righteous because he believed God, not because he kept the law…I believe Paul makes that clear in Romans. Speaking of Romans Paul makes it clear that the Gentiles (those without the Torah) have the law written on their hearts.

    Excellent, I couldn’t have said it better than that! I thought the original comment was off topic so I ignored it, but you were able to give such a clear answer, I am glad you tackled it. You are fast becoming one of my favorite pastors of all time. I like the way you tackle these issues with less wordage than I. Maybe one day I will get it down to less than a thousand words!

  195. pinklight,

    I have something to add to my last comment. According to the exact words that the serpent choose to use after his question which is when he next lies to Eve he is CONTINUING to twist the command that God gave to Adam.

    Amen! This is why God says that satan is the father of lies and there is no truth in him. Nothing he says is true.

  196. Cheryl,

    your obviously misunderstanding me from your comments. In terms of covenantal theology it is extremely important, particular if one is going to argue from texts based upon such theology i.e priesthood.

    Can i ask you one question. In relation to the gospels do you think the ‘red letters’ i.e Jesus’ words are his actual literal words? So for example when Mark quoted Jesus in 1:38 this is exactly what Jesus said. Likewise do you see the speeches/sermons recorded in Acts as the actual words spoken by Peter or Stephen or Paul etc? Ok that was a couple of questions.

  197. Also, im not familiar with ‘noodle’ but i think i get the gist of what your saying…good one cobba 🙂

  198. Mark,

    your obviously misunderstanding me from your comments. In terms of covenantal theology it is extremely important, particular if one is going to argue from texts based upon such theology i.e priesthood.

    I believe that one must first be able to exegete the passage first and show in the context the meaning that you put on the word or sentence or verse. After that one can attach it to whatever theology that you subscribe to. I find that too many people bypass the context to jump to their theology. I believe that without a clear explanation within the passage first, a system of theology can deceive our minds. I have seen it happen too many times. And I do not want to be one who is misled because I failed to consider the context.

    As far as the inspiration of God’s Word and the quotation of what Jesus said that had not been written down, I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers and that Jesus’ prophecy was true when He said:

    Joh 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

    I have no need to doubt Jesus’ words or to doubt the actual autographs. I am just a simple person. I just believe that God did not inspire any error nor do I think that God put His own name in the mouth of Eve after she was dead.

    Now maybe I can ask you a question. Is there anything on the video clips that made sense to you that you had not thought through before? Did you see any value at all in my paying attention to the actual words in the Scriptures and the inspired grammar?

    I will likely see your response tomorrow as I am going to bed now.

    Good night all and thanks to all for participating in such a lively discussion. I hope that any who are reading this and not commenting are being blessed by the respect that we hold to God’s word.

  199. Mark,
    You got the last comment in while I was still typing. I will help you out with this one before heading off to bed.

    Noodling or to noodle:

    a. to manipulate or tamper with: She denied that she had noodled the statistics to get a favorable result.

    My dictionary doesn’t find cobba. Care to enlighten us?

    Cheers,
    Cheryl

  200. To be honest Cheryl i don’t even really know how to define ‘cobba’. Thats the problem with Aussie jargon-it doesn’t really make much sense. But i guess the closest words might be mate, buddy, pal, friend- something along those lines 🙂

  201. Cheryl, i agree 100% with the following…

    “I believe that one must first be able to exegete the passage first and show in the context the meaning that you put on the word or sentence or verse.”

    BUt i would also add for myself, the specific culture of the writer. The time when the document was written. The other cultural backdrops- for example with Moses, what is similar/dissimilar with other Ancient Near Eastern sources. All these types of things also help us determine the purpose for writing, the intended audience etc. Let me give a quick example- it is interesting to see other ANE ‘creation’ accounts and compare them to the Hebrew account. It helps to show the backdrop of the culture and why certain things are said/emphasised which might otherwise be missed or mis-understood by alone looking at the passage.

    In terms of context and theology, covenant theology is the context of the OT writings. They are writing as God’s chosen people in a covenant with Him It is all about instruction about how to live properly in that covenant. That is why i see it as so important.

    I’m glad we agree on the inerrancy of the word. I’m glad you also see that to read the ‘red letters’ as literally Jesus exact words is not necessary. Thus you can see why i don’t necessarily have to see Eve’s words as the ‘exact’ words that she spoke. Both Moses and the gospel writers are recording history after the events. It is still under the inspiration of the Spirit and the word is still authoritative and inerrant. God inspired these words that are recorded to be His revealed word, and i hope you can see that i am no means a liberal for seeing it this way- i have a very strong view of scripture.

    Now in relation to your videos. I appreciated them very much. I found them very helpful in understanding your position on certain things. However, it think i have heard all of those arguments before at various times in different conversations, so i would probably say No, that there wasn’t anything in them i haven’t worked through before. Actually the last video i probably found the most helpful for me- running through the various ‘two witnesses’ stuff- i haven’t looked into that much so thanks for that one.
    So i guess you want my jury verdict? Is Eve guilty of sinning before the fall- my answer is definately not. Does your interpretation of Gen convince me- no it doesn’t. Does your interpretation of th priesthood amd 1 Tim convince, again no it doesn’t. But i still enjoyed listening to them.
    A quick side note- i like the way you Canadians say ‘about’. I noticed you say it the same as Don Carson-is he Canadian aswell?

  202. Don Carson is Canadian…about…

    Thanks for your encouragement Cheryl. I must say I have found you to be a trustworthy and worthwhile person 🙂
    I have also learnt a lot from the conversations (thanks to everyone else too!). I am amazed constantly at how God has used the written word to express truth!

    Bonza!

  203. pinklight,
    When I see your writing about the situation between Adam and Eve and the serpent, it is easy for me to see the depth in you the way you always try to analyize everything that is being said from each and every angle. When we think about Adam’s silence while his wife was defending God’s words, knowing that he had the knowledge that kept him safe from deception yet he kept silent, it is no wonder that God describes Adam’s sin in the book of Hosea as treacherous. Keep up the good work!

  204. Mark,

    Cheryl, i agree 100% with the following…

    “I believe that one must first be able to exegete the passage first and show in the context the meaning that you put on the word or sentence or verse.”

    I am thankful today for two things…one that you called me a “cobba” (friend) and not a “drongo” or a “mug” 🙂 (I found a place online that helps out with understanding Aussie slang. http://www.australiatravelsearch.com.au/trc/slang.html) I am also thrilled that God has been gracious in allowing me to read that you agreed with me 100% on one statement that I made. Oh, boy, it was like walking through a field of mud to get some agreement. But I am grateful for what I can get even if it is only one statement that we can completely agree on. Thanks!

    BUt i would also add for myself, the specific culture of the writer. The time when the document was written. The other cultural backdrops- for example with Moses, what is similar/dissimilar with other Ancient Near Eastern sources. All these types of things also help us determine the purpose for writing, the intended audience etc.

    We cannot forget that God is the original author of Genesis and Moses merely the scribe. After all no human was there during the time of creation with the exception of Adam for a brief time after his creation and before he named the animals in Genesis 2. Moses could not know any of that without God’s direct revelation and God’s purpose was always that Genesis would be a record not just for the people of Moses’ time but an accurate account that will span all generations documenting the Sovereignty of God in creation and in His dealing with mankind from perfection to the fall and beyond. So when I read Genesis I remember that God wrote it also with our generation in view so that the writing was always meant to be timeless. Only our wonderful, amazing God is capable of that! No mere human could write in such a way that his writings could be understood throughout human history as the clear revelation of God to all generations. I do not believe that God was without knowledge of our time, our culture and our science when He inspired Genesis. So when I read Genesis, I see it as God’s revelation to me and I dig into it to understand the questions that people have today, knowing that God understood all that we needed to know and he left no important question unanswered in His Word. That doesn’t mean that I know all the answers, just that I truly believe in God’s ability to provide the answers ahead of time. If I have faith that the answer is there, I try hard to find it, and God has not failed me yet.

    Let me give a quick example- it is interesting to see other ANE ‘creation’ accounts and compare them to the Hebrew account. It helps to show the backdrop of the culture and why certain things are said/emphasised which might otherwise be missed or mis-understood by alone looking at the passage.

    While I agree that looking at the culture is highly important, Genesis is unique in that it was not written by a mere human. Neither was Genesis written by One who lacked information or who meant it to be understood by only one generation. Genesis is truly in a class of its own.

    In terms of context and theology, covenant theology is the context of the OT writings. They are writing as God’s chosen people in a covenant with Him It is all about instruction about how to live properly in that covenant. That is why i see it as so important.

    I also see covenants as extremely important in the Old Testament. I took a course in covenants from Kay Arthur and I will never sign a “covenant” again without understanding the importance that God places on our word. I was able to show our church pastor and deacons from that OT covenant material why I could not in all good conscience sign a covenant as it was written. As a result of the information I provided on covenants, the church board agreed to make needed adjustments.

    I’m glad we agree on the inerrancy of the word. I’m glad you also see that to read the ‘red letters’ as literally Jesus exact words is not necessary.

    I am not sure that you understand me yet. I believe that God inspired each word and each piece of grammar. I believe that each word is put there for a reason and because I pay attention and do not disregard any part of what is inspired, I have been able to see some things that others miss. Jesus said that it would be the work of the Holy Spirit to bring all things to “remembrance” that Jesus said to the apostles.

    John 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

    Remembrance means to bring back to one’s mind. I have complete faith that what the Holy Spirit did was bring back to their mind the words of Jesus. It was not necessary for the Holy Spirit to change what Jesus said, because Jesus’ words were perfect and didn’t need revision. While I can understand those who do not share my faith in the Holy Spirit’s ability to bring accurate remembrance to their minds, I just take this at face value and believe it. While every word that Jesus spoke is not recorded in the Bible, what is recorded is accurate as it was superintended by the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that a mere man’s ability to recall would be accurate, however I believe that scripture does not originate from the will of man and I accept that the Holy Spirit’s power and His work is just as supernatural as the works of Jesus.

    Thus you can see why i don’t necessarily have to see Eve’s words as the ‘exact’ words that she spoke. Both Moses and the gospel writers are recording history after the events.

    I hope that you can now understand why I do believe that they are “exact” words. In Genesis no one can tell us for sure exactly what Eve said but God Himself. Was He accurate? I believe He was. And because the Holy Spirit’s work was needed in the New Testament with Jesus’ words, I believe that these words are also accurate. If the words are not accurate, then it is easy to dismiss God’s account as subject to man’s interpretation. But I believe strongly in the Sovereignty of God so I don’t feel any need to figure out what God could have said if He had known our questions. God is all-knowing and He is accurate. I have no fear in believing that every word is inspired accurately. The inspiration for those recorded words come from the God that I have grown to trust. I have not yet found any reason to doubt Him and it has always been my intention to teach others to trust God too.

    It is still under the inspiration of the Spirit and the word is still authoritative and inerrant. God inspired these words that are recorded to be His revealed word, and i hope you can see that i am no means a liberal for seeing it this way- i have a very strong view of scripture.

    I am not sure how you see God’s Word as accurate yet with a record of the conversation provided by the Holy Spirit as open to correction and reinterpretation. I know that some do not agree with me because taking the Word at face value may conflict with some of their doctrines and that is too high a price to pay. I just don’t care about my own faulty presuppositions. If the accurate, authoritative and inerrant Word of God conflicts with my understanding, then it is my understanding that must give way, not God’s Word. I call this being a “truth lover”. I also define this as a way to show that I fear God. I will bend and conform my own understanding and bow my knees before God and allow my misunderstanding to be shaped and corrected by His Word. I will never purposely bend His Word to fit my understanding. This is why I try hard to keep objective and not allow myself to be easily hurt, but it is also why any charge of deception can be offensive to me.

    In my very first days as a fully committed Christian, God told me to confess my sin of hypocrisy in front of the entire church and in fear and trembling I obeyed. That early example of laying aside my own ego makes it far easier today to admit when I am wrong. To me there is no shame in freely admitting my error. There would only be shame in failing to humble myself and failing to admit that I was wrong when I see it.

    Now in relation to your videos. I appreciated them very much. I found them very helpful in understanding your position on certain things.

    I thank you for your kind words. I also praise God for helping me to present ideas in a way that people can understand the concept even if they don’t agree with me. God is so good!

    Actually the last video i probably found the most helpful for me- running through the various ‘two witnesses’ stuff- i haven’t looked into that much so thanks for that one.

    I appreciated hearing this. My years of work with the Jehovah’s Witnesses has helped me to understand why God’s confirmation and constant repetition is so important. Two or three witnesses is for our safety, not for God’s need to repeat Himself. In fact after that talk a man came up to me and reminded me that even with the ten commandments, God had repeated Himself giving one the commandments in verbal form, then one stone witness and then the second stone witness. Then the commandments are repeated throughout Scripture and this shows that God cares enough about us to make sure that we understand what sin is so that we can avoid it. It is God’s grace to us.

    So i guess you want my jury verdict? Is Eve guilty of sinning before the fall- my answer is definately not.

    You are a wise jury member who took into consideration all the facts. Thank you for your vote of confidence for Eve and for exonerating her of any unestablished sin.

    Does your interpretation of Gen convince me- no it doesn’t. Does your interpretation of th priesthood amd 1 Tim convince, again no it doesn’t. But i still enjoyed listening to them.

    My purpose is to show that there is a well thought out stand for allowing women to teach the Bible to the body of Christ. On the other side, I wanted to show that the view that sees women as being in sin for teaching correct biblical doctrine to men has major contradictions and holes in this view when compared to the straight edge of Scripture. Lastly I wanted people to be able to reason through this issue and use it as a springboard to check out what they may not have considered before. There are enough divisions in the body of Christ today and if I can be a help for brothers and sisters in Christ to come together in love instead of restricting the Holy Spirit when He is using a female vessel and thus accusing women of sin by their obedience to God, then I will feel satisfied that I have accomplished what I set forth to do. Test all things. Hold fast to what is true.

    A quick side note- i like the way you Canadians say ‘about’. I noticed you say it the same as Don Carson-is he Canadian aswell?

    I see that Dave has answered this question for me. Actually I had no idea that Don Carson is Canadian. It looks like he lives in the US now, but Dave is right, he was born and raised in Canada.

  205. Dave,
    My new little trusty guide to Australian slang helps me to know that Bonza means excellent.

    Here’s one for you.
    Warmly from your “Bluey” sister in Christ,
    Cheryl 🙂

  206. *phew* That’s a lot of reading.

    OK Mark, I know you have a lot of balls in the air right now. So, I will persist only briefly on my particular question. Do you mean to say that your wife does not ever teach you in an expository way in your home? Is she forbidden from doing so? In what format does she teach you?

  207. “i have already said that i don’t think the prophecying here should be considered the same as teaching. In fact the bible separates them as different spiritual gifts, and no my church doesn’t perform like that. We don’t have people prophecying and speaking in toungues because no one is gifted that way, but still the Corinthians did, and Paul is describing orderly worship conduct for the assembly when gathered together.”
    BUt i would also add for myself, the specific culture of the writer. The time when the document was written. The other cultural backdrops- for example with Moses, what is similar/dissimilar with other Ancient Near Eastern sources. All these types of things also help us determine the purpose for writing, the intended audience etc.”
    Mark,
    In light of your comments, I find it difficult to understand that you still insist that 1 Cor. 14 is a prohibition on women speaking in “formal church” today.
    “And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.” 1Cor.11:5-6
    It says in vs.5 that women were praying and prophesying.

    Would the cultural head covering have been a controversy at all if these women were at home in private individual prayer and prophesying to themselves?
    Do you think Paul allowed praying and prophesying in ch. 11 and then changed his mind by ch.14?

  208. Cheryl,
    #221 🙂 Of course, otherwise how could we ever really be certain of anything in God’s Word.

  209. “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for…One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?…”
    Obviously, the Corinthians had many problems most of us never encounter.

  210. Mark,

    I take it that you do not think these two verses have anything in common?
    “3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
    “12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.” (1Cor.11)

  211. gengwall,
    What on earth were you doing raking leaves when you could have been helping out here on my blog? 😉

    I know that it can be overwhelming to catch up.

    One thing that Mark commented on that was surprising to me. He said that there wasn’t anything new in the clips that he hadn’t heard before except for the last clip on the two or three witnesses. In my own experience I find that most people have not thought through or discussed the fact that it is impossible for Eve to have added to God’s Words (lied) before sin entered the world. Have any of you heard these things before you came here?

  212. Well, I’ve never heard Cheryl’s point that the usual explanations have Eve sinning before sin entered the garden before. That was a huge a-ha moment for me. Nor have I heard pinklight’s excellent explanation of the deception and the difference between the singular and plural you and the verbs in the serpent’s speech. Those were both very helpful explanations!

    My anti-spam word is “leader” but I’m definitely the follower here :-).

  213. Mark,
    “3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.”

    So, if you believe that ‘head’ in vs.3 means ‘authority’ then, to be consistant, you must also say that a woman needs her head covered and a man never should.

    “11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.”

    And you don’t believe that vs.11-16 have any bearing on vs.3-10??

    Are you saying that you don’t think they have any connection or commentary on verses 3-10?

  214. “Fruit trees? With seeds?”

    I’m tempted to say apple trees but that got me in trouble last week. No, no fruit trees. Just very leafy trees.

  215. Mark wrote:”BUt i would also add for myself, the specific culture of the writer. The time when the document was written. The other cultural backdrops- for example with Moses, what is similar/dissimilar with other Ancient Near Eastern sources. All these types of things also help us determine the purpose for writing, the intended audience etc.”

    Mark,
    Why wouldn’t your above comment also apply to 1Tim.2?

    “8 I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

    These were situations with new Christians with plenty yet to learn – obvious by the fact that Paul addresses the men who were dealing with anger issues and doubts and women who weren’t dressing decently. Because of educational restrictions placed on women in that culture they would have much catching up to do.

    Are you saying that you do not believe that the prohibition to teach there is related to the very next sentence – “a woman should learn in quietness and full submission”?
    A person can not teach what they have not first learned.

    Do you believe that vs.15 teaches that women are saved through bearing children?

  216. “I’m assuming you dis-agree with me about Cheryl mis-quoting CBMW? You seem to wash this off by saying ‘who knows what they teach’ essentially. I’m not surprised really.”

    I have not caught on to exactly what she quoted from them that you think is misquoted.

    My point was that many in CBMW teach different things. Just to give you an example of how confusing it can be: McArthur teaches that Adam was NOT there when Eve had the conversation with the serpent. Piper teaches she WAS there. Ware teaches that women are made in the indirect image of God, a derivative but others on CBMW teach that woman are made in the direct image of God. The list goes on. Oh, and Piper teaches that primogeniture is the reason for Adam being in authority over Eve. Others teach creation order and know that primogeniture won’t fly because God often used others than the 1st born son.

    So, what was the misquote?

  217. “I’m glad we agree on the inerrancy of the word. I’m glad you also see that to read the ‘red letters’ as literally Jesus exact words is not necessary. Thus you can see why i don’t necessarily have to see Eve’s words as the ‘exact’ words that she spoke. Both Moses and the gospel writers are recording history after the events. It is still under the inspiration of the Spirit and the word is still authoritative and inerrant. God inspired these words that are recorded to be His revealed word, and i hope you can see that i am no means a liberal for seeing it this way- i have a very strong view of scripture.”

    Mark,
    You seem to be very willing to give plenty of leeway to Moses and other writers in the Bible except Paul.
    If as you say, “God inspired these words that are recorded to be His revealed word” then to turn around and say they are not exactly the words He inspired is antithesis.
    But, perhaps, I am beginning to see now why it seems of no consequence to you that Paul would use the word ‘authenteo’ in 1 Tim2:12 instead of the more common ‘exousiazo’ or why he would use ‘kephale’ instead of ‘archon’ in Ephesians. Am I beginning to understand your stance?

  218. Kay,

    I think you have hit the nail on the head. It appears to me also that Mark sees the big picture as inspired, but the individual words are not really necessary or necessarily meaningful. So in place of authenteo in 1 Tim. 2:12 a switch to exousia is not a big deal. At a word here and there, who cares? If it changes the meaning, oh well, at least it keeps within the big picture.

    But I believe that the big picture is made up of of accurate smaller pictures. If the smaller pictures are distorted then how can we trust that the big picture that demands male hierarchy is accurate? Honestly, this seems to look like what egalitarians are always charged with – a bait and switch.

    Accurate handling of the Word of God will not disregard the inspired words. For if the exact words are not necessarily inspired or necessarily accurate and the grammar is not necessarily accurate then it will be left to each one to decide for oneself what feels best. I don’t operate that way. My emotions are not to be a part of the truth. All of God’s word needs to fit together without contradiction and then we will know that we have understood God’s truth accurately.

  219. OK let me say a few things…
    Cheryl,

    I very much appreciate your trust in the Spirit, but we must alsways keep in mind the auhtor’s intent/purpose/culture of their writings. What i find amazing aswell is that Moses wrote Genesis for the Hebrews, yet it is now for us also. God uses humans to fulfill his Will and that included writing the word.
    Now let me probe you a bit further. You have not answered my question whether you see the gospel writers as writing Jesus’ exact words. And im sure you realise if you say yes to this, then the question arises…so why are the recordings so different even of the same accounts. Who is more trustworthy, Luke or Matthew? You see the problem? They are not identical so which one is TRULY Jesus words. I too agree that the spirit helped them remember, but i also relaise that the nitended audience of Matthew is not the intended audience of Mark. THe emphasis of MAtthew is not the same emphasis as Mark. We need to understand all this to get a better grasp on the writings. ALthough the wording and strucutres are different, there is no contradiction in them, they are simply writing as different human men to different human audiences. For example Luke is writing to Theophilus so he can be certain of the things he knows about Jesus. Matthew has a Jewish audience in mind and that is why his book is filled with OT prophecies. Do you understand what i am trying to say? Does not this also help to understand the context? And i know with your view on 1 Cor 14 you heavily rely on the outer Jewish context, so why are you ignoring it with Moses?
    Also why is Moses calling God YAHWEH all through Genesis? Do you still believe that God lied to Moses about revealing his name? How could he reveal it to Eve, then to Moses then to Abraham (Gen 14:22) and Sarah (Gen 16:2)even Abraham’s slave (Gen 24:12) and Issac (26:22) in Jacobs vision God even calls himself LORD to Jacob (Gen28:13) and Rachel (Gen 30:24) and Labab (Gen 30:27) again Jacob (Gen 30:30)and on i could go… are you beginning to see the problem i have wiht your view? Did God or didn’t God reveal his name to moses? Is Exodus 6:3 true or not?

    Kay,

    Let me answer briefly about 1 TIm and 1 Cor 11. As with any exegesis we need to be able to see what principles are binding and what are cultural- this is always going to be difficult. But think about this, in both these passages what is Pauls reasoning? In both he uses Genesis to show why he wants thinks done in that cultural time. So then we can see that Paul uses Genesis to show why are a woman should not teach and not be in authority. We are then able to say that no these things are not just culturally binding like a head covering is. He is using scripture for his argument.
    If Paul is only concerned with a cultural issue, why is he using the Creation account for his argument?

  220. Mark,
    So, as long as you can say that the meanings of those words we’ve been discussing in those particular verses comes anywhere close to the overall male hierarchy view that you ‘read’ the Scriptures with, then that’s good enough for you. Right?
    I can’t help but wonder, do you ever wake up in the middle of the night asking, “I wonder if Jesus really said, ‘It is finished’?”

  221. I am not given Moses leeway. THe fact is simple, he writes after he knows YAHWEH so he uses that name for GOd all thorugh Genesis. So when it is not there with the serpent and Eve we need to think why not? Nor do i appreciate being acused of ignoring things. UNlike some i simply look at the bigger picutre to understand the smaller picture…its called reading the bible properly. If we only focus on one samll word or phrase without understanding in realtion to the rest of the bible we get in trouble, ie the egalitarian view. You and argue all you want why Paul didn’t use certain words but the fact is he used the ones he did. Kephale does have authority…cased closed…do some proper research before making silly comments.

    Kay and CHeryl answer this…did God lie in Exodus 6:3- your view said he did…thats a big problem. If we cant get this right how do we expect to get Gen 1-3 right?

  222. Kay,

    Is Paul documenting history. Is he writing after the events have passed? It’s a total different genre so needs to be looked at differently. After all who finished the book of Deutoronomy since t records MOses being dead…surely couldn’t have been moses? Let’s start looking at things properly without the egalitarian blinkers on…i’m getting less and less convinced that people are seeking the ‘truth’ and not reading with prejudice.

  223. Mark,
    It says in 1Cor.11:5 that women were praying and prophesying.
    Why would the cultural head covering have been a controversy at all if these women were at home in private individual prayer and prophesying to themselves?
    Do you think Paul allowed praying and prophesying in ch. 11 and then changed his mind by ch.14?

  224. Mark,
    You said:

    They are not identical so which one is TRULY Jesus words. I too agree that the spirit helped them remember, but i also relaise that the nitended audience of Matthew is not the intended audience of Mark. THe emphasis of MAtthew is not the same emphasis as Mark.

    You said it quite well. The Holy Spirit brought Jesus’ words to their remembrance. It was His own words with no additions at all. Fully accurate. Yet each one brought out what was necessary for their own intended audience by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. This means that there is no contradiction at all in the accounts. They are all fully inspired and they are all accurate. It is the same as the accounts of the miracles of Jesus. Were there two demoniacs or only one when Jesus crossed over into the country of the Gadarenes? Matthew says there were two (Matt 8:28) while Mark and Luke only mention one. Which accounts are inaccurate and thus uninspired? None of them. They are all fully accurate and fully inspired. Mark and Luke do not say that only one demoniac was there. However there focus was not on the one who is not recorded as getting healed but on the one who was healed and sent back to his people as a testimony.

    If we take the view that the words are not necessarily accurate, then we are left to our own interpretation and our own decision to know what to keep and what to throw out. We become the test for truth instead of believing that God’s testimony will never be inaccurate. Just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean that the Word is wrong. It is rather our own understanding that is wrong.

    Yesterday I talked to someone who believes that Jesus suffering didn’t end at the cross that Jesus had to be tortured for three days and three nights before “it is finished”. They have accept a world view that teaches them that all the English words translated “hell” mean a place of punishment instead of understanding that the Greek has several words with different meanings. The words “It is finished” then can be changed to this part is finished and there is another three days of torture in addition to the several hours of torture that He already endured. If the Word cannot be trusted to correct them, then we are all left to our interpretations.

    Bottom line, I believe that the words are completely accurate without additions that would add to what Jesus said. They are completely accurate and completely inspired because the Holy Spirit does a perfect job. If you believe that Jesus’ words that were recorded are not accurate and that the Holy Spirit inspired the disciples to add words that Jesus never said, then I guess we have a different view of inspiration.

  225. Mark,
    You said:

    I am not given Moses leeway. THe fact is simple, he writes after he knows YAHWEH so he uses that name for GOd all thorugh Genesis. So when it is not there with the serpent and Eve we need to think why not?

    If Moses has to “correct” Eve and add LORD (YHWH) to the word God, then can you please tell me why he did not correct himself in Genesis 1? Why did Moses only write “God”? Is he into correcting only a woman and not seeing that he failed to called God by the term LORD even though he knew it?

  226. Mark,
    You said:

    Nor do i appreciate being acused of ignoring things. UNlike some i simply look at the bigger picutre to understand the smaller picture…its called reading the bible properly.

    So do you agree then that 1 Timothy 2:12 can be disregarded because egalitarians want to look at the bigger picture that allows men and women to use their gifts without restriction? The big picture is never one of restriction for women so taking those who do not explain 1 Tim. 2:12 but who choose to only take it within the big picture, do you consider them reading the Bible properly?

  227. Mark,
    You said:

    If we only focus on one samll word or phrase without understanding in realtion to the rest of the bible we get in trouble, ie the egalitarian view.

    Who is only focusing on one small word or phrase? We are paying attention to each word and each phrase so that we can be sure that we are accurately handling the Word of God and so that the big picture we see is not distorted by inaccurate smaller pictures.

    I am very certain that if we refused to look at one word or one piece of grammar that gave the comp view, you would be saying the same thing to us and rightfully so.

  228. Cheryl, nice attempt to dodge my question. Can you please answer whether God DID reveal his name to EVe and the others and thus God was a liar in Exodus 6:3 or is there something else going on here?

    By the way i agree with what you said about inspriration…they are completely trustworthy….but are they Jesus exact words like you are claiming these are Eve’s exact words? Can you please answer this

  229. Let me say i see all words s scripture as accurate because they are a God’s words. THis doesn’t mean though that the gospels are jesus exact words nor are the speeches in acts the exact words etc. What is recorded is what god wants us to have…therefore with eve we have what God wants us to have but we don’t have to see them as eve’s exact words.

  230. “Kephale does have authority…cased closed…do some proper research before making silly comments.”

    Mark,
    Have I ever characterized anything you’ve said as “silly”? I am really sorry that you have chosen to say that to me.

    I have done a lot of research on the meaning of kephale and know that it is not an iron clad case for the meaning to be ‘authority’.

  231. Mark,

    You and argue all you want why Paul didn’t use certain words but the fact is he used the ones he did. Kephale does have authority…cased closed…do some proper research before making silly comments.

    There cannot be an case-closed until it is shown to us how the meaning of “authority over” or “superiority” fits the context of the passage. It is very understandable to us in the context how “source” or “point of origin” fits and the passage is talking about the origin of the man and the woman. But if we are wrong in “superiority” fits better, I would like to see it exegeted from the context.

    Remember that a possible meaning of a word will never do until the context fits that meaning to show that this is indeed the author’s intention.

  232. Cheryl,

    is it source or origin…which one? These are different translations remember. I know some might say they are synonomous but i disagree.
    Also in what way is Christ the ‘source’ of man? Is this identical with woman being the ‘source’ of man? If so are you saying that man was created out of Christ. If God is the’ source’ of Christ, in what way? Is Christ created out of GOd the same way as Eve was out of Adam, therefore making Christ a created being.
    You see source doesnt fit the context because it actually means different things depending on the relationship, do you really think Paul would use ‘kephale’ in quick succession like that and actually have it mean different things?

  233. Mark,

    You asked:

    Kay and CHeryl answer this…did God lie in Exodus 6:3- your view said he did…thats a big problem. If we cant get this right how do we expect to get Gen 1-3 right?

    Exo 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.

    I already dealt with this, but since you don’t appear to understand me I will try again. I admitted my error in thinking that Eve could not have known God’s name or else Abraham would have known it. It was my error not God’s. Moses came after Abraham so his inspired writing about Eve’s knowledge of YHWH was done after Abraham.

    Exodus 6:3 then shows that indeed God did not reveal to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob His own name – not by word of by His written word.

    Genesis 1 – 3 is accurate as well. Anything that we do not understand completely is not God’s error but ours. God did not add His own name into Eve’s quote just as He did not add it into Genesis 1. It is a moot point. God is just fine with us calling Him God, LORD God, LORD of Hosts, etc. He did not discipline Moses for getting it wrong by not putting LORD in chapter 1 of Genesis. This does not prove an error in Genesis. It proves your theory wrong.

  234. I need to go do some stuff, so ill be back later. I hope Cheryl you can answer some of my questions by then. I look forward to your explanations

  235. Mark,

    Cheryl, nice attempt to dodge my question. Can you please answer whether God DID reveal his name to EVe and the others and thus God was a liar in Exodus 6:3 or is there something else going on here?

    God did reveal His name to Eve. He did not reveal His name to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. What other problems do you have with that? Is it okay for God to reveal His name to a woman and decide not to reveal His name to Abraham? Does this mean there is an error? Is the Word of God subject to what you think is right? I cannot do that. I do not have the godlike qualities to judge the Bible. By the way the only time I have heard arguments like this is from those who accept the term liberal. I am actually quite shocked at how you don’t accept what the Bible literally says.

  236. Mark,

    Let me say i see all words s scripture as accurate because they are a God’s words. THis doesn’t mean though that the gospels are jesus exact words nor are the speeches in acts the exact words etc. What is recorded is what god wants us to have…therefore with eve we have what God wants us to have but we don’t have to see them as eve’s exact words.

    So God feels like making things up and claiming that Jesus said these things or Eve said these things? That sounds like deception to me. If I quoted you and said what you had not said, you would charge me with deceit, misrepresentation, etc.

  237. I have to say one more thing since you commented Cheryl

    “Exo 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.”

    Did i not show earlier that Abraham and Jacob both refer to God as LORD. How could God make such a comment if he did reveal his name to them? You have in no way answered my question. Ignore your comment about Eve and deal with this. Did God reveal his name to these men or not? If he did how coulde he say what he said to Moses? If he didn’t how if we read what they say as literally there words, can they be calling God LORD. There is a mistake here in your view Cheryl and it makes God a liar. Can you please reconcile this for me? The only way this can be possible is two ways.
    1. You believe God lied to Moses.
    2. You admit that Moses is using the name he knew of God in writing his historical record.

  238. “So then we can see that Paul uses Genesis to show why are a woman should not teach and not be in authority. We are then able to say that no these things are not just culturally binding like a head covering is. He is using scripture for his argument.
    If Paul is only concerned with a cultural issue, why is he using the Creation account for his argument?”

    He is using the creation account because the woman in Ephesus was DECEIVED. And he is using Eve as an example of the same type of deception from ignorance. Since EVE was formed last, she did not have as much knowledge as ADAM and was deceived by the serpent. Adam sinned knowing the truth..he had even seen some creating in the garden that Eve did not see.

    If this is NOT what Paul means then you must believe that women are saved by bearing children. Please tell me that is not what you believe, too. A works salvation/sanctification for women only? The cruelty of that is monumental and blasphemous to our Holy Savior! But this is what many at CBMW teach! A works salvation for women in ‘roles’. It is like spitting on our Savior not to mention cruel to those Christian sisters who have not been able to bear children.

  239. Mark,

    is it source or origin…which one? These are different translations remember. I know some might say they are synonomous but i disagree.

    The source of the river is its origin.
    Dictionary:

    Origin
    –noun
    1. something from which anything arises or is derived; source; fountainhead: to follow a stream to its origin.

    When you deny these things, it doesn’t seem to me that you really care about truth, but about defending your position. I am only giving my perception.

  240. That is an english dictionary, not a proper tanslation of how ‘kephale’ is used in it’s various formats, ie in relation to people, metaphorically, literally. So perhaps you are the one not interested in the truth. If you can show me one instance where ‘kephale’ is used between people and it is not understood authoritatively i would be most intereseted, then perhaps my view would change. At the momont i’m just going with the evidence that is there.

  241. Mark,

    Also in what way is Christ the ‘source’ of man? Is this identical with woman being the ‘source’ of man?

    Christ is the originator of the man. The man is the source or origin of the flesh that became woman. God is the source or originator of the humanity of Christ. Woman is now the source or origin of the man. God is ultimately the origin of all.

    You see source doesnt fit the context because it actually means different things depending on the relationship, do you really think Paul would use ‘kephale’ in quick succession like that and actually have it mean different things?

    Yes, of course. The woman came from the man. How? A piece of his side was taken out and that was formed into a woman. Now the man comes out of the woman. How? Is it the exact same way that she was formed out of the man? No. But it is still the point of origin.

    Please explain how authority over or superiority fits in this passage. I have answered all of your questions. It is time for you to answer mine.

    Please exegete 1 Cor. 11 for us so that we can see how neatly “authority over” or “superiority” fits the context.

  242. Mark,

    Did i not show earlier that Abraham and Jacob both refer to God as LORD. How could God make such a comment if he did reveal his name to them? You have in no way answered my question.

    No you didn’t. Please show the verses where you believe that the Bible contradicts itself.

    Ignore your comment about Eve and deal with this.

    You are evading the questions. Why? Is it a good thing to say that God put words into Eve’s mouth to make it seem like she knew Him by name when this was a lie that she indeed either didn’t know Him by His name or she refused to honor Him before she sinned but after her death things were “corrected”? How is that honoring God? Do you really think that He is that kind of sneaky person who changes the past to “correct” it? If I had this view of the Scriptures, I would just give up and go do something else. I would say that reading and trying to understand Scripture would be a waste of time because I would not know what was real truth and what was in need of correction, changed truth, etc. Sheesh!

    Did God reveal his name to these men or not? If he did how coulde he say what he said to Moses? If he didn’t how if we read what they say as literally there words, can they be calling God LORD. There is a mistake here in your view Cheryl and it makes God a liar.

    Show me. Expose the errors you say are in the bible and I will look at it.

    That is an english dictionary, not a proper tanslation of how ‘kephale’ is used in it’s various formats, ie in relation to people, metaphorically, literally. So perhaps you are the one not interested in the truth. If you can show me one instance where ‘kephale’ is used between people and it is not understood authoritatively i would be most intereseted, then perhaps my view would change. At the momont i’m just going with the evidence that is there.

    You said that origin and source are not synonyms. And you won’t accept a dictionary to prove they are synonyms?

    All you need to do to end the conflict is to show us how “authority over” works in 1 Cor. 11. Are you willing to do that or are you going to admit that it doesn’t fit? I don’t think it fits but I am not infallible. I am willing to look at the evidence. Please provide your exegesis as evidence.

    Why would you say that I am not interested in truth? Are you just wanting to hurt me? Or are you willing to argue passionately without attacking the person? Personal attacks do not qualify as valid arguments. At least not on this blog.

  243. Cheryl first of all look at my post #241 and then im sure you will see relevant bible passage that show that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all call God LORD, not to mention all the other people, the slave, Laban etc. Once you look at this then we can talk more otherwise we will never get anywhere.

    I really do appreciate you Cheryl, you are chalenging. I am sorry for questioning your motives, please forgive me. I am passionate about the word of God and im sure you know its hard not to lose control sometimes.

    Please do consider the problems with some of your views regarding Genesis. In terms of my Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 perhaps you post my paper first, so people can see that superiority over was is a possible translation for kephale. Once peole can admit to that then perhaps we can get somewhere in relation to how it fits the context. If people are never willing to accept that it was a possible translation then how can i expect people to give my exegesis a fair hearing?

  244. “…do some proper research before making silly comments.”

    It saddens me when a discussion degenerates to that level.

    Mark,
    Several weeks back in this discussion you were asked to define and demonstrate how a husband uses this “authority” that you say ‘kephale’ means and as yet you have not. It seemed that you generally described it as something that could not be used over your wife against her will, which never really met a normal definition of authority. Unless perhaps you meant it as “power to influence or command thought, or behavior.” That was as close a definiton I could find to fit what you kept describing, but it hardly puts the husband in a place over his wife.

  245. My anit-spam word is love. Did everyone hear that?

    Now, Mark, thanks for apologising to Cheryl, I was getting a bit stressed reading the comments and was hoping we would not all forget our relationship with each other in Christ 🙂

    Mark, you seem to take seriously what CBMW say and I assume you would give some weight to Wayne Grudem’s reasearch? I can direct you straight to Grudem’s reasearch that indicates clearly that kephale is used for “origin/source” MORE than “authority” in ancient Greek texts. I am more than happy to wait for your info on kephale, but please do not suggest my good friend Kay has not done some proper research when her conclusions are in agreement with Prof Grudem.

    Also, if I might just add there has been a lot of “you are dodging my questions” talk going on. For goodness sake we are over 260 comments and I am finding it hard just to keep up with the conversation let alone answer questions. Mark I know I made a statement or two earlier that you wanted clarified, I will simply withdraw the comments, we have enough to look at as it is!

    God Bless you all!!

  246. Sorry, I should have said that Kay’s conclusions agree with Prof Grudem’s research, but not with Prof Grudem’s conclusions.
    😉

  247. Mark,

    I missed your Bible references on your post. Sorry. I have been copying and pasting sections for comment and for some reason I must have been interrupted and didn’t finish reading that one post. I apologize for my misstep. There has been a lot of reading and a lot that could be missed.

    So let’s see. There does appear to be a contradiction. But since I know for sure that God does not lie and I also know that God does not contradict Himself, let’s have a look at the Hebrew to see what is going on.

    A further complication occurs because Exodus 6:3 notes that God says, “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.” The resolution to this apparent contradiction to some 150 uses of the name Yahweh during the patriarchal period is to be found in a technical point of Hebrew grammar, know as beth essentiae, in the phrase “by my name.” This phrase meant that while Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob heard and used the name Yahweh, it was only in Moses’ day that the realization of the character, nature and essence of what that name meant became clear. “By the name” is better translated “in the character [or nature] of Yahweh [was I not known].”
    From Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Peter H. Davids, FF Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch pg 88

    So here is an “apparent” contradiction that I had not encountered before and the specific Hebrew grammar that I had not researched before but others have shown the inspired grammar that fixes the problem.

    I really do appreciate you Cheryl, you are chalenging. I am sorry for questioning your motives, please forgive me. I am passionate about the word of God and im sure you know its hard not to lose control sometimes.

    Mark, I forgive you. I will not let it taint the way I accept you as a dear brother in Christ. I understand that this issue (and myself) can be challenging. That’s okay. Challenges stretch us and grow us and make us more like Christ.

    What I have learned to do and I hope that I succeed more than I fail, is to strive to give my patience to others, and to remove myself from the emotional connection. This entire issue has caused me great pain in the past. I lost dear friends because they treated me very badly and walked out of my life over the issue of whether a woman can teach the Bible to men. The issue was about Bible studies in the home teaching verse by verse not an issue of being a pastor in a formal church building. I was judged by those who should have loved me. But with the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit, I chose to take the harm that had been done to me and turn it into a work of love for God. It took me quite awhile to get healing and not to feel great pain when dealing with this issue.

    I chose to research the hard passages of Scripture verse by verse and present the Biblical evidence without striking out at the complementarian camp who greatly hurt me. If I were to stay in my emotions because of the way I had been treated I would feel worthless and useless because I was born female and to many complementarians that is a place of restriction, a place of silence (meaning my spiritual thoughts are not worth hearing when a man is present) and a life of shame supposedly passed on to me through the deception of Eve.

    But God doesn’t see me that way and His love has brought me great healing. He has given me strength to be kind to those who I believe have been deceived. I don’t want to treat them like the enemy. Our enemy is satan not our brothers in Christ. I believe that God specializes in using the weak to confound the wise. The worth of a woman, even if she is worth far less than a man in the eyes of the world and far less in the eyes of some in the Church, is a tremendous gift to the Church when she walks in the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

    Please do consider the problems with some of your views regarding Genesis. In terms of my Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 perhaps you post my paper first, so people can see that superiority over was is a possible translation for kephale.

    No problem with Genesis at all. I just learned something new myself. Learning about the Hebrew and Greek grammar has been invaluable to me in my research and this issue is just one more example that the exact grammar in the Hebrew can remove all charges of a contradiction.

    As far as your exegesis, putting your “proof” of the word usage along with your exegesis is the powerful way to prove your point. That is how I did not DVD set and since the lexicons differ on this word, the deciding factor will be the “fit” in the passage. I am asking you to please work on that and send it to me. I think that it will work for a new topic here and be lots to talk about.

    I will probably not be on line much tonight as I have lots to do and have spent more time on my blog that I should have. Yes, Mark, passion is part of my character too.

  248. Cheryl,

    Have you now changed your view from saying they couldn’t speak His name to now they could, but the full revelation of what that meant didn’t come until Exodus 3? If so, i am glad that you are now accepting one conservative approach to reconciling this problem.

    Dave,

    I do not deny that ‘kephale’ could be understood as source. The problem i have is with people who deny it couldn’t be understood as superiority over. From the research i have done, both are legitimate translations for ‘kephale’, and so ultimately the context is the deciding factor. That is why i am persistent that Cheryl agrees to post my paper before i give my opinion of the context. Until people accept the superiority over was an acceptable meaning in Paul’s day the discussion will never proceed. Do you deny Dave that kephale could mean superiority over?

  249. Another quick comment,

    Interestingly doing more research for ‘kephale’ i found that many conservative evangelicals of the past accepted ‘source’ as the meaning of ‘kephale’ in 1 Cor 11, BUT didn’t deny that men were still in authority over women.
    The premise of taking the meanig source AND denying male leadership has only really come about with the rise of feminism. I thought that was interesting?

  250. Kay,

    Please direct me to anywhere on the CBMW site that saids women are only saved by works. Here is what you said

    ” A works salvation/sanctification for women only? The cruelty of that is monumental and blasphemous to our Holy Savior! But this is what many at CBMW teach! A works salvation for women in ‘roles’. It is like spitting on our Savior not to mention cruel to those Christian sisters who have not been able to bear children”

    If this is true i will stand up and say they are wrong to deny justification by faith alone- but please direct me to where you see this. Thanks

  251. Mark, I think we have been over all this before, but as kephale is being used as a metaphor by Paul, context dictates the meaning, not how the word has been previously used.

    Your comment “You and argue all you want why Paul didn’t use certain words but the fact is he used the ones he did. Kephale does have authority…cased closed…do some proper research before making silly comments.”

    This does not allow for context, it clearly indicates that you simply think kephale means authority…case closed. In light of this statement I defended Kay by saying that even Prof Grudem had found evidence to show kephale can mean things other than authirity.

    “The premise of taking the meanig source AND denying male leadership has only really come about with the rise of feminism. I thought that was interesting?”

    This is not true. The is lexical evidence of this meaning that is dated approx 100 years before feminism. There are also other sources that predate this. Your comment sounds a lot like a CBMW type statement. Can I ask where you found the information to back that statement up?

  252. Mark,

    Have you now changed your view from saying they couldn’t speak His name to now they could, but the full revelation of what that meant didn’t come until Exodus 3? If so, i am glad that you are now accepting one conservative approach to reconciling this problem.

    I changed my view as soon as I saw Eve proclaim God’s name. I didn’t think that she knew God’s name, but I cannot argue against the Scripture. I had not paid attention to that before. I accept the Bible as written and I do not believe that God’s name has been added to Eve’s quote by Moses. That would be an unethical quote.

    I also accept that the Hebrew grammar makes a distinction between knowing God’s name and knowing His full character that He revealed with Moses.

    Are you now saying that you accept that Eve spoke God’s name in chapter 4 and that there was no malice by using the term “God” when she spoke to the serpent just as there was no malice by Moses when he wrote chapter 1? I would sure like you to admit when you change your mind too. Or are you still holding on to your believe that Eve was Eve (and apparently Moses) was siding with satan when she used the term God? It is a view that liberals hold who have blasted me for my trust in the Scriptures as they are written.

    My basic opinion is always that the Bible is right in its original autograph. I do not believe that it has been tainted nor that someone later added to God’s Word. I struggle with understanding those who believe that God’s Word can be added to. It doesn’t make sense to me.

    The problem i have is with people who deny it couldn’t be understood as superiority over. From the research i have done, both are legitimate translations for ‘kephale’, and so ultimately the context is the deciding factor.

    Mark, if I didn’t know better I would think that you were me writing from Australia. It is ultimately the context that is the deciding factor. Although the term “source” is used for often than anything else, there can be other meanings. That is why I said that the exegesis of the passage is of utmost importance and that a word study alone without the context will not be sufficient to determine the correct meaning.

    I think that Suzanne does great work on the issue of “source” and “kephale” http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/

    It is Andreas Kostenberger who teaches that women will be saved from deception if they continue in their roles as wives and mothers. See here http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/bible/will-women-be-saved-by-childbearing and on this page there is a link to the CBMW article.

    Andreas is a nice guy. I liked him a lot. But his theology in this area is faulty. He had no answers to the questions I gave him regarding the holes in his argument. Saved from deception into safety in Christ by remaining in one’s roles has some serious theological issues and Andreas admitted to me that his view does not have full acceptance in CBMW. Problem is that they publish it as if it is a valid Biblical view. My DVD goes through Andreas’ view on 1 Timothy 2:15

    I recently purchased a booklet written by a woman defending women’s freedom to minister the Word of God. It was written in 1666. Hardly a view influenced by “feminism” in 1666. It is a common tactic that CBMW uses and seems to dissuade people from looking at all the women ministers hundreds of years ago. No one wants to pay attention to that because they want to say it is a recent trend. That isn’t true.

    Now back to work for me.

  253. Mark,
    Quoting Grudem himself in the RBMW Appendix:
    “In fact, the most common word for ruler, the one that literally meant ruler, was archon. It is not at all surprising that in contexts where the Hebrew word for head meant ruler, it was frequently translated by archon.”
    Why do you want to place authority in these passages? It goes against Jesus’ teaching about being servants to one another rather than seeking authority over one another.
    “But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.” (Luke 22:26)
    “He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” (Mark 9:35)
    The two conditions of true greatness are humility and service – not authority and service.
    In fact, Jesus words, no matter which gospel account one reads, are never telling any believer to take authority of any kind over another believer – just the opposite – He warns against it.

  254. “Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”
    “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” Eph.4:15-16,5:1-2

  255. “As with any exegesis we need to be able to see what principles are binding and what are cultural- this is always going to be difficult.”

    Mark,
    I still must contend that what Jesus taught *are* and must be considered the highest binding principles.
    “But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.” (Luke 22:26)

  256. “In terms of my Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 perhaps you post my paper first, so people can see that superiority over was is a possible translation for kephale. Once peole can admit to that then perhaps we can get somewhere in relation to how it fits the context.”

    “Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” Luke 22

  257. Cheryl,

    “I also accept that the Hebrew grammar makes a distinction between knowing God’s name and knowing His full character that He revealed with Moses.”
    This is a massive debate which we have barely touched on, so i hope you can appreciate why i had to probe your view since it was producing a contradiction in the word. But it is good to see you be corrected and accept the word.

    “I would sure like you to admit when you change your mind too”
    Actually i haven’t changed my mind. Earlier i mentioned that you have now gone with 1 conservative approach to reconciling the problem with Exodus 6:3. The other conservative view is somewhat basically what i am putting forward. But again the research here is extensive and i am by no means an expert on it, but i’m sure if you looked into the 2 conservative views that reconcile this problem you will see that i am not a ‘liberal’. The reason i side with my view, is because if we probe your ‘new’ view we have further complications with the gospels. For example, did Jesus perform the same miracles 4 times over, did he say the same parables 4 times over etc etc. I’ll leave this here and hopefully if you choose to look into this further you might see why it is inaccurate to label me a liberal.

    ” I do not believe that it has been tainted nor that someone later added to God’s Word.”

    Not totally sure what you mean by this? Do you think this is what i believe? Can you explain for me how you understand the later redactions on certain texts. For example it is almost universally recognised that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, yet it records his own death. If another writer redacted this at a later date does that make it less ‘inspired’ in your opinion? Or is it some sort of prophecy on Moses behalf about his own death? Can it be redacted but still be preserved to be God’s words? I’d love to know your opinion here so i can better know where you come from when reading scripture…sorry i know its abit off topic.

    “Although the term “source” is used for often than anything else, there can be other meanings.”
    I’m glad you have said this, it makes it much easier to progress in the arguments.

    “It is Andreas Kostenberger who teaches that women will be saved from deception if they continue in their roles as wives and mothers.”
    So he is NOT saying it is her works that gives her salvation? Was Lin wrong in what she said about works salvation? His view is that it will just stop her from being deceived right and has nothing to do with her salvation?

    “I recently purchased a booklet written by a woman defending women’s freedom to minister the Word of God. It was written in 1666. Hardly a view influenced by “feminism” in 1666. It is a common tactic that CBMW uses and seems to dissuade people from looking at all the women ministers hundreds of years ago. No one wants to pay attention to that because they want to say it is a recent trend. That isn’t true.”
    Note what i actually said. I didn’t say people haven’t rejected male leadership until feminism, i said people using ‘source’ as a definition combined with rejecting male leadership is new. I got that from David Garland’s Exegetical Commentary on 1 Corinthians. He might be wrong, i dunno??? Maybe you can point out to me Cheryl, someone before the rise of feminism who used ‘source’ as the basis of the rejection of male leadership. His evidence shows that even scholars who saw kephale as source, still did not reject male headship.

    Dave,

    “This does not allow for context, it clearly indicates that you simply think kephale means authority…case closed. In light of this statement I defended Kay by saying that even Prof Grudem had found evidence to show kephale can mean things other than authority.”

    My comment was in reaction to people rejecting that kephale can have an authority overtone, not that it is absolute, hence why i said context is the determining factor. Since you have not agreed that it can have an authoritative overtone, can i assume you don’t believe it can?
    Also it might surprise you but i have had very little to do with CBMW, in fact ive probably only visited their site a handful of times.

    Good night all

  258. Mark,
    This is a quote from the Köstenberger article Cheryl linked.

    “the author’s choice of the noun rather than the verb in the present passage in suggesting that a general concept is in view, “procreation,” i.e., the woman’s participation in the multiplication of the human race. Indeed, procreatio is the Latin translation of this term (cf., e.g., the Vulgate).
    We may therefore conclude that 1 Tim 2:15 may best be rendered in the following way:
    “She (i.e., the woman) escapes (or is preserved; gnomic future) [from Satan] by way of procreation (i.e., having a family).

    ”83 Moreover, in line with 1 Tim 5:14, one should view procreation as merely the
    core of the woman’s responsibility that also entails, not merely the bearing, but also the raising of children, as well as managing the home (synecdoche;
    cf. also Titus 2:4–5). The sense of the injunction in the present passage is thus that
    women can expect to escape Satan
    under the condition of adhering to their God-ordained role centering around the natural household.”
    – Andreas Köstenberger

    ** “women can expect to escape Satan
    under the condition of adhering to their God-ordained role” **

  259. Mark,

    This is a massive debate which we have barely touched on, so i hope you can appreciate why i had to probe your view since it was producing a contradiction in the word. But it is good to see you be corrected and accept the word.

    Like I said, I was corrected before I looked up the “contradiction” in the resources I have. I just accepted the words of Eve that were recorded as the words that she spoke. Since it appears to me that you do not accept that Eve spoke these words and they were added later, this “fix” of the contradiction allows for additions completely outside of the knowledge of the person who is quoted. Not good. This view makes the Bible deceptive by claiming something that is not true. I would reject that outright because in my world view God is not a deceiver nor does He inspire His Word to be deceptive. I also accept every word that is recorded of what Eve and the serpent said as statements that they did say and not later additions. I accept the words and the grammar as accurate. My belief in the Bible allows me to pay attention to what is said and understand the circumstances by the clear words and grammar.

    The other conservative view is somewhat basically what i am putting forward. But again the research here is extensive and i am by no means an expert on it,

    I have seen a lot of “research” from people who dispute the validity of Genesis. When God says something two or three times (two or three witnesses) it is determined.

    Gen 41:32 “Now as for the repeating of the dream to Pharaoh twice, it means that the matter is determined by God, and God will quickly bring it about.

    Yet people feel free to set aside God’s clear words and to make them into Genesis “parables” so that they can determine what they think God is saying that will conform to their own understanding. My view is that I take God at His Word. From there I work to see why there is a contradiction, but I never “solve” the problem by making God human who can lie or deceive. Words put into someone’s mouth that they didn’t actually say is nothing less than deceptive.

    For example, did Jesus perform the same miracles 4 times over, did he say the same parables 4 times over etc etc. I’ll leave this here and hopefully if you choose to look into this further you might see why it is inaccurate to label me a liberal.

    I have already done a lot of work on the so-called contradictions and when you pay attention to the words and the grammar the “contradictions” disappear. I don’t have to set aside any accuracy of the account to do so. Those who solve the problems by believing that those whom the Holy Spirit inspired add to the words of Jesus or add to the words of Eve are heading down the path of liberalism. What else has been added? And what else has been taken away. It is the Mormon claim that great and precious truths have been removed from the Scriptures. Is their view true? Why can’t it be true if people are allowed to embellish on the story, surely they can remove a story too. Adding to and taking away are in exactly the same camp. I would not want to see you slide further in to this camp for once you grant that the account is inaccurate and you don’t have to pay attention to the exact words and grammar, it is only another step to start the doubt on other passages and on and on. I will not go there. I already had my own crisis of faith in 1986 and I chose to accept God’s word even though I saw a major contradiction. I chose to accept that He was right and there was no contradiction even though I could not accept it. By God’s grace, He gave me that answer later that year, but I was very happy that I believed God first without knowing the answer. He is faithful! No one will ever convince me that God allowed additions to the words quoted as being from a witness of YHWH.

    Not totally sure what you mean by this? Do you think this is what i believe?

    Yes. If I understand you right, you seem to be saying that either Moses added God’s name to Eve’s quote in Genesis 4 or else Eve was following the serpent’s lead at removing God’s name in Genesis 3. You said that Moses could add God’s name in Genesis 4 in to Eve’s quote and that would apparently be fine with you. I strongly disagree.

    For example it is almost universally recognised that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, yet it records his own death. If another writer redacted this at a later date does that make it less ‘inspired’ in your opinion? Or is it some sort of prophecy on Moses behalf about his own death?

    I haven’t studied this one because my life is too busy right now to be distracted to other issues, but I can accept that either Moses prophesied about his own death or else another writer finished the story. Either way does not have another writer adding words to Moses’ mouth. Did Moses say “I died”? or is it written in the third person? Add words to another person’s mouth is deception, pure and simple.

    “Although the term “source” is used for often than anything else, there can be other meanings.”
    I’m glad you have said this, it makes it much easier to progress in the arguments.
    In the OT septuagint, I believe that the translation (not inspired) used head to mean something other than source so apparently those writers were aware of another usage. However it appears that you now are ready to accept that “source” or “point of origin” is also an acceptable meaning while you were disputing the validity of other lexicons before. Have you now accessed the writings of Wayne Grudem to see where he admits this? I think his admission is a vital piece of evidence.

    “It is Andreas Kostenberger who teaches that women will be saved from deception if they continue in their roles as wives and mothers.”
    So he is NOT saying it is her works that gives her salvation? Was Lin wrong in what she said about works salvation? His view is that it will just stop her from being deceived right and has nothing to do with her salvation?

    He is saying that her role saves her. Being deceived by satan is being carried away from the faith. Keeping her role will keep her in the faith. He is very clear about that. Andreas believes that if a woman teaches the Bible to men she is removing herself from her God-ordained role and God will remove His protection from her and will allow her to be deceived by satan. In essence the only thing that remove her out of the place of deception will be her repentance and her placing herself under the proper role. Perhaps “works” salvation would not be the right term. It would be more appropriate to say that he teaches a “role” salvation, which in my mind means the exact thing as “works” salvation. It is the work or place of a woman in her proper domain that will save her. Clear enough? Yah, I know pretty bad. I talked to him about that. I told him that it is showing a prejudice in God in that God never promised to save and keep preserved men who stay in their proper “role”. He said that my questions were good and deserved an answer but that he didn’t have an answer for me. I don’t think that he has properly thought this one through.

    I didn’t say people haven’t rejected male leadership until feminism, i said people using ‘source’ as a definition combined with rejecting male leadership is new. I got that from David Garland’s Exegetical Commentary on 1 Corinthians. He might be wrong, i dunno???

    First of all rejecting male leadership is not “new” and neither is the term “source” or “origin” a new term. In my DVD I document one of the early fathers using this term for head.

    Secondly since David Garland admits that “Earlier interpreters understand (kephale) to mean “source” but with subordinationist overtones.” and since the rejection of male leadership is at least hundreds of years old, then how can you appeal to Garland as proof that the term “source” and rejection of male leadership is a new thing stemming from feminism?

    Let’s see what Garland has to say in some of his comments that are very eye opening:

    This analysis is not without its critics. First, the word “head” was rarely used to describe the relationship of one individual to another. Conzelmann (1975: 183 n. 21) notes, “Head does not denote sovereignty of one person over another, but over a community.” Thiselton (2000: 815–16) goes further and maintains that (kephale) “does not seem to denote a relation of ‘subordination’ or ‘authority over.’ ” He cites Chrysostom’s (Hom. 1 Cor. 26.3) comment that if Paul had intended to convey the idea of rule and subjection, he would have used master-and-slave imagery rather than the figures of man and woman. Chrysostom, however, is primarily interested in fending off any possible heretical interpretation of the subordination of Christ to God (see additional note). Second, Perriman (1994: 602–10) argues that Grudem misinterprets the texts that he adduces as evidence.8 Cervin (1989) is more pointed in challenging Grudem’s examples and methodology (see also Fee 1987: 502 n. 42). Third, this interpretation projects anachronistic physiological notions onto the meaning of “head.” Perriman (1994: 610 n. 20) notes that Plutarch’s fable (Agesilaus 2.3) about the serpent whose tail rebels against the head and takes the lead with disastrous consequences does not illustrate the head’s authority over the tail but that the head is specially equipped to go first. Finally, Perriman (1994: 620) maintains, “The question of authority is irrelevant to a discussion of the proper manner in which men and women should pray and prophesy; nor is it a valid deduction from the idea that man has authority over the woman that she should veil herself in worship, an activity directed not towards the man but towards God.”
    A second alternative understands (kephale) to mean “source.” Christ is the source of man’s existence as the agent of creation (cf. 8:6, “through whom all things are”) or as the archetypal man (15:46–49). Man is the source of woman’s existence, since woman was made from man (Gen. 2:18–23; cf. 1 Cor. 11:12). God is the origin and final goal of all reality and is the source of Christ (3:23; 8:6; 11:12; 15:28). Earlier interpreters understand ?????? to mean “source” but with subordinationist overtones.9 Many recent interpreters who prefer this option seek to eliminate any hint of women’s subordination.10
    Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (514–515). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

    So Garland gives some excellent points for why source or origin works within the text. Although he doesn’t appear to favor this option, but his words seem to set aside a subordination/rulership option for 1 Cor. 11:3. Garland continues:

    Paul lays out an order of relationships that asserts the man’s precedence over the woman. Some conclude that he is trying to reinforce the idea of the woman’s inferiority and subordination. But if woman stands in a lower place, why does she stand in the middle of the sequence, and why is God mentioned last? Paul is not outlining a chain of command, since references to Christ frame the statements about man and woman.
    Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (513). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

    So 1 Cor. 11:3 is not about a chain of command and Garland gives women’s freedom to prophesy as being under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

    (1) Paul takes for granted that women may pray and prophesy in the assembly as long as they have an appropriate head covering. Meier (1978: 218) thinks it an “astounding fact—astounding at least for a group rising from a Jewish synagogue—that women were free in the church to pray openly and to prophesy under charismatic inspiration.” (2) The passage is not about the subordination of women, because the patriarchal order expressed in 11:3, 7–9 from creation is counterbalanced by the emphasis on the “mutual interdependence” of men and women in the Lord in 11:11–12.
    Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (510). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

    Garland goes on to list the meaning of the show that the passage is about the shame/honor culture and that women’s public speaking is permissible.

    In a hierarchically structured shame/honor society, Paul is concerned about the propriety of women’s appearance in public worship. He is not worried about male Christians becoming more effeminate in appearance. Nor is he concerned that women should wear something to show that their speaking in public is permissible
    Garland, D. E. (2003)…This passage is “not about wearing hats to church or about proving that women are intended to be subordinate to men” (R. Williams 1997: 59). The command “let her be covered” (11:6) communicates different things in different cultures…Faithfulness to the teaching of the text can be maintained by female participants in the worship service by observing the proprieties of polite society.
    Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (510–511). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

    Maybe you can point out to me Cheryl, someone before the rise of feminism who used ‘source’ as the basis of the rejection of male leadership. His evidence shows that even scholars who saw kephale as source, still did not reject male headship.

    You greatly misunderstand. I am not rejecting male “headship”. It is what this “headship” means. It does not mean rulership or authority over just as the early church did not believe that the Father was in “authority over” Jesus in the Trinity.

    Have you done a thorough study of the egalitarian view? Which books have you done a serious study of that present the other view? If you have looked into this from both sides, why do you have a problem understanding our view? If you haven’t looked at the other side, why not? I believe that looking at the other side may be even more important than bolstering your own view. This is what I do. I research the opposition to find out if there are holes in my argument and if so why there are holes. If I only look at one side, then I may be wrong and not even know it.

  260. Mark,
    One last thing, you said:

    Also it might surprise you but i have had very little to do with CBMW, in fact ive probably only visited their site a handful of times.

    While you may not have been on the CBMW site, the fact is that most comp resources have a tie to CBMW so you are getting CBMW indoctrination whether you realize it or not.

  261. “Finally, Perriman (1994: 620) maintains, “The question of authority is irrelevant to a discussion of the proper manner in which men and women should pray and prophesy; nor is it a valid deduction from the idea that man has authority over the woman that she should veil herself in worship, an activity directed not towards the man but towards God.”
    Cheryl,
    This is excellent. Our entire life is to be directed towards God, not towards man.

  262. “My comment was in reaction to people rejecting that kephale can have an authority overtone, not that it is absolute, hence why i said context is the determining factor. Since you have not agreed that it can have an authoritative overtone, can i assume you don’t believe it can?”

    Mark, let me be clear.

    What your comment was a reaction to does not explain what your comment stated. YOU STATED that kephale means authority – “case closed” without any reference to context. YOU have rejected it NOT meaning authority outright AND you have claimed that Kay should do more research before making such a “silly” statement. This has been WITHOUT looking at the context. This was YOUR statement. This is why I have said what I said.

    Now, YOU have ASSUMED that I do not believe kephale can mean authority because I have not specifically stated this. However, if you had listened(?) to what I wrote(!) you would know that I believe it can mean the thing on the end of a match (it can mean almost anything) – it depends on CONTEXT. At the same time I have also commented on research that has shown that kephale can mean MORE than authority.

    One important thing that was missed with regard to faithfully reading scripture – to have ears that hear 🙂

  263. I did a complete breakdown of the NT uses of kephale in comments 87 and 89 in the post Do the genders have different functions? and posed a series of questions and challenges to Mark which went unanswered (understandably so with the multi-topic whirlwind in these several posts that he has been responding to). In that breakdown, I demonstrated that kephale is never used to show authority of the head over the body in Pauline metaphore. Unless Mark can twist some new meaning from the context or raw text that is not obvious, the “case is closed” on what Paul means, (or more accurately, what he doesn’t mean), when he uses kephale, which is all that matters in this discussion. I will paraphrase Tom Sawyer again: “Mark, your sayin’ so doesn’t make it so”. I have proven that kephale does not mean authority of head over the body in Paul’s usage. You have only stated that it does mean authority. Time to prove it.

  264. To continue – the capitals were for emphasis…not SHOUTING!!

    Mark, after telling Kay she should do some research before making silly comments you told us, “The premise of taking the meanig source AND denying male leadership has only really come about with the rise of feminism. I thought that was interesting?”

    I asked you what your research was for making this comment, especially in the light of lexical evidence. As yet you have not responded, but unless you have done exhaustive research of at least publications over the last several hundred years then you have not researched enough to make such a “silly” statement.

    My observations of this conversation are similar to gengwall. It goes round and round!

    Aren’t you studying for stuvac Mark? You said you were at college most da