Interdependence in the Lord

Interdependence in the Lord

Comments 5 comments

In our verse by verse through 1 Corinthians 11, we now come to verse 11:

1 Corinthians 11:11  However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

Paul once again breaks with tradition.  Paul gives the woman the right to make her own decision in verse 10 about what she will or won’t wear on her head when he says the woman ought to have “authority” (exousia) on her head.  Although the cultural tradition gave a woman no authority to make her own decisions, Paul dismisses that tradition as a non-Christian tradition.  However Paul quickly follows the woman’s authority to make a decision (exousia) with the qualifier “however”.  However, Paul says, “in the Lord”, woman is not independent of the man.  She has the right to make her own decision but she is not independent of the man.  In what way is she not independent of the man?  She is not independent of the man in the exact same way that the man is not independent of the woman.

Paul gives the reason for the interdependence in 1 Corinthians 11:12 –

For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Paul makes use of the Greek word “gar” (for) which is a primary particle; properly assigning a reason  for his argument.  The woman is not independent of the man Paul says, because the man is the original source of the woman and she wouldn’t exist without him.  Paul also says that the man is not independent of the woman because the woman is the original source of all men since her creation.  No man would have his existence now without her.  Adam’s position of primacy as the first one created and his being the source of the woman is balanced out and equaled with the woman’s primacy as the source of all men.

Paul sums it all up by saying that the woman is dependent on the man and the man is dependent on the woman but the ultimate source is not man and it is not woman either.  The ultimate source is God.

So how does this all play out regarding decision making?  The woman has the right to make her own decision, but since she is also joined in a one-flesh union with the man, she must consider her husband and his conscience with the issue of the head covering because what she decides to do may bring his weak conscience deep shame.  The cultural tradition of the head covering which brought shame to a man whose wife was uncovered in public needed the time to be exposed and accepted as a faulty tradition.   Instead of bringing the man shame, Paul said that the woman is his glory.  The decision is now in the hands of the woman with her full knowing that she is not completely independent of the man.  As a Christian wife she is to respect her husband and to consider his conscience in her decision.

The woman is the only one given a choice regarding what she will do regarding the head covering.  The man is never told that he can choose to wear the head covering or not.  For him, the decision has already been made because there is only one who is shamed when he wears the head covering.  The cultural tradition that brought shame to Christ is to be abandoned.

Next post we will get into the “hairy” issue of the length of one’s hair in 1 Corinthians 11:13-16.

Shaming the head – 3

Shaming the head – 3

Comments 33 comments

Continuing our verse by verse through 1 Corinthians 11, we come to verse 6:

For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

We have already discussed that the cultural view of women’s hair coverings is “covered” in verse 5. We have also seen that Paul takes a non-traditional view of women by telling the men that his wife is his glory. Paul reveals that the tradition of women being covered is not God’s way of dealing with glory. Glory is meant to be shown or revealed and not covered up. Just as a man reveals God’s glory and is not to cover his head, so a woman reveals the glory of man and she too should be uncovered.

Women whose husbands are Christians and who understand the women’s freedom in Christ to reveal the glory of the Lord just as men reveal the glory of the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18) will have no reason to insist their wives cover themselves because of man’s tradition. So Paul says that “if a woman does not cover her head” then “let her also have her hair cut off”. Here Paul is talking about a woman’s freedom to have her hair cut. Is it wrong for a woman to get a hair cut? Is it wrong for her to have short hair? Paul says the tradition of not cutting one’s hair is in the same category as the tradition that women must wear a head covering. …

Read More Read More

Thinking outside the box

Thinking outside the box

Comments 16 comments

The one thing that God seems to have gifted me with is thinking outside the box.  I quite enjoy reading from others too who have this gift.  It stretches me and gives me that “ah ha” moment which I really love.

Today I had an opportunity to read a blog from someone whom I sense is also gifted with thinking outside the box.

So today I give my first “outside the box” award to “Justa Berean” at http://exegetist-theberean.blogspot.com/

Outside the box

Congratulations and keep up the good work!

Shaming the head – 2

Shaming the head – 2

Comments 4 comments

Several posts back we talked about how Paul shows in 1 Corinthians 11 that the head covering shamed Christ. This post will discuss why a woman without her head covering shamed her head. Let’s start again with 1 Corinthians 11:4, 5 –

Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

Paul has identified the man’s head as Christ and the man who had his head covered during his praying and prophesying shamed Christ. Paul also identified the woman’s head was the man. When she prayed and prophesied with her head uncovered she shamed her head which is her husband (verse 3). Paul doesn’t say why going without a head covering shamed the woman’s husband since the Corinthians would have understood the cultural reason. However we need to do some research to find out why a husband would experience shame when his wife exposed her head in public. …

Read More Read More

Are females saved just like males?

Are females saved just like males?

Comments 9 comments

Before we continue with our verse by verse through 1 Corinthians 11, I wanted to share a question that Jen had who watched my clip of “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free” DVD on YouTube. She said:

“Nowhere does Scripture tell us that there was a wall of separation, a wall of enmity, between males and females, or between slaves and free, that was brought about by the Mosaic Law, and that was then abolished by Christ’s death on the cross. There are plenty of verses regarding women in the Bible, but this passage in Ephesians is NOT one of them. This is twisting Scripture to make it so.”

My reply to Jen (edited to make this issue clear):

Thank you for your comments.

What I was speaking from was Galatians 3:28 – 4:7 Here Paul says that there is neither slave nor free, neither male nor female. What is Paul saying? We need to research to find out because if we only take this as salvation then we have a problem. There was no difference between male and female in salvation. Female’s received salvation in the Old Covenant just as in the New Covenant and no scripture ever questions the salvation of females so there is no point to say that females receive salvation the same way as males. So what kind of situation is Paul referring to that necessitates him saying that there is no male or female?

Paul goes on in chapter 4 to give us the answer. Paul says in Galatians 4:6, 7

“Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His son into our hearts, crying “Abba! Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”

Paul is talking about all of us being joint heirs together – something that was not thought possible in the Old Covenant. Salvation was available in the Old Testament to all who joined themselves with Israel but the foreigner and the women were not allowed to be heirs.  This was reserved for Jewish men. There was a tremendous separation between each group where one group had all the privileges and the other group had none. At least this is the way that the Jews understood it at the time. It was not made known yet that the Gentiles were to be fellow heirs with them. Ephesians 3:5-6 says:

“which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel”

Neither did the Jews understand that women were also fellow heirs. In the Jewish faith the men were able to go into the temple while the women were given only a court on three sides. There was perceived a separation from God because the women were not treated as “sons” of God. Women were not given the same closeness to God as the men, they were not involved in the services and were not allowed to read the scriptures publicly. As the Jews worked out their “privileged” state, they separated themselves from the Gentiles, from women and from the slaves. Women were assigned to their court and the Gentile’s court was outside the temple. The Jews were the heirs and they were the “son’s” of God while everyone else was not on the same standing as they were. There was a separation between the groups because there was a separation regarding their perceived position with God. But with the death of Christ, the barrier was been broken between the groups and no longer were Gentiles, slaves and women kept out of the holy of holies and it was revealed that they all are joint heirs.

It began with the gentiles who were despised by the Jews. Now the gentiles have been shown to be joint heirs with the Jews, fully reconciled to God and joined to his family. The women were also brought near in an equally close relationship and they are now called “Sons” of God, equal heirs with the men.

Slaves too were brought near to God. While slaves were allowed to experience salvation within the congregation of Israel, they were never allowed to participate in the worship services and they were never allowed to be inheritors in the nation of Israel. So Paul said in Galatians 3:28, 29:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.”

Do you see that the “if” and “then” relationship? “If” they all belong to Christ “then” they are all heirs according to the promise. Scripture never once rejected any of these groups regarding salvation if they came into the nation of Israel, but the right of “heir” never belonged to the slaves, the women or the Gentiles in practice.

In Ephesians Paul talks about what the wall of separation is between the Jew and the Gentile.

Ephesians 2:14-19 “For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And he came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.”

The key is verse 19 where Paul says that the Gentiles are no longer strangers and aliens but fellow citizens with the saints. You see salvation was always offered to the Gentiles in Israel’s midst but they were never given sonship or the privileges of sonship. They were never thought of as equals. This was a HUGE barrier between the Gentiles and the Jews. But Jesus broke down that barrier between the two and made the Gentiles joint heirs with the Jews. He made them into ONE new man and as one new man we have been reconciled both to God and to each other.

Paul states this in Ephesians 3:4-6.

“By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel”.

What has been revealed? It is that the Gentiles are “fellow heirs”. The disadvantage between the Gentiles and the Jews and the barriers to God himself have been taken down in Christ. Both have been made into one group – one body in Christ. Has this same disadvantage been broken down for women too? Are they too to be “sons” of God? Peter agrees with Paul that it has:

1 Peter 3:7 “You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.”

The inheritance that had been denied women, slaves, and Gentiles has now been revealed that it has been given to all. All are equal in that all are “sons” of God.

So while Ephesians doesn’t specifically mention women and slaves, we see that the disadvantage has been done away with regarding the Gentiles and the barrier between them and God is taken care of by the blood of Christ and their inclusion as full “heirs of God”. Paul then tells us that women, slaves and Gentiles are all sons of God too (Gal. 4) so we know that the barrier has been broken down for women and slaves and not just the Gentiles. This isn’t just salvation, because they already had that if they were within Israel and followed God. This is talking about the equal inheritance and privileges of being in the family of God. The Holy Spirit has been given to all as a pledge of our inheritance (Eph. 1:13, 14).

I appreciated that you checked up on me. That is a good and noble thing! When someone says something about scripture they should be willing and able to prove their point from the scripture in context. I believe that I have proved that the barrier is the inheritance – “heirs of God” that kept the groups separate and if you want to see the scriptures that prove that Gentiles and slaves received salvation in the Old Testament, I can show them to you if you want. Salvation was never an issue with those in the nation of Israel. However there was an inequality as far as the inheritance in God. Praise the Lord that women too are heirs of God and “sons” of God!

New Paganism?

New Paganism?

Comments 9 comments

I want to draw attention to a blog article written by a ministry friend of mine Don Veinot President of Midwest Christian Outreach. His article is titled Doug Phillips – New Paganism. Several months ago Don contacted me to help him with research on Doug Phillips and his extreme view of women. I think you will find the quotes from Doug’s Phillips Vision Forum amazing to say the least especially since in this day and age. I also recommend you follow the links to Doug’s Phillips articles that Don has linked to. It was amazing for me to do the research for Don and to see that Mr. Phillips does not think that women should be voting, he admonishes women to stay under their father’s authority even as adults until they get married and he says that women don’t need to get a higher education because the money is wasted on them since their role is to be a wife and mother.

Hmmmm….makes me wonderful when he is going to force women to stay indoors confined to their own homes as was the old pagan custom?

I will be continuing our verse-by-verse discussion through 1 Corinthians 11 with more posts coming this week.

Paul refutes a faulty tradition

Paul refutes a faulty tradition

Comments 5 comments

In the last post we discussed that the man is the image and glory of God and Christ is his head. Why does Paul emphasize that the man is the image and glory of God but he says nothing about the woman having God’s glory? It is because Paul is working on a contrast that will blow the lid off a faulty tradition.

In Corinthians 11:3 Paul had just taught the Corinthians that Christ is the head of man. In verse 4 he relates that the one who is the head is not to be dishonored. How is it that a man can shame Christ? The head covering was used historically to show reverence for God and unworthiness to come into God’s presence because of the shame of one’s own sin (see this previous post for the discussion on the historical meaning of the head covering). When a Christian wears something that symbolizes the shame of his sin and his unworthiness to come into the presence of God, Christ is shamed and dishonored for it was Christ himself who died to take away our shame and to be the door of righteousness that takes us into the presence of God. By wearing a reminder of the shame of his sin, the man dishonors Christ. Instead of focusing on his sin, the man is to bring honor to Christ because Christ died to take away the shame of sin, and the penalty that it caused. The man is to respond by bringing honor and glory to Christ, his head. So when a man comes publicly before God through prayer and prophesying, he is to reflect the glory of God.

Now let’s skip down to 1 Cor. 11:7 to see the connection between Christ and the man, and the man and woman. …

Read More Read More

The man is the image and glory of God

The man is the image and glory of God

Comments 2 comments

Last post we discussed how the head covering shamed Christ.  Before we carry on with 1 Corinthians 11:5 in our verse by verse discussion, I want to skip over to verse 7 to discuss the second reason that a man is not to have his head covered and this has to do with honoring his head.  1 Corinthians 11:7 says:

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God…

The man is not to cover his head when he prays or prophesies because the covering of the head hides the glory and the glory of God is not to be hidden but to be reflected.  Matthew 5:14-16 says:

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.  “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

The glory that shines through us is not to be hidden.  The glory properly reflected glorifies the Father in heaven.  2 Corinthians 3:18 says: …

Read More Read More

Home at last

Home at last

Comments 5 comments

We are in our new home, although we have not yet finished unloading our trailer and our new home is still full of boxes needing to be unpacked.  We were one day late in arriving as the tires on our trailer were overheating and the first tire exploded within an hour after we started on our final move.  My husband risked his life changing the tire on a very busy highway and after we got started on the road again, a minute later the next tire blew.  We ended up in a motel for the night waiting for a nearby tire store to open in the morning.  With a new set of tires that weren’t supposed to overheat, we were back on our way the next day and the rest of the trip was uneventful except for driving through my first torrential downpour.  We did arrive safe and sound and for that we praise the Lord.

We still have about another week of unpacking and getting settled so the 1 Corinthians 11 study will continue in a few days as I find time to get my thoughts together between unpacking boxes.  After that I hope to be more regular.  Thanks for your patience and please feel free to comment as we go through the studies.

Shaming the head – 1

Shaming the head – 1

Comments 1 comment

1 Corinthians 11:4-6 lists three “shames” and verse 7 lists two glories. Two of these shames and glories relate directly back to the “head” and one shame relates to the person themselves. Let’s find out about the contrasting “shames” and “glories” because they are vital to understanding this difficult passage.

1 Corinthians 11:4 says:

“Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.”

“Every man” refers back to verse 3 where Paul said that Christ is the head of “every man”. Since Christ is the one who is the head of “every man”, Christ is the one who is shamed when men wear a head covering during the time that they are praying or prophesying. Notice that it isn’t just anytime that a man wears a head covering that Christ is shamed. It is only during the time that he is praying or prophesying.

Why would Christ be shamed if a man prays and prophesies with a head covering on his head? The reason is found in both the historical meaning of the head covering and also in Paul’s reference to honor in verse 7. John Lightfoot a Hebrew Scholar (1602-1675 AD) explains the historical reason for the head covering during worship and prayer. For the Jews, the covering symbolized their unworthiness to look upon God because it symbolized the shame of their sin. Are we unworthy to look upon God and are we to wear something that symbolizes the shame of our sin? Paul says no way. In 1 Corinthians 11:7, Paul says:

“For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God…”

…

Read More Read More

Moving update

Moving update

Comments 7 comments

Oh dear, I thought I would have so much more time, but the race is on…

race Our final ministry and household move will happen this Sunday June 10th. We are working day and night to get the final packing and cleanup done. (Oh why or why were we both such packrats??) The imminent move means that there is no time to put together blog articles until after we arrive at our new home and have a few days to unpack. Our house still hasn’t sold yet so we are leaving it in the (hopefully) capable hands of our Realtor. If you think of us, please pray for this final move that we will arrive safely and that our home will sell quickly. It will take us two days to get to British Columbia and it will be my first time driving such a long distance so I am a little apprehensive. I will be following my husband the whole time so I won’t get lost but I am a bad one for getting sleepy in the car.

This means that the tortoise (me the slow poky green guy a.k.a the “turtle” in the moving race) will be back on line after June 15th. SO much to say and so little time…..

See y’all soon!

Is there support for universal male headship?

Is there support for universal male headship?

Comments 10 comments

Before we continue with our verse by verse discussion through 1 Corinthians 11, I wanted to add a note about what some consider to be the universal role of male headship. In universal male headship the male is the head over every woman. Recently I got an email from a male apologist named Sandy Simpson who believes this way. He directed me to his online article that in part reads:

THE HEAD OF EVERY WOMAN IS THE MAN, THE HEAD OF EVERY WIFE IS THE HUSBAND

This verse is talking specifically about the husband and wife. But in a larger sense the head of the man is Christ, the head of the woman is man. The Bible teaches that Christ is the first head over man, the Christian husband the second head under Christ, with the elders of the church the third authority in the life of every Christian woman.

1 Corinthians 11:3 Now 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.

…

Read More Read More

1 Corinthians 11:3 and “head”

1 Corinthians 11:3 and “head”

Comments 55 comments

1 Corinthians 11:3 and “head”

In the last post I summarized the foundational points from chapter 10 that is necessary to the understanding of chapter 11. If you haven’t read it already, it can be read by clicking here. In this post I will continue our verse by verse discussion from 1 Corinthians 11:3. I will be using the New American Standard Version for most of these posts unless otherwise indicated. I Corinthians 11:3 –

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 11:3 Paul commended the Corinthians for holding firm to the traditions that he had delivered to them and now Paul is going to help them to understand some of these traditions. In the fall of 2006 I heard a Pastor give an excellent sermon on the traditions that the Jewish people hold to this day that actually symbolize the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus even though they do not even know what they are doing with their traditions. At Passover they take a piece of unleavened bread and fold it into a white napkin and then they hide it in their house for 3 days. When the 3 days are over, the children look for the napkin and when they find it they bring it out and uncover the bread. They keep the tradition but never understand what the tradition is all about. The tradition of the unleavened bread in the white napkin being revived after 3 days is symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. In verses 2 and 3, Paul says that the Corinthians were holding to the traditions that he gave them but he wanted them to understand what the traditions meant. …

Read More Read More

Verse by verse through 1 Corinthians 11

Verse by verse through 1 Corinthians 11

Comments 6 comments

Because I have received several questions posed to me on 1 Corinthians 11, I think it best that we go through the passage verse by verse and that should help deal with each question in context. As we go through each set of verses, please feel free to comment or ask questions on the section that we are covering. This should keep our discussions focused and keep each post and each set of questions separated.

The first thing that we need to note is that 1 Corinthians was not written with the chapter and verse divisions. Instead Paul wrote it as a complete letter to the Corinthians. The chapter and verse divisions were added later by translators for our benefit but these divisions are not inspired. Verse 1 of 1 Corinthians 11 is then a continuation from chapter 10. When Paul says in verse 1:

“Be imitators of me just as I am an imitator of Christ”

he is summing up what he has just told the Corinthians throughout chapter 10. In 1 Corinthians 10:23 Paul said:

“All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.”

Paul then gives a principle of behavior in verse 24:

“Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.”

This is an important point to note as this thought will be carried on to chapter 11. Paul is saying that we are “allowed” to do many things, but not everything we are “allowed” to do will be helpful or good for our neighbor. Paul then goes on to give examples such as eating meat. One is allowed to eat meat that has been offered to idols, but will our eating stumble our brother? We are to do things with deliberate thought. We are not just to do things for our own benefit but also for the benefit of our neighbor.

Then in verse 32, Paul gives another statement that is very important to pay attention to because this thought will also be carried forward to chapter 11. Paul says:

“Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God”

There are three types of people mentioned here that have traditions that can be offended. The Jews can be offended, the Greeks or Gentiles can be offended and the church of God can be offended. This is a very key point so keep it in mind as we dive into chapter 11. Next Paul says:

“just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.”

Paul is concerned that men are not offended and he tells the Corinthians that he lives his life in such a way that he is not seeking his own profit but the profit of others (Jews, Greeks, the church of God). The reason that he is seeking their profit is so that there will be no offense brought to the gospel of Christ. Now verse 1 of chapter 11 will make more sense when Paul said:

“Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.”

We are going to look at 1 Corinthians 11 with an eye of understanding as to what Paul has already been teaching throughout chapter 10. Paul is talking about not giving an offense to anyone and not doing things for one’s own profit but seeking the benefit of others. With that in mind let’s look at what Paul says next. In verse 2 and the first part of verse 3 Paul says:

“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand…”

Paul is saying that the Corinthians have been holding fast to the traditions that Paul had given them, but Paul now wants them to do more than just hold fast to these traditions. Paul wants them to understand these traditions.

This is the foundation that chapter 11 is built on. Next post we will continue on with verse 3.

Why was the woman created for the man?

Why was the woman created for the man?

Comments 15 comments

The woman was created for the man: Is she inferior?

One question that was posed to me last week was on 1 Corinthians 11:9 regarding the creation of woman for the man. Does this mean that the woman is somehow inferior to the man because she was created for him? Let’s have a close look at the passage starting with verse 7 of 1 Corinthians 11:7:

7. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

8. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

9. for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.

10. This is why a woman should have authority over her own head: because of the angels. (International Standard Version)

11. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

12. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

…

Read More Read More

Paul and the “head” from 1 Corinthians 11

Paul and the “head” from 1 Corinthians 11

Comments 33 comments

1 Corinthians 11 has been a hotly disputed passage regarding the meaning of “head”.

While some have seen a hierarchy of authority in this passage,

q_head_1.jpg

others say that Paul is explaining the importance of origins.

q_head_1a.jpg

Is it possible that those who see male authority in the metaphor of “head” are bringing their own presupposition of male superiority to the text? There is only one way to find out and that is to examine the text carefully to see what evidence Paul gives for his own definition of “head”. Before we discuss this passage, it would be a good thing to lay out the presuppositions that I bring to this text.

The first presupposition I have is that I come to this passage believing that it is fully God breathed. I believe that God inspired its content, word usage, grammar and word order.

The second presupposition of mine is that I believe Paul is consistent in repeating himself and defining his own terms. Paul let us know that repetition is very important to for our safety. Paul said in Philippians 3:1 –

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.

Repeating the same things over again in a slightly different way is a safeguard for us because it helps us to understand what is being said. Repetition lessens the problems of miscommunication. Paul said that it was no trouble for him to repeat himself because it was for our benefit. So if Paul thought repetition was a good thing, we can expect that Paul will define his terms by repeating himself in a slightly different way to enable us to understand this important teaching.

Let’s look at the original reference to “head”

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Now there are three things that we can note from this verse:

1. Christ is the “head” of every man

2. The man is the “head” of a woman

3. God is the “head” of Christ

Where are these things repeated in the passage? It is in verse 12.

1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Here Paul says the same thing in a slightly different way. Man is the beginning point of origin for the woman because the very first woman, Eve, came through the body of Adam. As the man was the originating point for the woman, the man now has his origin through the woman. Christ himself became human through the woman but his ultimate origin is of God.

What is Paul’s application? Paul tells us in verse 11.

1 Corinthians 1:11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

There is to be no competition between men and women because God has overridden any advantage that one has over the other. Men and women are interdependent (verse 11) because in the beginning God created man to be the source of the woman but since then woman has been the one to produce the man. However God is the ultimate source not any man or woman because all things originate through Him.

Christ received his humanity through the woman, but his origin was from God and as God he is the origin of all things and of all men.

So where is Paul’s reference to a hierarchical order? Where is the man said to be the authority of the woman in this passage? Where does the passage say anything in reference to Christ being an authority of every man or that God is to be an authority over Christ? Unfortunately for those who come to this passage with a bias already in place towards male superiority, Paul defines the meaning of “head” in verse 12 and this meaning has everything to do with “source” or “origin” and nothing whatsoever to do with authority of one person over another.

The original source is God and men and women are interdependent regarding one another.

 

man_woman_christ_god.jpg



An update on our move

An update on our move

Comments 0 Comment

1 Corinthians 11 part two on the meaning of “head” is delayed for another week as our timeline for getting our home ready for sale has been pushed up. Today we signed the papers to list our home and we have until Monday to get everything in order as that is the day that the house goes on the market. We still have so much to do by Monday and it is overwhelming to say the least. The final move-out should happen sometime in June so hopefully the stress of the long months of moving our ministry and household to a location twelve hours away will come to an end.

The discussion of “head” from 1 Corinthians 11 should be an enlightening one and I look forward to your comments too!

1 Corinthians 11 and Paul

1 Corinthians 11 and Paul

Comments 12 comments

1 Corinthians 11 has been a difficult passage because of several elements that have been hard to interpret.  Some of the disputed elements are the meaning of “head” in verse 3, whether head coverings are necessary in verse 5, the woman being the glory of the man in verse 7, the reference to angels in verse 10 and long hair for a man being an issue of shame in verse 14.

In this new series of posts, we will be discussing the meanings of the difficult verses and how to understand Paul.

The best way that I know how to explain Paul’s method of teaching doctrine is to reference Paul’s own words in Philippians 3:1

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.

Paul had a habit of repeating himself so that when we see a word or concept that seems difficult in a verse, we need to look back in the book to see where Paul either originally explained his meaning, or we need to look forward in the book to see where Paul explains what he means. If we keep this in mind, Paul is much easier to understand.

Take for example the reference to the angels in verse 10 of 1 Corinthians 11. Now there has been much speculation regarding what Paul meant by saying “because of the angels” however we don’t need to speculate because Paul has already told us what he means. When Paul says “because of the angels” we can know that he is repeating what he has already said. Paul said that repetition is for our safety. A phrase thrown out without a reference point is not safe.  Paul is the original “Safety Man” so let’s get started to see how Paul keeps us safe.  Let’s go back into 1 Corinthians to find out the original reference to angels.

When I was first studying 1 Corinthians 11, I decided to work my way back through Paul’s epistle to find out what he meant by referring to the angels.  There was no other reference to angels in chapter 11 so I went back further. There was nothing in chapter 10 or 9 or 8. One thing that we have to remember is that when Paul originally wrote the book of 1 Corinthians it did not have chapters and verses. Paul was writing a letter to the congregation in Corinth and his entire letter was meant to be read at one time. Reading the book this way, it becomes much clearer what Paul meant by the reference to the angels.  If you keep going back and back you will eventually go back to chapter 6.  Here Paul said:

1 Corinthians 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?

Paul had been discussing the problem within the congregation where Christians were taking matters that should have been dealt with among the Christian body and were bringing them into the worldly courts. Paul chides the Christians by telling them that the Christian church should be able to judge matters within their own Christian community. Paul asks if there isn’t one who had some wisdom to make a judgment. Paul then asks them if they are aware that in the next life, they will have the responsibility of judging angels. If they are going to judge angels, Paul says, surely they should be able to judge the matters of this life.

So Paul’s original reference to the angels is about maturity, responsibility and our duty in the next life regarding judging the angels. Now let’s take that original reference and go ahead to where Paul repeats himself in 1 Corinthians 11:10. The International Standard Version renders it this way:

1 Cor. 11:10 This is why a woman should have authority over her own head: because of the angels.

The International Standard version along with the KJV, Literal Translation of the Bible, Modern King James Version, Messianic Renewed Covenant Bible, World English Bible, Webster’s Bible, Darby Bible and Douay-Rheims Bible all translate this verse without the additional words “symbol of” that is not found in the original text.  Let’s follow this verse from the original text without the addition of uninspired words.

Next let’s look at the Greek word for “authority”.  The original word is exousia and means “Permission, authority, right, liberty, power to do something”.  The WordStudy Dictionary says regarding this word,

“As (exousia) denies the presence of a hindrance, it may be used either of the capability or the right to do a certain action.”

The word exousia never means that the person themselves is under someone else’s authority. Instead it always means that the person has the right, permission or capability to make the decision or do the action.

So Paul is saying in verse 10 that the woman should have “the capablility or the right or the liberty” over her own head (regarding whether she wears a veil or doesn’t wear a veil, whether she cuts her hair or she doesn’t cut her hair); because in the next life she will also be judging the angels. Paul is repeating what he has already said in 1 Corinthians 6:3. He is saying that in this life we need to learn to make our own mature decisions. After all, Paul said, we will be making some very important decisions in the next life because we will be judging angels. Since women will also be judging the angels, she should have the right in this life to make the decision about what she does or doesn’t wear on her head.

Unfortunately when translations add words that are not in the text, they can distort what the scripture actually says. Verse 10 does not say that the woman is under someone else’s authority, neither does it say that she must wear a veil. It does say that the decision is hers regarding her head. It says that the decision over her own head is in her own authority and her own right to act and her own liberty because she too will be judging the angels. Does this make sense?

Next time we will be discussing the meaning of “Head”. Once again Paul is repeating himself so that we don’t need to guess what he means. Paul tells us in the passage. Stay tuned for the next blog entry.

Adam was blamed but why wasn’t Eve?

Adam was blamed but why wasn’t Eve?

Comments 6 comments

For those who have been following my comments on Wade Burleson’s post, the three blog articles that I refer to can be found here:

Adam as head of the family

Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? Part one

Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? Part two

If there are any questions, I would love to take them either on this forum or at Wade’s blog.

Freeing sisters in the Southern Baptist Convention

Freeing sisters in the Southern Baptist Convention

Comments 2 comments

Wade Burleson has a great new post on women called “Are The Sisters Free to Function?” It is an article written by Jon Zens. It is long….22 pages printed out, but Jon brings up some good points and the hot discussion following his article might be interesting for you to follow. I appreciate Wade a lot with his courage to take on a tough subject amongst Southern Baptists. You will notice that many of the men and even at least one woman posting responses are very much against women teaching the bible to men.

I am up to my ears in paint as we are getting our home ready for sale and our final move to our new ministry location. If I don’t have a new post that I have time to work on, I will point you to other blogs and information that will help you. Please pray for us that our home will be sold quickly and that our preparations for its sale will go fast. Our hearts are really in full time ministry, not Mr. and Mrs. fix-it, paint-it, and clean-it of 34 years of memorabilia.

Is God Male?

Is God Male?

Comments 20 comments

Is God male in some way? Many Christians think that he is. But how could God be male when God is pure spirit? God has no male sexual organs and he has no testosterone. Because God does not have a body, it is impossible for him to be structurally male. Therefore in his essence God is neither male nor female.

But some would argue that God is male in his characteristics. If that were true, then God would only describe himself in purely male characteristics. But that just isn’t so. Although God describes himself with many male characteristics, he also describes himself with female characteristics. God describes himself as a mother in Isaiah 66:13 and as a nursing mother in Numbers 11:12. God’s motherly characteristics are highlighted in scripture as well as his fatherly characteristics. God is described with both male and female characteristics therefore God is not uniquely male because of his characteristics.

So why is God always referred to with the male terms of “he” and “Father” and never “she” or “Mother”? It is because God has chosen a relationship with us as Father. It is with this relationship that God shows us his nature and his love. God is the source of all things. As source he is referred to as Father. Ephesians 3:14, 15 says:

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name.

Every family in heaven and on earth derives its name from the Father. The word family in Greek is “patria” and it is a feminine noun meaning family or lineage running back to some progenitor. God is that progenitor. 1 Corinthians 11:12 says:

For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

God is the source and originator and progenitor and as progenitor he is called Father.

The man was also created first to be the source of the woman. Adam then became the source or foundation for the woman. But God did not keep the preeminence with the male alone. He then made the woman to bring forth every other man. The woman then became preeminent as the source of the male. God has brought equality to both the male and the female by allowing each one to be the source of the other, yet ultimately the preeminent source must be honored as Father – the progenitor of every family.

Scripture shows that God is not male, but he has chosen to call himself Father because he is the ultimate source. When we honor him as Father, we do not honor him as male, but we honor him as our source.

Headcoverings and Authority

Headcoverings and Authority

Comments 9 comments

While I still intend to write an article about 1 Corinthians 11 – Head coverings and authority, the video clip below which is an excerpt of part 3 of “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” is a good introduction to this controversial issue. Should a woman wear a head covering? Should she have no authority or even speak in the church? This hard passage in scripture has been a challenge to the church because it has been unclear why wearing a head covering for a male would shame Christ. A clear understanding of the reason for the shame comes from understanding the cultural background. This verse by verse explanation of the head covering issue from 1 Corinthians 11 brings a great deal of light to this hard to understand passage. This excerpt is taken from the 2nd DVD of the 4 DVD set called “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” available from Amazon.com or mmoutreach.org. Click to watch the preview clip below.

[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=”http://www.youtube.com/v/C33wUR9zcBg”][/gv]

Should a woman fear using her spiritual gifts?

Should a woman fear using her spiritual gifts?

Comments 0 Comment

Can a woman serve God with all her heart without fearing that somehow she is violating a commandment by God? This segment is a preview of part 7 of the 4th DVD of “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” This preview deals with the background and context of Galatians 3:28. Click below to see a preview of the DVD.

[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=” http://www.youtube.com/v/JCUFC1ss-Dw”][/gv]

 

The Designer Knows Best – Genesis reveals God’s will for women

The Designer Knows Best – Genesis reveals God’s will for women

Comments 0 Comment

Understanding the basics in Genesis gives a foundation for understanding the way God views women in ministry. In this segment from the first DVD of “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” Genesis is examined and compared against the opposing viewpoint which limits women in ministry.

Click below to watch a free excerpt of part 1 Genesis: “The Designer Knows Best”.

[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=”http://www.youtube.com/v/7fH5_MIF6Jk”][/gv]

 

 

 

1 Corinthians 14 should women be silent?

1 Corinthians 14 should women be silent?

Comments 2 comments

I have posted a third preview of my “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” DVD on YouTube. You can view the preview of 1 Corinthians 14 below. Click below on the picture to watch the preview of part 5 found on the fourth DVD.

[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=”http://www.youtube.com/v/zryLDmoeqso”][/gv]

To watch an excerpt from the section on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 click here https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2007/03/30/1-timothy-2-video-preview-now-available/

To watch the entire introduction to “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” click here https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2007/01/09/wim-video-preview-on-youtube/

1 Timothy 2 video preview now available

1 Timothy 2 video preview now available

Comments 1 comment

I have posted a second preview of my “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” DVD on YouTube. You can view the preview of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 below. Click on the picture to watch the preview of part 4 on the third DVD.
[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=”http://www.youtube.com/v/dwzI-kW7E-I”][/gv]

Should CBMW fight egalitarians?

Should CBMW fight egalitarians?

Comments 15 comments

This week CBMW (the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) released two audio tapes from the February 2007 “Different by Design” Conference held in Minneapolis Minnesota. (http://www.cbmw.org/media/differentbydesign.php) I was amazed at the way that the gospel was connected to the gender issue in such a way that those who do not hold to patriarchy and male-only leadership were charged with not holding to the gospel. I would like to present some clips from the first audio tape by Russell Moore in this post and reflect on his comments.

The source of the following audio clips is from CBMW’s audio files (http://www.cbmw.org/media/differentbydesign.php) (Update 2017: the origin file is no longer available at CBMW but it is available at Russell Moore’s website here.) The first speaker from the February 2007 conference is Dr. Russell Moore who is the dean of theology at the Southern Baptist theological seminary in Louisville Kentucky.

Dr. Moore starts out by stating that evangelical feminism is winning the debate in our churches. The clips below are very short so it won’t take long to get through them. The shortest clip is only a few seconds long and the last clip which is the most jaw-dropping clip is just over 1 minute. Below is clip #2.

Dr. Moore then asserts that Christians who hold to the egalitarian viewpoint do not have an exegetical argument and have largely abandoned (trying to use exegesis). Hear Clip #2 below.

I would respectfully disagree with Dr. Moore. I have read many excellent biblical exegetical arguments from evangelical egalitarian sources. In 2006 our ministry also produced a careful and respectful verse-by-verse exegesis of the hard passages of scripture in our 4 DVD series called “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” It was extremely important to us to recognize that as Christians we need to work hard to rightfully divide the word of truth. We believe that scripture is God-breathed and we do not advocate disregarding any parts of scripture. All scripture has been given by God for our learning and our correction. Have egalitarian Christians abandoned an exegetical argument on the gender issue? Absolutely not! Those who hold tightly to scripture do not have to abandon scripture at all to reject patriarchy.

Dr. Moore then says that women who teach the bible in the media, like teaching on DVDs, are taking a pastoral role that isn’t allowed to them and men who watch and listen to women teach the bible on DVDs are more willing to let women teach them. Listen to clip #3 below.

It is interesting that Dr. Moore appears to be very against women teaching scripture using various media. Should women stop teaching scripture? No. We are in a battle against the enemy and we must not be silent. We cannot stop teaching the bible if we are to be faithful to Christ. Women who teach scripture on DVDs as I have on my WIM series are following Christ using the gifts that he has given us. Should women be forbidden to teach using the media? It appears that Dr. Moore believes so. Why? He says that this debate is not a secondary issue but is an issue of the gospel. He says that it is not an intramural debate where brothers and sisters in Christ can disagree on a secondary issue. Rather according to Dr. Moore and CBMW, the gender debate is not a secondary issue but a core issue of the gospel. Listen to clip #4 below.

Dr. Moore goes on to say that we as a church have treated the doctrine of God as a more important issue than the “male headship” or gender issue, however he disagrees. He says that brothers and sisters who are together on the doctrine of God are not really together if they disagree on the gender issue because open theism (a view that denies God’s full knowledge i.e. the teaching that God is not omniscient) is not worse than evangelical feminism. Listen to clip #5 below.

How sad that the gender debate can be considered in the same category as open theism. How this must hurt the heart of God when a brother in Christ is willing to separate from other brothers and sisters in Christ over a secondary issue, instead treating the gender issue as a core issue of faith. This is not a core issue of faith but an issue where sincere brothers and sisters in Christ can differ without breaking fellowship. Those who are charging egalitarians with serious doctrinal error and with dismissing the gospel just because they believe that women are allowed to use their spiritual gifts without restriction,have moved over into a divisive and unloving stance. This should not be.

The last clip brings a great sadness to my heart.

Evangelical feminists are not necessarily lost? Perhaps some of them can be saved? It is just so sad to hear Dr. Moore state that those who hold to the egalitarian argument are holding to a belief that seems right to them because they are shaking their fists in the face of authority. He says that lives are at stake. He says that the gospel is at stake.

Beloved, our brothers in Christ are seeing this issue as in-house spiritual warfare. We are the enemy to them and they are out to win because they believe they are fighting the battle for the gospel.

This is not a battle for the gospel. We believe in the gospel just as strongly as Dr. Moore and CBMW does. In fact the core of our ministry is the defense of the faith and we have been instrumental in leading many Jehovah’s Witnesses to Christ by presenting the gospel to them. But when one adds conditions to the gospel that the bible does not add, then there will be an attack on those who do not hold to those conditions.

I say that it is time that our brothers in Christ stop treating us as the enemy. Where is the love for others in the body of Christ who do not think as they do? Jesus said that they will know us by our love. Our love MUST be for the body of Christ. Complementarians need to learn to love us and do it for Jesus’ sake.

What is your opinion? What do you think of these quotes?

In closing I would like to quote a short piece from a blog article by Justin Taylor (Update 2017 : Justin Taylor’s blog article is no longer on Between Two Worlds, but is listed here.

The article is regarding controversy and how we as Christians need to treat others who disagree with us. Justin quotes John Newton, writing in a letter on controversy (The Works of John Newton, 1:273-274):

It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defences were seasonable and expedient, they appear to be so in our day, when errors abound on all sides, and every truth of the Gospel is either directly denied, or grossly misrepresented.

And yet we find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which at most are but of a secondary value.

This shews, that, if the service is honourable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made!¦

Amen! We all need to work at keeping that humble, tender spirit especially towards fellow Christians who are also members of the body of Christ even as we expose error.

We are in our new home

We are in our new home

Comments 2 comments

We are mostly moved into our new home and much of our time has been spent in unpacking boxes. Our living room now feels like home since six book cases of my research and bible study books have been unpacked.

Books in new home

Now that we are starting to find space on the floor to walk, I am trying to find time to work on a new blog article regarding the latest audio files from the complementarian camp. I was saddened to hear how they are continuing to become more militant as the time goes by. It is now claimed that those who do not accept a patriarchal view are guilty of dismissing the gospel. This is one of the main reasons why this blog exists – to show that those who accept an egalitarian view regarding women who use their God-given gifts for the entire body of Christ, can view the Bible as God’s inspired word and God breathed. It is imperative that we give a basis for our belief in a reasonable and respectful way. The body of Christ is hurt when those who hold to a restrictive view of women use this non-essential issue as a way to build barriers and even “rip apart” other sheep, doing much damage to the very ones whom Jesus commanded them to love. Christians on both sides of this debate should remember that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. Yes, it is essential to expose error, but godly Christians should be able to interact and dialog in a loving way without attacking one another by making this non-essential issue into an essential doctrine by accusing the other side of denying the gospel.

Keep watch for my new article. I plan to include audio clips so you can hear the material for yourself.

Is Adam the representative head of the human race?

Is Adam the representative head of the human race?

Comments 7 comments

Those who believe that God created a hierarchical relationship between men and women will usually state that God created Adam as the “federal head” of the human race. This “federal headship” is said to be not only physical in that all of humanity has its origin in Adam, but spiritual because of a divinely-ordained covenant which God instituted between only Adam and himself.

In this view, God gives the prohibition to Adam alone in the garden and God does not include Eve because she is to be represented by Adam in the same way that Adam represents all of mankind. This view is very much embedded in the complementarian mindset so that those who hold this view believe that it is not a tradition but is instead based on scripture itself. But is this true?

While I agree that when Adam sinned he took all of his descendants with him because all of us were produced from the body of Adam after he sinned and thus all of us are physically connected to Adam in his sin nature, however I strongly disagree that God created a special relationship with Adam alone that made Adam a spiritual or physical representative of Eve.

The unscriptural nature of this view is shown by those who take this teaching to its logical outcome. A strong proponent of the teaching of Adam as God’s appointed federal head of mankind is Les Feldick. Mr. Feldick is an Oklahoma rancher and preacher who teaches on a television program called “Through the Bible”.

Mr. Feldick takes the federal headship of Adam to its logical outcome by attributing Eve’s fall to Adam. He says:

“the woman’s fall was not precipitated by Eve’s eating of the fruit. Never! It was Adam who ate and the whole human race fell! We have to see here that Eve was part of that fall because she came out of Adam, just the same as you and I came from our parents. Eve came from Adam.”  http://www.lesfeldick.org/lesbk1.html

Mr. Feldick states further that:

“she (Eve) simply inherited her sin nature from Adam.” http://www.lesfeldick.org/lesbk2.html

If Adam was the federal head of all mankind and appointed as such by God when God made a covenant with Adam alone, then it would have to follow that Eve’s sin did not come from her eating of the fruit. Her sin would have to be attributed to her when Adam sinned just as Mr. Feldick asserts. That means that Eve would have inherited the sin nature even if she had not been disobedient herself because Adam’s sin would also have been attributed to her. Now I agree that this would have been the case if Eve had been created after Adam sinned. When Adam sinned he took all of the future humanity with him because all of us were created from his sin-tainted flesh. We all inherited Adam’s sin nature because all of us were created after Adam sinned. But what about Eve? Eve was not created after Adam sinned but she was created before he sinned. Nowhere in scripture is her sin attributed by God to Adam and nowhere is Adam’s sin attributed to Eve. Eve is held accountable for her own sin just as Adam is held accountable for his own sin. God does not go to Adam and ask him what Eve has done. God goes directly to Eve and deals directly with her without the mediatorship of her husband. If Adam was some kind of representative head appointed by God for all of humanity, then surely he would also have been the representative head of Eve. But God does not treat Adam as a representative head of the woman. Each person is dealt with individually and each person must account for their own sin.

So why if Eve sinned first, did God put the blame solely on the man for bringing sin into the world? It is because Adam’s sin was done in a deliberate and willful way (Hosea 6:7) while Eve’s sin was done through her being deceived and thus she fell into sin (1 Timothy 2:14)

Next the question can be asked, since the seed of the woman was to be born without original sin, does the sin nature pass forward from the male alone? Scripture makes this clear in that it makes the foreskin of the male as a metaphor for sin. Where the seed comes through – that skin is said to represent sin. When God made a covenant with Abraham, all of Abraham’s offspring were to be in the covenant including males and females, yet only the males were required to be circumcised.

Genesis 17:10 “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.”

The cutting off of the foreskin was a sign of the covenant because only the foreskin is a sign of sin and the physical passing on of the sin nature was through the male alone. If a male was not circumcised, that was a sign of sin not being cut off and God required that person to be cut off from his people.

Genesis 17:14 “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

While the physical transmission of sin is from the male alone, God tells us that each one of us, male and female, need to circumcise the sin in our heart symbolized by the metaphor of the foreskin.

Deut. 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. (ESV)

Jeremiah 4:4 “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart.”

God himself promised that he would do the work of removing of the sin in our hearts and he likens it to physical circumcision.

Deut 30:6 “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

Spiritually we all need circumcision. However in a physical way only the males were required to go through the cutting off of the physical representation of sin. The foreskin of the male represents sin while the skin of the female (hymen) always represents purity in the Bible. Does this mean that women are pure while men are sinful? No, not at all. We all are sinners in our hearts and all of us have inherited the sin nature of Adam. But only the men’s seed passes on Adam’s seed of rebellion.

One Pastor who has a Masters in Divinity asked me to explain why if the foreskin is a sign of sin, then why was Jesus born with a foreskin that needed to be circumcised? The reason that Jesus was born with a foreskin although he did not have an inherited sin nature, was because the Bible says that Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

Jesus had to be made in our likeness but without the sin nature. That is why Jesus had to be born with the sign of sin in his body. He looked like us in our sinful bodies, but he was completely free of sin. In that likeness of sinful flesh he condemned sin in the flesh. Our sin nature is now spiritually circumcised by Christ himself.

Col 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

In summary, Adam’s sin has been passed on to all of us through the physical seed of the male, but Christ who is the physical seed of the woman, has become flesh in order to cleanse all of us who through faith will come to him to receive forgiveness. Christ alone is able to permanently deal with the sinful “foreskin” of our hearts.

Catching up

Catching up

Comments 4 comments

Well part one of the relocation of our ministry and the move of our household has occurred and we have a two week break before we go into phase two of the move.

Our move

This week I am going to try to catch up on the comments and questions that I need to respond to on this blog and I will try to write a few new posts as time allows.

While I was away, I gave a great deal of thought to the importance of how we view the husband as head and wife as body (one flesh union) because I can see that our understanding of the husband and wife relationship greatly influences how we view the issue of women in ministry. I have been seriously considering doing a second DVD series on men and women in marriage and how it relates to women’s ministry in the church. I would like to incorporate both biblical teaching as well as interview clips of those who have struggled through this issue in their own marriage and in their church ministry and have made it work.

If anyone has questions that they would like to see a series like this answer or suggestions for the series, I welcome any feedback that you have.

Does “husband of one wife” disqualify women from being a Pastor?

Does “husband of one wife” disqualify women from being a Pastor?

Comments 66 comments

I was listening to the January 26, 2007 radio program online by Matt Slick of carm.org. Matt answered a caller’s question regarding women leading in the church by appealing to Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2 where it says that a Pastor/Elder/Overseer must be “the husband of one wife”. Matt said it was “case closed” because women cannot be “the husband of one wife”.

I appreciate Matt a lot for his excellent web site that exposes many cults and aberrant movements in Christianity and although I consider him a brother in Christ, I must disagree with him on his quick and pat answer to his callers regarding women in ministry. What Matt didn’t tell his callers and what he should have been challenged on is that “husband of one wife” used in the strict way that he uses it to disqualify women would also disqualify single men as well as married men without children, since the Elder/Pastor/Overseer is to be a “husband” and also required to keep his children under control (1 Timothy 3:4).

Instead of just shutting out women, single men and married men without children, we must work to understand what this passage means. Is 1 Timothy 3 a check list of qualifications (i.e. must be married, must be a father) or is it a set of principles that set a basis for godly standards? Every church that I am aware of uses 1 Timothy 3 to set principles because none of them forbid single men or married men without children from being a Pastor.

But if women are to be included along with single men and married men without children, then why did Paul say “husband of one wife” and he never said “wife of one husband”? The reason why Paul only mentioned “husband of one wife” is because it is a reference to polygamy. Polyandry (a woman married to several men at the same time) was not allowed in that culture and so Paul would not have needed to say that women in leadership must be the “wife of one husband”.

In the Jewish faith as practiced through the Talmudic law, Jewish men were allowed to have multiple wives but the High Priest was forbidden from being a polygamist. The High Priest could be married and divorced but he could not marry more than one wife at a time. The High Priest then, was to be “the husband of one wife”. Paul brings the same regulation to the leadership of the Church. Although polygamists could become part of the congregation, they were not allowed into leadership. In the early church, the believers were unsure of how to deal with polygamists. Some tried to force them to divorce all of their wives except for the original wife in order to be baptized as a Christian, but that left the women destitute and without support. Paul gives the final word by allowing polygamists into the church who come into faith after their multiple marriages had already occurred. The only prohibition was that polygamists were disallowed from serving the congregation as an elder or deacon. In 1 Corinthians 7:24 and 27 Paul talks about the marital state in which one has become a Christian.

1 Corinthians 7:24, 27 “Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released”

If a man is bound in marriage, he is not to dissolve that marriage just because he has become a Christian. So the early church then allowed polygamists into fellowship, but they also followed the lead of Christ in teaching that it was God’s will that only one husband and one wife were to be in the marriage union.

Mark 10:6, 8 “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE… AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.

So let’s review why the “husband of one wife” cannot be used to disqualify women from leadership. I think the answer will become evident from asking other relevant questions.

1. Do we stop a single male from being a pastor?

2. Do we force a pastor to resign if his wife dies and he is no longer married?

3. Do we stop a married man from being a pastor if he does not have children? After all the same passage says in 1 Timothy 3:4

He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity

We know of no church that disallows single men from being a Pastor. We also know of no church that disallows married men with no children from being a Pastor. Why is that? It is because we can understand from the passage that there is a principle being set forth. The principle is that if a person wants to be an Elder/Pastor/Overseer they must have their children under control (that is “if” they have children); they must not be a polygamist (that is “if” they are married and “if” they are a man).

The problems with interpreting 1 Timothy 3 as forbidding women from being an elder is:

1. There is nothing in the passage that says that a woman cannot be an elder in exactly the same way as there is nothing in the passage that says that a man cannot be an elder if he is single.

2. The Greek is written in such a way that allows both men and women to aspire to being a Pastor/Elder/Overseer.

1 Timothy 3:1 says: Trustworthy [is] the word: If anyone aspires to [the] position of overseer [Gr. episkope], he desires a good work. (Analytical-Literal Translation)

The Greek word used is NOT “aner” which would mean “If any male aspires…” Instead of the Greek word for males, the generic Greek word for”anyone” is used which is “tis”. “Tis” means men or women and has the exact same Greek grammatical structure as “anyone” in John 6:51 and every other passage concerning salvation.

John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever”

All of the salvation verses are just like 1 Timothy 3:1 and they are singular masculine in the Greek grammar but all of them use the generic Greek wording which includes men and women. If we dispute that the Greek can include men and women because the grammar is singular masculine, then we must also be consistent and disallow women to be saved since all of the salvation passages are written in the same way as 1 Timothy 3:1 with generic words having a singular masculine tense in the Greek.

3. 1 Timothy 3:12 also says that Deacons must be the husbands of one wife and this term clearly did not disqualify women because Phoebe was a Deacon of the church of Cenchrea.

Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;

The word that the NASB translates as “servant” is “diakonos”which means Deacon. If Phoebe could be a Deacon of the church at Cenchrea and the term “husband of one wife” did not disqualify her, then why would we think that this same term would disqualify a woman from being an elder/pastor/overseer?

So the next time that someone tells you that 1 Timothy 3 forbids women from being a Pastor, you make sure to ask them if the same passage forbids single men and married men without children from being Pastors. If a person is going to be a literalist without considering the standard that is actually being set forth, then they must also follow through with the same standards for single men and married men without children. To fail to follow through with applying the principle across the board would be hypocritical.

Discrimination of women in the SBC: can they teach men at all?

Discrimination of women in the SBC: can they teach men at all?

Comments 8 comments

I have been following a blog documenting the injustice done to Dr. Sheri Klouda a professor of Hebrew who was forced out of her teaching position at the Southern Baptist Convention’s Southwestern Theological Seminary because the new President, Paige Patterson, does not believe that women should be teaching men. This comes after Dr. Klouda had been at the Seminary and approved for teaching by the board of trustees since 2002. I think that this is a very important issue to follow as it reveals the cold heart of some men towards other members of the body of Christ. Wade Burleson, a Pastor in Enid, Oklahoma writes:

It is essential for Southern Baptists to speak out when there is an injustice within our convention. This post is written for the purpose of drawing attention to a brilliant theologian who served Southern Baptists as a professor of Hebrew at Southwestern Theological for a total of seven and a half years, three and a half as an adjunct professor and four as full time elected faculty, establishing impeccable credentials and an extraordinary track record, only to be forced out from the job of her dreams for solely one reason — her gender.

To read the rest of the blog post documenting the gender discrimination that has occurred within the Southern Baptist Convention click here. I appreciate Pastor Wade for having the courage to document this injustice and his courage to speak out.

One other note – Paige Patterson is on the board of reference for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and his wife is a CBMW Council member.

What “law” does Satan agree with?

What “law” does Satan agree with?

Comments 3 comments

What “law” does Satan agree with?

I should call this post Part Four of “Does God have one unique law?” but instead I chose to make it a “unique” post of its own. Let me ask you, do you believe that there are any laws of God that Satan agrees with? Apparently he is in full agreement with the “law” that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men.

Let’s see how this works itself out:

Satan loves it when men and women teach false doctrine, but he hates it when anyone teaches correct biblical doctrine because the teaching of correct biblical doctrine thwarts his purpose to infiltrate the church with false doctrine. The teaching of correct biblical doctrine immunizes Christians from error. It also opens their eyes to the deception that lies within satanic doctrines. Does Satan like that? Absolutely not! Satan does not want his lies exposed and he fights long and hard to stop the teaching of true doctrine. …

Read More Read More

We’re moving!

We’re moving!

Comments 4 comments

After five years of planning, my husband and I are moving our home and ministry office 10 hours away to join Keith and Lorri MacGregor our ministry partners. There have been some challenges these last few years working together with such a long distance between us. We look forward to producing many more DVD’s and feature length movies together with the MacGregor’s as our goal is to educate the church on the cults and aberrant movements within the church. I do have plans for another series on the women’s issue expanding it to include the relevant scriptures on marriage and how that affects women in ministry.

I also plan on keeping up with this blog although if I am off line for a period of time, it’s not that I don’t have anything to say, just that the move is such a massive one for us. We are having to do some major downsizing and to save money, we are doing the move ourselves so it’s a lot of work! Between packing, moving and unpacking we have a conference on apologetics in Alabama to attend. Exciting times, but also very, very busy.

%d bloggers like this: