CLC

@ Kay, Lin

I have been meditating on this issue; and I agree with you guys. I think that the elders were more mentor than anything else. The Bible makes no mention of authority that is wielded over the rest of the congregation.

Partly to Frank: I believe that the reference of the elders being shepherds does not mean that they are really our shepherd like Jesus was. I believe that it was a similar metaphor used for a different purpose as is done many a time such as here:

” 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. ” (Isaiah 53:6-7)

In this metaphor, we are referred to as sheep; but, then, Christ is also referred to as a lamb. So does this mean that Christ is also a sheep like the rest of us? No, the metaphors are merely looking at the different aspects of the nature of sheep and applying those specific characteristics to who they apply to, rather than applying ALL the characteristics of sheep to the people the metaphor is referencing.
For example, we sinners have the tendency to go astray as sheep do. That characteristic of sheep applies to us. So that characteristic of sheep is applied to us to help us understand better.
However, the picture of the lamb being led to the slaughter gives us understanding to what happened to Christ. So that particular characteristic of sheep at the time of being the preferred sacrifice is used to reference Christ. That does not mean that Christ has the characteristic of going astray, nor does it mean that we sinners are taking the sin of others on ourselves as the picture of the slaughtered lamb portrays. The individual characteristics are what’s being used, not the lamb themselves.

Therefore, the characteristics of the shepherds leading the sheep, sacrificing His life for the sheep, bringing back stray sheep, calling the sheep to follow him like little children, being the gate, etc. are the ones applied to Christ.
The characteristics of the shepherd taking care of the sheep are the ones applied to elders. They do not have all those leadership qualities of Christ.

Frank said: “I believe the gatekeeper and the sheep pen represent the house church and the elder(s).”

The elders are not the gatekeeper. If the elders were the gatekeeper, they wouldn’t be covered by Christ’s sacrifice. There is no mention of the gatekeeper being even slightly part of the group being saved.
He was only mentioned one time:

“2 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3 The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice.”

After that, when people didn’t understand, Christ said that He was the gate for the sheep.

“6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. 7 Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. ”

And it was only when Christ said that He was the gate that He mentioned the thieves and robbers. So that analogy doesn’t really make sense to me. Not to mention the fact that Christ said that he sacrificed Himself for His sheep, NOT for the gatekeeper. There is barely any mention of the gatekeeper.

This is why I am holding to the notion that the usage of shepherd was different for the two instances of when they were used as metaphors.
Christ used the metaphor to help people understand His relationship with His church. Paul used an aspect of shepherds to admonish the elders to care for the new Christians who would be all over the board unless they got some guidance and mentorship, just like sheep would be without some guidance from shepherds.
Like Kay and Lin, I don’t see authority being commanded. In fact, I believe Kay effectively showed that that authority is being discouraged.

They are not like Christ. Just because a pastor/elder says that God says something, it doesn’t mean that it’s true. You have to do what Paul said, which is test everything by measuring it against Scripture. They also aren’t like Christ in that they did not die for our sins, nor does believing in them save you from your sins.

There’s a reason why pure heirarchal structures in government lead to tyranny and were desperately avoided in forming our Constitution. The same thing occurs with a heirarchal church. The heirarchal structure keeps everyone in line and accountable to one or a handful of men, sinners, not God. So if they decide to interpret Scripture to benefit themselves and you have teachings that say going against your authority is stepping out of God’s will or even cases where these few men become revered as gods, what do you think will happen?
Frankly, it’s inevitable. Whenever sinners get placed on pedestals above everyone else, their heads get puffed up; and corruption begins. This is what happens with sinners. It’s not exclusive to men. Nor is it exclusive to complementarians. Anyone who gets reverence like that will become puffed up.
We all need the body of Christ to collectively keep each other accountable. And when everyone is equal under God’s authority, there is none of this situation where the sin of one man gets immediately transferred down the line to all the underlings.

I think the gatekeeper/watchman referenced in the beginning of Jesus’s metaphor would more likely be an angel than anything else.

I hope I am making sense.

@Amos
I understand where you are coming from. It’s an interesting interpretation of the requirement of “blameless”. I think it does bear looking into. Though, I THINK there were cases of overseers in the Bible. I’m blanking out on any names, though…. But, if we can find a name, someone met the requirements.

Frank,

I have not deeply delved into all it is that you have written. So forgive me for not addressing it all; but one verse that you cite jumps out at me.

4. “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and witness of Christ’s sufferings who will also share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them–not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be;…not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders” (1 Pet. 5:1-5).

Contrast those verses with this one:

“14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me– 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. ”
(John 10:14-16)

That was taken from this set of verses:

“2 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3 The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. 7 Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. 11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me– 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life–only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.””
(John 10:2-18)

According to Christ, there is but one shepherd. One. If there is anyone else, he is a hired hand who cares nothing for the sheep, though, God would not leave us alone in the hands of a hired hand leaving us vulnerable to wolves.
Christ mentions other sheep that are not of His pen but that he will bring them in also.

So what do you do with these two verses? My opinion is that Christ is giving us the overall picture. ALL of us are sheep. If you are not a sheep, then Christ has not laid down His life for you.

So what do you do with these two verses?

Well, there is this admonishment to Peter:
“15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.”
(John 21:15-19)

Do we think that Peter is not part of Christ’s flock? I don’t really think so. If he wasn’t part of Christ’s flock, he wouldn’t be saved because Christ only laid down His life for his flock.
But…, then again, Christ isn’t saying, necessarily, that Peter isn’t a sheep. He simply commanded Peter to taker care of and feed the sheep.

So what do we do with the fact that Christ Himself says that there is only ONE Shepherd and that He is that Shepherd? …….I can’t say for certain. I’ll have to sleep on this one for a while.

@ TL

Yes, that is EXACTLY the point of abuse! You have very succinctly expressed the exact abuse that is going on with women; but, in a less noted way, the abuse is also going on with the laity of the church, men and women alike. They are under the impression that “pastors”, deacons, leaders, men like Piper and Grudem know how to translate the Bible better than the Holy Spirit in their hearts.

I didn’t know what the Shepherding Movement was; but I looked it up; and, yes, that is exactly it. That is exactly what is happening in average churches, but to a lesser degree.

Of course, with women, this is what has been pushed for centuries. Like you nicely took note of, it produces women who are easily led around by a nose ring because they are only able to obtain their knowledge of Scripture from their men. So whatever the man says is there, is there.
Of course, the pastors want these men to only teach their women what they want to be taught. So they set up the hierarchy to ensure that the sheep remain in THEIR pen, rather than under the watchful eye of the Good Shepherd. They proclaim that they can keep the sheep safe from wolves if only the sheep remain in the little defined walls of the pen. This sets the eyes of the sheep on fellow sheep (sometimes wolves) for protection, rather than the One who can truly protect us. Problem is these men are sinners, sheep, just like the rest of us (Hopefully, the ones you happen to be following aren’t wolves…, and you wake up one day in a cult.). Their structures won’t protect us. And to say that we need extra protection besides that which is afforded to us through our Good Shepherd is to say that Christ’s protection is somehow deficient.

The same can be said for the so-called leadership of the husband to his wife. Are we to assume that Christ is not enough? Can a mere man, a sinner who is unable to save himself, afford us women any spiritual protection? I would say no!

By the way, I suggest you post your thoughts on Mike’s blog.

@ Amos

Yes, nicely said that it is mostly the religious system that has been corrupted with religious leaders; but…in a sense…., even portions (maybe even the majority?) of God’s Church has been corrupted in that they believe in these men akin to a belief in an infallible God (Note, for example, Nick on that other blog who refused to see the fallacies in Piper’s teaching to abused wives simply because he sees all his other teachings as wonderful) . They look up to these men as speaking the Words of God, failing to follow the prescription to test every prophesy. They adhere to the notion of hierarchy. They invoke these men and their endorsements as if they were God. (“Happy” Promise Keeper)
They look to men rather than the Holy Spirit to guide them in their view of the Scriptures and the application of God’s instructions on our lives because they have gotten the impression all their lives that other “qualified” people know what the Bible says better than the Bible. (That or they don’t want to have to bother reading the Scriptures. Depends on the person.)

Like it or not, good portions of God’s bride have been wooed away by “servant leaders”. Institutionalized religion cannot stand without, at least, a portion of the backs of God’s bride to use as a foundation.
Unless….that is….one wishes to characterize those who partake in hierarchy as not being part of God’s Church….. I’m not willing to make that leap.

But, yes, much of God’s Church is going the way of Israel and following idols.

Again, wonderfully wise words.

@ Amos

I love those words of yours. You are exactly right.
The church has been corrupted with leadership roles. Prophesy was essential to understanding God’s word; but it, in no way, made apostles or prophets leaders in the Church. The new believers needed guidance for a season. Then the apostle was to move on to spread the word to other unbelievers or stand aside and let body of Christ stand on its own.

Of course, with these new leadership roles, men feared being led by the women of the church. Thus, the new interpretations and deviation from Scripture. (Not to mention, this is God’s prediction of man ruling over women working throughout things here that I have my doubts will ever fully or measurably disappear until Christ returns.)
If we returned to full equality in the church, would these men be as antsy?

First of all, Mike has not shown anything that gives even the slightest clue to the separation of prophesy and preaching. Frankly, I wonder if the word “preaching” can even by found in the Bible. Is it unbiblical then?! No, I would propose that prophesy and preaching are one and the same, especially in the New Testament where God now speaks through the Holy Spirit to guide us, rather than coming down and directly speaking to us as he did to Deborah and Huldah in the Old Testament.

Now, in further breaking this down, is it possible for prophesy to ever not teach? I suppose one might say that the specific prophesies of God to specific people in the Bible, such as Huldah’s direct prophesy to King Josiah, is not necessarily “teaching” in it’s strictest sense of imparting knowledge to the student. But, then again, Huldah was imparting the knowledge of God’s words to Josiah and Deborah to Barak and the rest of the Israelite nation. But is it possible for one to proclaim God’s words without “teaching” per se? Yes, in a way, it is, though that line is severely blurred and barely exists. It is hard to say that the prophesy is not a teaching itself. However, once proven to line up with Scripture, the prophesy gains an authority that demands respect as it has proven to be the word of God.

A teacher, however, is not necessarily proclaiming the word of God. He might be merely teaching Bible history to children or teaching morals. The fact that Paul made separate distinctions between a prophet, who is surely proclaiming God’s word and whose gift is the greatest in Paul’s words, and a teacher proves that the teachers were probably teaching to others what had been taught to them through the prophets. It is unlikely that their teachings had as much authority as a proven genuine prophecy.

To put this in more plain terms, the prophet would be like Einstein finding a new law of physics or something. The teacher would be like school teachers who take that and impart that knowledge to the masses.

Which one would a complementarian covet more?
Making a distinction between teacher and prophet then claiming that teaching was greater than prophesy despite Paul’s words to the contrary.

Preaching, however, is the same as prophesy, period.

1 Corinthians 12:27-30
“27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts.”

Take note that, previously in the chapter, there was not a spiritual gift that seemed to be exclusive to apostles. Apostles also have the gift of prophesy. Take note that apostles are ones who spread the word of God to those who have never heard it. So that means that the prophesies of apostles were often held in higher regard by the new believers than the prophesies of these new prophets in the church.

So, therefore, Paul tells the reader to aspire to have the greater gift (or, depending on translations, he is saying that the Corinthians are too busy aspiring to obtain the greater gifts) which is the gifts given to apostles and prophets who are above teachers, though all gifts are essential and irreplaceable pieces of the body of Christ.

However, Mike makes it seem like just because technical teaching is separate from prophesy that it is somehow more authoritative. It is not. Since complementarians like titles and authority so much, it should tickle their funny bone to know that the only thing they can wrench from Scripture is that women are allowed to have the “more authoritative” gift of prophesy but not the “less authoritative” gift of teaching.

In all this furor over which gift the women should or shouldn’t suppress, let us not forget the teaching that followed the exhortation of gifts.

1 Corinthians 12:31b, 13:1-13:
“And now I will show you the most excellent way. 1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

Love is greatest of all and endures forever.

@Cheryl
Thanks for the clarification. Yeah…, it is very hard to follow what he is trying to say here. I guess God asked Deborah and Huldah to sin. And I guess Barak, King Josiah, the High Priest Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary, Asaiah the king’s attendant, and anyone else who inquired of Deborah and Huldah were all sinning.

Judges 4:4-7
“4 Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. 5 She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided. 6 She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, “The Lord, the God of Israel, commands you: ‘Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor. 7 I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.'”

2 Kings 22:12-20
“12 He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: 13 “Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.” 14 Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Acbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophetess Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the Second District. 15 She said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me, 16 ‘This is what the Lord says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read. 17 Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and provoked me to anger by all the idols their hands have made, my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.’ 18 Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the Lord, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: 19 Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people, that they would become accursed and laid waste, and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I have heard you, declares the Lord. 20 Therefore I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.'” So they took her answer back to the king.”

Hmm……. Since these prophesies are the words of women, are men sinning if they read them? Reading them and meditating on them is pretty much the same as listening to a prophesy pronounced by a woman.

I agree on the job of the overseer; but a lot of Christians seem to think the overseer is the equivalent of today’s pastor, which he is not if you look at the practices of worship and prophesy in the first churches.

I just ran across this in a search for Cheryl’s Youtube videos. I thought it pertinent to this thread.

Please help me not scream in horror. :-O
Who is this woman?

@A. Amos Love

Nice. Very insightful. It is foolish to be quibbling about who should and should not be a leader when we are all called to be disciples with one Leader.

Though…., it is a worthy cause to quibble about who should be able to prophesy. I would postulate that there are already women prophesying and being apostles, even in patriarchal churches.
I would postulate that Cheryl here is prophesying right now to a church with the rest of us able to contribute our own prophesies in comments.

What is a church?
What is a pastor?
What is an apostle?

Depends on what time period you live in, I guess. These days a church means either believers in Christ as a whole or a building; but the Bible says that the Church is the believers. It makes no mention of buildings being churches. Nor does it make mention of these buildings being “the house of God”. There was only one house of God in the past at a time. It was the Temple (whichever one was standing at the time) or the tabernacle.
Now Jesus said that He lives in our hearts. Our bodies are His temple. Wherever His temples gather is a church body. And this is a gathering of God’s temple.
And each of us, but especially Cheryl, is standing up and prophesying to this church. We have no “leader”. We only have an administrator named Cheryl who keeps order in the discourse, which makes her the overseer.

So what is a pastor? You won’t find the role of pastor in the Bible. You won’t find a church in the Bible where only one man stands up and preaches from the Word, while the rest sit and listen. No, rather you find churches where anyone may stand up and speak a prophesy from Scripture as long as they do it in an orderly fashion.
And I would propose that there are several women out there, even in patriarchal households, in a gathering of two or three believers who are prophesying to men and women alike. They just don’t have the high and mighty title of “pastor” or “leader”, only the function of one to the people listening at the moment, be it man or woman.

What is an apostle? According to church “leaders”, apostles are leaders of churches. They direct the affairs of those churches. They have dominion over them. But let’s look at what the Bible shows an apostle doing? He goes out to lands preaching the Good Word to those who have not heard it. And helps shepherd the new churches that grow in those lands until they are able to stand on their own. So what is an apostle but a missionary? Are there not female missionaries out there?
I would like to quote someone very witty that I have known by the name of James:
“Woman are permitted to preach in open air under two conditions:

a) the woman is in a foreign country or on an Indian Reservation;

and,

2) the listeners are at least two shades darker in skin color than the woman in question.”
How very true. Though it is very sad that the names of Rachael Saint and Elisabeth Elliot are being blotted out on some Christian sites that I have seen in favor of their brothers/husbands who, contrary to those sites, did not share the gospel with the Auca Indians because they were martyred by the Auca’s before they could. Still, there are still women functioning as missionaries to those “lowly” dark-skinned people. That makes them apostles without the flowery, uplifted title.
I was reading this article of Cheryl’s: http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/01/22/the-husband-as-king-over-the-wife/
And I ran into the comments of “Happy” Promise Keeper. And I read his so-called proof that Junia wasn’t female located here: http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/A-Female-Apostle
I will quote from that article: “I tentatively affirm that the second person was a man named Junias, although I cannot be certain about the matter.”
Well, dear sir, there are other female apostles here in modern times. Shall you give them a sex change, too? No, I suppose you shall just do the best to wipe their names from history. Those female apostles perform the function without the title because they love God and wish to share that love with other people. That is more than I can say for you who seeks after titles of importance. And, in the process, seek to denigrate the work of one of these fine people with this quote: “Therefore, in light of this evidence, I conclude that Andronicus and Junias were two prominent messengers that served Paul and the early churches by delivering important instructions from the former to the latter, and by relaying questions and concerns from the latter to the former.”
Man, they must have been some stupendously great messengers to get such high praise as that while still being stuck behind bars with Paul, meaning they are unable to deliver messages anymore. They were such great messengers that the Romans were bent on prosecuting these messengers but not the one delivering the book of Romans.
Or MAYBE they were arrested because they were, yes, messengers but messengers of God’s Word to those who have not heard it, where the term “apostle” likely came from.

@Sean Isaacs

I don’t know about the other, more regular people; but I don’t see myself as looking to Cheryl for direction on how to apply the Bible to my life. I look to the Bible for that.
I ran into this blog in search of more clarifications on 1 Timothy 2:12 as I don’t know Hebrew. Now I am reading for her insightful posts and great finds.

That’s a pretty distinct difference from people looking to the CBMW for a codified tally on what is sin and what isn’t. People should be looking to the Bible for that. If you have difficulty understanding a passage, find a Hebrew/Greek expert to see how you might better understand it from the core language and historical context. You shouldn’t have to look to man, though, to figure out what is or is not sin. And their codified prescriptions are dangerously running into Pharisee territory where you can’t carry your bed on the Sabbath or else you are doing work.

I’m having a very hard time following this line of thinking….

Is he saying here that he believes that women are allowed to teach men? It’s just that they aren’t allowed to be an overseer because he deems that as the leadership role or to assess a man’s prophecy?
What if it’s a woman prophesying? Is she now able to make an assessment?
Also, overseers don’t, necessarily, teach or give prophecy, at least, not any more than a regular member of the congregation. The churches of the first century didn’t have “pastors”. We inherited that from the Catholic church that presupposes that only a few men are able to correctly interpret the Bible and that these few men must tell the rest of us what to believe the Bible says.
Rather, the overseer merely maintained order in the church.

Homosexuality was defined by God as a sin (punishable by death even).

Women teaching men, however, is not described as a sin. The most you could selectively lift from the New Testament only (contrary to 1 Cor. 14:34-35) is that it is disgraceful. Sounds more like a cultural thing to me.

The most that will happen is that we will once again have women like Pheobe, Prophetess Ana, Junia, Pricilla, the four daughters of Philip in Acts, Huldah, Deborah, Miriam (Micah 6:4 — “4 I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam.”), and many others that I am forgetting off the top of my head or who were not named. If they weren’t punished or reprimanded for leading/prophesying to men nor were the men for listening, I don’t think we have much to worry about by following the example of those women now. So where’s the slippery slope again?

‘Nuff said.

In the first churches, an overseer was not necessarily more of a teacher than the rest of the congregation. The instructions on speaking turns and teaching in 1 Corinthians 14 make that pretty clear. The overseer merely keeps order in the church so that everyone gets their say without a shouting match starting.

The real teachers of whole congregations were actually the apostles. This could be Paul or Peter; but there was also Apollos and Cephas (1 Corinthians 1:12). But, even more shockingly, especially to the translators who decided to change her to a man, there was Junia (Romans 16:7) mentioned with Andronicus.

Also, the fact that 1 Timothy 3:11 actually translates to “the women”, rather than “their wives” gives indication that there was provision made for, at least, deaconesses, if not female overseers. As is the case today, most women don’t have as much of an interest in managing the church. They are too busy with children and the house to have time or energy for that. Most women don’t even care to have “leadership” positions.
Most likely, the women of that age also had less interest than the men. So you were going to get more male applicants than female. So Paul is writing on the qualifications; and, as he is getting through the qualifications for deacon, he suddenly realizes that he forgot the qualifications for the women. So he throws in that the women are to have the same qualifications and continues on with the rest of the qualifications of a deacon.
There is, at least, provision for deaconesses if not overseers since there is no verse prohibiting women from holding that role, as well. Not even the “silence” verses apply since overseers merely keep order and call on people to stand up to speak.

Oooo…. One more thing…. It is a little harder to tell with accuracy how old the earth is based on the genealogies because we don’t know how long a year is since things have changed over there years, recently from Julian to Gregorian calendars. Also, there are small discrepancies such as the fact that I heard that the year of Christ’s birth was misplaced by 4 years. And there is the fact that we don’t have totally complete genealogies up to Christ since Matthew and Luke did skip a bit….and didn’t give ages for some of the parents and children like in Genesis…

My thoughts on it…

By the way, one proof that the animals of the Garden of Eden were created after Adam is the fact that it doesn’t mention fish and some other animals like reptiles and amphibians being created.

Genesis 2:19-20:
[quote]19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought {them} to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.[/quote]

See what I mean? But Genesis 1:20-25 says:

[quote]20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.[/quote]

In Genesis 1, God creates not only the birds of the air and the beasts of the field that were the only animal creations in Genesis 2, but also swarms of living creatures teeming the waters, great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, and creeping things.
Where is that in the second chapter? No mention of it. Why? Probably because he created a second set of animals to dwell with Adam and Eve in the garden. (This would, however, negate your theory that God created the female counter parts in the second chapter, as there are definitely female fish and reptiles and insects etc.)

Also, the reason why it is believed that Christ died on a Friday is because verses like John 19:31 stated that the Sabbath was the next day. The reason why it says that he rose on the third day is because he died on Friday, day one, and rose on Sunday, day three.
That’s why. I’ve heard that Jews consider any part of the day to still be that day.

…..Oops….. It’s Isaac there instead of *Jacob…. -_-;
My mistake…

Nice blog, and great article.

I had never thought of it like that…. I had thought of the “nagging wife” thing back when I saw the various meanings for the Greek. But this is something to muse over.

Thing is… The switch from women in general to speaking of one woman and her husband is kind of strange… If it followed at the end of chapter 1, it might make more clear sense as you translate it. But it follows Paul asking women to dress modestly and with propriety. However, the patriarchal method is confusing lunacy.

1. What does other women teaching and having authority over men have to do with the fact that the first man wasn’t deceived, while the first woman was? That’s like saying just because some of my female friends or, even better, my mother isn’t as knowledgeable about the Bible, that means that I must, therefore, not know much about the Bible. That’s stupid and proves nothing. What about when God came and told Rebekah that the babies in her womb were two nations and that the older would serve the younger? Jacob still insisted on trying to bless Esau in rebellion of God’s wishes.
   What about Esther knowing more than her husband?
   What about Deborah being ruler over her husband and other men?
   What about the Shunamite woman taking charge of her son’s death and other property matters?
   What about Pontius Pilate’s wife asking him to not do this to Jesus?
   There are lots of places where the wife got Godly council over their husbands; and they presented this council to their husbands. That line of thinking is just stupid.

2. Second, my NIV translation makes it seem like only women fell into sin: “14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” We all know that Adam also became a sinner. Paul himself has said so many times. It makes me question my Bible’s translation.

3. If Adam wasn’t deceived, yet he still at the fruit, what does that say about him? He knowingly walked into this. So, if women are always going to have to go to their men for correct instruction because we are always going to be deceived, I guess that means that men are always going to know what the Scriptures say but will still knowingly commit sin and not bother to give correct instruction, anyway.
   Adam is kind of like a false prophet who knows what he is saying is wrong, while Eve is kind of like a false prophet who has been deceived into thinking this is the correct doctrine. Who is the worse one here? I don’t see how that makes him better able to give correct instruction when he is unwilling to do so.

4. What do they mean that women will be saved through childbearing? That makes no sense. We are saved by grace alone, period.

Anyway, I don’t know enough Hebrew to be an authority or anything. I just know that the patriarchal usage of this is contradictory to the rest of Scripture and just plain strange.

My original thought is that it would be basically translated as (Forgive me if I don’t perfectly remember the other translations of the various Greek words….. It’s been a while….) Think of women as having not gotten the Scriptural training men have gotten up to this point since it was not a priority in these cultures for women to learn things other than just obey:

11 A woman should learn with quiet grace and great humbleness. 12 I don’t want a woman to be lecturing men with false authority; she must be humble. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived (i.e. had more knowledge by being born before her); it was the woman who was deceived (did not have knowledge) and became a sinner because of her lack of knowledge. But she will be saved through childbearing (as in reference to “the woman’s seed striking the head of the snake”?) — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

It’s what I’ve been thinking of…; but yours is interesting…. What do you think? (Sorry if I’m not totally clear…..)