Cheryl

Don is correct in that the bottom line is the most important. Anything that comes before the bottom line cannot negate or contradict the conclusion. Whatever the logical reason that Paul had regarding the cutting of hair, it cannot contradict the fact that he gave women full freedom over their own heads. This means that a woman is free, and has full permission to cut her hair or not cut her hair. She also has freedom to shave her head or wear a head covering if she or her husband experiences shame by her unveiling.

We also can know for certainty that “nature” does not teach a law regarding the length of hair on a man or a woman. Both are equally given hair that grows unless you cut it. This equal natural expression of hair was given to both by God Himself. God is not shamed by a woman without hair (as the rule of the Nazarite vow shows) and God is not shamed by a man with long hair (as the rule of the Nazarite vows shows). Paul was not forcing a veil on a woman so Paul was not upholding a man-made law.

By the way, Merry Christmas everyone!

As far as why the head of a married woman was shameful but the head of an unmarried woman that was not covered was not shameful, Jewish tradition said that a married woman’s head hair was seen as a sexual part of her, not to be seen outside of her home. It was considered such a strict “law” that a woman could be immediately divorced if she was caught in pubic with her head hair uncovered. This was not God’s law, but it was a man-made law.

Also the quote from Wallace, it is only the one imperative that is stronger. The other imperative regarding head covering is not a command or a logical necessity.

LNE,
Just to let you know that my intention is to get back to my blog in the New Year. I am up to my ears in the next DVD project that is due in 2013 and which is taking all of my attention. My plan is to continue to post back at WIM but I don’t know how far I will get with answering comments here in the months that I have been gone. I will try to get to your long comment/questions but in case I forget, when I start posting again in the New year, feel free to remind me to respond to your comments on this post. That should help out.

In case anyone is interested in the new project I am working on, I have a new blog set up for discussion at http://www.mmoutreach.org/tg/ You are welcome to browse or post there as that is the place I am hanging out for the time being. It isn’t on the women’s issue, but another sore spot that causes a lot of division in the church.

See you all back here shortly in the New Year.
Cheryl

Sarah, excellent comments!

Tom, I do not have time to answer your accusations right now as we are headed for my son’s wedding. I am going to put you on moderation for the time being because you cannot come onto my blog and charge us with bigotry. You can continue to comment here, but your comments will be moderated until I have the time to deal with your accusations.
While you are on moderation, I suggest you look for a Scripture that tells a husband to take authority over his wife. The Scripture never once says that a husband has authority over his wife except in an area where she also has equal authority over his body. Perhaps you can search the Scriptures for such stated authority while you search your heart. Iwill get back toyou as soon as I can. It is an extremely busy time for me as I am working on a new DVD project due out a the end of 2012.

Tom,
I don’t have time to answer your comments as I am on the road, however your premise is faulty from the get-go. You cannot start from verse 22 since the word “submit” is not found in this verse. You are required to at least go back to verse 21 where mutual submission is mandated one to another.

That is the way I think about it genwall. I cannot imagine seeing God with our limitations. He asked if anything is impossibleto Him? I have to say “No”. Nothing is impossible to Him and He is not bound by anything except His own nature. Because of His nature, He cannot lie, He cannot deny Himself, etc. If I keep this in mind I must leave aside my own thinking about what God cannot do in His time/space creation.

Kristen,
So what you mean is that the Word is called the “future” Christ?

Kristen,
Reading thru your comments again, I can see that you are not talking about any nature of God or man, but a title only. Yet you turn around and say that Christ is what He “is”. This is very confusing to me to understand you. What a person is, is the nature of that person.

There are synonyms for the title Christ. Son of man, son of David, seed of David, seed of the woman, the last Adam – all of these are references to the Christ. These terms do not negate His Deity. They emphasize His humanity and His being the forerunner for His body, the Church.

One last question for tonight… what connection between the two makes God the head of Christ? Makes Christ, the last Adam the head of man? And the husband the head of the wife? When we can see the common denominator between all three, we will understand.

I am not trying to divide the Son’s nature. What I am trying to say is that the term Christ is intimately connected to His humanity in that it is not a term that can be used for the pre-incarnate Word other than in reference to the time of His incarnation, therefore to use it synonymously with “God” is incorrect.

The Word was incarnated. The Christ was born. The Word is God. The Christ is the son of David. Jesus is both God and man, but it is in His humanity that He is especially united to the Church. It is in His humanity that He is the last Adam. In His being God, He has power over all. When we say that Jesus Christ as head of the church as the husband means that the husband is like God over the wife, we distort the connection of one flesh and make it about authority and power over another. Is Jesus Christ one flesh with the Church? Is the Christ head of or head over? These are the things that need to be answered.

Kristen,

Are you also saying that the Bible could have said “The Christ became flesh and dwelt among us?”

When our kids were little, my husband wanted to sell our house and give everything to the church. We would have ended up in an apartment with three kids and with no savings. I did not have a witness that this is what God wanted and I would not sell. Praise God my husband did not force me. At the time he believed it was his responsibility to make the decisions on all matters, so I am so thankful that he did not take authority over me at the time. He is also thankful now too.

I feel very sad for Phil. He has a copy of my DVD that was given to him back in 2006 for Phil and John MacArthur. I don’t think that he has watched it or he would not be able to make the claims about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as he does. He would know better. It appears to me that he will not be corrected by a woman no matter how much the Holy Spirit says thru her.

Amen! Happy Resurrection day!

Chris,
First I would like to ask you to view my own material in its complete form by getting my DVD. Are you willing to do that?

I have taken the best of the comp view by the material produced by CBMW. I interacted with that organization when I was working on my manuscript and I was also in contact with Andreas Köstenberger. I found him to be a very likable fellow although he could not answer my questions regarding his own view. I do appreciate the opportunity to question these gentlemen. Andreas said that my good questions deserved to be answered even though he was not able to provide the answers.

When you get a copy of my DVDs, you will need to hold two in your left hand and two in your right hand. 🙂

I will show you the problems with your “new” interpretation later this week when I am back in the office.

Thanks for all the good comments! I will be out of the office for another week as we visit grandkids and house hunt. Sorry for the delay in my ability to respond. I will respond again when I am back in the office. In the meantime, keep up the good interaction.

God’s moral law is also on our conscience which is given to everyone. However the issue at hand is what is given to the church in the NT and the people of God in the OT. Any law of God whether it is given universally to all of God’s people for all of time or all people for all of time is always given more than once in scripture. It is the repetition of the law that is the important issue. God has not left us without a second witness. If I was to be silenced then there would be a clear second witness in scripture. My challenge still stands from the only source that is our measuring stick and that is God’s word. Is there a law given as a universal law for all of time that is given By God directly or through his representatives that is without a second witness?

This isn’t Cheryl’s law, but it is the consistent witness of scripture.  Even Jesus said that his claim to Deity (and this claim would result in our damnation for rejecting his testimony so it was a judicial matter) would not be considered valid without a second witness.  If the creator of the universe allowed himself to be under the law of a second witness, then surely God would supply a second witness to the “law” that silences every godly woman regarding her teaching of correct biblical doctrine to men.  The fact is that there is no second witness and this “law” fails the consistent testimony of every other law.  Every universal law has a second witness.

There is also no “law” that silences women in the church.  The fact that this “law” does not have a second witness in the scriptures, is another witness that the “law” that is references is not one of God’s laws.

Don,

Lev. 19:26 gives the same law.  In Genesis it is given to Noah and his family and by implication their descendants as well.  In Leviticus the same law is repeated for Israel’s benefit, presumably because they were not following the original law.  Since it is a repetition of a law originally given to one family and repeated for the family of Israel, this law follows the general practice of a general law – it is repeated.

Do you have an example of a general law that is not repeated in scripture?

In 2006 I gave a talk to an audience of both Christians and former Jehovah’s Witnesses.  The talk included the fact that God’s law is always repeated in in scripture and is never found only once.  God’s repetition is for our safety.  This is especially applicable for those who have come out of the Jehovah’s Witness faith because their beliefs as well as other cult’s beliefs are often based on one verse ripped from its context.  I was very pleased to hear the one very brilliant ex-JW who originally fought me on this issue has come alongside me in believing that there is no universal prohibition that is not repeated and he is now using this as a help in his apologetic work with JW’s.

We need to help hierarchists to be aware that there is no universal prohibition that is not repeated in scripture so a “law” that forbids godly Christian women from teaching doctrine to men is out of place in God’s law.  It is out of place in the text since Paul’s words to Timothy have been false deceived teachers in the congregation.  It is out of place in the scripture because there is no second witness nor is there an application of the prohibition.  There is no list of sins that includes women teaching the bible to men.  There is no punishment listed for women teaching the bible to men.  I know that I have made many think about why this is.  One comp fellow said on a blog that I had given this challenge that no one had been able to answer my challenge nor had anyone been able to explain why there was such a unique law that was unlike any other law.  He said that if I was wrong, I deserved to be refuted and if I was right, I deserved to be listened to.  I am still waiting for someone to answer my challenge.  There is no universal prohibition in scripture that is not repeated.  There is nothing that stands as a law that is used to pronounce judgment on a person without a repetition.  Not even one.  If I am wrong, I welcome an answer.

I am still on the road.  Should be back home by late Friday.  It is good to get away for a few days even if it is mostly business.

I agree!

Don,
Of course we know that the edict was sent by a pagan king and the dominion that the man was to have as master follows along the line of Genesis 3:16 as a ruler over the woman.  It isn’t something that God said nor did Jesus.  If we follow Jesus’ way, we won’t be tempted into idolatry.  Anything or anyone who comes between us and God is an idol and husbands can become idols if they are allowed to usurp the authority of Jesus and become masters.

Greg,
Thanks for your comments!

I always thought it was ironic that the one whom the deceiver deceived would be the very one through whom the Messiah would come.  So the deceiver will be destroyed by the seed of deceived.  God has a way to turn everything around and bring good out of bad.

There really is so much more underneath the tradition that we have been taught.  We are corrected by the text itself.

Pinklight,
You are also right in that God cursed the serpent because he deceived the woman.  Yes, it was God who initiated the enmity between the serpent and the woman.  So it is the serpent who attacks the woman, but the woman also goes to battle against the serpent.  In the history of the world it is to be noted that females have been discriminated against.  In many areas female babies have been left to die.  Females have had their genitals mutilated and they have been forbidden to think for themselves as they have been forbidden education.  It has been an all out war.  Why would God initiate this war?  I think it is because he has a plan to use women in the spiritual battle in a very powerful way against the serpent.  When we hold women back from using their spiritual gifts, we hold back part of what God has gifted for the attack against the enemy.  May we never sideline our fighters when the battle is raging.

Pinklight,
There is so much said by hierarchists that we have just taken for granted.  They are not in the scriptures but they are accepted beause they have been taught over and over and over so that they are tradition without any kind of solid foundation in the bible.  It is time for us to test these traditions instead of accepting them and using these traditions to silence women.  There simply is not one thing in the creation account that shows Adam teaching his wife.  She is taught by God Himself.

Lin,

In the New Testament the Spirit was poured out upon the church and He was given to stay with them forever.  There is nothing in scripture that would say that the Spirit was taken away from women.  And if this was so, women would not have the spiritual gifts at all.  No, when the Holy Spirit came, He opened women’s mouths and sadly it is enemy who seeks to shut women’s mouths.

Ron, well it is noteworthy that God first of all said “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and …” that the first sin was listening and doing nothing.  So technically the first sin came from Adam and not Eve.  His failure to be a Watchman was the first sin and after letting in the enemy take his wife captive, he joined her captivity.

Pinklight,

In my opinion, the all-out failure to believe Eve’s testimony comes from a battle.

Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity Between you and the woman…

God said that he is the one who would initiate a fight between the serpent and the woman.  I believe the enemy has done everything he can to hold back women, subjugate them and stop them from prophesying and testifying for God.  The idea that we shouldn’t believe the testimony of a woman (even the very first woman before she sinned and ate the fruit) in my opinion, is a symptom of the battle against the woman.

Ron,

That was very thought-provoking!

In Ephesians 6 we have the Greek term for “parents” in Ephesians 6:1 and “fathers” in Ephesians 6:4.  I think that verse 4 is both plural because children is plural but also is fathers in particular because it is the fathers in particular that tend to provoke the children to anger not the mothers.  Verse 1 the parents are to be obeyed and in verse 2 the father and the mother are to be honored.  Verse 2 the “father” is singular.

Maybe I am missing something but it appears pretty clear to me that the passage shows both parents are to be honored but the fathers are the specific ones who are told not to provoke their children.  I don’t think this means that mothers have license to provoke their children.

Yes, there are some scriptures that have two meanings and some prophecies that have double fulfillment.  If by “deliberately ambiguous” you mean difficult to understand, I definitely agree with that especially with Paul’s writing and Peter also said this.  If you mean lacking clearness or an indistinct word, Jesus did have some words for the general public that he said were not meant for them to understand.  Although seeing they did not see and hearing they did not hear.  But for born again Christians, I think the word was meant for us to understand at least on some level.

So I do agree with you that there are hard passages.  Absolutely.