Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

Your words not mine and words i never suggested or hinted at. Please spare me with polemical, un-helpful dialogue.

I know that it isn’t what you said. You said that it is God’s principle and I challenged that and continue to challenge you to prove it. I say that the requirement for the wearing of the head covering during prayer and prophecy for a male was not from God but was from their own humanistic cultural way to cover over their shame and to bring a humbleness to their worship as they believed they were unworthy to come before God without a covering. You say that the head covering is God’s principle. I ask you to show me both the head covering during worship and prayer is God’s idea and He created a principle or law to make sure that His principle was followed.

Go ahead, my friend and show us all your proof.

Hi Marg!

Thanks for your kind words. Yes it does seem like my blog has been buzzing lately although I have not yet had time to read all the comments. I just read Mark’s latest and had a buzzing in my own heart to answer his challenge.

Hi Mark, my friend (anti-spam word is friend this time!)

You said:

Your words not mine and words i never suggested or hinted at. Please spare me with polemical, un-helpful dialogue.

I beg to differ as I believe the issue of head coverings is not an un-helpful dialog. Did God require men to wear head coverings when they prayed or prophesied? Or was this a humanistic cultural requirement? Did God require women to wear head coverings when they prayed or prophesied in the Jewish assembly or was this a humanistic cultural requirement of the Jews? If you believe that this was God’s idea and He required both men and women to cover then prove it to me from the Scriptures. Where is this law shown? When did the Jews receive this law?

Oh boy, did that feel good to be back even if only for one comment! It is an amazing thing that God is doing an amazing work within me as I have more peace and assurance that God is going to work all of this out for our good and His purposes. Thanks for all who have prayed for me and who have cared about their sister in Christ!

Okay, believe it or not I have a bit of spare time today and I read Mark’s comment. I must answer.

Mark,
You are doing a switch and bait. You are talking about a principle and then redefining it so that it becomes completely foreign to the text. You said:

The priciple in both texts is one of male leadership whether that is in the marriage or in the church.

Not so. There is not even one text or hint of it that says a husband is to “lead” his wife or that men are to “lead” women. There is also no text or even a hint of it that commands women to be a “follower”. Submission is not “followership”.

Paul supports both arguments for this from the creation account. The practice at the time in 1 Cor 11 was a head covering for a woman. This practice will change from culture to culture.

The “practice” was a humanistic cultural one, not a “practice” of the church. Is Paul demanding that the church follow the culture of the day and bring it into the church? The context defies that understanding. For example the humanistic culture was that men were to wear a headcovering when they prayed or worshipped because humans were seen as being unworthy to come to God with their sinful natures thus they must cover up. Paul forbid this practice in men as the humanistic culture was unworthy of Christian consideration. We have been made worthy because of the blood of Christ. Instead of covering up, we to come boldly before the throne of grace and we are all are to have the privileged of reflecting the glory of Christ without veiling.

2 Corinthians 3:18 (RSV)
18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Hebrews 4:16 (NKJV)

16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

In fact the Christian woman is to be the glory of both her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as well as her husband. Her unveiling is not to be a source of shame for those who are knowledgeable in the things of God. And there is such practice identified in the early church as Paul deemed those who would force the tradition of women to cover as being the contentious ones.

1 Corinthians 11:16 (NKJV)
16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Paul allowed women to cover only for the sake of their marriages in a shame based culture that caused women to be put away in divorce for breaking humanistic cultural taboos.

this is a great example of trying to implement a practice in our own culture that remains loyal to the principle.

The clear principle throughout the Bible is uncovering of all Christians as we are being changed into His likeness from glory to glory. The other clear principle is that husbands are to serve their wives and lift them up so that their gifts are encouraged and grown and used. Husbands are never encouraged to push down their wive’s gifts or hold them back from service to the Church.

We see this extended in seminaries also with the discussions of how much women should ‘teach’ or what they should ‘teach’ before it raises issues with the principle of 1 Tim 2 or 1 Cor 11, 14.

These seminaries who hold back their women are going beyond what is written and taking arguments that Paul is refuting as if the humanistic culture is to be the standard in the body of Christ. That is a faulty standard never set up or practiced by the Church in Scripture.

The challenge for any generation is how to apply the scriptural principles we see in the Bible. This will extend to singing, praying, or whatever.

There is no Scriptural principle that holds back the female “sons” of God in their service to God and those who hold back women from singing, praying or using their gift for the benefit of other Christians are practicing the worldly standards found in many third world countries who have long held traditions that suppress women’s speech, their gifts and their worth.

So to clear things up, i am not saying the head covering is the principle, it is the practice of implementing the principle at the time.

There is no such principle that holds back women from expressing their God-given gifts. The principle stated rather clearly in Scripture is once again that all of us are to be transformed into His image and to be true image bearers without covering up what God is doing with in us. God’s gifts are required to be used and they are never to be buried by either ourselves or those who believe they are appointed as God’s gatekeepers to the use of His gifts.

Mark, if I may phrase your principle this way, it would be that you are saying that “head covering” is not the principle it is the implementing of the principle. The implementing of the principle is the subdue of women’s expression and their God given gifts. Therefore it is man’s duty to hold back what God has given such that the self appointed gatekeeper decides the minute details of what a woman can and cannot do. Mark, you continue to flaunt the comp position here as if it is Scriptural and you do so by changing the very principles of Scripture that have been set up as a standard for all of us. You are going to be challenged again and again even though you just don’t get it for I believe you love the doctrine of male supremacy. It sure appears to me that you are not willing to lift a finger to stop the suppression of women’s gifts for the common good of the body of Christ for your rights come before the universal principles of the Word of God.

By the way I give my reasons for my absence from this blog here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/08/10/1-timothy-215-going-deeper/ on comment #189.

I should note that my anti-spam word for the last comment was pain. I very certain that God has a sense of humor and He has lots of ways to show us that we are still loved and cared for even when things are really hard.

Hi folks, sorry that I haven’t been around. I have been very remiss in providing an explanation to my “dead” blogging.

I am okay but I have been under an extreme amount of pressure so that there has been very little of me left to be a help. In July we started building a new ministry office and studio and although we were very busy, there were workers helping so I could take a few moments off here and there to blog. But several things happened that put us into a prolonged battle. The first was the theft of my husband’s laptop computer that held our ministry data files. That literally set us back three months worth of work and we have not yet caught up. Then the costs for the construction escalated to the point where what we had saved to finish the entire project to full occupancy was all used to construct the outside structure. There were cost over runs everywhere including having to pay for an engineer for several items. That meant that we had to let the crew go as we just didn’t have the money to keep paying them, while we have been working on finishing the outside ourselves. We are at the wiring stage right now and pushing hard to get the outside walls with completed wiring and plumbing so that we can get insulation in before the freezing weather comes. Right now there is no insulation between our bedroom and bathroom so it is a frigid dash in the morning. All of this has caused a great deal of stress and anxiety and long hours of physical work so that there has been almost nothing of me left by the end of the day.

On top of that our ministry partners have left for their retirement home at the coast so there is no one knowledgeable enough to provide help in the ministry work. We were not able to get our last ministry newsletter out because the printing equipment had been covered with building supplies until not that long ago and our data files for the newsletter had not yet been rebuilt and we were so tired from the long hours of work that we were not capable of keeping up.

We understand that our Lord is not a hard task master and that we are responsible for taking breaks and resting, but it has been difficult. This month I have to get the financial records finished for our Canadian ministry and file our taxes. The Christian brother who helps me with filing the taxes has left for three months so that is added stress for me.

I hated to create a note here on the blog saying that I might be gone for months because I love the discussions here and love the people and so I was procrastinating thinking that maybe things would get done faster and I would be freed up again. But it looks like the deadlines in November will keep me busy until the end of the month and maybe even longer and once the final crew comes to do the insulating and the final outside finishing work and the financial accounting is complete, then my days will be a little more flexible.

If you remember me, can you please pray that God will provide both ministry laborers and the finances to go forward in the ministry? The door has become open for us to minister and to expand but we need to have both volunteers to come into the office to help with the daily ministry duties (two of us is just not enough) and financial help to complete the inside of the office and the studio. We had hoped to fund all of this from our own savings but our funds have pretty much dried up as the project has cost almost double of what we had expected. In our next newsletter we will be putting out a fund raising call for anyone that the Lord prompts to help us to stand behind our ministry in prayer and with financial help. We are trusting that the Lord will speak to the hearts of those who have supported the ministry in the past. I know that many of them are not happy that they didn’t get their normal quarterly newsletter, so we are trusting that when they understand the struggles that we have been through, that they will come alongside us in support.

I will be back in action here as soon as I can. I think often about new things I want to write about but I just do not have the energy yet to keep up with the discussions and I haven’t even read most of them as my computer time is limited.

Even through all of this the Lord has been encouraging us and we are excited to find out how He will make all things work together for good. Today was one of the first times that we just set everything aside and took a break for a few hours. It was so wonderful! This evening I feel a peace and an encouragement and that brought me back to the blog.

If I don’t get back to post right away in December, I am certain I will be back by January. We will either have our prayers answered by then or else we will have frozen our butts off and decided to leave everything unfinished and gone somewhere warm! I am believing and trusting that God has all these things under control and at just the right time He will bring His supply to help two very tired servants. I believe we will be here and praising God for His goodness and His warmth.

Thanks for your care and for your prayers. I really, really miss you all.

Much love,
Cheryl

Waneta,
You said:

First, I am so sorry you had that robbery to deal with, Cheryl, but happy you got alot of the money back.

Thanks for your thoughts! We are also very grateful for God’s provision. We also needs God to sustain us as far as recreating our lost files as it was the worst time for the theft. We are in the middle of a big reno project to create office and studio space for our ministry and having to go back through piles of paperwork to recreate the lost files has been extremely challenging during this time. We are still not caught up but getting closer. It is amazing at how much we rely on computers and when there is such a disruption how it can affect our lives. But God knows all of this and He will not give us more than we can handle. Although I am extremely overwhelmed, I am handing everything from one moment to another. And I am learning to live in God’s grace for good things can come through God’s hand as we continue to learn to lean not to our own understanding.

TL,
Yes it has been very quiet here. I have been so overwhelmed, it has been almost impossible to carve out time even to read the comments. I can see from the questions (from Craig’s question that I have been meaning to answer) and from Waneta’s question, that I will need to spend some quality time in answering them. If God grants me that time, I will try for this week during my evening “down” time.

Here is what has been keeping me hopping busy:

My front yard is now completely destroyed with the renovations. I am the resident ditch digger, wood stainer and go-for girl along with keeping all the other important home things together. I am working outside as much as 10 hrs a day so that we can keep the costs down. Everything has been coming at us at once in the last week. This coming week my front yard is supposed to be replaced with a semi-normal look and then a tent is to be set up for the workers to begin work on the front. Meanwhile the new roof has not been shingled and the rain is coming in which makes it very hard to keep up with the staining of the wood. But the new roof can’t be installed until I have the wood stained. The outside work should be done in about 4 – 6 weeks so I am really hoping that if my life doesn’t get back to normal before then, at least after the crew all leaves, I can schedule a blogging time for myself so that I can get out all that is inside my head and heart.

In the meantime this is what I can look forward to more of tomorrow morning, come rain or shine:

There goes my concrete front steps and any semblance of order. At least for a few weeks.

If you remember me, pray for my sanity 😉

Craig,
I have answers for you but I am so tired that I can hardly think. Today has been back breaking digging and leveling dirt and pick mountain sized rocks. We are also under a deadline as the entire basement is being poured on Monday and we are not ready yet for that so I have to spend my days giving as much help as I can. I will get back to your question as soon as I can carve out some time. Thanks for your patience!

Ah, it must be late at night for me. I am having too much of a jolly good time. Off to bed for me.

Dave,
Maybe you can write the caption?

Dave,
At your service 😉

How about this?

Craig,
As usual very a good question! And may I commend your “friend” too?

To answer the question we just need to see what Paul has already said in the epistle. Paul is not excluding people from his instructions when he starts dealing with another “group”. For example just because Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:8 that he wants “men” to pray without wrath and dissension doesn’t mean that he is exempting women. What Paul does in 1 Timothy is join the groups together with the term “likewise” while setting apart kinds of people that have particular issues yet still not exempting them from being a part of the “whole”.

Why does Paul say “Deacons likewise” in verse 8 when deacons are also a part of 1 Timothy 3:1? It should be obvious that a deacon can desire to be an overseer as “anyone” may desire that work. Yet deacons are treated in a special way within the passage.

1 Timothy 3:8 (NAS)
8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,

If we treat the term “likewise” as if it excludes deacons as possible people who desire to be overseers, then we would come to a false conclusion. Paul isn’t excluding deacons in 3:1 nor is he excluding women in the previous verses either just because he says “likewise”. What he is doing is specifically addressing the concerns of women (a specific group) within the whole.

So women can desire to be overseers, and Paul lists an additional qualification that specifically deals with an issue that plagues women when he says “likewise” and that added qualification is the issue of gossip. In Titus 2:3 Paul again links women (and specifically older women) with the bad habit of gossip.

So I would ask your “friend” if deacons are exempt from the ability to desire to be overseers because Paul lists them in the passage as “likewise”? If the term “likewise” cannot mean that they are excluded in the previous verses just because they have service as a deacon and the term “likewise” is used concerning that “group”, then logically it cannot mark out women as not included in 1 Timothy 3:1 either.

So if you ask me why did Paul use the term “likewise” with women? I think it was because he was going to add a special qualification that is more apt to be needed to be said when advising women. It is not uncommon for Paul to use this term but it is not meant by him to exclude people from the “whole”.

Craig,
Your last question was missed. Sorry. It is a good one!

In 1 Tim 3:11, when Paul says “Likewise (or in the same way) women…. ” why do you think he put this where he does – in the middle of a passage about deacons. If he meant it to apply to both elders and deacons, why didn’t he put it in a more obvious spot?

I think that Paul put it in the area about deacons because he already listed in 1 Timothy 3:1 that anyone could desire to be an overseer. Since the very first verse is gender neutral, then it seems that there would be no need to mention women at that point. When it comes to the issue of the qualifications of deacons no sentence stands out that “anyone” may desire to be a deacon so it was a good place to make sure that it is understood that women too can be qualified deacons.

That is the way I understand it and it makes good sense to me.

Craig,
You said:

If unveiling was considered to be exposing her private parts, then it certainly would have been quite distracting and not very helpful for the other men of the church!

It is an odd sort of thing, but I don’t think that it would be distracting to men. It was only the husband who was really bothered by her unveiling as well as those in his family because of the shame based system that would pressure him to divorce the one who dishonored him. Yet men saw girl’s hair all the time. A woman did not veil until she was married so an unmarried woman went without a veil and it doesn’t appear that men were thinking they were seeing private parts. But as soon as a man was married, he got very possessive and she was to withdraw from public viewing of her head. I find the whole thing rather odd myself but it is historic.

I should also thank Marg, Craig and Dave for your input. These kind of discussions and hearing other points of view can be very helpful and it is often an iron sharpening iron experience because other people’s point of view help us to see past our own blind spots. I am sure that I too have blind spots. I just can’t “see” them. 😉

Thanks Lydia and Dr. Willingham for your input.

Craig, God has said that there was a time that He overlooked sin, but when He sent His Son, the Light shone into this world and revealed things that we did not know or understand. For example Jesus showed that it wasn’t just adultery that was sin but the very thought in the mind even if the act was not committed. Polygamy was tolerated because of the sinful culture that would allow women and children to suffer and die without support. It was for the good of the woman in her need that it was allowed, not for the good of the man. But with the birth of the church, and the gifts of mercy and helps, widows and orphans were taken care of and women no longer needed the lesser evil of polygamy for their support. It is the preaching of the gospel that brings light to the worth of each person as well as the authority of the wife over her husband’s body. When a man adds another woman as his wife he is using an authority that doesn’t belong to him and in essence he is sinning against the wife of his youth. As the gospel light comes to illuminate the evil, it banishes that evil into the shadows and the church is taught to treat one another with love as they would want to be treated. So while polygamy is tolerated with one who has come to Christianity in this state, the state that he is in does not meet the level of Christianity that Christ taught. Polygamy rips out the heart of a woman by joining her husband’s body with someone other than her. It violates her authority and violates the golden rule that Jesus taught thus violating the law of love.

The problem for a polygamist who has become a Christian is very similar to the problem of a Christian wife married to an unbelieving man who is a Jew. In 1 Cor. 11 Paul outlines that problem and gives the woman the authority to chose which way she will go. For if she unveils so that she does not shame Christ, she opens herself up to the accusation of shaming her husband by exposing what was considered her “private parts”. But if she continues to veil she makes it look like she is still under the shame of sin which shames Christ. It is a huge dilemma especially because God hates divorce. Paul’s solution was that she was allowed to veil if she wanted in order to protect her husband from shame. I expect that it was Paul’s understanding that in these cases the woman was not accepting the spiritual meaning of the veil.

The polygamist who has become a Christian has a similar dilemma. God hates divorce so if he divorces his wives except for one he is going against God’s heart about divorce. But if he keeps his wives he continues to hurt his wife and to disrespect her authority. There would be no answer to this problem that would not come with some pain. If he wants to be a true godly leader in the congregation he would have to be in a position where he was faithful to his one wife and respectful of her authority. No godly leader can be a shepherd to the flock representing God’s love to His people by giving an ungodly example of divided love and trampling on his wife’s authority over his body. If the polygamist really desires to be an overseer, he does desire a good thing, but there is a price to pay for being such an example as a godly servant. There is a higher standard set for leaders and he must be willing to meet that standard if he wants to continue to go down that road.

Correct me if I am wrong. I think the key point that you are differing from me on is that you very clearly see that a polygamist who becomes a christian is continuing in sin unless he gives up his polygamy.

A polygamist who becomes a Christian would be continuing in sin against his wife unless he gives up his polygamy. I do not see that continued polygamy is a sin that would keep him out of heaven. I do see it as a lifestyle that is not acceptable for leadership which is designed to say “follow me in my example”.

I have heard it suggested that it should be treated like the situation of a new christian not divorcing an unbelieving wife. He should stay in the situation he is in.

Perhaps that might be a similar type of situation as we are not to be joined together with unbelievers, yet divorce is also wrong. The answer appears to be to remain in the place where you were when you became a Christian (regarding marriage) and try to work it out. If by following Christ, your spouse leaves, then you are free and without obligation to stay in the marriage.

One would want to be fairly sure before telling people that God says that polygamy is sin and the only way to be godly is through divorce.

Polygamy is not listed in the “sins” that are abominations against God and which when practiced will keep one out of heaven. Thus it is not a necessary answer to divorce the additional spouses.

What is it that convinces you that the bible is clear on the subject?

The Bible teaches that we are to live at peace with each other and to live in love treating each other as we would want to be treated. The Bible also makes it clear in 1 Cor. 7:4 that the husband has no authority at all to sexually give his body to another woman and the authority over his sexuality belongs to his wife alone. Therefore if he tramples on her authority, he is sinning against her. If he has no authority to give his sexuality to another then I think it is quite clear that polygamy is morally wrong by depriving a spouse of exclusivity.

The key point here to meditate on is what is the purpose of a leader? A leader leads by example. It is a privilege to be a leader but it is also a huge responsibility because how one lives out one’s Christianity is set up as an example. Those who do not or cannot live up to this high responsibility should not be leaders. It doesn’t mean that leaders don’t have struggles. But it does mean that leaders must be submissive to God in setting their hearts to a very high standard. Leadership is not a right but a responsibility to the flock and an accountability to God.

Craig,
As far as your comment about a polygamist being “inferior”, I wouldn’t put it that way. The gospel comes to all, but not all have shown the ability to live a life without reproach before the world. If for example the polygamist were a church leader who was set up as an example for all Christians to follow and those on the outside who live in a culture that abhors polygamy saw him lifted up as a Christian leader without blame, what would they think of Christ? Would not Christ be seen as approving of and promoting polygamy? The lives of leaders are to be exemplary. A current polygamist would not be such an example.

Craig,
There is a huge difference between a former murderer and a current polygamist. Paul was forgiven for his sin of murder and he stopped committing this sin. But one who is married to multiple women and living in that state would not be such an example. One is a “former” murderer, the other is a “current” polygamist. Let’s say that the man who was a polygamist came to Christ and became convicted that polygamy was wrong and he divorced all his wives except for the wife of his youth (original wife) and gave them support so they could live, I think he could qualify as being “the husband of one wife”. However it appears that he could not be forced to divorce his wives when he became a Christian, and some of the early church “rules” that I quoted show that he was to have a time of sorrow for his sin depending on the amount of wives he had. But no one was going to force him to divorce. Yet in that state he would still not be an example to the congregation in this particular area. There is no example of leadership that is “faithful to many wives”. It certainly is a sticky situation and I believe that the Bible set up the best possible solution with the higher Christian morals. No polygamist is to be set up as an example for the flock to follow just as no person who continues to divorce his/her spouse just to marry a new “love” would be a a godly example to the congregation.

So if your concern was about a “former” polygamist rather than a “current” polygamist, then we can agree that the past sins of the pre-Christian life will not hold us back from being a godly example.

@Craig #27,

Wouldn’t this then put the christian with multiple wives in a somewhat similar predicament to women in a comp world today? What if he matured as a christian and God gave him leadership gifts?

No it isn’t the same as a “leadership” is not a “gift” per se but a place of Christian maturity that has such a high standard that the congregation is to follow the example of their leaders. A leader is to be an example to the flock in such a way that they are to be without blame and worthy of setting a godly example. While “husband of one wife” is a clear note about marital faithfulness, it also prohibits a “faithful husband of two or three wives” from being set up as an example to the congregation as one to follow in their marital choices.

So while a polygamist who had become a Christian after he had already married multiple women was not forced to divorce his additional wives, the Christian standard was that any Christian who took multiple wives after conversion was an adulterer. Thus a leader who was to be an example to the congregation could not be a polygamist. Could a pre-Christian polygamist who was now following the Lord use his God-given gifts in the assembly? Certainly. But could he be listed as a leader who was worthy of being followed and emulated? No. The Christian standard that Paul set up disallowed that as the Christian standard went further than what was allowed in the Old Testament. The Christian standard was one of purity for one man and one woman in marriage and in faithfulness. So while I agree that the term referred to marital faithfulness and thus did not disallow women to serve as an example to the congregation, it does disallow those who were polygamists before their conversion. And a person who became a polygamist after their conversion was considered guilty of adultery.

In later years polygamy was not as common and in the early years of the church converts who were Greek or Romans did not come from a culture that practiced polygamy although there was some polygamy in other cultures including among the Jews. There is some disagreement in church history on how to handle polygamists who became Christians, but no disagreement on whether these ones could be an example to the flock. They could not.

In Philip Schaff’s “The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. XIV pg 80, he records:

Ancient Epitome of Canon III.
The time of polygamists is well known.A zeal for penance may shorten it.

Hefele.
As the Greek commentators have remarked, this canon speaks of those who have been married more than twice. It is not known what were the ancient ordinances of penitence which the synod here refers to. In later times digamists were condemned to one year’s penance, and trigamists from two to five years. St. Basil places the trigamists for three years among the “hearers,” and then for some time among the consistentes.

Another volume that quotes from early church leaders is a 1924 volume A critical and exegetical commentary on the Pastoral epistles (I & II Timothy and Titus) (pgs 36–37) written by W Lock in 1924. It reads concerning the qualification of elders: (I am removing the actual Greek quotes as my blog doesn’t support Greek fonts)

(ii) It certainly implies—not a polygamist. Such a rule would still be necessary, as polygamy might still be found among Jews; cf. Justin Martyr, Tryph. c. 134, …Joseph. Ant. xvii. 1, 2, …cf. Schürer, i. 1, p. 455 note. Schechter, Documents of jewish Sectaries, i. 17.
(iii) It also certainly implies “a faithful husband,” married to one woman and loyal to her, having no mistress or concubine; cf. Tertull. Apol. 46, “Christianus uxori soli sae masculus nascitur.” Canones Apost. xvii. …cf. ib. lxi. A similar provision is found in heathen marriage contracts; cf. Tebt. Pap. 104,… (92 B.C.), and similarly Pap. Eleph. 1 (310 B.C.).
(iv) It also implies, and was probably meant to imply, not divorcing one wife and marrying another. This would be a Christian rule, based both on Our Lord’s teaching and on St. Paul’s …

One recent example of a Christian author who while giving some credence to a possible exception allowed to the rule of a monogamous marriage as the only accepted form of marriage in the church, still claims that as a rule those who were polygamists were not even accepted into the church.
From Charles Hodge Vol. 3: Systematic theology (pgs 387–388)

Converted Polygamists.

The question has been mooted, Whether a polygamist, when converted to Christianity, should be required to repudiate all his wives but one, as a condition of his admission into the Christian Church? The answer to this question has been sought from three sources: First, the Scriptural doctrine of marriage; secondly, the example of the Apostles when dealing with such cases; and thirdly, from a consideration of the effects which would follow from making monogamy an indispensable condition of admission to the Church.
As to the first point, it is admitted by all Christians, that it is the law of God, the law of Christ, and consequently the law of the Christian Church that polygamy is sinful, being a violation of the original and permanently obligatory law of marriage. As every man who enters the Church professes to be a Christian, and as every Christian is bound to obey the law of Christ, it seems plain that no man should be received into the communion of the Church who does not conform to the law of Christ concerning marriage. The only question is, Whether Christ has made a special exception in favour of those who in the times of their ignorance, contracted the obligations of marriage with more than one woman? It is of course possible that such an exception might have been made. It would be analogous to the temporary suspension of the original law of marriage in favour of the hardhearted Jews. Has then such an exception been made? This is the second point to be considered. It concerns a matter of fact. Those who assume that such an exception has been made, are bound to produce the clearest evidence of the fact. This is necessary not only to satisfy the consciences of the parties concerned, but also to justify a departure from a plainly revealed law of God. It would be a very serious matter to set up in a heathen country, a church not conformed in this matter to the usual law of Christendom. Missionaries are sent forth to teach not only Christian doctrines but Christian morals. And the churches which they found, profess to be witnesses for Christ as to what He would have men to believe, and as to what He would have them to do. They ought not to be allowed to bear false testimony. It is certain that there is no clear and definite expression of the will of Christ, recorded in the New Testament, that the case contemplated should be an exception to the Scriptural law of marriage. There is no instance recorded in the New Testament, of the admission of a polygamist to the Christian Church. It has, indeed, been inferred from 1 Timothy iii. 2, where the Apostle says, a bishop must be “the husband of one wife,” that a private member of the Church might have more wives than one. But this is in itself a very precarious inference; and being inconsistent with Christ’s express prohibition, it is altogether inadmissible.

Scripture shows that those in leadership are those who are to set an example to be observed and followed.

Philippians 3:17 (NAS)
17 Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.

1 Thessalonians 1:6–7 (NAS)
6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit,
7 so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.

1 Timothy 4:12 (NAS)
12 Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.

1 Peter 5:3 (NAS)
3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.

And finally, Paul as a true leader sets himself up as one to be imitated just as he imitated Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:1 (NAS) Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

Is a polygamist one who is to be imitated? I think that Scripture and church history shows that they were not and to my knowledge no polygamist was ever recorded as being set up as an example to the flock as a leader to be followed. Can they be an exemption to the rule about marriage and yet be a Christian if they are legally married to more than one wife before coming to Christ? It does appear that their predicament would allow them to be such an exception to be accepted in the congregation but they would never be set up as a leader.

Does this make sense?

I am going to be working on the next post and also will be working through any comments here that need attention.

It is an exciting day that God is ABLE to work all things out for good to them that love God and are called according to His purpose. What a day to be alive and share in the work that God has for His people. This IS the day that the Lord has made. We will rejoice and be glad in it. I have such a joy of the Lord in my heart. Tonight it rained and God produced the most beautiful rainbow that I have ever seen. It went from the sky right down the mountain and into the trees. A marvelous sign of God’s care and His ability to control and bring good into our lives.

@Dave #162,

I will continue to read with interest as I usually do…but work demands my attention so I might not comment much now you are back.

Thanks for giving of your time and effort to hold the fort while I was not able to be here. It is so greatly appreciated! I hope you will read when you can and pop up whenever God gives you a word for us.

I appreciate the truth and love with which you are talking to Mark. I hope he does too!

I hope he does too. I have given him far more opportunity on this blog than any comp has ever been given, even to the point of letting him write one of the posts. I will continue to pray for Mark as he works on his biblical studies in school. I believe that without help, a help that Mark himself will accept, he will never come out of his patriarchal box. But I do believe that God in His Sovereignty can bring an acceptable “helper” into Mark’s life who Mark will listen to. I will pray for that fervently so that Mark and his family of daughters will not be subjected to ungodly restrictions but that they will be freed to serve God as He gifts them. Oh for God to open the eyes and ears of more godly men who will set their own reputation aside in order to fight for their sisters in Christ to have freedom to serve the body of Christ.

Hats off to you Pastor Dave, you are one of my heroes! And a godly Aussie at that!

@Mark #43

I would have thought that an exegesis based on one’s own un supported grammtical interpretation would be a hole to begin with…a major hole.

Unsupported? No true at all but seems to be your wishful thinking. Did you seriously not read the post on the anaphoric? http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/08/03/a-woman-anaphoric/ You made no comment on it. Now try to suggest that it is unsupported.

However, in the future we may uncover new documents which show a decieved false teacher existed in Ephesus which would the help validate your interpretation.

Chapter one has Paul showing that there were many deceive false teachers in Ephesus. What we would need to uncover for your interpretation would be documents that shows that a true teacher teaching the truth of God’s word was ever silenced by Paul. That certainly would validate your interpretation, don’t you think? Why is there no evidence of such a silencing of the truth?

But as for now in 2010, i’m very hesitant to accept this interpretation which is based solely on your own assumptions and greek interpretation.

I believe that you are very hesitant to accept my exegesis because you love having a special position as a man and you would rather see the silencing of the truth of God’s word by a true and godly teacher who is a woman rather than have your special position shared with women.

Can i ask if any other scholars have recognised your interpretation as possible, either egalitarian or comp. Only if you feel comfortable sharing.

Dr. Jon Zens is a huge supporter of my work and he sells my DVDs in his bookstore. Dr. Daniel Wallace also has my DVDs and has not pointed out the flaws in my argument and it is he that has written about the anaphoric grammar which I quoted in my last article. His own work proves that an indefinite noun should be taken as definite in certain circumstances.

Dr. Scott Heine is a comp who found my arguments to be very persuasive and who gave me a very high recommendation on my DVDs. He did not correct the grammar either that I used. Dr. James Willingham is also a huge supporter or my work and has asked permission to write the forward of my book. He has five or six doctorate degrees if I remember right. Dr. B A. Di Gilio is also a supporter of my work and there are several others with doctorate degrees which escape my memory right now. For all of those who are reading this, please forgive me for failing to remember all of you.

As far as the supportive pastors, I wouldn’t even try to name them all. There are far too many.

@Mark #42

By the way i never recieved that email, and i’m not going to go open a new account elsewhere. Thanks anyway for the discussions on John 6, they were helpful.

Honestly, I find this amazing. You were so anxious to go through these passages with me verse by verse, now you have changed you mind and do not want to receive the exegesis. Alrighty then, I get the message. It is another subject that you don’t want to discuss exegesis with me.

To continue to Mark,

Since this is the case, we ought to be very cautious of people who think they have a flawless exegesis of this passage. History should tell us otherwise.

No need to be cautious of “people” at all. If the exegesis is not flawless then it should take nothing at all to find the flaws. You have not managed to do so, Mark, although you have huffed and puffed and tried to blow down the house. It still stands.

If you do not wish to answer any further on my comments that is fine, but please stop asking me to show you my proof or my exegesis etc-i’m not here for that.

When you make a “claim” of Greek grammar, you will be expected to back up your claim. If you do not want to back up your claim, then perhaps you shouldn’t make the claim that you have knowledge that you don’t have.

And frankly to try and throw it back onto me doesn’t help your cause in defending your case, it makes it look as if you would just rather attack the opposition than defend the fort.

The fort has received no viable attack yet, but you are welcome to find a real challenge for me if you find one in the future. It is not an attack to ask questions of the opposition. It is also not an attack to ask for proof of a claim that is made by the opposition. Labeling these things as an “attack” actually reveals the weakness of your challenge and by your own admission you don’t have a position on the disputed text.

I hope you are willing to answer why and how the woman’s salvation can be conditional on her husband’s faith, love, sobriety and sanctification. I hope you can offer a stronger case for your position.

Read my comments above.

God bless.

Mark, that is the nicest thing that you have said to me in a long time. Thanks!

P.S i would think that Paul is a good example of a decieved false teacher being named? Isn’t this obvious considering your exegesis relies heavily on Paul’s personal refelction in chapter 1.

Paul’s revelation that he was himself in unbelief when he acted as a blasphemer, a persecutor and an insolent man (insolent person, violent aggressor, especially of one who takes a superior attitude and mistreats others out of his own revolt against God’s revelation of truth- Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker’s Greek New Testament library (387), was a self revelation of his sin.

1 Timothy 1:13 (NKJV)
13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

Paul’s humility shows his changed nature. But God never ever exposed the name of an ignorant deceived teacher. Paul in humility showed that he himself was like those who are in his shoes, but Paul, just like God, never revealed their names of the ones who were not deliberate deceivers.

But of course that is based on the assumption that this passage IS dealing with false teaching, which is truly an assumption with no other evidence to support it.

Chapter 1 deals with false teaching and false teachers. If chapter 2 deals with the stopping of a true teacher teaching the truth of God’s word, then where does God ever set up a law that stops the teaching of the truth? This understanding flies against the very nature of truth and the God of truth.

Going back to @Mark #41, you said:

Where your exegesis becomes troublesome is when you appeal that the ‘they’ is husband and wife, since then it inevitably means that the future salvation of the wife is not only dependant on certain things but also on several people. Her salvation is conditional on not only her, but also on him remaining in faith etc.

It isn’t the exegesis that is troublesome at all. It is the very words of Paul that have been troublesome for Paul never used sozo in his epistles for anything else but spiritual salvation. Paul also connects the source of the salvation to the promised seed who is the sin bearer. The troublesome issue is that the grammar depends on having an alive person who can be a part of the conditions. Certainly all women cannot be a part of the conditions of one woman. But can a husband staying in the faith be a major factor in keeping her in the faith? Or can it be said that if he leaves the faith then it will be difficult for the one who has already experienced deception to stay in the faith if he leaves? As Christians we need support and at times a brother in Christ can rescue us from the fire where we have been caught and held by deception or sin. (Jude 23) It is a biblical doctrine that some need help to be pulled from the fire. One cannot be qualified to be a “puller” out of the fire if the “puller” is one is in the fire himself.

I find it incredibly revealing that you have no answers to any of my questions on this issue including the conditions that Paul sets up for “they”. You accept faith and love and seem to deny that help is needed in the issue of deception.

Jude 23 (NKJV)
23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.

Perhaps you would rather see the Bible say that those who are in the “fire” with “defiled garments” do not need help getting out? That they have no need of being pulled out at all as a condition? But the Scripture says otherwise and in Jude 23 it says that we are to save them “with fear”. Why “with fear”? It is that in saving them from the “fire” we do not become encompassed by that fire and fall in ourselves. Jude 23 fits in very well with the condition of 1 Timothy 2:15.

I do not think your statement “I already told you. She is fully deceived. She is not coming out of her deception without help. Do you need more help to understand this?” solves the problem of your exegesis. This is becasue we are not just talking about ‘coming out of her deception’, we are talking about her eternal salvation which is what you take sozo to mean. I’ve asked this a few times now. If you can’t answer, that is fine, just admit that this is a exegetical hole in your argument.

There is no exegetical hole at all in my argument. Coming out of her deception is what her salvation is. One cannot be saved and be spiritually deceived. It is necessary to come out of the deception in order to be saved. If you cannot see that and think that this is a “hole” in my argument, then it appears that you are failing to “see” on purpose. That greatly concerns me. Those who do not have an agenda haven’t had a problem seeing my point. They do not see a “hole” that you alone see. And it is also interesting that while you see “holes” that are not there, you have no idea who “she” is or who “they” are in 1 Timothy 2:15 and neither can you explain why there is a condition required of “they” for the salvation of “she”. My explanation makes perfect sense in the context of deception. Your context of the stopping of true teaching and the shutting up of true godly teachers makes a huge contradiction with the entire Bible. Can you name one godly true teacher whom Paul stopped from teaching? Where are the NT church councils who were set up to judge godly women who were caught teaching the truth of the gospel? Please tell us more about the serious sin of teaching the truth of God’s Word!

Finally, i stated from the beginning that i’m not here to engage in more battles over and over. I simply wanted to comment on your exegesis, that’s all.

If I could interpret this statement, I would say that you are not here to answer questions or to prove your point nor are you here to have your point challenged by us. You are here just to throw stones at my exegesis. I welcome honest stones and any stones sent from those who love the truth. Your stones have missed their “mark” and when you fudged a knowledge of grammar that you couldn’t prove, your stones actually exploded on your side of the fence. If one has to make up grammar to prove their point, then their point is not worthy of consideration. I still consider you my brother in Christ, Mark, but your tactics are not wise. It seems that my exegesis has caused you a great amount of discomfort and fear and you are responding in that fear. I will pray for you that God will help you to accept what God’s Word says in context even if it goes against the tradition that you have lived your life by. Godly Christian women have many things to teach men that God has gifted them with. When men are willing to accept what God has given to them through the human vessel of a woman, men are strengthened in the faith. When they reject God’s gift because it is housed in our of God’s female “sons” then they are found to be resisting God and His gifts. I would implore you to fear God enough to desire truth more than anything that male privilege can give you.

You often ask for people to critique it so this is what i offer. I’m not going to engage in an exegetical argument back and forth between your view and mine- we have been there unsuccessfully.

I love a critique, but you have given a falsified critique that has been made up in your own mind as a grammar rule that doesn’t exist. I do not welcome lies because I fear God enough to want only truth. And as far as your exegetical view on 1 Timothy 2:15, you have not offered one. You admit that you don’t know what the verse means. How then can you know for sure what it doesn’t mean when you have to invent a grammar rule to try to force a hole into my argument? Mark that is a shame. Don’t do that. Who is ever going to believe a word you say when you stoop this low? No wonder you do not want to engage in an exegetical argument.

I do admit that this verse is hard. But so does everybody else. It is not a weakness to admit that you don’t understand a certain verse.

It is a weakness when you have to tell an untruth to try to tear down an exegesis that you don’t like. And it would be an untruth for me to say that I don’t understand this verse. I believe with all my heart that God put the verse in the Bible for it to be understood. My position makes sense and since no one yet has showed where my view cannot fit into the natural sense of the passage from Paul’s context of an individual letter to his ministry friend who knew all about the situation regarding false teachers and false doctrine, then my view stands so far as the only view I have ever come across that does not have holes. Poke away if you want, but don’t tell lies in order to poke. Fair enough?

More responses tomorrow. I will need time to actually read through all the comments that I missed.

Dave,
I thought your summary was bang on correct. I find it an odd thing about Mark. He has no answers for 1 Timothy 2:15 and freely admits that but he is willing to bluff his way through a challenge of my view. Now don’t get me wrong. I am very willing to handle any challenge to my view from those who think there might be a hole in my argument. But I expect honesty in the challenge and I am amazed at how an opposing viewpoint to patriarchy can be attacked in an illegitimate way just because my exegesis of the passage causes them to feel threatened. It appears that I must be knocked down in order for them to retain their privileged position.

I will be happy to answer the challenge. Perhaps one challenger at a time. I also want to make a distinction between challengers. Gengwall appears to honestly want to know the truth and is willing to challenge me from a place of wanting truth. As far as Mark, he answers few questions and when his questions are answered he admits to nothing and leaves for a time just to come back with a trumped up piece of grammar that he cannot prove from any respected grammar book. This kind of argumentation appears to me to be a sign that he doesn’t really care as much for the truth as he does for his own position. I certainly could be wrong about this. But if I am wrong, Mark has done nothing to show me his love for the truth when he presents invalid “grammar” arguments as if his opinion is worthy of being believed without giving valid documentary evidence. I find that incredibly sad that smoke and mirrors used as a bluff can be thought to be a worthy argument. What I think is that those who use a bluff to bolster their position actually make those who love the truth to lose respect for them.

Hey Pastor Dave! Glad to see you online and welcoming me back!

I hope you like the Aussie flag that I found. A big thumbs up to all my Aussie friends!

I am also sharing an updated photo of our office addition.

There is still sand on the floor of the office and it is getting a good watering in preparation for the next pour of cement. We are expecting that it will be ready for lock up in 4 to 6 weeks so that is encouraging.