Ah, yes! I think I finally caught up on this one. Will catch up on the other post I missed commenting on another night.

Nicole,
You said:

I do know that the things I listed come from misunderstandings of the Bible. My experience has more leaned to the side of women preferring the CMBW comp position, because it shelters them from having to fully grow up.

Sadly I think that this is often the case. It is often easier to let someone take charge and make all the decisions then it is to be mature and take responsibility to make the hard decisions.

Mark,
You said:

ONe question. You say that God named ‘the woman’ before Adam in Gen 2:22. Aren’t you confusing narrative into a quote? Please explain why verse 22 should be understood as God’s words and not a narrative section of scripture?

Let’s look at the verse in question:

Genesis 2:22 (NASB95)
22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

While God isn’t quoted here, this is God’s narrative. He inspired it and only He knows what happened so that a narrative regarding the events has to come from Him alone. God could have said that he created a female since in the beginning He said that he created male and female. But the text specifically identifies her as “woman”. He didn’t just fashion her into a female, but into a “woman” which is her identity. The fact that God has divinely placed this verse into the text in the narrative before Adam’s identification of the woman, shows that it is His identification that existed first and Adam merely discovered what God had already ordained as a fact.

So I would like to pass the challenge on back to you. Since Adam was out cold when God created the woman, and since no other human was around when the woman was created, where did the narrative come from? From man or from God?

Back to you with this one. Also have you been thinking about all the questions that I have asked you that you haven’t answered yet? Are you still too busy to answer or are you working on it? Thanks!

gengwall,
You said:

I think PL is onto something here. Why were the animals brought to Adam in the first place? Was it so he could exercise dominion over them in some way? In what way is authority manifest simply by identifying something?

I think that you and Pinklight are right to challenge the thought that Adam showed his dominance over the animals by naming them. Identifying the character of something is acknowledging what something is, not taking a “role” of being the boss over them.

Was it not instead related specifically to his aloneness? Maybe the identification of the animals (really the first taxonomical exercise) was an object lesson to Adam to illustrate to him just how “fish out of water” his situation was.

I think the naming was two-fold. To identify the character of the animals and the key reason was to identify his own aloneness. No animal had the character that suited the special nature of Adam. That is why his wife would be called “woman” as she was part of his own kind and one who came face-to-face with him in humanity.

If Adam had been in authority over them, why wouldn’t Adam have commanded that they come to him?

Excellent question!

Kay,

As I mentioned in another post, my response to this is “I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to be our spiritual leader.”

Absolutely. Taking the position of “spiritual leader” is akin to having a mediator between us and God. We look to Him not to any fallen human as our spiritual leader.

gengwall,

The correct passage when dealing with providing is, of course, Proverbs 31. Both the husband and wife are involved in provision and protection of the family.

Absolutely! 1 Tim. 5:8 is about “anyone” who will not provide for his/her family, they are worse than unbelievers. It isn’t just for men.

Nicole,

-Men: ultimately responsible for family. SOME teach they are even responsible for their sins

What a huge burden that has been placed on men with the teaching that men will have to give an account of their wives and families before God.

Nicole,
You said:

So if I give my hubby a nickname, does that mean I have authority over him? Oy ve, this is getting complicated.

Exactly! And I am a great one for giving out nicknames. When I gave my husband his nicknames, he never saw this as me taking authority over him. A name or a nickname identifies what we see in the person and it can be an act of love. It certainly is not an act of rulership.

Cindy K,
You said:

What does it mean in Genesis 4:1 where Eve names Cain? Is that a demonstration of her “will to power”? How is it that she had authority to name her own son? Or is that an error?

Good questions that I don’t think the comps have answered yet.

sm,
You said:

If Adam was designed for leadership then why of all times IN his pre-fall nature would he “go passive”? Wouldn’t the inherent nature for exerting leadership and exercising authority “kick-in”, particularly in his pre-fall state?

Excellent worded question! And if Adam could act out his “design” of leadership over Eve, then how could we think that fallen men today can have full authority over women today? Sounds like giving the inmates guns.

kw,
You said:

Thank you for the welcome and I so appreciate the great companionship here.

You are so welcome! I hope that you stay around for a long time and interact with the great people who visit my blog.

When we receive this Wisdom in which we’ve asked for, we will never seek to “rule” but serve.

I couldn’t agree more. Hmmm… makes me wonder if we took the comp way of thinking and ask who God designed for servanthood? For the greatest leaders are the servants. Of course the answer is that although we are all created as sinners, God will remove our heart of stone if we allow Him to and give us a soft heart of flesh so that we are willing to serve rather than demand the right to rule. Jesus had a way of turning everything upside down. What was considered weakness in the world is to be the strength of the Christian and what is the strength in the world is to be considered a thing to be avoided and shunned.

That’s how people become deceived. They are receiving their bread from earth and not from Heaven.

Amen!

I do have a question. Many “pastors” etc. are deceived in their false authority. Many may not be deceived. I would really love to know how these “leaders” of the flock cannot understand Lord Jesus Christ’s Simple Words. Don’t they realize the consequences for their false teachings? Or have they received a delusion from God to believe a lie? Thank you

I can’t say that I know anyone’s heart, but I wonder if some are deceived because they put their trust in the big names and the fact that it is said over and over and over again that the men were designed to be the leaders and rulers. When one is groomed for a position of rulership, it is a hard lie to give up. I think that it may take a significant emotional event to get these men to rethink this doctrine. They are not the enemy but surely they have been deceived in this area by the enemy. If this is the case, and I believe that it is, then we need to pray for these men that God will open their eyes. We are not fighting against flesh and blood but against evil rulers and authorities in the unseen world.

More wisdom here from gengwall,

They claim men are “designed” to lead, but can never even once point to a design feature that yields better leaders. And this is the best – they claim men are more logical (a scientifically disproven claim) but employ no logic what-so-ever in their arguments. As a man, I have to say it’s a little embarrassing.

This is the issue that I tried to bring out regarding the false idea that God designed men and women differently in that one was designed to rule and the other was designed to be ruled. It is a myth and is not Scriptural.

I agree with you too that the lust for power is a deal breaker. Jesus not only didn’t encourage this lust, he tore it down by setting the servant heart up as the ideal.

Kay,
You said:

I am curious as to how you arrived at believing “leadership” is the defining factor that makes a person better suited for pastoral ministry? Considering that Jesus told Peter to “Feed My sheep,” not “lead My sheep.”
No reply.

Excellent thoughts!! I would say that “feeding” is the very definition of “leading”. It removes any thought that “leading” is “ruling”. You are so right that Jesus said to “feed my sheep” and Jesus never said to the disciples “rule my sheep”. When we take the worldly way of leading which is “ruling” and make it “the” way of Jesus, we have distorted the teaching that the one who wants to be the greatest is to be the servant of all. The servant “feeds”. The servant does not “rule over” God’s sheep.

gengwall,
You said:

In my show stopper post on Genesis 2, I address this idea of naming as an authority granter. It is, of course, as presumptuous and ill supported as the created order argument. But I find something even more disturbing about the comp side of the debate. They base their whole argument not on scriptural principles but on cultural practices. Are the traditions of fallen humans really the best support upon which to rest a theological argument? I suppose, if that’s all you got, then they are. But I would hope that we could look more to God’s word for clarity on what God meant and less to the dark and murky realms of cultural anthropology.

I do want to wander off to your “show stoppers” once I catch up myself. I value your wisdom and am sure that you have some very good thoughts. I will catch up with you later.

You are so right in that we need to get our support from the Biblical text and not from fallen human tradition. All of us would do well to heed your word of wisdom.

Arghhh! I am behind two posts now in comments. Wish I had more time. Seems like the day is long gone before I have a chance to get back to the blog.

1 pinklight you said:

The woman’s name was never “Woman”. Her name was Eve, not “woman”.

I think that this is a better explanation in that God “called” her woman in that he identified her as woman when He created her. Woman was not her “name” but her identity.

I am so glad that you are able to go on without me when I am away from the blog. Good stuff!

Kay,
You said regarding one of Mark’s statements:

This reminds me just a bit too much of last week when decided to characterize me as “misleading” for not listing all the evidence of both sides of the discussion in each of my comments, when you weren’t doing that yourself.

I agree that this is something that we all need to watch out for. It takes a lot of work to understand each other and then to work on our differences from that position of understanding. But if we attribute bad motives to the other person, communication can become difficult. Let’s just all remember to treat the opposition with Christian dignity and respect and give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things that we cannot know (the attitude of the heart and motive) since we are not God.

Thanks again all for helping to keep this blog lively and respectful. I rarely have to moderate comments to remove offensive matter. That must mean that I have a very special bunch of God-lovers who visit and I am quite blessed by that!

I also wish to thank all the Aussie’s from down under who visit my blog and who have felt comfortable enough to comment. I think that having people from different locations and different cultures participate here is a real blessing. When people see things differently than I do it gives us all an opportunity to think outside the box. That is a real privilege.

Gazza #54,
You said:

However, I still see a parallel in that God also did not define here how they were to multiply. He did not restrict a man here that he could not carry a child or breastfeed – we know that from elsewhere.

While it is true that God did not define how they were to multiply, he created restrictions by the way He made them male and female. All of us seem to be able to accept that as I don’t hear protests from females because they cannot impregnate their husbands or protest from men that they cannot become pregnant and this is discrimination. These restrictions are the physical part of our gender yet the restrictions are for both equally. It isn’t just the woman who is restricted, it is the man also. But in gender restrictions regarding God’s rule, the complementarian way is to assign restriction to one gender alone.

So in the assignment of blessing and rulership, God gave both equal ability to rule without defining exactly how they must rule, but neither defining any restrictions on their ability to rule. In the assignment to be fruitful and multiply, both were given the ability to be fruitful and multiply and both were restricted to their gender based ability.

However in rulership, there are no gender based restrictions that are inherent in rulership. Just as spiritual gifts have no restrictions because teaching and serving are not withheld from one gender.

It seems that based just on these verses you are saying that there is no room for men and women to have different parts to play in the rule – is this a fair understanding? Or are you saying “I am saying that God does not place restrictions on the rule that would stop a woman from exercising her God-given ability.” –in this verse? (not to necessarily say that God does in any other verse) I am just trying to more fully understand your position.

It is the latter. What I believe is that God creates a purpose and task for mankind and He allows us the joy of finding our place within that task. One person may find their joy in ruling through specializing in one area. Another person may take the big picture and do a little of everything to live out their rule. That is setting our own function within the rule that God has given mankind.

But when one person defines and sets up another person’s boundaries for whatever reason, and the result is that they set restrictions for another person, they have stepped outside of what God has given them permission to do. Whenever we are gifted and enabled by God but another human sets himself/herself up as an intermediator between ourselves and God and thus rules us and restricts us, we suffer. But when we set our own boundaries because of our individual gifts and likes, we are happy in service.

Thanks again I think I am beginning to put the pieces together – #51 and #52 were particularly helpful…I appreciate the time you have taken to be clear in your understanding of scripture Thanks

Thank you so much for that word of thanks. It is such a joy to be able to help in any way that I can and to be thanked for that is a double blessing.

Gazza,
You said:

I am not yet certain of what I believe the roles may or may not be – just that I feel that some of the assertions that have been made towards uniformity are going beyond what is actually conveyed in the referenced text.

I haven’t said anything about uniformity. What I did say is that God gave equal rule. Equal is not the same as uniformity. Equal is a rule that carries no restrictions. Uniformity means that they must do things exactly the same. I do not believe in uniformity. Each one of us has a personality and individuality that causes us to do things differently but doing things differently would never create an unequal “rule” where one is restricted from some part of ruling.

41 Gazza,

You responded to pinklight,

I would feel that there are a great many ways in which a task may be shared by two people (or genders) without each exactly mimicking the other. I don’t think that verse 29 really speaks to the idea that the roles are identical. Am I wrong here?

There are no “roles” identified. There is a work identified and God doesn’t tell them how to “rule” the animals. He just tells them to do it. Is this task to be “shared” as if there is a division needed? Is it necessary that the man says he will take the dogs and she can take the horses? If they agree to do this, they are still “ruling” the animals as God intended, however if the man says to the woman, “You are not allowed to rule the dogs, they are my domain. You rule the pigs over there” then the “rule” has changed from an equal opportunity to one that is restrictive where the “rule” that the man experiences extends past the given rule (that of the animals) to a rule that has not been permitted (the man ruling the woman). God made it clear what they could rule and He never gave permission for either of them to rule each other. When we place the rule over humans into the rule that God originally ordained, we have gone past His permitted rule. Does this make sense?

Gaza,
You said:

but your next sentence “In contrast the very nature of “roles” brings division.”
Is where I am having trouble keeping up. I know we have mentioned it twice already but parenthood was a task given equally to both but with distinct roles within it. Neither the father or mother is any less of a parent but the father will never carry the child and give birth – that is simply the mothers role.

The carrying of a child in the womb is not a “role” but a function of the woman. There definitely are functional differences because of pregnancy, but the discussion is not on physical function but things that are not physical. Are there “role” differences that are not physically functional areas related to gender i.e. a “cook”? In the marriage who takes the “role” of cook? Does God determine who is the “cook” by designing the woman in such a way that the physical difference makes her the cook? Can we agree that some men love to cook and some women don’t love to cook so that the “role” of cook is not dependent on God’s design but on personal preference?

I do not think the fact that they are physical distinctions means they are any less intended by God and so I don’t think that they can be so simply dismissed. The main issue to me is if there are distinct roles in this part of the promise that are not precisely defined in the text (and it would seem that we agree that there are) how can you state so strongly that there are not similar distinctions in rule? Ie Is it not possible that both the man and the women are equally rulers of creation just as they are equally parents with different roles that are not defined in this verse?

Design differences are easy to pick out. For example which gender is designed to breast feed? I think that we can agree that when a baby is born, the baby will not likely survive by sucking on the nipples of the father so there is a design difference in this function.

However in the issue of “ruler” there isn’t any limitations listed that would deny a woman the ability to command a dog to obey or to rule over the earth. A woman too has the wisdom that makes her a good ruler.

The reason that I am able to say so strongly that there are no design differences in rule, is that God never limits the rule when He gives them both rule over His creation. When God makes a barrier the limits function, it is clear. There were limits to the foods that they had permission eat. But God gives no limit to the rule of the woman. When God gives rule to both without limits to either, then we can confidently say that the woman has no design that limits her rule in anyway that the man is not limited.

Ie Is it not possible that both the man and the women are equally rulers of creation just as they are equally parents with different roles that are not defined in this verse?

It is the absolute certainty with which you interpret 1:28 that leaves me feeling like I am missing something important.

When you say “equally parents with different roles” we can understand physical differences but what other “role” differences are there? The issues that I am specifically dealing with are issues where there are limitations that are restrictive. I am not saying that men and women do things exactly alike just as not all men do everything exactly alike. I am saying that God does not place restrictions on the rule that would stop a woman from exercising her God-given ability. Without restrictions (whether physical or spiritual) there cannot be a design difference in the command to be a ruler of the world.

If you can be more specific as to your concern, I can better understand how to answer.

Let’s take one last look at the verse that you said may include distinct “roles”.

Genesis 1:28 (NASB95)
28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

There is not a single thing in this verse that would “limit” the rule of the woman. She isn’t given part of the animals to rule and if we try to fill in the blanks and limit women because of what we think how God might limit women to restrict them in certain tasks, we are on shaky grounds.

I appreciate the questions that you asked me. If your questions haven’t been answered in the way you need, I would welcome you to refine the questions so that I can help with my answers.

Thanks!

Mark,
You said:

Also Cheryl it is interesting that you post about Genesis but yet tell us that the conversations is about spiritual gifts. What is it that you want to discuss?

Well, Mark, I thought I made it clear when I provided a name “God’s design in Genesis” and provided a picture, and then argued that God gave no design difference that would make a woman restricted in her rule or her spiritual ability to represent God or serve God for the benefit of the church. Which part of that isn’t clear to you?

Now it also interesting that all of you want to dismiss the grammar of Gen 3. You label it a rabbit trail, that i am going off topic, but is this not the very passage and topic we are looking at.

A passage in scripture can have multiple “layers”. We are discussing the “layer” of design here, not the issue of God’s name and how and when He revealed Himself by different names. That is an issue that is of value but belongs elsewhere. For this blog it is a rabbit trail that takes us off the issue of women’s spiritual equality with men.

Let me ask all of you this question…are you teachable? Are you even willing to look at the passages that are difficult for your position?

This blog is all about discussing the hard passages of scripture. I have made it very clear that this blog is an open place to discuss these issues, but if the comp position does not stand up to the test of Scripture in context, then it doesn’t mean that we are not teachable. I would say that we are not gullible.

You say i need to answer your tough questions which i have over and over again, but yet you refuse to answer mine and call them rabbit trails?

You actually haven’t answered my questions. You may be answering what you “think” I am claiming, but you are not sticking to the actual question on the text we are discussing. Why you don’t seem to understand the questions is up for debate, but you are certainly not answering the questions I am asking because your answer brings a twisted view of what I believe. If you actually got it correct of what I am asking, you would likely do better in trying to answer. My thought is that you are a skimmer and don’t actually read to understand. I could be wrong on this and there may be another explanation for why you fail to understand the point first before you attempt to refute it.

I can only conclude your un-willingness to even attempt to dialogue. It seems that this blog is more interested in slandering other Christians like CBMW and comps rather than discussing scripture.

This is actually what I expect from someone who cannot answer the hard questions but needs a way to bow out. Honestly if you don’t want to discuss this issue any more, you have the right to bow out. But don’t leave saying that I have an unwillingness to dialog. I love to dialog. I just want the dialog to be upfront with properly representing the other person’s viewpoint. Misrepresentations or claims of bad motives never advances godly dialog. That is all I want. Let’s keep this an in-house debate where we can still have love for the other as a brother or sister in Christ.

As far as CBMW goes, it is fair to discuss their position. A position that is based on truth will survive the test. CBMW continues to promulgate that women are not designed for certain areas of ministry and it is just fine to challenge that without being accused of “slander”. “Slander” is a very strong word and a very strong accusation. Criticism should never be considered slander.

Slander is:

a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

If what I have said is “malicious”, “false” or “defamatory”, then such statements should be pointed out so that they can be corrected. But if it is criticism that you are labeling as “slander”, then that would be unfair, don’t you think?

To answer gengwell, some roles are spiritual and some are physical.

The term “role” is not found of any spiritual work. Physical “roles” are not the issue here unless you can prove from the Scripture that godly service is a physical “role” that is dependent on bodily function. I don’t think that you can do that so let’s just continue to focus on the spiritual.

A pastor is both. Some are given the gift, but they must also physically do the work.

The “work” of pastor is only limited physically by those who refuse to be pastored. There is no brawn that is needed to be a pastor and no particular brain function that is dependent on being male or else God couldn’t gift females and He obviously does so at His good pleasure.

They physically have a job to do for the body of Christ.

You are confusing the term “physical”. What you mean, I think, is that some pastors are doing the work for pay and their work requires them to get behind the pulpit on Sundays and the pulpit is a symbol of male authority. If I am not understanding you right, perhaps you could say it in a way that others outside of your own though-process can follow.

Whether there is a purely ’spiritual’ only role i’m not so sure. I would need to look more closely at that.

Perhaps that would be a good thing to do.

But i guess that is why egals are so fixated on dividing the physical and spiritual, to combat comp theology rather applicable truth.

Since you don’t know what is purely spiritual or not, I am not sure that you would qualify to comment on any supposed “fixation” of egals on spiritual gifts for the common good. Don’t you think?

More on Genesis later

Great! At least I know then that you haven’t given your final goodbye yet. I look forward to further conversations on Genesis. It is, after all, the foundation of our faith as set forth in the book of beginnings.

Cheerio for now. I am off to feed my husband a very late supper.

Mark,
You said:

First it is interesting that Mabel things distinction of roles does not equal spiritual equality, but only distinction of gender roles equals spiritual hierarchy. What sort of reasoning is this? Smells alot like society talking.

I don’t think you “got” what Mabel was saying. Perhaps you should be asking more questions to understand what she means. At one point she is talking about worldly society. And yes, the world’s way does “smell” because it is not the sweet fragrance of God’s way.

You also said:

Lin says that comps have a talmud? If this is the case why are there so many varying egal interpretations of passages. I am yet to see a consistent interpretation.

That is because egalitarians don’t have a Talmud. They just know that the comp argument isn’t right and they are trying to understand the hard passages of Paul in the best way that they can without contradiction in the clear passages of Paul.

Cheryl always strays from the physical distinctions to the spiritual. No surprise really because she cant deny physical differences.

Why should I deny physical differences? But this blog is not about physical differences but about our spiritual equality in ministry. Does physical differences deny spiritual equality? If it does, then ethic origins would also deny spiritual equality and also our social status (rich or poor) would deny our spiritual equality. But “in Christ” there are no inequalities that would determine restrictions on one gender, or a race of people or our social standing, in the use of our gifts. All are equal in Christ and learning how not to be prejudice against our brothers and sisters in Christ should be an ongoing work of grace in our lives.

Problem is, spiritually everyone is different. Now i don’t mean there is a hierarchy, simply that spiritually we are all gifted differently. Some are have a greater understanding of scripture than others.

Different levels of spiritual growth is not being unequal spiritually because we all have the opportunity to grow spiritually and our worth in Christ is equal. The differences that comps determine is that one gender is either not allowed to be gifted with particular gifts or having been gifted, one gender is not allowed to use some of those gifts for the common good. That is the issue of spiritual inequality. One cannot “grow” more spiritual in order to use their gifts in the body of Christ if one is female, as far as the comp teaching goes. There is a barrier regarding spirituality in the camp of the comp. The barrier says that no matter how you grow or how you want to serve the Lord, or how godly you are, certain areas are out of bounds for certain people. These are areas of gifting and/or responsibility.

Some are more mature christians while some are more immature. But does any of this= spiritual inequality. Of course it doesn’t. It just means that some are given roles that others aren’t.

Like I said the spiritual inequality comes when one cannot attain a level of spirituality because of their gender. There are no “roles” in the body of Christ, but there is “work” that can be done and one can desire to be competent to protect the flock, for example. This is a good work and one that all may desire to attain. If all of us attained this level of responsibility and maturity, the church would be strong and march forward into battle as the church should. For all to be mature is our goal and we use our gifts to bring others up to a strong level of maturity. We do no hold others back because our “role” might be challenged by those who we don’t think deserve to have a “role” like us. Whether others do hold Christians back or not will be shown in their fruit. We need to all submit to the test. Are we working to create a maturity in all? Or are we protecting a “role” to keep back certain mature Christians from fulfilling a work in the body?

Answering more of the challenges in my next comment.

pinklight,
I fixed up the formatting. I think I got it right.

Mark,
You said:

As i said above. I answered this in another post. But just so you know i don’t deny they are in service. They are to continue in supplications and prayers day and night, i have said this several times. I just don’t believe there is an office of over 60 women elders who are to shepherd the church.

I never said that all of these women are “shepherds”. God gifts whomever He wants to so they could be, but that isn’t stated in the passage.

Do you accept that these women are a group of elderly widows who serve the church with their gifts? Do you think that a “group” of people who serve the church would be an “office” of the church? Do you think that a “group” of men who serve the church would be an “office” of the church?

Also considering the rest of the context regarding older/younger women aswell as the numerous verses talking about support and caring and burdened, i also believe the enrolment involves support. Please tell me why you are ignoring these very clear verses talking about caring for people and think it has nothing to do with the list.

I am not ignoring that the church supported orphans and widows who merely needed food. However to attach them to a special “group” of women who served the church and because of their pledge to continue this as a lifelong service, they received life-long support from the church as a requirement for all women for getting food from the church would be taking the passage out of context. I have clearly said before and am happy to repeat here that not all widows would be listed on the “roll” but they still may be fed by the church. Paul is making sure that their families understand that it is their obligation to take care of those who merely need food and that the church will take care of those who are dedicated life-long to service in the church that they are willing to give an oath of celibacy in order to continue this life-long service. These are two different groups of widows and not all widows who are fed will be on the “roll”. Ministry is the issue here that is ahead of just their being fed by the church.

Dear brother Mark,
You said:

So Cheryl before you ask me to again justify my position can you please read what i have already written. Im sure it will help us all.

I have read what you have written. But you seem to be the one who can’t read. Here is my proof of this. In my comment #165 I deal with the issue of marriage being a condemnation and you state that marriage is not a condemnation as if you are being accused of saying such a thing. That’s the problem. You should be saying this because this is what the text says. I am trying to get you to understand that there is one instance where marriage is a condemnation. The question I asked you from my comment #165 should bring this out. If a person’s gives a pledge to Christ to remain single (and a pledge is an oath) and then sees a godly woman who is perfect for them as a mate and marries them, is that marriage a condemnation to them by breaking of their pledge, yes or no?

Finally you quoted “The Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament calls this the “office of widow”.

Are you serious? You criticise me all this time for using the term ‘office’ and then use this when it supposedly supports your view. Please be consistent and not critique me if you are going to use the same term ‘office’

I did “use” the term office, I merely quoted a source that would use your term so that you could “get it”. I do not believe there is an office, but I would say that “office” means “doing the work of”. The “office” of overseer, is one who does the work of an overseer. I used the reference because I wanted you to see that the “work” of the “elderly widows” is a real work or ministry that would be translated into your language as an “office”. It is not merely elderly widows who are good enough to be fed by the church. It is women dedicated to this “work” so that they are permanently put onto a “roll” (think “role”) of one who serves the church.

More on the next comment.

Mark,
You said:

My argument is clear, the context reveals that the translation of verse 1 and 2 must be related to older women not elders.

I have not been using 1 Tim. 5:1, 2 in my argument. The issue is whether or not the elderly widows are women in ministry or not. My argument stands whether 1 Tim. 5:1, 2 refers to older men and women or men and women in ministry. The question is does the women who have taken a pledge for Christ show them as people in ministry that serve the church and are supported financially by the church in their ministry? The fact is that the rest of the chapter does refer to women in ministry and does not rule out women as having a work for the church that can be supported financially by the church.

I am being consistent with the passage, you are pushing eldership into this passage when it doesn’t belong.

Again you are guilty of failing to read my own words. While I can fight for the fact that Paul makes it clear that anyone can strive to be an overseer, I haven’t said one way or the other about an “eldership” found in this chapter. I have been consistently fighting for women in a position of ministry.

Let me repeat myself again an again. I DO NOT THINK MARRIAGE IS A CONDEMNATION!!!

Then this is where you are wrong. Marriage itself cannot be a condemnation unless one has pledged themselves not to be married and then go back on that pledge. In this particular chapter, the desire to be married brings condemnation. I specifically showed you the sentence structure that proves this and you did not interact with it. Instead you just ignore the fact that in one specific instance marriage can be the source of condemnation.

If you read my post and infact re-read verse 11 you will see that it is the ‘desire’ which disregards Christ not the marriage.

If you read my comment #160 with the Lexham chart, you should be able to see that it is the desire for marriage that disregards Christ. Why? Because marriage in this instance is turning one’s back on a pledge to not be married for Christ’s sake in order to minister. You will also see that the comments that I copied all say this too. And because these women have a desire to minister to the body, there are restrictions on who is eligible for this work.

The marriage is just the by-product of the sinful motive beforehand.

No sir. The marriage is the “desire”. The Bible doesn’t talk about their “sinful motive”, but their natural desire for marriage.

I’m surprised you keep overlooking this important point. Like anything it is the motive of the heart that causes problems.

Our motive for anything is important, but the issue here is leaving aside the pledge. The pledge is the key issue. Who cares why they leave aside the pledge when every reason for leaving aside the pledge brings condemnation? This is a consistent issue in Scripture where giving ones oath is a highly important thing. To go against an oath brings condemnation. The Bible does not say that to go against an oath is okay if your motive is good. No. Breaking an oath is always considered to be a serious issue motives aside.

So is it okay if these women who have taken an oath of celibacy break this oath with a good motive? If you can say “yes”, then please provide a biblical argument that oath breaking with a good motive is okay.

Thus once the sinful desire disregards Christ, they get married and then cause condemnation upon themselves. Until you actually look closer at this verse you will keep having the issue of trying to balance ‘condemnation’ and the ‘pledge’.

There is no balance here. The sentence structure is clear. Marrying is breaking the pledge and oath breaking brings a condemnation.

But it doesn’t really surprise me because of course you will look for any passage to seemingly support the egalitarian position.

This actually challenges my motive which I will not allow you to do. I do not “look” for any passage that “seemingly” supports the egalitarian position. I am submitted to the Scriptures in context and my focus has not been on egalitarian passages but on the complementarian passages as you would know if you have seen my DVDs. I sincerely believe that any position that sets itself up as the truth on any issue must be verified by the passages that seem to contradict. These are the passages that are of key importance to me because if one can deal honestly with the passages that seem to contradict then the “clear” passages will stand on their own without contradiction.

If I have come across as attacking any of your motives, I apologize as that is not my intent at all. My focus is always to deal with the issues and why I consistently tell you that you don’t deal with the challenges given you. But it is one thing to say one hasn’t dealt with the arguments and another thing to challenge one’s sincerity or one’s motive. No one can read another person’s heart.

Mark,
You said:

Now im not sure if you read my previous post, but i assume you didn’t otherwise you wouldn’t ask me this similar question. Please read what i wrote previously.

I interacted with your comments and showed how you cannot link two passages together – one passage showing that marriage is a good and the other passage where marriage is shown to be a bad desire. I am seriously wondering if you actually read the objections to your view? Why is it that you just disregard the objections and just ask us to read you again? Can you actually not see it that you your view brings contradictions?

If there is something that I have missed, then please tell me which comment it is that you think I missed and which paragraph in the comment. The comments are numbered for that reason.

Some people are good listeners. Others are not. I suspect that you have a problem understanding the objections to your view for if you really understood the objections, you would not ask us to reread your comments. Your problem, in my humble opinion, is that you just don’t want to put in the effort to understand the argument before you refute it. Because of this you go around the bush never interacting with our position and never seriously looking at the objections to your view. The position I take is that if one’s view is the truth, then the view is only strengthened by answering the challenges. I see you avoiding so much of the argument.

For example I copied the Lexham Syntactic New Testament Sentence Analysis that shows that marriage is the direct reference to condemnation yet you completely ignored this. Why is that? Is your argument any better by ignoring the Greek grammar and sentence construction? I would hardly think so.

Second of all i think we are actually closer than you realise Cheryl on this passage. I am not denying that they pledged to be dedicated to Christ. In fact i support this because the passage says they are to continue in prayer and supplications. However i am also reading more than just verse 12 which extends Pauls intention to support for help aswell.

Your problem is that you are failing to deal with verse 12 in its context and you right away want to move onto another passage that it in a completely different context.

Next if you really believe that these widows (the ones on the “roll”) have “pledged” themselves to Christ and the church has accepted that pledge as an entrance onto a special “roll” then how can you not see their work as a ministry?

The difference though between us, is that you think this is an obscure type of ‘eldership’ or as one of your own sources made up, deaconesses.

The exclusive class of older widows in ministry is no longer part of our society and the church perhaps no longer has a need to support these women, but their ministry to the entire body of Christ should not be denied. I never used the term “eldership” or any other kind of “ship”. If you think I did, please quote the comment number to prove your claim. Again, I think you have a problem with reading and understanding the opposition’s viewpoint. What I am arguing for is for women in ministry who are supported by the church. The very term “elder” refers to older people and these elders are women who are ministering to the church. Do you have a problem with that?

Secondly the sources I quoted included complementarian sources who are willing to see the text for what it says. You did point out that one source called them deaconnesses. Another source called them presbyters. Another said this was an “office” implying that there was a specific “work” that they did that was recognized as a ministry.

I will carry on my respond in the next comment.

kw,
Welcome to my blog.
I think that CBMW’s problem is foremost that the Bible is placed under the view of patriarchy for them so that everything gives the message of male privilege to them. With this mindset they are unlikely to surrender any authority to women as God’s “sons” but instead will likely continue to puzzle over such mundane things as whether it is God’s will for a woman to usher or what exactly is the correct age for a woman to stop being a teacher to young boys. Their eyes are on their own authority rather than the authority of God.

Frank,
Thanks for sharing that. I do believe that comps miss out on the prophetic meaning of names and their view of marriage as a hierarchy destroys the oneness that was prophesied right from the beginning.

You and Jon Zens are also right in that “Adam” as a name was given to both of them. Eve was “named” woman and she was named “Adam” along with the man who was also named “Adam”.

As far as Genesis 1 goes, I believe that the Hebrew word usage is the language of two people separate but joined together in marriage who are given rulership together. I do believe that Adam’s bride was symbolically taken from his side, but I don’t think that there was a female inside of Adam although of course the side part was made into the female Adam.

I agree with Jon Zens that marriage is a beautiful thing when it reflects Christ’s marriage with the church. The Jesus did for His bride is what Adam should have done for his bride. When comps try to make marriage like Adam’s marriage after the fall, the prophetic figure to Christ disappears and the world’s way steps in.

I think that I heard Jon Zens is writing a book on the issue of women in ministry. I am sure that it will be a good one.