pinklight,
That is exactly what the Pharisees who followed the Jewish oral law thought. Women’s voices were filthy (they were responsible for the men’s lust) so mucky muck is about right.

It is of course interesting that Paul never expressed this attitude himself throughout all of his writings. He valued women (and their work thus their voices too!) and he commended women. 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 is so much in contrast with Paul’s views on women and verse 36 is so opposite of verses 34 & 35 that we either dump all of these verses as not being scripture (and I do not recommend that!) or else we understand Paul’s angst with the Judaizers who were pushing the Corinthians to separate the church into the vocally-elite and the vocally-filthy. How we don’t get that and put the verses into the complete context of the Spirit’s freedom throughout chapter 14, is beyond me.

Hi pinklight,
I can see that you are reading and thinking and meditating and unraveling. Man, I don’t think anyone could ever get anything past you as you are working hard to pay attention to all of the relevant parts.

Is the replacement of the inspired singular grammar with the plural, misconstrued:

Good point!

Pat M,
Welcome!
I think you will find a lot to think about in Mike’s and my back-and-forth comments over the next several weeks. I think that Mike and I would have in common that we both believe that one’s interpretations must have a straight-edge to test it by and that is God’s word in context with the inspired words, the inspired grammar and with no contradiction within the rest of the scriptures. Then we can know for sure that the inner feelings we get that we are sure are the working of the Holy Spirit on our own spirit are true because the Spirit and the Word never contradict each other.

Blessings and I hope you stick around as both Mike and I have lots more to share.

Cheryl

Ramon,
Then of course we must also exclude any men whose wives have died. They too are unqualified because they are no longer husbands. I am sure that you tell all of the pastors who are not fathers and unmarried or widowed men that they are sinning against God’s rules, right? Even Paul wasn’t qualified to be an elder was he?

The issue of “husband of one wife” is the issue of marital faithfulness (if one is married) and a married man is to have his household in order (if he has children). Surely Paul was able to demonstrate that he was able to shepherd the sheep without having children, wasn’t he?

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say “they would be interchangeable according to your interpretation”. If you mean that husbands and wives are interchangeable, I didn’t say anything like that. IF that is not what you mean, I am totally lost.

We are all responsible to study to show ourselves approved unto God a workman who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Scripture interprets scripture and a prohibition is different than moral qualifications.

God is responsible for His laws and His rules and He has never yet condemned one of his female “sons” for using their God-given gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ.

Ramon,
Well if as you say that the “qualifications” that exclude people are very clear, then surely you must agree that no single man may do the work of an elder and no married man who does not have children may do the work of an elder, correct?

In the Christian faith, as all of us are “sons” of God, there is no restriction to any unless the restriction is clearly stated. If there is a sin that lists a woman being an elder, then surely it can be shown to me. If it is a sin that a single man is an elder, then show that to me. If not, then we should not restrict what God has not forbidden.

Ramon,
Welcome!
It is certainly important to follow God’s instructions and that is why those who fail to follow God’s instructions are following man’s rules and not God’s rules. Those who stop women from serving the body of Christ when God’s instructions are that all are to use their gifts for the common good, find themselves following man’s rules. God has never forbidden women to follow him in whatever gifts He gives them, nor has he instructed the church to silence women’s gifts.

gengwall,
I think that for the most part you are very right. The thing that makes it more of an issue today is that many churches (leaders) are becoming more interested in power and control. And whenever the sheep are abused and people are stifled so that they cannot function in their gifts, they will either fight the system or leave.

Rafael,
Welcome to my blog! Thanks for your comments.

Frank,
It is a good observation that Paul’s comments need to be examined and integrated as a progressive whole. Perhaps we all need to be reminded that Peter admits that some of Paul’s writings are hard to explain. It isn’t that Paul’s writings are not scripture. They are God-breathed scripture. However as the “hard” scriptures, some of these passages need more work and viewing the “big picture” and what has gone on before is certainly part of the work that it takes to understand Paul.

Thank you for your prayers, Frank! They are very much appreciated.

Anca,
I deleted your first post as you requested. I would also like to welcome you to my blog!

Your comments and questions were very well thought out. I especially liked 1 Cor. 12:10 where you pointed out that the discerning of spirits is given to “another” and not to males. The gifts of the Spirit are given as He wishes to men and women alike and we are not to quench the Spirit’s work because of the vessel He wishes to use.

I also appreciated your words about the “second witness”. It is God’s practice to gives us the required second and even third witness so that we can be sure that the message is understood. More about that in my responses to Mike which will be posted tomorrow.

I do want to once again publicly affirm Mike Seaver for his willingness to dialog publicly and for his respectful attitude. While I disagree with Mike’s point of view, I can affirm him on his Christ-like attitude. I trust that he will see the same kind of attitude come through us as egalitarians as well.

pinklight, excellent questions!!

I would suggest that you also post these questions on Mike’s blog. Mike has told me that he may not have time to respond to questions since he too is very busy and although he has agree to dialog/debate me, he may not find enough time to respond to comments. However I suspect that he may have time to read the comments if they are posted on his own blog.

I would also suggest that anyone who would like to interact with Mike and my dialog do so on both blogs as there may be certain people who only read Mike’s blog and also some will only read comments on my blog.

Karen,

Welcome to my blog! Also thanks for your encouragement. I do believe that it is very helpful to discuss these issues publicly in an open and honest and respectful way. We are brothers and sisters in Christ who are to love one another despite our differences. However if we can somehow build some bridges toward understanding, and we can encourage others to do the same, we can make a difference in dealing with the divisiveness of this issue.

The issue of male “headship” in heaven is just the fruit of this movement that has to make the male as eternally superior in every way. Paul says in 1 Corinthians that we are going to judge angels, showing our equality in male/female serving Christ and ruling with him, but they want to make the man the boss. Boy are some of them going to be surprised in heaven. Those who seek the best seats may be last.

Hi Michael,
Sorry to take so long to get to your questions. This one slipped outside my radar 🙂

1. Why does Adam blame God and the woman but not the serpent?
   The reason is because Adam was not deceived (1 Tim. 2:14) so he could not blame the serpent. Secondly because he blamed Eve, he chose to blame God who created her. He primarily blames the woman because she gave him the fruit. He was not deceived so he chose to eat the fruit with his eyes wide open. But other than the woman (who gave him the fruit) and God who gave the woman to the man, who else could he blame?

2. Why were all the animals cursed? I think that there were two reasons for why the animals were cursed. First of all the man and the woman were to be the rulers of the earth and so what happened to the rulers seems to have had an impact on the world. When sin came into the world everything was distorted. Secondly because Adam knew that God was the unique creator and because he saw God create the plants and the animals from the ground God chose to curse the ground that should have been a witness to Adam. After the curse God said that Adam would return to the ground that he (and the animals) were made from. The animals were cursed because they too came from the ground, but also because one of their kind (the serpent) deceived the woman. That is the best that I can do on this one because scripture doesn’t give us any more to go on.

It appears from the scripture that there was no animal death before sin entered the world, since death entered only through Adam’s sin. Whether they would have lived forever or not we are not told, other than death entered when Adam sinned. Before that there was no death.

Because God cursed the earth and the animals, this world is in a decay cycle. But one day God will remove the curse from both the animals and the earth and there will be no more death or decay. The lion will lay down with the lamb because the urge to kill will be gone. Perhaps God also gave a curse so that we could have a visible sign of sin. Without the curse, how could we see sin that mostly dwells on the inside? I think also that decay reminds us that we are sinners and that God is the only one who can make things right.

I hope this helps!
Cheryl

Excellent comments and thanks Thy Peace for the link. I really appreciate the brave pastors of the SBC, like Wade Burleson, who are willing to be persecuted for standing up for women.

Excellent observations! You have made this very easy for all of us to understand. Thanks Frank!

Yup, I know all about the “nothing box”. About a year ago or so we bought Mark Gunger’s DVDs and my husband confirmed to me that he too has a nothing box. It explained a lot to me when I would ask my husband what he was thinking and he said “Nothing”. I didn’t think it was possible to think about nothing. Even when I am thinking about nothing in particular, I am thinking about something. It confirms to me that God made males and females different and that men need us just as God said “In the beginning”.

With all the talk of differences here, here is a link to a TV show that is talking about the male’s ability to “think about nothing”. http://www.lovemarriageandstinkingthinking.com/free-episode/

Honestly, I can’t relate. My mind is always on something (usually doctrinal issues). I also can’t go to a doctor’s office or a dentist office without bringing a book. Why? Because I can’t stand to sit there and wait without thinking about something.

Let me know what you think and whether men agree that they are able to just think about nothing.

Thy Peace,
I have sent this information to my son. I’ll let him try to figure it out. Way too complicated for me. Thanks for researching this. I notice that his blog also cannot show the Greek fonts.

I don’t know why the Greek fonts don’t work. My son usually helps me with these problems but he is on vacation. If anyone knows if there is any application that I need to make Greek fonts show up, that would be great.

10 Frank,

I corrected the spelling on your post #5. Happy to be of service 🙂

By the way if I am slow in answering anyone, it is because I am back to work long hours again in my job as a video editor. I hope to be done by the end of August. In the meantime I will be on my blog as often as I can find time.

Frank,
I know that you are very passionate and earnest about defending the gospel. I love your passion and the respectful way that you defend the truth. I believe that we need to contend earnestly for the truth and to do it with great passion and respect. I also believe that when a presupposition is false we are to identify the error and dismantle it. That means we can name it (the error) and thoroughly take apart the error piece by piece or just blast it to bits. However, I want to remain cautious so that on this blog we try to stay clear of judging the motives of the heart. It irks me a lot that these errors are being made and the way they are presented comes across as less than honest. I do want to continue to focus our discussion on the arguments so that complementarians who read the comments here will not think that we are bitter or angry people who bare a grudge against fellow Christians because of perceived wrongs. I know that it isn’t always possible to come across as respectful, but it is a good goal to keep in mind. I am preaching to myself so that I remember not to let emotions guide my words when I am trying to tear down a false argument.

About the email not going through….hmmmm…. I am not sure why that would have happened. Did you perhaps miss a letter or put a wrong ending onto the email. It is mmoutreach [at] gmail [dot] com. Just replace the [at] with the symbol and the [dot] with a dot.

I don’t think he is an idiot. I think he is a very smart man. However all of us are capable of being blinded by our own agenda. I think he wants to believe what he does despite the evidence to the contrary. The sad thing about an agenda is that when one holds so tightly to their own agenda and becomes willingly blind to anything that would threaten that agenda, there isn’t much hope of changing that mind.

Frank,
That is VERY valuable information. Thanks!

From the evidence mounting against authenteo as a harmless word meaning nothing more than authority (and one must ask why Paul wouldn’t then have used a “normal” word meaning authority), one must really question the seriousness of Grudem’s challenge to take egalitarians seriously. There doesn’t appear to be any acknowledgement of the many people who have answered his challenges throughout the years since he originally put it out into the public or why their answers are not “good enough” to warrant a response (and by this I speak tongue in cheek).

Bridget,
EXCELLENT point! It is one that we should all pay attention to.

Frank,
There are several problems with the view that Paul is stopping the noisy women from talking. First of all the Greek word used is not the one for noisy speech. There is a perfectly good Greek word that does mean this. It is krazo which means “as speaking or demanding with a loud voice cry (out), call (out), exclaim, shriek, to cry out with loud and raucous voice.” Secondly the learning that these women are have is to be done at home. This contradicts Paul’s instruction that everyone can prophesy so that everyone can learn. The next problem is that we would have to assume that only the married women were causing a problem because the instruction is to ask their “husbands at home”. The last thing is that it is sad to be a shame (meaning vile, filthy thing) for a woman to speak (normal word for speak again, not one for raucous speech) in the assembly. How could Paul tell women that they were allowed to prophesy and then say a few verses later that their mere speaking is a shameful act? It just doesn’t fit. And if it doesn’t fit, you must aquit. 😉

I do like the idea that there are other explanations for the problem passages, but these explanations have way too many problems to be considered the proper solution to this difficult passage.

Hi Bridget,
Welcome to my blog!

There are different interpretations of verses 34 & 35 but there is one problem in the verses that has been a real challenge to complementarians. It is the reference to the “law” that silences women in the congregation. No one has ever found such a law in the Old Testament and there is no consensus on a verse that even “hints” at a prohibition. It is my belief that until we can understand where the law is located and who it is written to, we will not be able to understand the prohibition in verses 34 & 35.

gengwall,
You are also a wealth of information. Thanks!

Frank,
I have missed your comments of late. It is always nice to have as many men around as possible who are precious souls who do not see themselves as an authority over (or better than) their sisters in Christ.

When I read Grudem’s work, I see blinders on his eyes because the evidence to the contrary is there. In fact to have verses 34 & 35 as Paul’s own words instead of a quote from the Judaizers in Corinth, would mean that Paul has contradicted himself both before and after the two “silencing of women” verses. Also no one has yet pointed to a judicial law in the Old Testament that orders the silencing of women in the assembly. The problems in this passage are overwhelming if one thinks that Paul was appealing to a law to silence women just after telling the whole congregation to desire to prophesy and allowing them all to do so. The contradictions are many and Grudem pits egalitarians against scripture as if our believing that Paul was quoting the Judaizers makes us against scripture. I for one am very glad that Paul quoted the false teaching and then promptly refuted it in verse 36 so that we can know for sure what is God’s commandments and what is not. Those who side with the Judaizers on this issue are standing in opposition to God whether they believe it or not.

I would also like to announce that Mike Seaver has been in communication with me and he has graciously agreed to publicly answer questions that I pose to him just as I have agreed to answer his questions. These posts will likely be made public around the end of July this year or early August. I am hoping that it will be a good dialog and a show of respect for a brother/sister in Christ even though we passionately disagree on these issues, we do not question each other’s salvation.