Cheryl

Hi Martin,

Dave Hunt is a very good apologist in my opinion. We will attending his conference this summer and then I will get to meet him in person.

As far as Sandy Simpson and his DVD – yes there were things that I disagreed with too but on the whole his expose of the movement was very good. I contacted Sandy and asked if he would be willing to review WIM from an apologetic standpoint. I knew that he was against women teaching men so I was very interested to know how he would handle WIM. The first DVD he had areas of agreement but had not watched the other DVDs when I followed up with him. I have since emailed him again about the other DVDs and he said that we should agree to disagree and he wouldn’t answer me further. That was very disappointing to me. Sandy is used to picking apart teaching and showing where it is false and he has not even tried with my DVDs. My thought is that before he can say that we can agree to disagree at least he should be able to show me where I have “missed it” in scripture. He was unable to provide a refutation just like all the other Pastors/Apologists that I have sent the series to who are complementarian.

I do understand that it is overwhelming for them to see so much evidence to support women teaching the bible to men. Yet an apologist’s heart (and I have one of those!) should be keen to refute the opposition’s points. The fact that he is choosing to not respond because he just wants to agree to disagree is very surprising to me to say the least. I can read complementarian books and almost instantly I am able to see the problems with their reasoning and the way they use scripture. I never read their books and just say that we will have to agree to disagree. The reason is because if their point is valid I am under obligation to consider it. If their point refutes mine then I must struggle with the passage to understand how my point more accurately fits the context and how their point cannot fit the context, the grammar and the sentence construction. If in the end, I can see how the bible refutes my view and that they view is faithful to scripture, then I must humble myself to change my view. That is doing my job as an apologist.

Anyway, although I admire Sandy as an apologist and I greatly admire his love for God and his strong desire for truth, I cannot see how he and others could see me as wrong but then either cannot prove how I am wrong or choose to not open scriptures to me to show my errors. If they had evidence to prove that I am in a position of sinning against God just because I teach the bible to whomever wants to hear me, including men, then as brothers in Christ they should love me enough to show me where I am wrong. The fact that they don’t either means that I am not wrong or they don’t have enough love to do the hard work to disprove me. That is the way I see it as an apologist.

I am so glad that you found links to other apologists. Some of these others have also been very helpful to me too especially Dave Hunt. I truly believe that every one has something that we can learn from other brothers in Christ even if they have some beliefs that I consider wrong. I want to love them in spite of our differences.

Blessings to you Martin,
Cheryl

“H”,

I was gone all day yesterday so I didn’t get to your comment sooner. Wow! Hey, I am so PROUD of you!! Now I need to tell you that I am totally blown away by you. Did you know that I thought you were female and never considered that you were male? You give me renewed hope for my brothers in Christ! I just LOVED your comment and all I can say is WOW!!!

Thank you for your blessings! I receive it and I bless you back my dear MALE friend!

Cheryl

My respectful friend “H”,

I fully agree with you that although scripture is fully inspired, our interpretation is not and we must be willing to check and sharpen each other. Great thoughts.

The post shows the absolute necessity for the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not an optional doctrine for without it Jesus could not be our kinsman redeemer. My idea was to draw it out for people so that they too could understand that the virgin birth along with the fact that Eve was taken out of Adam was the only way possible for Jesus to be connected to Adam as his descendant yet without sin because of the virgin birth. People have told me that for the first time they have understood the virgin birth and for that I am grateful.

Hi “H”

Boy that is a hard one for me to answer. The reason is that scripture is God-breathed and although it comes through man, it is actually God’s inspired words and his logic isn’t derived from the language although he used the Hebrew language to its full extent.

What I have found most helpful is to compare the Hebrew original to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint). For example while the Hebrew uses the term for young woman (almah) in the prophecy regarding the agency of Jesus’ birth, the Greek translation makes it clear that this was intended to mean and was understood as virgin. It certainly was not a “sign” if a young woman became pregnant. It was truly a “sign” if a virgin would bear a son. The Septuagint was also very helpful for me in seeing that animals were created “yet further” after Adam’s creation. This Septuagint was instrumental in helping me to understand how the Hebrew speaking people interpreted Genesis 2. When the seventy scholars had to render Genesis 2:19 into the common Greek language of the day, there is no doubt at all that the Hebrew grammar as written in the passage was interpreted as a sequence of events just as the Hebrew grammar rules dictate. When we tamper with the precise grammar to try to “correct” God’s apparent “error” of having some of the animals created after Adam, we mess with a very important passage that speaks volumes regarding why Adam was not deceived by the serpent.

So I guess to answer your question, I find the Septuagint extremely helpful in that although it is Greek, it was produced by Hebrew speaking scholars so we can have what I might call a “second witness” to help us to understand the Hebrew mindset.

I hope that helps because other than that I don’t have much more input regarding the difference in thought between Hebrew and Greek.

Hi “H”

Boy that is a hard one for me to answer. The reason is that scripture is God-breathed and although it comes through man, it is actually God’s inspired words and his logic isn’t derived from the language although he used the Hebrew language to its full extent.

hat I have found most helpful is to compare the Hebrew original to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint). For example while the Hebrew uses the term for young woman (alma?h) in the prophecy regarding the agency of Jesus’ birth, the Greek translation makes it clear that this was intended to mean and was understood as virgin. It certainly was not a “sign” if a young woman became pregnant. It was truly a “sign” if a virgin would bear a son. The Septuagint was also very helpful for me in seeing that animals were created “yet further” after Adam’s creation. This Septuagint was instrumental in helping me to understand how the Hebrew speaking people interpreted Genesis 2. When the seventy scholars had to render Genesis 2:19 into the common Greek language of the day, there is no doubt at all that the Hebrew grammar as written in the passage was interpreted as a sequence of events just as the Hebrew grammar rules dictate. When we tamper with the precise grammar to try to “correct” God’s apparent “error” of having some of the animals created after Adam, we mess with a very important passage that speaks volumes regarding why Adam was not deceived by the serpent.

So I guess to answer your question, I find the Septuagint extremely helpful in that although it is Greek, it was produced by Hebrew speaking scholars so we can have what I might call a “second witness” to help us to understand the Hebrew mindset.

I hope that helps because other than that I don’t have much more input regarding the difference in thought between Hebrew and Greek.

Hi “H”,

Boy that is a hard one for me to answer. The reason is that scripture is God-breathed and although it comes through man, it is actually God’s inspired words and his logic isn’t derived from the language although he used the Hebrew language to its full extent.

hat I have found most helpful is to compare the Hebrew original to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint). For example while the Hebrew uses the term for young woman (alma?h) in the prophecy regarding the agency of Jesus’ birth, the Greek translation makes it clear that this was intended to mean and was understood as virgin. It certainly was not a “sign” if a young woman became pregnant. It was truly a “sign” if a virgin would bear a son. The Septuagint was also very helpful for me in seeing that animals were created “yet further” after Adam’s creation. This Septuagint was instrumental in helping me to understand how the Hebrew speaking people interpreted Genesis 2. When the seventy scholars had to render Genesis 2:19 into the common Greek language of the day, there is no doubt at all that the Hebrew grammar as written in the passage was interpreted as a sequence of events just as the Hebrew grammar rules dictate. When we tamper with the precise grammar to try to “correct” God’s apparent “error” of having some of the animals created after Adam, we mess with a very important passage that speaks volumes regarding why Adam was not deceived by the serpent.

So I guess to answer your question, I find the Septuagint extremely helpful in that although it is Greek, it was produced by Hebrew speaking scholars so we can have what I might call a “second witness” to help us to understand the Hebrew mindset.

I hope that helps because other than that I don’t have much more input regarding the difference in thought between Hebrew and Greek.

Hi “H”,

Boy that is a hard one for me to answer. The reason is that scripture is God-breathed and although it comes through man, it is actually God’s inspired words and his logic isn’t derived from the language although he used the Hebrew language to its full extent.

hat I have found most helpful is to compare the Hebrew original to the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint). For example while the Hebrew uses the term for young woman (alma?h) in the prophecy regarding the agency of Jesus’ birth, the Greek translation makes it clear that this was intended to mean and was understood as virgin. It certainly was not a “sign” if a young woman became pregnant. It was truly a “sign” if a virgin would bear a son. The Septuagint was also very helpful for me in seeing that animals were created “yet further” after Adam’s creation. This Septuagint was instrumental in helping me to understand how the Hebrew speaking people interpreted Genesis 2. When the seventy scholars had to render Genesis 2:19 into the common Greek language of the day, there is no doubt at all that the Hebrew grammar as written in the passage was interpreted as a sequence of events just as the Hebrew grammar rules dictate. When we tamper with the precise grammar to try to “correct” God’s apparent “error” of having some of the animals created after Adam, we mess with a very important passage that speaks volumes regarding why Adam was not deceived by the serpent.

So I guess to answer your question, I find the Septuagint extremely helpful in that although it is Greek, it was produced by Hebrew speaking scholars so we can have what I might call a “second witness” to help us to understand the Hebrew mindset.

I hope that helps because other than that I don’t have much more input regarding the difference in thought between Hebrew and Greek.

“H”,

You make me smile!

Cheryl

Hey “H”,

Yes, I understand what you mean. I was told by a Pastor when I first produced my DVD series that I would have no hope of changing the die-hard complementarians and the die-hard egalitarians would love my work. He said that the best group to reach would be those who are willing to have an open mind and who are willing to look at the biblical evidence. I consider myself to be in this category. I do not hold to the egalitarian position because I think that it is the fair way to treat women. I hold the egalitarian position because my strong belief in the inerrancy of scripture plus my belief that God inspired each word and each piece of grammar requires me to test all things and to hold fast to what is true. I simply have no way to make a complementarian position fit into the scripture when I take the passages in context and when I pay attention to each inspired word carefully laid out in scripture. The grammar itself inspired by the Holy Spirit in these passages literally shouts out the grievous errors of tradition. If someone would be willing to show me where I am wrong regarding the hard passages of scripture regarding women, I would in all sincerity look at what they show me, but they have a lot of scriptures to explain away and I cannot in all good conscience disregard scripture.

This is exactly the reason why I felt it so important to produce a DVD on the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue. For someone like me who loves truth more than personal comfort and more than an appeal to what is fair for women, I could not adopt the egalitarian position without knowing what the hard passages mean because scripture cannot contradict itself and truth is a place where all scripture can come fit together without contradiction. In other words if 99% of the bible allows women to minister and use their God-give gifts for the entire body of Christ but 1% seems to suggest that women are restricted by a strict charge of sin to keep them from opening their mouths to instruct a man in righteousness, then it compels me to know how all of these scriptures can be reconciled without contradiction.

I can have fellowship with those who still believe that women teaching men is wrong but who will not accuse me of sin nor will they accuse me of not being saved. But to those who want to pull apart the body of Christ by saying that women who teach the bible to men and do not repent of this “sin” will find themselves in hell, I say enough is enough. When one part of the body of Christ tries to cut off another part, Jesus himself will bring an end to this internal warfare. Paul said that the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” But these men *are* saying that they personally have no need for women teachers. They say that other women and children need women teachers but they themselves do not have a need for women teachers. But Paul says you CANNOT say “***I*** have no need of you”. How can Paul say you cannot say “**I** have NO NEED of YOU” but they do say it? It is because although they can physically form the words they have no permission to say these words from Jesus Christ. When men in the body of Christ deny their own personal need for women teachers and they judge women as going to hell for being godly bible teachers, these men are going to be dealt with by Jesus and we need to stand up and withstand their error. We do so in love for the body of Christ and for our Savior, but it is time to stop this ungodly attack against Christian women. “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” is done in a very loving way, but that loving response is nothing less than my own 95 theses pegged on their door. Love is also firm and unbending when error seeks to tear apart the bride that Christ died for.

Whew, now you sure got me going, didn’t you? I believe in a loving response and respect for men up to this “line in the sand” – when they take this side issue and make it a requirement of salvation, I believe this to be heresy and I for one will not stand for it. When they add to salvation something other than what God clearly told us is necessary, they are denying the true gospel of Christ because they are adding to that gospel. I ask these men to repent and be restored to their sisters in Christ.

Dear “H”,

“Since there exists no such explicit command in the Tanach (Hebrew Bible), the author assures us that the Tanach must be taken as a “whole” for Paul’s intent to be understood.”

I have heard this reasoning many times with followers of aberrant movements who have been asked to prove their view by scripture. When they cannot prove their interpretation with scripture in context, they say that you have to look at scripture as a whole and the entire body of scripture proves their view. I don’t say this very often, but that is pure hogwash. If scripture all points to a particular view, then surely there will be scriptures in context that will support the view. The problem with Grudem’s assertion is that no Old Testament scripture restricts women’s teaching and no Old Testament scripture silences a woman in the assembly. If the entire OT is taken as a whole and thus supports his restrictive view of what women cannot do, then where are the scriptures?

Another question to ask is why would Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit refer to “the law” instead of calling it “scripture” if the “whole” is referred to instead of a particular law? There is no such law that restricts women and Grudem is doing cartwheels to try to take our attention away from the fact that he has not pointed to such a law.

No there is no more laws beings created that would restrict women from their service to God. This may come as a surprise to Wayne Grudem as he and others from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have created a fairly long list of things that are not allowed for women to do and another long list of things that are part of a gray area. i.e. can a woman give directions to a man who is lost?

Paul’s writings have one thing in common – he is always pushing for maturity and for the body of Christ to learn how to make godly judgments. After all, Paul says, we are all going to be judging angels in the next life. Oddly enough, if a woman were to follow Wayne Grudem’s rules, she would need to keep a note pad of all the rules to make sure that she isn’t sinning if she gives directions to a man in a car driving the wrong way. “Hello ma’am, can I ask you…?” “Whoah, wait a minute” she says as she fumbles in her purse to find out if she tell him where to go. Utter nonsense!

Hi Martin,

I think you will like the content of his DVDs although as I said the look of the presentation is somewhat lacking. I found the video clips especially interesting and informative regarding the movement that has infiltrated the church. If my memory serves me right Ted Haggart is also on a clip or two.

Lin,

Yes, I believe that you are right. The fruit of the teaching that every man is the “head” of every woman is that women are not encouraged to be mature and to make spiritual decisions for themselves. Instead they are encouraged to rely on men to make spiritual decisions for them. This flies in the face of Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor 14:20 and Eph 4:13-15 where we are all to press on to maturity. Sitting back and always letting someone else make the decisions for us does not promote maturity but rather keeps us in a childlike state of dependency. Hebrews 5:14 says “But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” We must be able to practice discernment.

Lastly Paul said in Phil. 1:19 “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment” Amen! Women as well as men in the body of Christ are given the authority to grow in knowledge and discernment.

Well-said Kerryn! The submission does parallel the husband’s sacrificial giving up of himself for her. The sacrifice cannot be effective for her unless she submits to his sacrifice. In the same way a teacher cannot teach unless the student submits to learn. There is such a special relationship between husband and wife that many have glossed over by insisting on a role of authority instead of sacrifice. Jesus’ example is the perfect example of a godly husband who lifts up his wife and sacrifices for her.

Kerryn,

Boy I thought I was being thorough, but I forgot to include some of your questions that you posed earlier regarding verse 3.

You asked:

“further regarding v 3: what is interesting to also note is that paul does not explicitly refer to the 3 ‘pairs’ again – only the ‘pair’ of man and woman is used. for example, if v 3 was the ‘basis’ for the entire passage, then surely Paul would have said that man is the glory of ‘Christ’ (not ‘God’) in v 7, to link back to v 3?”

I believe he does refer back to Christ in that Christ is God. Christ is the head or source of man in that He is man’s creator. By starting with Christ and ending the pairs with God, there is an Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the conclusion to all of creation and that is with God. Christ himself is the glory of God as the wife is the glory of her husband. This is indeed a passage about glory and honor not authority and hierarchy as you so aptly had also pointed out.

Your question about verse 12 I will reserve for the time that we get there. If for some reason I forget, please remind me on that post 🙂

You also asked:

“what about Paul’s metaphorical use of ‘kephale’ (head) in Ephesians 1:10, 22; 4;15; 5:23 and Colossians 1:18; 2:10;19? can we assume that Paul is consistent or ‘repeating’ his use of ‘head’ in these other passages?”

Yes, I do think that he is consistent but also adding the head as source as in “source of supply”. In Col 1:18 Christ is the head and is said to be the “beginning”. Beginning clearly represents source. In Col. 2:10 it makes perfect sense to interpret it as the one who is the source of all authority and rule. It is Christ who created all things included all rule and authority and who sustains everything by the word of his power.

In Co. 2:19 the head is the one who supplies nourishment so it fits well with source. In Eph. 1:22, 23 the head is the one who “fills” all things. Again a good definition of what the source or origin does.

Eph. 4:15 we are to grow up into him. This isn’t a metaphor for authority but our source that we get our nourishment from and grow to maturity.

Eph 5:23 the head is the one who gives himself up for his body (wife). All of these things is what the head does as source of supply. He gives himself up to supply her with what she needs to grow and mature. There is so much in this passage that one could do a whole DVD on it 🙂

I think I got all the relevant questions for now. I am sure that you will have many more questions as we go along!

Warmly,
Cheryl

Hey Kerryn,

Once again you have great questions. Apparently the sentence structure implies “the” for woman. That is why the Analytical Literal Translation renders it:

Now I want you* to know that the head of every man is Christ, but [the] head of a woman [is] the husband, but [the] head of Christ [is] God.

Also we know that the “the” is implied in verse 3 because the repetition of this statement in verse 12 does use the word “the” before woman:

For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Now the words “aner” and “gune” can mean either man or husband and woman or wife, but the context strongly shows it means the first man and woman who were husband and wife. If we don’t think of this as husband and wife (Adam and Eve) then is the man “head” of any woman? Can my husband claim to be the “head” of all the women in our congregation? This special relationship is not shown in scripture to be anything other than the one flesh union of husband and wife. No man is ever said to be the “head” of anyone other than his own wife. At the same time this passage is talking about origins and since the origin of the first woman is through the man, we should be able to also render this man and woman. The problem with just saying man and woman is that there are those who use this passage to promote male headship in the church even though this verse says nothing about the church or leadership of men. This verse has been used to teach that the elders of the church are to take the single women under their headship along with all women whose husbands are not Christians. The teaching of male headship in the church that is attached to any man and any woman and not in relationship as husband and wife is taking this passage out of context.

So yes, I do believe that this can be rendered man and woman, but I also believe that it is more accurate to translate this as husband and wife. The Amplified Bible is one that renders it this way:

But I want you to know and realize that Christ is the Head of every man, the head of a woman is her husband, and the Head of Christ is God.

The ESV:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

The Messianic Renewed Covenant Bible:

But I want you to understand that the Head of every husband is Messiah, and the husband is the head of a wife, and the Head of Messiah is God.

Weymouth New Testament:

I would have you know, however, that of every man, Christ is the Head, that of a woman her husband is the Head, and that God is Christ’s Head.

Young’s Literal Translation:

and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God.

The point is that this passage is not teaching universal male headship outside of marriage.

As far as translating every “aner” and “gune” as husband and wife, the principle that I have been taught and have seen for myself is that every time these two are together in a passage where there is a relationship between the two, they are almost always universally rendered as husband and wife. Where there are exceptions such as 1 Timothy 2:12, the passage would make more sense in context if they are considered as speaking about a husband and a wife. In my view, this is the only way that 1 Timothy 2:15 can be made to make sense in the entire context of this passage. More on this later.

Lastly you asked if “wife” would be best to be translated through the entire passage of 1 Cor. 11. No because “gune” cannot be a wife when “the man” has his origin through her. In this case “the man” is not her husband but is her descendent. Much more on this later too in our continued discussion on 1 Corinthians 11.

Kerryn,

Good points. The cultural issue and tradition is a really big issue too. It can take a person a lot of work to get their head around the tradition to see things another way. I think that is why Paul said that the Lord’s bond-servant must gently correct those who are in opposition. 2 Timothy 2:24, 25. Tradition is very difficult to overcome without gentleness, kindness and God’s help to remove the blinders.

Oopsmartin,
Yes I can get something together but it might take a few days as I have several things that have been waiting first. The topic got closed by the moderators because of the condescending attitude of the complementarians so I wasn’t sure where to post the information where it would be seen. I will work on that this week. It is a very important point and something that complementarians are more open to agree with the reasoning if it is posed outside of the women’s issue. Problem is that they don’t want to reason through the women’s issue because it seems they have too much invested in keeping the status quo. I will see how I can word it later this week.

Blessings and I hope you didn’t get ripped apart too much. The comps were extremely unkind on that board.

Cheryl

Lin, what you have said is to true. It is important to go through the scriptures and let them speak in to us in context without the presuppositions that are brought to the text. It is then that the scriptures open up to us and we can see the clear inspiration of the Holy Spirit in each word, each piece of grammar and each sentence as the parts are intersect with each other and the full pictures becomes clear. You are in for an exciting journey as you explore God’s will for women!

Blessings on your journey,
Cheryl

Lin,

Good for you! I think you will find it very helpful because of the visual presentation. There is still a lot of information there jam packed into 3.5 hours and many people say that they need to watch it 3 times to grasp all the information but then it “clicks” for them and it has changed many lives. I look forward to other questions that you have as well as we go through 1 Corinthians 11 verse by verse.

Lin,

Good for you! I think you will find it very helpful because of the visual presentation. There is still a lot of information there jam packed into 3.5 hours and many people say that they need to watch it 3 times to grasp all the information but then it “clicks” for them and it has changed many lives. I look forward to other questions that you have as well as we go through 1 Corinthians 11 verse by verse.

Thanks for your questions. I will be going through 1 Corinthians 11 for several more posts and will try to cover it as thoroughly as I can to get rid of the misconceptions. These verses have been difficult to interpret throughout church history mostly because of the preconceptions that we have brought to the text. In my DVD series I spent about 45 minutes on this section on 1 Cor. 11 going through the context verse by verse. One pastor who previewed WIM said that the exegesis of mine on this passage was the best that he ever heard and it made the most sense in context. Keep watching the posts here and I will try to make it understandable without having all the visual aids that I had in my DVD. As we go through these posts on 1 Cor. 11 keep asking questions whenever anything doesn’t make sense. God’s word was meant to be understood and I believe that in context it can be understood without contradiction.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Thanks for your questions. I will be going through 1 Corinthians 11 for several more posts and will try to cover it as thoroughly as I can to get rid of the misconceptions. These verses have been difficult to interpret throughout church history mostly because of the preconceptions that we have brought to the text. In my DVD series I spent about 45 minutes on this section on 1 Cor. 11 going through the context verse by verse. One pastor who previewed WIM said that the exegesis of mine on this passage was the best that he ever heard and it made the most sense in context. Keep watching the posts here and I will try to make it understandable without having all the visual aids that I had in my DVD. As we go through these posts on 1 Cor. 11 keep asking questions whenever anything doesn’t make sense. God’s word was meant to be understood and I believe that in context it can be understood without contradiction.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Thank you Kerryn for pointing us to this link!

Thank you Kerryn for pointing us to this link!

Rahab,

“clamshell variety”, ah now that is a real word picture. I have always loved truth and wondered why there are others who aren’t interested in discussing the scriptures in an open fashion. I guess if their mind is already made up and they aren’t interested in seeing another side of the picture, then their closed-minded attitude could be considered a “clamshell”. Interesting word picture for sure. I have had to learn to move on to others who are at least a little open because I have learned the hard way that trying to reason with a “clamshell” is a very frustrating experience. I can only pray that I never become tempted to become a “clamshell” but remain pliable in the hands of my Lord and Master Jesus Christ.

Blessings!
Cheryl

H,

I agree that God is indeed sovereign and I don’t think anyone of us dare tell him what he can and can’t do especially regarding the gifts that he gives to individual members of the body of Christ. If we loved each other as he asked us to love, then we would rejoice when another member is honored and used for God’s purpose.

Hi Kerryn,

Lots of questions and very good ones at that! These questions will make a great post so that all can read not just those who read the comment section. I will have to put a bookmark here, though, because I am at a family reunion and won’t be back home for a couple more days. Looks like 1 Corinthians 11 is going to blossom out to a few more posts that I had intended, but that is great! Keep the questions coming and watch for my answers shortly as I can carve out the time. Ah, the family calls right now so I am off to play games with the family.

Warmly,
Cheryl

Hi Lin,

I will be dealing with this issue in the next post. Stay tuned!

Cheryl

TL,

Great title! I like how you worded that!

Lin,

Thank you for your comments and encouragement! I welcome you here to learn and participate with us.

Cheryl

Thank you Martin!

Hi TL,

Yes, there is a special bonding with animals. My Buddy was truly a special dog. I got him when I was in treatment for cancer in 1995. It was a very emotional time for me and the possibility of death hung over my head. In the middle of my treatment my husband took me into the pet store to let me hold this fuzzy little white puppy. Little did he know that I would instantly fall in love with the little fur ball as he snuggled his nose in my blouse. When my husband told me that I couldn’t have the puppy because he only wanted me to hold him and maybe want a pet some day, but he didn’t want a dog right now, well the tears flowed.

My husband took pity on me and the next day we were back in the pet store and left with a load full of dog supplies and a very lovable pet. Buddy brought joy to my life during a very hard time for me. He wouldn’t let me feel sorry for myself because he was full of life and wanted to play constantly. He bonded to me as I was the one who fed him and walked him and loved him every day. In his later years, when he was afraid or needed attention, he always looked up to me. I do hope that Jesus will somehow find a way to bring animals back because for many of us it would bring us so much joy to see our beloved pets again.