Don

We will see if they discuss Jesus in the wilderness and Joseph’s dreams.  These are relevant to the discussion, IMO.

http://www.henrycenter.org/trinitydebates.php

This should be an interesting debate.

One needs to see the whole counsel of God on naming, as you point out.

Great insight!  The Bible comes together!

Yes, I agree that kephale-head in 1 Cor 11 seems to be source and kephale-head in Eph 5 seems to be a head/body metaphor.  In neither case it is an authority metaphor, but since head IS an authority metaphor in English, this can be challenging to get past.

Paula,

I do not see the teachers of Hebrew Roots as being monolithic, there may be some teachers that teach the all the law/Torah is for all but many others do not.

(P.S. I do not think all the law/Torah is for all, but if some Messianic Jews want to live a Torah-obedient life, who am I to tell them they are wrong; it is their choice.)

Some things to note:
1. One, it is not a hierarchy, as it is not in the order of a hierarchy.  You need to rearrange the words in order to make it in the order of a hierarchy and that is ASSUMING head means boss.
2. If head means boss, how can Christ be the head of EVERY man, many men (whether males or people) do not obey Christ.
3. For the man/husband and woman/wife metaphor, the terms in Greek have the definite article, this means they are THE man/husband and THE woman/wife.  There are natural candidates for who these might be, the man and the woman in the garden, where the man was the source of the woman.
4. Is God the source of Christ/Messiah somehow?  Yes, God was the source of the incarnate Word.
5. Going to the first in the list, is Christ the source of every man somehow?  Yes, Christ was at Creation.

So that is how I understand it.  What this means for the following verses is another discussion.

My take is that 1 Cor 11:4-6 is a saying from some at Corinth, as 1 Cor 7-16 partially agrees (for men not to cover) and partially disagrees (women can choose whether to cover).  1 Cor 11:2-3 then serves as an intro to the discussion.

In 1 Cor 11:3 “pantos andros” is slightly ambiguous, it might refer to every male or it might refer to every person; and exactly how is Christ the metaphorical “kephale” head of all of them, either all males or all people is another question.

Where is Paul going with this, the original readers/listeners might wonder?  He MIGHT be agreeing with those that want to require head covering for women or he might not.

In 1 Cor 11, I think Paul is using aner with BOTH meanings, he is keeping the reader in suspense.

Some neglect the negative examples, but they are there to teach us.

Actually Scripture DOES say it, but it is not an example to be followed.

Est 1:22  He sent letters to all the royal provinces, to every province in its own script and to every people in its own language, that every man be master in his own household and speak according to the language of his people.

This week’s column is written by Megan Greulich, editor of Mutuality magazine. A prominent sociologist on evangelicals, Sally Gallagher, published a fascinating study on evangelicals, “The Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism,” in which she considers the reason why evangelicals as a whole continue to deny mutual submission and shared authority between men and women. In her research, Gallagher suggests that well-known evangelical leaders have effectively linked evangelical feminism with androgyny, or the idea that sexual distinctions between men and women are ambiguous. Many of us have noted how often those who believe in gender hierarchy make statements such as, “evangelical feminists are working to blur the genders that God made so beautifully distinct.” They claim that androgyny is the result when we embrace gift-based leadership. Because of this, it is critical to continually clarify our position as egalitarians. To say that men and women share equally in God’s image and the Spirit’s gifting is not to say that women and men are without sexual distinction. We are not affirming or working towards an androgynous humanity. We are simply asserting that God does not intend for us to define masculinity as authority and femininity as submission. Egalitarians are just calling the church to think carefully and critically about what it means to be men and women of God who share authority, who are servants together. We are affirming that our calling to bring hope and healing to a tired world is our priority and should not be limited by gender. But this question of androgyny I believe represents a bigger issue in our churches: quite simply fear. It is a fear of change and a fear of losing control and power. It is a fear of following a new and sometimes more difficult path from prescribed and predictable gender roles to the more biblical path of giftedness, freedom, and oneness (not sameness) in Christ (Gal. 3:28). In the later part of John 6, as Jesus completes his teaching on faith, the Bible tells us that many of his disciples began grumbling. “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (John 6:60). But I love Jesus’ response. He said “Does this offend you?…The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life” (v. 61, 63). He basically said, so what if this is hard? It’s true! When many of his disciples turned away, Jesus asked the Twelve, “You do not want to leave too, do you?” (v. 67). Peter responded: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God” (v. 68-69). These are stirring words for us who are working for gender reform in the church. If we believe Jesus speaks the truth, we have no choice but to follow Christ and press forward! In John 6, Jesus never denies that his teachings are difficult or counter-cultural. Going against the status quo is not easy, and it certainly does not feel comfortable or safe. Yet, as Mimi highlighted in her last Mutuality column, Flannery O’Conner said “Be properly scared, and go on doing what you have to do.” Christ asks us to be faithful, even when others desert him or resist his teachings. Even while others cannot embrace the powerful truth of biblical equality, a message not of sameness but of oneness, Jesus is lovingly saying to us “So what? I want you to follow me.” Will you join us? Megan Greulich

Glory to God!

When we listen to another, it is not only to correct them, we might learn from them, even if we disagree with them or end up disagreeing with them.

I do not see the egals surrendering and the non-egals seem to be getting more strident.

There are a few things that one party in an argument can do to show they are fearful of losing and one is to resort to ad hominem attacks.

I think part of it is a lack of humility.  It goes something like this:  I am a believer and when I read the Bible it seems to say X to me, therefore it should say X to everyone.  If you think about this, this is actually an arrogant claim to infallible interpretation, but it does not seem that way to the believer.  It does not seem like arrogance at all, so it must not be arrogance.  Notice the lack of humbleness forms a chain.

Contrast that with sharing, this is what it means to me and why and I listen to what it means to you and why.  I cannot force you to accept my understanding and vice versa, but we can share our reasons.  Perhaps we think that we could not in faith do what another does, then the answer is to not do it.

That has sometimes been my problem also.

I tend to assume the best, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, esp. when I am Mr. Oblivious (the person in the room who misses the obvious when everyone else can see it).

You must be a complimentarian!

(Notice the first i.)

My understanding of “hand over to satan” meant Paul had him disfellowshipped and he was now in the pagan world where satan ruled.  It is a dramatic use of words, that is for sure.

Yes, exactly.  We should pray for them.

http://www.irvingbible.org/

I recommend sending a note of encouragement to IBC.

I am a watchman, my duty is done.

Their choices are their choices.

I just sent CBMW an email
—————————–

Hi CBMW,

In your recent blog post on IBC you wrote:

“It is a question of whether we deny or affirm the plain teachings of God’s holy Word.”

I do not know how you can make this claim and still publish paper after paper about the supposed “plain” teaching.

I am sure you know the meaning of some verses on women are disputed and believers have different understandings on some of then.

Are you now claiming to be an infallible interpreter of God’s word?

I see it as an attempt to establish a Magisterium by CBMW on the “women” verses.  They are trying to claim that THEIR way of interpreting those verses are THE way of interpreting them.

And if you disagree with CBMW, then SHAME on you, literally.  The tactics of fear are in CBMW’s playbook.  The question is from where did they get those tactics?

We should pray for them.

1. Because she had figured out her sin, she was no longer deceived, she knew the truth.  But the man was blaming others.

Gen 3:22  Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever–”

Notice the concern is if HE eats from the tree of KOGAE, he would be stuck in his state.

2. As Eve’s desire was for her husband, God knew she would follow him.

3. I do not think it is the church, it is some in the church.

4. Adam is a bad example, it is dangerous to derive doctrines from bad examples except for why they were wrong.

It does concern me about the seemingly vociferous response by some of the non-egals to this “defection” in their ranks.

My take is part of the non-egal’s argument (see Grudem) is that the words of God about “no women teaching men” are clear and just need to be obeyed.  When someone deviates in just a slight amount from the supposed orthodoxy of CBMW and co., it calls into question their argument based on clarity.  The more they respond with paper after paper, the more they self-repudiate their claim of supposed clarity.

This means they are in a no-win position from their viewpoint and they do not like that, so they wish all who think like them would quit making waves and just agree with them.  When some do not, it invokes their fear response, so they think it is entirely justified to respond in ways to try to create doubt and fear in the “defector”.

As Wade Burleson points out on his blog, there was SUPPOSED to be agreement on the (Southern) Baptist Faith and Message that said (in effect) no women  pastors, but left it up to churches whether women could teach.

But that is not good enough for some non-egals, the “evil virus” of women teaching men needs to be eradicated or else the bogeyman (liberalism) will come and the Bible will mean anything you want.

Will some ezer be there?

Every translation involves interpretation, and it is wise to remember that.  This happens quite a bit, it says X; but I think it “means” Y, so I will translate it as Y, esp. as that is similar to what KJV did, it is clear to me that God does not want women leaders, etc.

And those that love the brethren and sistren and contact you by email also!

On the specific question, one needs to know what is meant by “knowing good and evil” and there are various answers I have seen.
1. The Law tells us how to know what is good and what is evil.
2. Everything is either good or evil, so this is a reference to knowing everything.
There are other possibilities.