Don

I end up where Cheryl did, but I get there differently.

Gal 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

is a better translation.  The diff. is the “no male AND female” not “no male NOR female”.  The Greek is kai, usually “and”.  I see this as a remez/hint back to the garden.  Paul in another verse talks about Christ being the 2nd Adam.

“works of the law” I see as a Greek form of the Hebrew “Ma’aseh ha Torah” which was used in the Dead Sea Scrolls to identify the markers of Judaism.

“curse of the law” I see as not saying the law is a curse, but is referring to the curses in the law for not obeying it; these are given in Deu as blessings and curses or in covenant/contract language benefits for compliance and penalties for non-compliance.

The Jews thought that they were “in” simply because they were Jews.  Jesus speaks against this to Nicodemus, saying it must be by faith, as does Paul here and elsewhere.  The Jews have a huge advantage, as Paul points out, in getting “in” as they were given the word of God, but no one is auto-in.  So there is a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel.  Being in physical Israel does not guarantee being in spiritual Israel.

So Paul is NOT mainly discussing individual salvation, altho that is included, as Fee points out, he is discussing (spiritual) Israel’s salvation.

The key thing to see is that everything about being a believer AND a congregation is wrapped up in Israel’s salvation; if someone were to claim there is something spiritual outside of that, I do not want it as it would be false, as something false is all that is left outside of spiritual Israel.  This is the fundamental mistake of the non-egal understanding when they try to limit the meaning of these verses.

Is this a reference to Donald Duck perhaps?

Yes, keep Keith in good hands.

In Gen 9:6 are 3 uses of Adam meaning human.

In Jam 3:9 it in anthropos.

So this allows us to create a dictionary of sorts.  James being Hebrew thinking Adam chose the closest Greek word being anthropos.

I would not want to debate Paula live, she knows too much Scripture!

I think your last sentence has a “not” in the wrong place.

The starkly different advice is mostly mythical teaching by non-egals.  We are to agape-love our enemies, so spouses are to agape-love each other.  And a husband is to honor his wife, which is very similar to respect.

On “The exception proves the rule.” the meaning of “prove” is “tests”, not “validates”.

No, a burnt meal is not abuse.  But it is much preferred to teach that abuse and neglect are possible grounds that to claim that only adultery is a ground, as then the abused and/or neglected are stuck.

One can look in the prophets to see what kinds of abuse and neglect God claimed when he divorced Israel.

David Instone-Brewer is amazing.  Jesus rejects Hillel’s “Any Matter” divorce as not being Torah.  The other reasons are still allowed, but not required, including abuse, neglect, and adultery (which he makes symmetric).

The “not cooking well” was for the “Any Matter” divorce.  It was used as an example to make a point that “Any Matter” really did mean “Any dumb reason at all”.  For a real reason, it had to go before 3 judges and they had to agree it was real.

There were 2 ways to get a divorce, you picked 3 sages/rabbis to hear your case.  Either a man or a woman could do it.  If you picked 3 from Shammai school, then you had to prove your case with evidence, and the charges might be neglect or abuse or adultery for the woman or lack of intercourse.  In general the man was to provide supplies and the woman was to prepare them.  If her father gave her servants, the servants did the least desirable work and the 4th servant did whatever the wife wanted, but the first 3 did things in order.  If a man proved adultery, he could confiscate her dowry, on the other things the rabbis imposed fines, which would eventually eat up the dowry or the bride price.  So if a woman refused to cook food and had no servants to do it, her dowry could be fined.  Or if the man refused to provide food to cook, he could be fined.  If he kept refusing, she could get a divorce, they would whip the man until he wrote the divorce certificate.

The man could also go to 3 Hillel school rabbis and divorce for “Any Matter” and then divorce for any reason at all, but the dowry was returned.  This was the normal method of divorce, as no one had to prove anything, EXCEPT if one was trying to keep the dowry.

It was asymmetrical with advantages to the man.  But the man could not just take the dowry unless the woman did not behave.

Daughters got their inheritance when they married, as a dowry.

Cheryl,

You used “sonship” instead of “child of God”.  In other words, your question would be better worded (IMO) as: “Do men and women inherit being children of God in a different way?”

Why use gender terms when they are not warranted?
Paula, 
I am sure you know that the ESV says that God called them “Man” in Gen 5:2, why do you have a problem with dat?  I must say this is one of those times when I guffaw, as it is JUST SO WRONG on SO MANY LEVELS.

Hey, I am allowed to have female teachers.

As Paul wrote “ALL may … teach ….” so it is a question if one chooses to listen.

http://www.shenango.org/Bailey/index.htm

I think it was Kenneth Bailey who taught me about Titus 2 being about Titus.  I recommend him, he lived in the Middle East for many years.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2487  is a paper by Wallace on what he calls Biblical Gynecology which seems a poor choice of terms even if it might be theoretically valid.  He makes a chart of extreme and moderate egals and comps. But the moderate egals are not even egal, so he is simply using words as he chooses.

There might be web crawlers that keep history of old pages, as a record of the web.  I do not know much about them, but I have heard they exist.  Other than something like that, web pages are ephemeral.  So if you want to keep a record, you need to copy it yourself when you find it.

Apparent CBMW modified the original post dinking Wallace.

We ALWAYS need to separate in our minds the difference between God’s word and OUR INTERPRETATION of God’s word.  The latter is inspired, but we may not be.

I am not saying to therefore give up as nothing is knowable, but we need to be humble in our assertions about what the Bible CLEARLY teaches, esp. for example, 1 Tim 2 which has so many exegetical challenges.

Another point is that Titus 2 is giving advice to (ta da) Titus!

In the culture of that time, it would not be appropriate for a young man to meet with a young woman, there would be an assumption of adultery by the society.  In order to avoid the appearance of evil in that society, Titus cannot teach the young women, so Paul tells him to delegate that task to the older women, or women elders; this avoids any false appearances.

Titus can teach the older men/elders, older women/elders, and young men himself.

Most non-egals that teach about Titus 2 women do it from the entirely wrong perspective, as they do not catch the concern that Paul has.

Something seems to be forcing one verse to the very bottom of my post, which is strange.  My guess is some hidden formatting symbol.

Somehow my post about got scramble.  Can you correct? The last 2 lines are from the BIble.

I just rewatched DVD 2 teaching 1 on eternity past.  This is jam packed and I think it only possible to  comprehend in multiple viewings.  Whew!

A few impressions:
1. Ware makes a mistake in not seeking the whole counsel of Scripture.

2. Ware is too much of a Greek thinker and not enough of a Hebrew thinker to correctly handle Scripture written almost entirely by Hebrews.

1Ti 1:5
The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

1Ti 1:6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion,

1Ti 1:7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

In my understanding, law in the above is Torah or God’s (whole) teaching, but certainly at least refers to the OT/Tanakh.  The NT sits on the OT like the second story of a building sits on the first.  As Ware demonstrates, it is very possible to misunderstand some NT texts when they are divorced from the OT foundations on which they rest.

Yes, I was also thinking of diapers and cooties, but did not dare voice my thoughts.

Ryan,

The Bible says one cannot divide up a covenant that it is a unity, so I do not partition the Mosaic covenants except for discussion purposes.

Circumcision was required of gentiles to participate in Jewish Passover, for example.  The question is what was required for gentiles to be saved; it was a fair question with a disputed answer; so it was proper for the Jerusalem council to decide on it in an explicit fashion.  At the very start of Acts all the 120 were Jews and all the first converts were also and it took Peter’s vision for him to see Cornelius, to go to a gentile’s house meant you were unclean according to the Pharisees, ala guilt by association, hence a fence around the Torah.
There was a place where all 4 things in Acts 15 were done and that was pagan temples, so IMO, what the Jerusalem council is requesting gentiles to avoid those places when those types of things are happening, avoding the appearance of evil.  They could not avoid them entirely as they also served as banks and keepers of public records; but they did not need to be around when pagan sacrifices were done, promiscuity, etc.  This was so gentiles could have table fellowship with Jews, who would otherwise be grossed out.

Lin,

I would have said a word or 3 if I had been there.

I have no idea what “declaring someone is bound to their sin” means.

To bind is to forbid some act and to loose is to permit some act, as a Jewish idiom used in the Mishnah.  At the Jerusalem council the disciples decided that gentiles did not need to be circumcized (that is, become Jews) and could remain gentiles, but please do not do these 4 things that disturb Jewish sensitivities.  So they loosed the need for conversion to Judaism and bound the 4 things.

On security, I do not believe in eternal security or eternal insecurity.  It is possible to walk away from God and keep walking.

On Mat 18:18 my understanding is that this was said to the original disciples and is a Jewish idiom for deciding about something, to bind is to forbid and to loose is to permit, which is exactly what happened at the Jerusalem council.

I do not know what to do about the concern of going from one congregation to another.  It is often the case that another denom. will simply welcome a new potential member.

For a congregation, the max consequence is disfellowship from that congregation.  God can go further, but not us.  Unless one congregation asks for help from another, I do not see another getting involved.

As Matthew 18 says, “… tell it to the church” that is the congregation.  For these kinds of discipline issues, the congregation decides the boundary, who is in and who is out.  I see this as analogous to MY body deciding to expell disease, so that my body remains well.  Paul is making no quibbles about how he expects this process to go.