Elaine

Hi Cheryl…Forgive me but I dont think you are reading what Im writing, I thought it was understandable but it cant be…therefore I will try to be more specific this time in replying. I said regarding Abraham that faith was KEY.. I said the gentiles as a GROUP were not a covenanted people, I know individuals could come under the law covenant in faith and join the nation. You said that as a nation they were elected unconditionaly, but loving Him was always an individual thing… I said that… “unfortunatley many did not believe.. why? because as a covenanted people… as a nation….( NOT INDIVIDUALS…. individuals throughout history displayed great faith in the face of adversity, even from there own, Hebrews chap 11)…. they did not truly love the Father, the God of Israel. I totally agree with Malachi 3 v 16. I think that because Im not explaining myself the way you would, you are not getting what I am saying…it is my mistake. I said that… “I believe God has yet to make known to the future (prophetic) 144,000, God knows who these blood tribes are” Let me re-word that… I believe that “God has yet to make known to a future 144,000 blood Israelites… God knows who they are and as prophesied about in the book of Revelation…. the one whom they ( the jews) pierced.( which is why I wrote to you about Joseph, quoteing scriptures in Genesis) Zech chap 12 v 10… Rev chap 1 v 3, 7…Matt chap 24 v 30, Mark 13 v 26, Luke Luke 21 v 27. ( all well known verses) Rev chap 7 v 3-8 (Rev 9 v 4) I hope you can understand why I have cicted these scriptures. Revelation was written, around 95 A.D…. long after the death of Jesus and His faithful apostles…It is a revealing of future events that were not told to others. In John chap 21 v 21,22. Peter asks Jesus a question about what will happen to John, Jesus replies “if I will that he tarrys till i come, what is that to thee? follow me”… Could this be a cryptic way of saying that John would see the time of the end, not because he would not die, but because he would be given the Revelation by Jesus of the end times, a bit like when Jesus said “there are some standing here which will not taste death til they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom….then the transfiguration. meanwhile…. There was the First covenant that showed them (The Israelite nation) that they needed something better…as Paul said when the law came to life I died. The second covenant is by Grace, Jesus is the something better…because when He died I came to life. I live by faith and if I believe with all my heart, my works will show my faith to be alive. It is by Grace we are saved. If Grace had not come I would still be dead…Christ is that Grace. I am not a calvinist. I must say I dont really understand calvinists they sound quite confusing and conflict, in varying degrees, with each other. I dont listen/read (to) any teachers that you would know, but do read people like yourself.I do go to a church building and go to bible study groups,though at times I dont agree with my pastor…titheing for one. I dont really like the institution of church nor the structured approach, but love my brothers and sisters. I say what I feel I need to say then am silent, its enough that its out there. I have learned to be still and at peace I am in search of truth, to alter and change, to add and discard as new revelation comes along, I want my heart to be open to Gods voice… I will continue to ask questions give out thoughts and ask that the Holy Spirit guide me into that truth…I am on a path, Jesus said “”for everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth,and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. I do not know all the answers to all the questions, I dont even know all the questions!… but Im enjoying the journey. A part of my journey is talking with you. In Christ…Elaine

Hi Cheryl….wow….that is not my intention at all…two gospels, how did you arrive at that…. my word…its just shows you how different people can read into what you say/write without it being what you are actually thinking… I would sugest that maybe you are being a little “sensitive” to these terms. There are NOT two gospels but there is a time that the “jews” would have to see the end of the first (law) covenent… as given by God to Moses… the way that they observed it and the “promise” given to Abraham coming to the fore… Eph chap 2 particularly v 14. I love the fact that even before circumsision was given to Abraham as a sign… God made a promise, a covenant, that “through your seed (Abrahams) ALL the nations of the earth would bless themselves” (including Israelites that weren’t on the scene yet)) “thou shalt be a father to many nations” and “a father of many nations I have made thee” Gal chap 3 v 8 (even Abraham was aware of Gods promises to him through his faith, God being able to do the things promised, faith was key) and that the law did not “disannul” the promise…this was always on the cards as far as God was concerned. The promise was the way God would make the way out of the hopeless situation of sin that through the law condemned the people (something better was needed, the promised seed… Christ the Messiah) and also for the heathen to come nigh unto God, this was “trumpeted” loudly and clearly to the jews through Gods words to Abraham (the gentiles as a group never had a covenanted relationship with the true God) and throughout the prophets that were pointing to the Messiah which the jews were awaiting (the gentiles weren’t) …unfortunatley for many they did not believe… why? because they never as a covenented people, AS A NATION , not individuals, truly loved the Father, this is shown to be the case throughout scripture. I love the story of Joseph, pictureing Jesus… Joseph being betrayed by his brothers… rejected, then the covering of blood on Josephs garment BY the brothers (without shedding of blood there is no remission) , God giving Joseph the interpretations of Pharaohs dreams, then Joseph elevated by Gods will…becoming second to Pharaoh, him setting up the barns to store grain, feeding the world on bread then at last… his brothers coming to him…. the testing…. then the revealing of himself to them and his loving them…and all this AFTER he had saved the “world” and remember what he said to his brothers ” “now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither, for God did send me before you to preserve life” Gen 45 v 5, see also chap 50 v 20.I believe God has yet to make known to the future (prophetic) Israelites 144,000 (God knows who these blood tribes are) “the one whom they pierced”… rejected, Jesus the Messiah..their Messiah and this when the last of the gentiles has come in. I love the patriachs, they are a part of my spiritual heratage to whom the promises were made… the fleshy line through which both the Israelite and gentile Redeemer has come No Cheryl I do not believe in two seperate gospels but I do belive that the jews had to take on board Christ Jesus as being their saviour after having the law whereas the gentiles had a different criteria to overcome (thats the difference in the two, nothing more, not two gospels!!)…they were all going to become ONE body in Christ, NO seperation now between the two but getting them there for the likes of Paul and Peter was hard graft, so many teaching untruths… gentiles being told one thing or another by those jews that were still pushing circumsision and observation of days.. ect.. gentiles missing the whole point of Grace thinking they could do what they liked and using the cross as an excuse for wrongdoing…how hard these faithful, beautiful, ISRAELITE brothers worked for the Lord, these ones along with the other 10 apostles being the very foundation of the new Jerusalem, those that I am related to in the Spirit which is more important than blood…Yes Cheryl God knows His own and hard or not His children would know the truth and it would truly set them free. One Lord one Gospel and it fits ALL. I hope I have cleared things up..no doubt I will have raised more points to discuss! In Christ. Elaine P.S. I will read your articles on John 6 when I get time..soon I hope. x

Hi Cheryl…. thank you for your reply I do see your point about John the baptist and his being pivitol in pointing to Jesus… and take on board scriptures you have cited with which Itotally agree,I feel though im getting bogged down (my problem) with the word “pivitol” and my/the placing of that term John said to the priests and levites that he was not a prophet or Elijah when questioned, then they said unto him…who art thou that we may give an answer to them that sent us…John replied..I am the voice OF ONE CRYING in the wilderness make straight the way of the Lord .Again I must say that John, as I see it, announced Jesus to the world and pointed to Him as the Saviour… in THAT he was pivitol, no doubt about it. Jesus though was the pivitol point in history (maybe this is where the confusion is of my placing of that word, or my misunderstanding of your first comments ), the fork in the road so to speak, for the jewish nation. Change was now here (as announced by John) .. the Messiah was now on view to the world, things were about to become very differant… the vineyard was about to be vacated…. the sheep were about to be brought out of the pen…. there was not going to be new wine poured into old wineskins…change was here, change was upon them…and later for the whole world. Jesus BEING that pivitol moment of change (maybe “change” is another word, clouding the issue). Also another point… I used the term “under law” to show He (Jesus) was talking to jews (being specific for the readers of the comment). And as regards to those coming to Him as being drawn/dragged by the Father… these jews would have been the very ones honouring and following the God of Israel, the Father… because they WERE coming to Jesus, this in my mind was never in doubt…I took that as read. I am grateful for your response Cheryl but do not want to get caught up in words that you and I have differences on, im sure somewhere along the line we are both seeing the same thing.. .maybe its my English way of explanation thats slightly different to yours, forgive me. As regards the answering of the point re; the English girl 500bc I wasn’t wanting your answer to that, but rather using it as a “for instance” to a point I was making about a before and after time period. Sorry not to have responded to all your points. Nonetheless Cheryl… thank you for your response…In Christ .P.S.I hope what I said also makes sense!

Hi Cheryl…Thanks for your reply…regarding the “pivitol” point.. while I agree with the Matt 11 v 12 words of Jesus…I do believe that He (Jesus) within the realms of those words point to Himself as being the pivotal point as He states in v 28 come unto Me all ye that are heavy laden and I will give you rest (Lord of the Sabbath, eternal rest) While John was used as the announcer, he (John), still didnt know if Jesus was the one see v3 of same chap. John bore witness to Jesus but Jesus had a greater witness ( John 5 v 33, 36) I see scripture as stating quite catagorically that Jesus is the pivitol point in time for the great change that was to take place (John may have ANNOUNCED the change but Jesus IS the change) regarding the jewish nation and also at a later date the gentiles. I hope you read L. Ray Smith, Rich man and Lazarus, great insight into Luke 16 meaning. I think also that you did not understand what I said regarding the memorial tombs. I said that its easy for us (christians, jews and gentiles, one flock) NOW to understand the meaning and content (all), but in Jesus’ day the jews did not understand what Jesus meant, although they had the scriptues which spoke of the Christ…they didnt “get it” We know that Jesus is particularly talking to THOSE under law as He says in v 23 “That all men should be valueing the son.. AS THEY ARE (or should be) valueing the Father…and why Jesus says TO THE JEWS that “no-one can come to the Son UNLESS the Father draws him” meaning that IF they knew the God of Israel they will now have to know and accept the son and if they do not accept the Son then they never really knew/had the Father in the first place as the Father would give them to Jesus. This is an extremely important point, that the jews hear AND accept. Jesus tells of the time of the gentile calling when He says that “When the son of man is lifted up HE will draw all sorts of men (gentiles) TO HIMSELF (Jesus) as they unlike the jews would not have the problem of overcoming the law and being the chosen nation). Jesus himself says v 39 “Ye search the scriptures (what we know as the O/T) for in them ye think (jews not gentiles) ye have eternal life and they are they which testify about ME. So yes ALL would one day come out of the memorial tombs… but at THAT TIME the jews did not understand. I, me, other christians NOW understand but THEN the jews did not which is the point I was trying to make and obviously failing to do so. As regards the “there are not 2 ways to salvation only one way to life” that you said…once again I agree.. it is in Christ… but again you must agree that before Christ came, how could I believe in Him if He was not yet born and I was a little gentile living 500bc somewhere in the English countryside, not having the law, or, the True God of Israel as my Rock… then by which criteria are we judged…for rejecting Christ, cant be, no, but by works, as born out by the greek which says “to the one good doing the up-standing of life, the ones yet the foul practicing the up-standing of judging”John chap 5 v 29. There is a “before” Christ and there is an “after” Christ surley… Christ has already given the criteria for “after” His coming on the scene, hearing Him and believing… and I believe Jesus is giving criteria “before” His arriving on the scene as regards those in the memorial tombs, ie the doing of good.. to life, or, practicing vile things to up-standing of judgement. Hope this clarifies and that you too can understand. In Christ

Hi cheryl…first time blogger (if thats what I am!) the discussion…John 5 starting at v25…Jesus is here talking to an audience of spritually dead people, we know they are spiritually dead because Jesus says “if they hear my word and believe on Him that sent me” (God/Father)…physically dead people cant hear or believe, plus He says “The hour is coming and has NOW COME (its here, its arrived on you lot, the ones Im now speaking to.) which you agree on…the problem I have or rather dont quite understand as to what your saying is the verse after, thats v28, Jesus says “Do not marvel at this” marvel at what? that the dead even though alive are living, or, that He has been given authority to execute judgement, or, that all in the graves will hear His voice at the hour that is coming…we must recognise the audience and the role that Jesus is now playing out before the last vestages of Israel ie, the kingdom of Judah surely (see L Ray Smith on Luke 16 Rich man and Lazarus). Jesus is the pivotal moment in time/eternity things are changing and Jesus is that change. So wouldn’t you think that Jesus in v 28 is talking about “all in the memorial tombs” as those of the Jewish nation that will be judged by their deeds/works under law and not those of the worlds as the jews had no idea at this time of the great shift in Gods purposes neither did the gentiles…I know I can read it now, but then, at that moment Jesus was speaking and making that statement, no one was any the wiser, even many of those who were listening to that statement. So v25 is those who are physically alive (the jews not gentiles) that hear and believe that would become spiritually alive also and those in verse 28 are those that died under law and would have a different set of ways that they would be judged as those who did good deeds that would bring forth life and others deeds that would bring forth death. Please forgive me if I am not explaining to well but hope you get what Im saying..Im pretty sure you will. In Christs love

Cheryl,
I had no clue. I’m so sorry to hear this. It is one thing to have your views criticized it’s something else entirely to be labeled a heretic and have someone buy domain names because you might use them – how bizarre.

TL,
On another discussion here, Cheryl said she is tied up with work on another DVD at the moment. Seems she has to limit her time spent on the blog.

NN,
It would be hard to see Paul characterizing the nature of marriage in the way you do, notably in respect to his own singleness in 1 Corinthians 7. He speaks to the single’s freedom from anxieties and freedom to serve with “undivided devotion”. The married man has responsibilities that “divide” his attention. This is balanced by Paul’s affirmation that marital responsibilities are good and also a “gift” (7:6). Paul teaches neither singleness nor marriage is inherently more spiritual or holy, although the freedoms of singleness lead him to say, “I wish that all men were as I am” (7:8). No pining away on his part about not being able to fully reflect anything. There are many single Christians for whom Jesus alone is sufficient for ultimate intimacy.

Christianity was unique among religions in that it held up single adulthood as a viable way of life. Nearly all religions and cultures made an absolute value of the family and of the bearing of children. There was no honor without family honor, and there was no lasting significance without leaving heirs. By contrast, the early church not only did not pressure people to marry but it institutionally supported poor widows so they did not have to remarry. The ‘sacrifice’ made by singles was not merely ‘giving up sex’ but in giving up heirs. Clearly expressing their belief that one’s future is not guaranteed by the family, but by the kingdom of God.

As you point out, husbands are not divine. It’s not Christ’s divinity that husbands are to imitate. Does this passage refer to Christ leading the church? No. Does it refer to His authority over the church? No. It is about His giving Himself up for the church. It is about sacrificial love and unity.

“But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit”
1 Cor.6:17

“And at the end of it all, let us not forget the metaphor which God has used to express this truth. Marriage. For as God’s metaphor our marriages are supposed to reflect this truth; to ourselves, to each other, and to those around us. If I, as husband, were to provide only as my wife honors me – then I would not reflect God but the petty pagan “Ba’alim” of the Caananites, and the wives likewise in their honor. For “man cannot shut up about the gospel.”

The problem with NN’s view is that he has it backwards. Christ and the church are being held up as the example for everyone of what marriage is supposed to look like – not the other way around. There is nothing in Scripture that says human marriages are supposed to be the example to the world. The relationship of Christ and the church is the example.

Cheryl,
I’m glad you reposted this one. Too bad the discussion that followed is lost – many good arguments and insights in those. It never ceases to amaze me how Christians managed to sanctify the complete opposite of what the Bible says. (ie. Eph.5:31)

During a recent discussion with a comp I gently pointed out that God was not even addressing “Adam” when He said “he shall rule over you” – He was addressing Eve directly. How could it be a command to follow when it wasn’t given to the man in the first place?? Was the woman supposed to tell the man what God said?? Oh dear, we couldn’t have that! 😉

Craig,
I like the way your daughter thinks “outside the box”.

“Perhaps there was a papyri shortage at the time and so he left out bits that could be assumed? 🙂 ”

Craig,
LOL – Is it past your bedtime? 😉

Craig@205,

Don’t lose sight of the fact that comps do not have an “air-tight” explanation for these verses. Most who wish to claim an absolute are the so called “plain reading” ones. And the scholarly few who do get into the details have nothing conclusive – yet, they wish to build an entire doctrine concerning half the church over what even the most repected scholars admit are some of the most difficult passages in the entire Bible!
So, the question for your friends versed in Greek is ‘how can you argue that the subordination of women is a better interpretation of the scripture than treating women as your neighbour? If both are possible interpretations, why is the subordination of women a *better* interpretation?’

Craig,
Nice summary. Translating of kephale as “head” in both instances fosters the idea that they must have the same meaning. But there is no reason they must. No matter how much comps would it.

Cheryl,
You’re back! 🙂

It’s rather sad that Jeremy thinks he has heard everything the egal view has to say when obviously (ie.Kristin) he’s only heard the introduction.

I really was hoping he would at least answer regarding 1Tim. 2:15 – Does it “plainly” teach that women are saved by childbearing?

Jeremy,
I wonder if you have dealt with 1Tim. 2:15? Does it “plainly” teach that women are saved by childbearing? If not, why not?

Is a man allowed to “usurp authority” of another man?

The Church has never been in error for long periods of time before? Isn’t that one reason for the Reformation?
Would anyone really want to have Inquisitorial trials back?
What about the Geneva Council with John Calvin burning “heretics” at the stake? Not an error?

“Jesus said in Matt 28:18-19, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples. . . .” Any authority that anyone in the church has, therefore, is actually Christ’s authority and not his/her own. In Titus 2:15, when Paul tells Titus, “Encourage and rebuke with all authority,” the word is not “exousia,” (“have rights/authority over”) but “epitage,” which means a command from God to be passed on. Delegated authority is the only authority we humans have.”

Kristin,
I’m glad you brought this out so clearly.

Kristin,
Yes, it seems that in Mark’s opinion (or he would like us to buy into the notion), everything else in society would automatically revert in exact parallel fashion. Apparently Mark has studied enough sociology to note the link made between the beginnings of horse/plow agriculture and more complex less egalitarian societies. By contrast, in the previous hunter/gatherer foraging societal systems there is so much interdependence, these families/societies have a centralized sharing of resources and consensus is needed for major decisions. As a result, they are highly egalitarian with substantial cross-over among duties (women often hunt small game and men gather foods). Whereas, in agrarian society women’s status dropped because their work became less visible, thus less valued, and foraging is compatible with pregnancy/caring for infants but operating plows and controlling draft animals is not.
Frankly, I think he shoots himself in the foot with this one. He is trying to use early agrarian societal norms to defend authoritarian structures.
Sheeesh, isn’t capitulating to culture what comps accuse egalitarians of doing? And I wonder why Mark didn’t go further back in history to base his claim? To whom does he think the hunter/gatherers were capitulating? Or maybe concensus is not a concept he favors?

cont… The motive for the slave:
“Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.” Eph. 6:6

In short there’s just no way to make human authority exactly the same as God’s authority. It’s two different things. And if it’s two different things (which clearly it is) then the submission wouldn’t be identical either.
As I pointed out before, comps don’t try to claim all the things Christ has for the husband (ie. all things under his feet, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”) but only the things they want (ie. the final say-so).

If everything about Christ doesn’t directly apply to husbands then perhaps (tongue-in-cheek) the “authority” doesn’t either. Perhaps they ignore vs. 21??? Maybe they just like picking and choosing the attributes of Christ they want???

“We can respond to Christ in submission out of respect for his authority or out of love and thankfulness for all he has done for us. Both are valid. Ephesians 5, and the head-body metaphor seem to me to be emphasising the latter.”

Craig,
Another quick thought – is it possible for these two to be separated in a believer’s life? Somehow it doesn’t seem possible to me…”Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” It doesn’t say “respect the Lord your God”… Love has to be the core of everything.

Craig@235,
Just a thought on the fly here. Maybe you could ask Mark if a slave owner’s “authority” real in God’s eyes? Or is it just something man-made?
So, even though Paul is instructing believers to act in this way under the circumstances it does not necessarily legitimize the “authority” or show God’s approval of it.

Dave@215,
I emailed you.

Craig,

cont…Especially in light of the fact that the metaphor in Eph. 5 is “head of,” not “head OVER” as in Eph.1:22 (“And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body”)

He may try to ignore the difference…but I doubt he would claim that everything is put under a husband’s feet…

Craig,

Ask him where married men are exempted from Eph. 5:21.(?)
And since Jesus redefined leadership as a form of servanthood, -”You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave” – then how does that servanthood then inexplicably revert back to “having authority over” when applied to the marriage relationship?

More “pondering” – so, Jesus has authority “over” the Church. How does He exercise that, what does He do with it? Quoting again “gengwall’s 3 things”: Christ is only ever shown sacrificing, interceding, and serving.

Dave,
It could be the problem lies in our human perception of authority – which when applied to humans is basically all about having the power to enforce rules. God is not losing any sleep over whether or not He has it! A veritable non sequitur.

We must continue to point out that comps are “cherry picking” only certain attributes of Christ they wish. Most will not claim that God has “placed all things under the HUSBAND’S feet” or that the strength by which wives stand against the wiles of the devil is her husband’s strength. (“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power.” 6:10) And while there are some patriarchists who claim this as part of the husband’s head/Christ “role,” generally comps do not. Which once again illustrates their “cherry picking” method for the attributes of Christ they wish to confer on husbands at the same time ignoring the general context.
The enthronement of Christ dominates the first part of Ephesians. It defines the basis of all that the believers have in their salvation and outlines a powerful ministry in His body. – “The Church, the body of Christ, is already seated in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 2:6) Comps seem to ignore the basis for Paul’s use of the head/body metaphor – unity and growth in the body of Christ. ( Eph.4) “Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” Eph. 5:1-2

Craig,
You might find useful/interesting some of Mark’s recent comments on the Sola Panel discussion “Choosing the hill to die on.”