Lin

“On 2 – You say that “We cannot compare Him (Jesus) to the human husband” in the context of marriage; it must be noted that Paul does (1 Cor 11:3. Eph 5:23). I offer here no explanation as to the particular interpretation of these passages and what Paul is saying but seek only to point out the direct scriptural problem with the claim made above.”

So, this would mean that married women are not to strive to be Christlike since that is the husband’s ‘role’? That is sure what this sounds like? Or maybe they are only to be the ones to model His humility and the husbands get to model the authority?

As to 1 Corin 11:3, how do you get that husbands are a sort of Christ to the wife from passage? Because, that is basically what you are arguing. If it was about heirarchy why does it say that the head of Christ is God…(instead of Father and last in the sequence?)

“I think “Christ has ALL the authority…” is on the right track. The key then is to get them to understand that in this respect, Christ can not be compared to any man, be it a husband or a church leader or the pope or anyone. This “realm” if you will, of Christ’s authority, lies outside teh human realms in which Jesus models husband/head. Does that make sense?”

Absolutely. You have hit on it. They take Christ’ “human-ness” and “maleness” and apply to themselves on earth. His realm of authority, as you so aptly put it, was supernatural because He modeled humilty and lowliness as the human part during His ministry.

“Word games not withstanding, we still need to contend with the argument that Jesus was indeed both servant to and leader of the church. So, the comps have a “servant leader” paradigm to point to. Any thoughts?”

Dave beat me to it but the answer is that they are only depraved humans saved by grace…like the rest of us. They have taken a metaphor about love and unity and added a leadership ingredient.

The real paradigm is the Matt 5 Beatitudes. Would you describe a “leader’ as someone with the unglamorous salt elements of Matthew 5?

When most folks think of leader they think visionary, charismatic, in charge, problem solver, influential, etc. “Leader” denotes human endeavor…it does not give the Holy Spirit the credit

“Lin, it’s true that words mean things. But it’s also true that the meaning of a word changes over time. So I don’t think changing the word would change the problem in the long run.”

but that is exactly what has been done. You can trace it throughout church history. the problem has been changed because fewer people see truth behind the words. Another example of this is ‘complimentarian’. Another word coined to say something that it isn’t at all!. Words mean things and are very important communication tools that direct people. Ask any ad exec or marketing person.

So, we get to the late 20th century with our business model church and Blanchard coins the term ‘servant-leadership’ to make authoritarian leaders more acceptable. Gengwell is right. It is an oxymoron.

I was in corporate training for 18 years and we did not need official studies for bad leadership examples. The problem is inherent. And it is everywhere. Seriously, it is the very rare individual who can gain influence over others or be given positional power…to be totally selfless, lack ego and not work to ‘maintain’ that power. I am talking about secular leadership so when you map the same leadership principles taught by most of the guru’s to the Body of Christ…it does not work scripturally.

The whole point is that it easily becomes a sin trap for the person (leader) who gains power and/or influence over others whether it be positional or influential.

I was very glad to see Jeff VanVonderen make this very point in one of his books. The authoritarian ‘leader’ is in a sin trap.

What if we never used the word ‘leader’ and instead only referred to ourselves as bondservants? Words mean things. It is hard for people to wrap their minds around the fact that a ‘leader’ in the Biblical sense is the most lowly and humble….a servant that washes the feet of His followers.

Mark, If you cannot get Gen 3 right, you cannot understand the rest. You cannot understand that Patriarchy in the OT is a sin. The result of what God said would happen. God worked through sinful man to achieve His own Glory.

The correct translation of what God said to Eve goes like this:

In Gen 3, God told Eve that she would turn away from Him and turn toward her husband and he would, as a result, rule over her.

In effect, what you are teaching is sanctified sin. If her ‘desire’ is for her husband, it is not for God first. That is the consequence of Eve
s sin. And non egals teach that women SHOULD do this. They will say they don’t but they do. And it is teaching sin as virtue.

“The fact is that comps don’t want to dialog with us not because we don’t “understand the teaching” but because we ask questions they can’t respond to. Many of us (if not the majority) used to be complementarians so we do understand the teaching and what was expected of us. ”

This is correct. I have had the opportunity to meet some well known comp teachers and even when asking questions as a fellow comp about teaching that seem to be confusing or contradictory to other Biblical teaching, they were always dismissive. As if asking the questions, by themselves, were my problem in being rebellious. As time went on, I finally realized they did not like such questions and therefore responded in ad hominen style.

Mark, you have avoided such questions, too a few threads back. I don’t say that to be mean but to just point out that it happens all the time.

I have asked you at what age a boy becomes a man and a woman should not teach him. Your response is always cloaked in formal or informal church settings which is not scriptural at all. It is man made. Let;s say, in Nympha’s living room, at what age would boys be men that she would be in sin to teach them?

I have also asked why,since there is no prohibition in the OT against women teaching or leading men, we are expected to believe there is a new one in the NT?

” In the end, I don’t care who’s right, I just want the truth”

That is exactly where I was, too. And when I had a daughter, I wanted to get it right and encourage her to seek the Spiritual gifts God has for her.

Jim,

I do recommend Cheryl’s DVD which only confirmed much of what I had already discerned from study. It was like finding an old friend who confirmed what I had found.

There are several, what I call, keys to this passage that clinched it for me in addition to what the entire letter is about. One of them is the actual Greek word for authority used in 1 Tim 2 concerning the ‘singular’ woman who was teaching a man. The word in Greek is Authenteo and is only used once in the entire NT. IT does not mean authority over. It is much more sinister than that…akin to murdering someone with lies.

One early church father, Chrysotem,used this word in a teaching where he said a husband should not do this to a wife. If the Holy Spirit had wanted to communicate that women should not teach men, He would have used plural grammar and NOT used authenteo. There are plenty of Koine Greek words to communicate authority over that are used throughout scripture such as Arche or exousia.

Another ‘key’ to that passage is the part about childbearing. Could it really be true that woman are saved by bearing children? Wouldn’t that negate the wonderous Cross and the sacrifice of our Savior? Is there really a work of salvation for women only? What about serious Christian women who cannot bear children?

The word for childbearing is a noun and refers to THE childbearing of Messiah. Paul mentions Eve because, she too, was deceived like this woman in Ephesus but Paul believes she can be saved by the childbearing of Messiah. (Paul may be referring to the false teaching in the fertility cult in the huge pagan temple in Ephesus…one of the wonders of the world at that time)

There is much more to this that Cheryl painstakingly goes into on her DVD and on this blog. The obvious question is why so many thousands of years of wrong teaching on this passage to shut up over half of all believers from proclaiming the Gospel to any one regardless of gender? Good question. It took thousands of years for many to decide that slavery was evil, too. Even though the scrpture did nto outlaw it (Jesus did not attempt to change civil laws) we know from Philemon that Paul recommended he treat his runaway slave as a brother in Christ. Radical idea for that time.

Scripture read in the light of the 1st Century is pretty radical for women.

And one last point…Why would Paul write a NEW prohibition against women teaching or leading men since there is NOT one in the OT?

“Being limited on how we are allowed to share that knowledge I think is not torture, it is obedience. ”

Jim, Do you think it would be a sin for a woman, mature in the faith, to teach/preach the Word to a mixed group in an underground house church in China?

Would it also be a sin for a woman to preach (she knows the language) in a grass hut in a remote African village to a mixed group because her husband was broke down out in the bush and could not make it back in time?

Jim, Thanks for your questions asked in a humble and loving attitude! We are not used to that! :o)

“At the risk of sounding androcentric and prideful, I think this is where egaitarian men can really have an impact. If a woman proposes equality to a man who believes in hierarchy, she is considered nothing more than a rebellious mutineer (just like Eve). But if a man, who shares the supposed authoritarian domain with his hierarchical brother, challenges the paradigm, he can not be similarly accused (or dismissed). ”

I agree. Who do you think ‘gave’ women the vote? All the protests in the world could not give them a vote in congress. The votes had to come from men who changed the minds of other men.

imb,

Exactly! But then McArthur is teaching a works salvation for women. He would deny that. But I can remember a few years back, Phil Johnson (McArthurs protege) saying that if a man asked his wife or Mrs. McArthur a doctrinal question they would not answer it but refer the man to their husband.

When I read that, I realized how deeply prideful these men were. It really is a huge sin trap for them. We should pity them and the women who cannot share the wonderous Gospel with someone with male sex organs. Now, if they would only tell us at what age boys become men so we can make sure we do not sin accidently.

Gengwell, it was still good!

“What you have said is very profound.
Order is all the importance in the world to these men when it comes to Genesis.”

Let’s look at order when it comes to the beginning of the church. What did Peter preach? The Joel Prophecy :o)

“For example we are having a discussion over the woman issue. Now one side of the camp is in error and teaching ‘false’ doctrine about this issue, so one must be wrong and repent of their sin.

Mark, this leads me to believe you think the issue of women teaching men as a salvic issue?

Mark wrote:

“Also i am a bit confused why egals think that because Jesus appeared to ‘women’ it is concrete proof that they should lead and run churches. Jesus had many women follow him but none were ever the apostles nor took on any leadership role. MAybe someone can explain the seemingly great importance of this event.”

I disagree with your premise that ‘someone’ should ‘lead’ or ‘run’ the Body of Christ. We tend to leave out the Holy Spirit. Godly Overseers are going to look like Matthew 5. They are not going to look like great leaders but lowly servants who know the only real authority in the Body is Jesus Christ. And we forget that in the 1st Century, they were meeting in homes. Not buildings with pulpits and childrens programs.

In any event, it is not just the women taking back the Good News after the Resurrection, it is also about the Joel Prophecy being fulfilled. That is just more concrete proof that many ignore and try to explain away as a one time event. (We know this is not true as God is using dreams today to bring some Muslim men to seek Isa)

But what is ignored the most by non egals is the fact that there is no law prohibiting women from teaching or leading men in the OT. But they want us to believe that the Word is more prohibitive toward women after the Cross when it comes to proclaiming the Word to anyone reqardless of sexual organs. (No offense, but that is how silly it really is. In Christ, there is no male or female)

“So, I don’t see a New Testament warrant for a teacher as having authority”

I agree with this. The ‘authority’ is in the truth of the Word which the HOly Spirit uses.

“I will never forget the day that Uncle – a Baptist missionary – saw the split of the SBC over the roles of women with such disgust. He looked at us and told us, “If I had known they were going down this road with their attitudes towards women? I wouldn’t have chosen to be a Baptist when I decided to do my work for the Lord.””

It hurt many because they eventually required missionaries to sign a document saying that women should not teach men. Now think if you are in in Africa and your husband is out in the bush for days working with planted churches…. Yes, you are going to teach men who show up at your straw hut church.

But because they refused to lie and sign the document, they had to leave. Some are my family members who had been in Africa 18 years. They offered to sign their bible but that was not good enough for the PP’s and Al Mohlers of the SBC.

I was thinking of ‘lording it over’?

gengwell, knowing what we know about 1 Timothy 2 and a whole false doctrine built around the word, authenteo, how would you translate that word in that passage? I would be interested in hearing from others, too, who have studied this in depth.

But folks like Jay believe what they believe mainly because Gen 1-3 has been taught so very wrong…which means they get 1 Corin 11, 1 Corin 14 and 1 Tim 2-3 wrong, too!

Jay, do you believe women are saved by staying in their ‘role’ by bearing children? Many think 1 Tim 2 is teaching that, too.

“Someone dear to my own heart told me that he believed God told him why a woman had a period each month and he said that it was to give a woman rest from the demands of her husband for a period of time. I never thought of it that way before. ”

If true, it would mean there was likely no menustration before the fall.

I agree about Lot. I also think it illustrates how living in a culture of sin affects us all and how we have to be vigilant in prayer and study. Lot hated all the sin around him yet was tempted to compromise with it.

I also think it illustrates how God worked through sin for His own Glory.

What about Lot being called righteous by Peter even though he offered up his virgin daughters to the men demanding he hand over his guests for sex? How could he have been righteous?

“Note the creational order Paul uses to support his argument. Eve was made out of Adam and for Adam, not the other way around”

Mark, thanks for sticking with this and all the stuff thrown at you. The statement above is the main problem. It is how you view the foundational interpretation of creation. You automatically assume authority and preeminance for the man. If you start there, all the NT passages are going to read authority/follower to you. It means you cannot get what Paul is teaching. (Why would Paul teach more legalistic rules or laws in the NT that are NOT in the OT? It makes no sense)

If you read 1 Corin 3 close, you see that Paul is making an argument like a good Jew would. Note he says a bit later that MEN come from women. So after Adam, all men come from a woman. But ALL things come from God.

I don’t blame you. It would be hard for me to give up preeminance, too, especially if I had been taught this at church and seminary.

But this view does not fit with the theme of the NT. We are lowly servants. The greatest is the lowliest servant of all. The first will be last and the last first, we are not to lord it over anyone and let us not forget all the one anothers. So, where does authority/ follower fit into this within the Body and Marriage? There is no ‘servant-leader’…just lowly servants, depraved sinners…ALL of us…saved by grace. There are no special class of Christians. Comps cannot get around the fact they are making a special class of Christians who stand as a layer between a woman and her Lord and Savior. She is not saved or sanctified by how well she ‘plays’ her role. She is to abide in Christ, just like any man.

If we start with a wrong premise of creation order meaning big cheese/junior assistant to the big cheese, we have lost the entire redemptive story. Patriarchy started right after the fall. We see its sin evidence right away. God worked through and around sin for His Glory.

As a matter of fact, it means we are teaching the sin of the fall as virtue. Sanctified sin. It really is a problem for comps and why we see so many comps who are searching for truth going egal. We also see some comps going patriarchy as CBMW is doing.

The comp view needs a Talmud to tell us what is formal church..What age can boys no longer be taught by women, can they pray in church, etc., etc. Many comps do not agree on the specifics of what their interpretations mean in application. It is a big problem for them. If I hung around you, I would constantly be worried about what constitutes ‘formal’ church. Is it when the men are around? Is it when an elder shows up? Is it in a building with a steeple? What is it?

“1. I have been persistent in telling you i believe Jesus is equally God.”

Because my experience with comps such as Bruce Ware is that they say that but then go on to teach a chain of command structure within the Trinity for all eternity. It amazes me they do not see the cognitive dissonance of their teaching. Reading authority/chain of command structure into everything leads to a lessening of Jesus Christ, Lord of Hosts, whether one sees that or not.

“Have you even read my paper? If so why are you asking such questions since i give reasons for my view in what i wrote.

“Why are you assuming it is husband/wife?”

Sue answered for me:
Perhaps I gave the impression that I thought this passage was about husbands and wives. Personally I do not think that. I think it means clearly that God is the first cause of Christ, Christ of man, and man of woman. That is, this is a cosmological discussion about origins.

I am afraid it is you that has to assume it is husband and wife to read authority into it. Otherwise how is it that you or Dave are my authority?

“If you really believe i don’t think Jesus is equal to God, you either haven’t read my actual article OR you are just ignoring it. Since i agreed with the early trinitarian theologians who said Jesus was ‘homoousious’ (same substance) with the Father, i’ll assume you are just choosing to ignore it.”

Mark, I think your reading authority into everything is a natural outcome for making Jesus lesser. You may not even realize it.

“In my opinion the only way ’source’ can be the intended meaning here is if we abandon that it is husband/wife dualism”

Why are you assuming it is husband/wife? Do you think there were no women attending the church who had unbelieving husbands? No widows? Their uncovering in worship could have been scandalous in that day and time. It could be cause for divorce.

“Hey Cheryl, I was going to use John 1:1 but figured Mark only wanted to hear from Paul. What about Phil 2:5-6?:

And John 5:18. How come the Jews knew He was equal to the “Father’ but so many today, don’t?

How do we get an authority/follower out of “One Flesh Union”?

Dave wrote: To me your failure to understand the Trinity at this point undermines much of your further thoughts as you have imported something into the Trinity that does not exist – hierarchy. ”

Bingo! And it does NOT exist outside the Incarnation. That is a big problem with complimentarians. And it certainly lessens our Lord and Savior to a lesser ‘god’ position within the Trinity. A blasphemy which makes me want to weep.

I just got here and there are 42 comments!