Lin

“Should a husband submit to his wife? Yes. He submits to his wife’s need to feel loved. I take this position by combining God’s command in Ephesians 5:21 to mutually submit, with God’s command in Ephesians 5:25-31 to a husband to love his wife. ”

But I would rather be respected than loved. :o)

Eggerich is assuming this passage is for all time and not cultural. A husband actually loving a wife in an arranged marriage where she is basically to breed sons was a big deal. Eggerich is assuming that men have some gene that means they need respect more than women do.

I know that he has said women can be respected, too. I really appreciate that. (shaking head)

But, he sure knows how to make a good living off comp doctrine. he even charges to be in his internet ‘community’.

“So then we can see that Paul uses Genesis to show why are a woman should not teach and not be in authority. We are then able to say that no these things are not just culturally binding like a head covering is. He is using scripture for his argument.
If Paul is only concerned with a cultural issue, why is he using the Creation account for his argument?”

He is using the creation account because the woman in Ephesus was DECEIVED. And he is using Eve as an example of the same type of deception from ignorance. Since EVE was formed last, she did not have as much knowledge as ADAM and was deceived by the serpent. Adam sinned knowing the truth..he had even seen some creating in the garden that Eve did not see.

If this is NOT what Paul means then you must believe that women are saved by bearing children. Please tell me that is not what you believe, too. A works salvation/sanctification for women only? The cruelty of that is monumental and blasphemous to our Holy Savior! But this is what many at CBMW teach! A works salvation for women in ‘roles’. It is like spitting on our Savior not to mention cruel to those Christian sisters who have not been able to bear children.

“I’m assuming you dis-agree with me about Cheryl mis-quoting CBMW? You seem to wash this off by saying ‘who knows what they teach’ essentially. I’m not surprised really.”

I have not caught on to exactly what she quoted from them that you think is misquoted.

My point was that many in CBMW teach different things. Just to give you an example of how confusing it can be: McArthur teaches that Adam was NOT there when Eve had the conversation with the serpent. Piper teaches she WAS there. Ware teaches that women are made in the indirect image of God, a derivative but others on CBMW teach that woman are made in the direct image of God. The list goes on. Oh, and Piper teaches that primogeniture is the reason for Adam being in authority over Eve. Others teach creation order and know that primogeniture won’t fly because God often used others than the 1st born son.

So, what was the misquote?

“Regarding your post # 169, remember that what i am saying is that i think Cheryl mis-quoted the CBMW”

Mark, if there is one thing I do know for a fact it is that most people do not really know what all CBMW is teaching. One reason is because many of their contributors teach in quite a few venues. And the list of legalisms for comp/pat is so long no one can keep up!

We have to assume that CBMW affirms their teaching on this same subject in other venues. Did you ever read the CBMW article that talks about male headship in heaven? That is right! You heard it right. They have all kinds of Mormonistic and JW type of teaching over there. Did you read the article where Piper says that if a woman is working in a secular job and has male reports that she should never command them to do tasks. She must ‘suggest’ so it would not appear she is directing a man to do anything? Catch that one?

“You might think my view needs a Talmud, but all i am saying is this. Women should not teach in the gathered assemblies, it should be the resposiblilty of the pastor/elders who are to be men according to scripture. Seems pretty straight forward really.”

Where does it say men only? To get that definition one would also have to believe that it means no single men or married men without kids. You think it means that, too?

It really is not straightforward when one looks at the context within the entire Word and the Inspired grammar. I do believe the Word is inerrant but I do not think translators are inerrant.

What about the age thing? At what age should a boy be that a woman is not allowed to teach him?

And what exactly makes a formal and informal gathered assembly according to 1 Corinithians? Is there an example of an informal assembly somewhere in the NT so we can understand better?

Mark, Concerning your comments about Eve being told by Adam instead of God, why do you ignore what is said about this in Genesis 1?

Mark,

Would this passage from 1 Corin 14 be considered ‘formal’ church:

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

1. What human in the formal ‘church’ decides who are prophets?
2. Who in the formal church gets to ‘judge’ what was said?
3. It says ‘all’ can prophesy one by one. Is that allowed in your formal church or is one guy preaching to many?
4. In this passage we can see that Paul thinks it is orderly to have many speak if they are quiet when others speak. Is your formal church doing this?

“They are not to teach a man doctrine or to exercise authority over a man IN A CHURCH. ”

So, in a formal church setting (whatever that is), can you tell me at what age boys becomes a men and women cannot teach them? I cannot find that reference in the NT. Would it be 12, 13 or perhaps 18?

I think your side needs a Talmud so we can all know what is church and what isn’t. :o)

“And I’m rejoicing that you have spewed out those bitter waters from Sydney and have found freedom and joy and rest in the arms of you Savior, the Lover of your soul, the Chief Cornerstone that the builders have rejected.”

Many truths are negative. That does not mean they are ‘bitter or sinful’ to speak. They are simply negative truths. Jesus spoke of negative truths when He taught that we are all sinners and we must repent to be saved. And, if saved, that repentance is ongoing as we mature in Him.

Dave, it means quite a bit you apologize. I cannot imagine what guys like Kevin Giles deal with. I have read both his books.

“The point is clear, both the passages above are in the context of a more formal church gathering, and that is where Paul restricts the women from teaching.”

Mark, Are you referring to the passage in 1 Corin 14 about women keeping silent in the church? If so, can you point us to the law Paul refers to?

“Jesus commanded us to forgive- are people doing this?”

There is a great book called ‘Unpacking Forgiveness” that I recommend to folks. The teaching on forgiveness is one of the most misunderstood of all doctrines. Forgiveness does not always mean reconcilliation or even fellowship. There are many unrepentant sinners out there professing Christ.

And repentance is a requirement for our salvation. Jesus’ first sermon was ‘Repent and believe’.

An unrepentent abuser who says ‘sorry’ after each episode is not repentant and is still dangerous. Saying sorry is not repentance. Repentance is turning from that sin.

One can forgive the abuser….at a distance. It does not mean you have to fellowship or reconcile. As Jonathan Edwards taught, it takes time to know if real repentance occured. Would you put an embezzler in charge of the tithes because he said sorry for the last episode? Would you put a pedophile in the nursery because he
“said” he was repentant? Is that what you mean by forgiveness?

“I agree that we must condemn false teaching or those who promote abuse, but all i want to warn is don’t do it under a banner of sin in your own lives. For example linkning John Piper as a man who does such things is a serious charge. Beware lest you be judged yourself!”

Here are Pipers own words. To a woman who has endured abuse whether ongoing verbal, emotional or physical from a PROFESSING Christian husband, his words are like a knife in the back. And you want us to worry about the victim’s sin? We hear about that all the time ad nauseum. What we are less likely to hear is a full blown admonition of abuse by those who are given earthly authority by comp teaching.

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/08/21/john-piper-on-submission-in-abuse/

But I would like to hear what you think is sin by the abusee? Or those who want to protect those abused. Is it daring to talk about it? Is it pointing out teaching that keeps women in abusive situations? Exactly what sins are you warning us against?

I agree with Lydia. I would like to see if Piper would live with this day in and out with a perceived authority over him. Taking personal abuse daily whether emotional or physical. See, I don’t think he would. He would recognize it was a deep rooted sin problem and rebuke that person, maybe even try to change jobs or go over this person’s head. Espcially if this person was a professing Christian. Piper would know that submitting to this is only enabling sin and affirming sin. If he worked in the secular world, there are laws protecting employees from this sort of abuse.

Now Mark, I beg you not to do what most comps do and tell us that is not what Piper was really saying. Comps do this all the time with their favorite teachers. They keep telling me that Ware does not mean what Ware teaches, either. :o)

SBTS also had a woman professor of Theology, Molly Marshall, who saw the handwriting on the wall after Mohler came and resigned.

“Lin, that is also very interesting that you point out the fact that in the past, the SBTS used to be soft comp. A little bit of false teaching can absolutely spoil a huge and growing batch!”

Personally, I find the Patriarchs more consistent in their teaching even if they are dead wrong and even sinful in their beliefs

Soft and hard comps end up being illogical and their position on Sarah Palin was one very confusing example of the hoops they had to jump through. Itnever did make total sense. But, I can certainly fellowship and worship with them. Many of my friends are soft comps who have never really studied the issue in depth scripturally. Just gone along with the party line.

SBTS at one time had a woman dean and several women professors teaching men. No more. Since Al could not get rid of the woman dean right away, he worked to get rid of the Carver School within SBTS which got rid of the dean. But not before she was accused of being a feminist/liberal, etc.

It is now housed at another University. It was started by the Women’s Missionary Union in 1907 for SBTS. So much for the work of those women who went before us to train missionaries.

Mohler started the Billy Graham school of Evangelism to replace it.
There has been a lot of ugliness toward women for the last 20 years in the SBC. It started as soft comp and is now going into full blown Patriarchy.

For the steady rise to patriarchy at SBTS, read this white paper:

http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/NeanderthalsChasingBigfoot.pdf

How Al Mohler became a comp:

http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-al-mohler-became-complementarian.html

“So, going back to Lin and Gengwall, part of the problem for comps is they give Paul precedence over Jesus. As a preacher I heard a couple of weeks ago put it, “we have to let the epistles inform the narrative.” Huh? Oh, yeah, that means that if there’s confusion, the epistles decide what the narrative means. Does that make the Epistles the Head of the Narrative? Hm.”

Right. I heard a preacher say recently that the NT interprets the OT. Ok. But then he gave what he thought was the most important example of this: that 1 Tim 2 interprets Genesis for us and the importance of creation order for male/female relationships in church and marriage.

So this view of allowing other scripture to interpret other scripture does not help too much when the premise is wrong to begin with!

“That is why I can’t even endorse the softest comp marriages in principle no matter how soft and nice they are. Does that mean I disfellowship with my soft and not so soft comp friends? Not at all. It just means I cannot endorse even the ’softest’ compism on principle. ”

This is my position, too. It is based on the scripture. I also keep in mind that places like Southern Baptist Theological Seminary started out as soft comp and are now teaching Patriarchy. This is why you see so many soft comp pastors doing hermeneutical gymnastics in their sermons and being downright illogical.

“However, the danger lies in having those who are in marriages which are practically egal and theoretically comp supporting comp theology nonetheless. They think they have a wonderful comp marriage when they actually may have a wonderfully egal marriage, but the credit goes incorrectly to compism. ”

This was a particular problem with me. I saw so many egal type marriages that put on a comp mask at church. I also saw many comp authors, conference speakers who had wives who were like Patton charging up Italy back stage (very competent and in control of the comp business) and then went on stage and played the submissive comp wife. It got old. the whole comp industry started seeming fake to me. I think I have seen too much. :o(

BTW: Dave is right. What was legal in the 1st Century is now illegal. Since they are good laws we should obey the civil authorities. (Too bad many pastors will not adivse women to report the abuse. What does that say about them and obeying the civil authorities? )

“This is a gross overstatement. Not all who believe in the male headship define is a ‘dominant’ husband. How many times do people need to be told that comp theology is not about domination whether in relation to marriage, church or the Trinity.”

Then what is it? Is there no authority involved at all?

If “headship” (not in scripture) is not authority then what is it to you? Authority can be dominant or benevolent. But either one is dominant. Leadership is authority whether positional or influential. You just cannot escape this no matter how many nice adjectives Piper uses to soften the blow.

There is no such animal as ‘servant leader’. It is an oxymoron and everyone knows it. It was coined by Ken Blanchard years ago for mega church pastors to soften the authoritarian chain of command structure during the rise of the mega in the US. So many were used to congregational polity and ‘servant leader’ helped make the transition to a special class of leadership running the church.

What you are trying to pass it off is as a “benevolent dictator”. You just do not use those words because it does not go over so good.

The bottomline is you believe men over women. The man has to be in charge of the adult woman. (she remains a perpetual child spiritually because she can never outgrow her ‘authority’)

But Jesus Christ preached and modeled SERVANT. Not as glamorous, I admit, but the truth.

“And I appreciate you all.
I’ve been accused of not believing the whole counsel of scripture for suggesting that the Words of Jesus just might carry a bit more weight than Paul’s.”

All of Paul’s words agree with Jesus and His actions on earth. It is the translators who twisted them. So, we look to Jesus to translate Paul.

“Lin – Although I see your point on submission hindering male salvation, that is what 1 Peter 3 seems to be suggesting. Of course, patriarchalists take it too far. Or more correctly, they fail to recoginze the sinful state of the husband (Abraham) and focus on the total submission of the wife (Sarah). So their application of 1 Peter 3 is indeed polluted. But that doesn’t mean 1 Peter 3 has not applicability.”

gengwell, 1 Peter 3 is about living with unbelievers in the world and even in marriage, slave/master relationships, etc. The admonition really starts in chapter 2 starting about verse 13. Interesting how the translators chose to make chapter breaks, huh?

So, If we are discussing abuse from husbands who profess to follow Christ, that makes it a whole other problem. A sin problem with one who professes Christ.

And I always keep in mind for those women who were married to unbelievers in the 1st century, they could not exactly go down the Ephesus women’s shelter. Are you suggesting that women married to those who do NOT profess Christ but are abusive should stay in abuse?

By the way, how do comps deal with the ‘head’ issue when the husband is abusive? Is he her “head” (authority) when he is beating her up?

“This CANNOT be assumed from scripture! This is also a timely reminder that we await your own evidence that “kephale” is linked to “authority”. ”

More interesting research from Suzanne on Kephale:

http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2009/11/orphism-and.html?showComment=1257336817284

“No seminary, no tests, no interviews – the person was already using their gift. Timothy is instructed to “not lay hands on anyone hastily.” In other words, be sure the person has the gift first.
”

Kay, What better way to prove that God’s ways are not our ways than to have the uneducated (not the cream of the rabbinical crop) take the Good News to the Jews and the most educated rabbinical cream of the crop (tutored by Gamaliel) take the Good News to the Gentiles? :o)

The other side to this is that men are not being saved. One cannot continually be abusive and be saved. There, I said it. GASP.

So, these pastors like Piper, Grudem, Ware, Patterson and others who teach women to stay and take it (even for a season) are putting these bullies eternal life in jeporady. I fear they love preeminance so much they will never see this.

By suggesting that women endure such things so that her submission will bring him to repentance, makes her responsble for his salvation. She becomes responsible and therefore it becomes her fault: She did not pray enough or submit enough.

But this does not work with bullies. They do not verbally or physically abuse their boss everyday. They would not keep a job. So, they abuse the weakest one they can get by with. It only enables more abuse to stay and take it. And the teaching on authority tells the abuser he gets to decide what is abuse and what isn’t. He has it made. Why change? He believes he can stay in sin and be saved by the teaching of these comp pastors. Using all the adjectives in the world like Piper uses won’t change this. The bully defines ‘love’ differently than Piper defines it.

Why don’t these same comps teach the government to submit to Osama bin Laden? If we pray hard enough and submit to him, I am sure it will change him, right? Wrong. Osama himself said that they attacked the towers because they were sure America was too weak to fight back.

You have to understand the mind of a bully.

Just a few thoughts:

1. The debate on what ‘prophesy’ means is a conumdrum for the comps which is why they try to give it different definitions even in the NC. They ignore that even the Puritans taught that it was preaching in the NC. Keep in mind that the early Christians had no NT scripture. Some had letters. They were using the OT.

2. The Holy Priesthood is another conumdrum for comps who spend a lot of time trying to play it down and teach there is a chain of command structure within the Priesthood of the NC.

Nine years ago, Al Mohler tried to get The words ‘Priesthood of believer’ taken out of the Baptist Faith and Message. The best he could do was to get them to add an ‘s’ to it. Why the ‘s’? It is pretty sad. Here is an article about this debacle:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/7_17/pages/bfm_meaning.html

This and much more is why I have a hard time trusting comp teachers. Especially the celebrity ones who make a very good living off of it. I have been around too much of this hermeneutic wrangling to take their teaching seriously.

If the Holy Priesthood in the New Covenant is ‘metaphorical’ then we are in big trouble. I agree with Cheryl that other side, the sin part, is certainly not metaphorical. Neither is the Holy Priesthood.

But the comps want to play it down because it hurts their authority/follower structure not just in marriage but in the “Church”.

I cannot be a priest in the Holy Priesthood and still have a human layer between me and Jesus Christ. That is why ‘head’ is ridiculous as being interpreted ‘authority over’. All humans are depraved sinners only saved by the exact same grace. There is no special class of ‘head’ designed to be the spiritual authority of another human. That is the beauty of the Priesthood. There are only new believers and more mature believers. A man conferred title does not make one a more mature believer. Only the gifting of the Holy Spirit confers giftings. Anyone can go to seminary and get a title.

Anyway, that dog won’t hunt so the Royal Priesthood is played down, twisted and deemed metaphorical. The problem is that the temple veil was torn in two on the cross to prove this distinction. They do not like it but I, a woman, am a priest in the Priesthood of believer. There is NO human layer between me and Jesus Christ.

This is not a position of authority over other humans but a living sacrifice to our precious Lord. It just makes me a lowly servant saved by grace serving the Lord.

“Yes, it is a real problem. It not only creates sin before the fall, but it creates a sin that neither Adam, Eve, God or any of the Biblical writers exposes. That is quite a conundrum.”

Not to mention what they are really saying about God since He did not tell us this in His Word. that is the scary part. Adding to HIS Words to get preeminance for themselves.

“In working with the cults I found out that most didn’t care for truth. They seemed to prefer to check their brains at the door and parrot the party line without really thinking. It was actually dangerous for them to reason through the hard questions because it would cause them to make a decision about what they had accepted as their faith. Those who did think for themselves eventually got out of the cult they were in.”

Same with other non salvic doctrines like comp, tithing, etc. If you have made a career preaching/teaching such things then it is that much harder to even contemplate there is another interpretation that is biblical. When your income and identity is dependent on something being true, you are not about to be cornered with hard questions.

That is why I am more leery of paid “professional” Christians and what they teach. I think we all have a duty to test everything and be a Berean.

Just think about it for a moment what would happen if John McArthur (one of the worst about twisting scripture when it comes to women) would admit he had been wrong about many of his interpretations. Imagine the fallout with not only his followers, but seminary students, professors, his publisher, conference speaking gigs, etc. His income would drop overnight. Maybe even be halved.

“Of course it all begs to ask the question who is covering all the young (or old single) women of the world. I have noticed both in Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler (both Resurgence blokes) the idea that the father covers the daughter until they marry. There is no age limit, it just continues. It is also important to note that this includes approving (or not approving) possible want to be husbands. Matt Chandler mentioned when he was out here that when the Father is not around he sees his role as the Pastor to approve possible husbands. Mars Hill has been accuesed of similar things.”

This is incredible. I have heard them both many times and it is sad that some of the younger reformed guys are downright patriarchal. It is such a sin trap for them.

Yes, it does mean ‘spiritual control’ which is an oxymoron for humans. It is spiritual abuse because it takes the place of the Holy Spirit.

” but I have never been one to get too caught up trying to determine what historical figures have said. I was told at Bible College that we stand on the shoulders of giants, but I was always concerned that I was standing on the shoulders of idiots! Therefore I learnt what I could from historical figures but I was primarily concerned about what I believed.”

Dave, I totally agree!

One reason why I quote Chrysostom now and then is because he is one source that said a husband should not ‘authenteo’ his wife. Which just goes to show why comps cannot use 1 Tim 2 as a proof text for women teaching men because it ‘usurps their authority’. That is not what authenteo means. And Chrysostom was definitely not into equality for women! But he said a husband should not authenteo his wife!

“Is this aimed at my view or Chrysostom’s?”

Mark, Oh no, not at all. It is just that 1 Corin 11 is used as a foundational proof text by many comps for so many things! Some teach that it proves that woman are made in the ‘indirect image of God’ (Ware). Others teach it proves that woman must have an authority (even though symbol of was added to the text and it really says taht women have authority over themselves). Others use it to try and teach ESS. (Ware)

All this from a passage on headcoverings! And how many churches make women cover these days? Yet, they want us to believe what is taught there is not cultural! (shaking head)

” IF you think what i have said lessens Jesus, please show me where. I uphold Christ as sovereign Lord of my life.”

If Jesus Christ, as Lord of Hosts, in the OT and into eternity is in a lesser chain of command position within the Trinity (outside the Incarnation) then that calls into question what happened on the cross. Did he willlingly make Himself a sacrifice or was He obeying a command? Did He willingly give up His Glory in heaven to come to earth as a baby? If He did, how could HE CHOOSE to do that if He is being commanded by God? Does this mean that the Trinity is composed of 3 persons with 3 different wills?

ESS has the same problem that comp theology has. They speak of equality in ‘essence’ but then the ‘roles’ are not equal but a chain of command authority structure (outside the Incarnation for the Trinity) which means the ‘essence’ is not really equal at all. Using the word ‘essence’ in equality is a strawman to hide the false teaching.

BTW: Who does the Holy Spirit report to? For eternity past and future? I am assuming the chain of command within the Trinity means the Holy Spirit is subordinate, too?

ESS makes it sound like there are 3 different wills because there has to be eternal submission within the Trinity.

But I believe they are totally unified and during the Incarnation, our Lord WAS willingly subordinate. But not in eternity past or eternity future. I believe Jesus Christ is God. Not some lesser god as ESS teaches even though they say they don’t. They DO. Ware even goes as far as to say that Jesus Christ does not answer prayer and we should not pray to Him.

I think ESS is the biggest (old) repackaged heresy of our time and it will eventually divide the Body in a big way.

If Jesus Christ is your Sovereign Lord then He cannot be eternally subordinate to a higher more Sovereign God without being a lesser ‘God’.

Jesus Christ is God.
God is God
Holy Spirit is God.

It never ceases to amaze me what folks can get out of a passage on headcoverings. Even to the point of lessening Jesus Christ, Lord of Hosts for eternity!

“I think it would be wise to see those who comment here as sincere Christians who have come to their point of view honestly and with integrity in reading the Scriptures. I understand where they differ in their interpretations from what you believe, but I think it wise not to call their position a half-truth as if they are lying about the facts. ”

This is real important. I sometimes get the feeling comps think we are bra burners who hate men and attend Unitarian churches. I think that is what they have been conditioned to think in a sense. I say this because I was in the comp world for many years and know how the ‘other side’ is presented. I thought the same thing. But the Holy Spirit kept nagging at my heart and the biblical contradictions of the comp position just would not go away. I was also in a position to see how profitable comp theology is in books, seminars, DVD’s, conferences, marriage retreats, etc. It is big business. And there is always the latest thing to attend or read.

(Overall, the Christian market for products is about 4-6 billion a year)

I finally realized that the comp position kept me focused on myself and my husband to the detriment of my relationsip with Jesus Christ and my private study of the Word. It was a constant of roles, rules and formulas for life. And so many basic questions went unanswered or were responded to in a Talmudic way. You read enough comp books and attend enough seminars you start realizing most of them are not on the same page with the roles or even the interpretations of the proof texts. (One example: At what age are boys, men and women cannot teach them? Another example is that McArthur teaches that Adam was NOT there when Eve was deceived but Piper teaches Adam WAS there.)

I also realized this was not the faith of my childhood. The faith of my childhood focused on faith in Jesus Christ. No one ever talked about roles and rules. And the SBC churches I grew up in were smaller and everyone did what had to be done. It wasn’t so pink and blue as it is now.

” agree. But why the paradigm? Simply, because of the meaning of the English word “head”.”

The paradigm exists because it has been taught. Our ancestors felt the same way about slavery. It was the norm and anyone who thought different was bombarded with proof texts for why it was God’s plan. It was a few Christians in the North who started the Abolitionist movement. Have you ever read Dabney?

I wonder if I was told all my life I had preeminance for simply being a woman if I would want to give it up? We can all fall into these traps….but our Lord teaches us service to others, being a bondservant to Him and giving up our rights and positions to not be like the “Genitles”.

“You are obviously trying to use ridiculous senarious to disprove my point of view. Men and women are simply different. Why is it that men are generally more muscular? Why is it that physiology is different in the sexes. This is medical proof. We are not the same. Some things both physical and practical are more masculine, and vice versa for women”

First of all, I tower over many well known male comp teachers at 5’10. Secondly, what does this physiology have to do with intellect? And if it doesn’t, you do realize that our economy is now driven by intellectual captial.

If you look at the worldly ways, a big muscular guy is more likely to be the brawn not the brains in most enterprises.

So what are the NON BIOLOGICAL differences between Adam and Eve before the fall? Can you list them?

And now on earth do you deal with Jael? :o) (She was using brains not brawn on that deal but the result was the same)