Lydia

Deborah, He chose not to include the “discerment macho men” who use the internet and are shrill/arrogant/ignorant. He focused on women only. Evidently, it is more acceptable if you are a man.

TL above has it right.

What a blessing this was! How often we leave out the truth of this entire book. Yes! It is about being filled with the spirit and when one is, they do not want power or position over another.

“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.”

I am late to this party and have not read all comments but NN has a problem in the NC. Namely 1 Corin 7. With his scenerio, every believer would have to be married to express this “truth”. He is simply taking a metaphor way too far and adding extrabiblical proportions to it for the husband whom he makes out to be a sort of godlike figure to the wife. Blasphemy!

“I remember now that when I first learned of the complementarian view I had also learned of a hierarchal view of the Trinity from the same complementarian”

This fits in with their view of “Jesus” reporting to God in the OT. Their hierarchal ordering of the Trinity fits with this view. Which is how they can map Eph 5 as:

God to man.
Woman to church.

So, they map His essence as God/authority to the husband …instead of mapping His humanity, which gave up His life for us, to the husband.

They map the essence of God but not the loving action of Christ the human, to husbands.

That is what I meant by taking a metaphor way to far. It is a metaphor of LOVE. Not heirarchy.

His two natures are outlined here in Phil 2:

6 In his very nature he was God.
But he did not think that being equal with God was something he should hold on to.
7 Instead, he made himself nothing.
He took on the very nature of a servant.
He was made in human form.
8 He appeared as a man.
He came down to the lowest level.
He obeyed God completely, even though it led to his death.
In fact, he died on a cross.
9 So God lifted him up to the highest place.
He gave him the name that is above every name.
10 When the name of Jesus is spoken, everyone’s knee will bow to worship him.
Every knee in heaven and on earth and under the earth will bow to worship him.
11 Everyone’s mouth will say that Jesus Christ is Lord.
And God the Father will receive the glory.

‘I appreciate your argument – it is the same fundamental argument leveled at Christianity as a whole since the beginning. “Salvation can’t be by grace alone – or people will simply say the words, get a free ticket into heaven and then act however they want to. It will simply be a free license to enable their own selfishness without negative consequences.” But of course the NT deals with this idea of true conversion (e.g. Rom 6:1), and by being an example to the world by turning the other cheek rather than fighting back repeatedly.’

NN, You are equating your definition of biblical submission with salvation. Bad form. And another red herring.
?

‘(and I will make no apology for referring to the Bible as either Sacred or Scripture – if you disagree with that there are much more fundamental issues to be addressed).”

I believe it is sacred and therefore not to be perverted by adding to scripture what is not there. by calling it ‘sacred’ you mean to add a red herring that anyone who disagrees with you does not agee that it is sacred. When the truth is we do not believe your interpretation of the sacred text is correct. Your use of the word “sacred” is a tactic. I was simply pointing that out.

NN–there is no such things as “headship”. That would be the equivalent of saying “armship” in relation to the body or relationships of any kind. Is the wife the neckship? Or footship? :o)

One has to understand how “Head” or Kephale was understood in the 1st Century. They thought of the ‘head’ as the source for the body as in eating, breathing, etc.

They thought the “heart” was where decision making or thinking came from.

Check out some of the passages where Paul refers to the heart (or see the Greek for when he uses ‘thinking’. etc) and see what I mean.

The only place where a clear word for authority is used concerning marriage is in 1 Corin and there, it is used for both the husband and wife.

And you keep forgetting Eph 5:21 which cannot be divorced from that passage in context. Thanks

oops, hit send too soon. I was going to point out taking another metaphor too far as in the sheep/shepherd (pastor) metaphor. it is perfectly ok and good for a sheep to grow in Holiness…sometimes even past the “pastor”. They do not have to remain ignorant sheep. :o)

‘Out of two imperfect fallen human beings, one reflects the perfect ultimate being (God) and the other fallen humanity (the Church).

Can you explain to me, the logic of possibility on this one, NN”

Pinklight,

That is exactly what NN is saying the “sacred text” is teaching. You see, some take metaphors waaaaay too far.

Actually, If I take NN’s teaching to it’s logical conclusion, it means that I, a woman, cannot be “Christlike” because Jesus is male and only males can represent the Christ part. That is where his interpretation of that metaphor takes us.

And I disagree with this:
‘We human beings are made for marriage, made for ultimate intimacy. We all want it; we all need it. We are made for a relationship in which we are completely known, through our deepest faults and loved despite them. A love so deep and so cleansing that it removes them from us at the cost to our Beloved. This is the Christian idea of marriage.’

For one reason, the ‘sacred text’ 1 Corin 7 negates the emphatic voice of NN on marriage. Do most people want to marry? yes. Are there some who want to remain single to better serve the Lord? yes. Paul, who wrote the marriage metaphor in Eph is one of those.

The New Covenant is about making disciples. the OC about being fruitful and multiplying.

NN is mapping the husband to Christ and the woman to the church in a rigid physical authoritarian sense. it is a spiritual metaphor of the type of LOVE found there. Jesus Christ is the source for the Body.

Oh, and nevermind that pesky verse 21which kind of ruins the whole comp argument for believing men never submitting to women believers. :o)

Some think that “sheep” means refers to ignorant smelly pew sitters and the brilliant shepherd (human) must

“You seem to be connecting Adam being created first to Adam himself not being deceived.”

Adam actually saw some of the creating (Garden planted, animals, etc) and did name the animals. He did have more first hand knowledge through experience with God. What would the reason be that Adam was NOT deceived? Scripture says he sinned willfully and knowingly.

The Ephesian woman could have a similar problem in her culture of not being able to read, her only social interaction outside her family, the Temple of Artemis, etc. This is why she needed to “learn” in submission.

“Hi Lydia. Thanks for your comment regarding Chrysostom and authentein. This is very useful information that I have heard on blogs several times. A reference to verify this would be helpful. Did you read it in a book, or do you know where this information comes from? Thanks.”

It is used that way in his Homily 10 on Colossians.

“I thought that because the 1st-century mind always thought of “authentein” as negative, then that would quite likely influence the way they would have understood “teach” when associated with it. So if teach/authentein was prohibited, they would naturally think of a certain kind of teaching- not a good sort. ”

A few hundred years later, Chrysostom wrote that a “husband should not authenteo his wife”.

I have never understood the comp argument that teaching cannot be a false teaching that murders the soul. It fits the context of the epistle.

A very important distinction is to remember than in 1st Century Greek, the head was not considered the place where thinking or decision making occured. It was thought that all decision making or thinking came from the heart. (You can actually see this in other Paul verses where he refers to the heart in that way. Some translations now use “mind”)

The “head” in the 1st century denoted the life source for the body as in breathing, eating, smelling, etc.

This is confirmed by the writings of Aristotle and Hyppocrites. It was not until about a hundred years after Paul’s writings that some came to believe thinking came from the “head”. I believe this came first from a physician named Galen who proved that animals took their body movement cues from the head. But I would have to check the references on the name.

The biggest mistake we have made is giving Western defintions to 1st Century words. We have done the same with Authenteo. We have even done it with the word “leader”.

“I just want to warn everyone who is believing that a woman is not to be subject to her husband. My testimony is too long, but I can assure you obeying God’s word will always lead to blessing in your life. If we as Christians do not see the distinct role models for men and women, I am afraid we are soon going to see the “Christian”church accepting homosexuality.
He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it. ”

Heidi, You will find homosexuality rampant, historically, in Patriarchal cultures. You can go back to Genesis and read secular history to know that. It is still rampent in Patriarchal cultures today. That was a big shock to people who went into Afghanistan after the Taliban fell to find so it so accepted.

You have believed a lie about “roles” and homosexuality. Beyond obvious biological differences, what differences do you see in Gen 1 and 2 spelled out for the sexes? Do you see God giving them BOTH dominion in Gen?

This is a fearmongering tactic put out by both the comps and patriarchal camps. They use “fear” instead of education of the Word. Being an accomplished educated woman is not a sin. Being homosexual is. To equate the two is complet and total denigration by virtue of birth. Male:good. Female: Bad if not in the roles we decide.

Can you point me to specific roles in the New Covenant for all women for all time that are NOT biological in nature?

Why would Paul say being single is best if what you say is true?

“even Christ stated that He subjected to His Father, whom is God so where is the lie, and what bible are you getting your information from. Now allow me to assure you that my intend is not to offend, but the WORD OF GOD is as a two-edge sword and it will cut ydeep, so ”

Yes, in the Incarnation. But study Phil 2. He “emptied Himself”, gave up His glory to become human.

If there is a pecking order in the Trinity then who does the Holy Spirit report to?

I highly recommend Cheryl’s DVD on the Trinity. It is so deeply researched from scripture, it will astound you. You will never see our Glorious Savior the same way again.

God is God
Jesus is God (or you make a mockery of the Cross)
The Holy Spirit is God

Amen, Kristen!

“Jennifer, since you said that the bible does not say that man is the head of his wife(woman/household), then please explain what does 1 Corinthians 11:3 means when it tells us that the head of man is Christ, the head of woman is man and the head of Christ is God.”

The key is understanding what was meant by Kephale in the 1st Century. It did not mean authority. Believe it or not you can find references to “Kephale” meaning that the “head” was the “source for life for the “Body”” God was the “source” for Christ and the man was the original source for woman. But read on as Paul goes on to say that then man was born of women. He is making a point of interdependance.

The same “source” for life is communicatd in 1 Tim. Christ is the source for life of the Body of Christ. Husbands were the source of life for the wife in the 1st Century since women were generally considered chattel.

They also believed that the “heart” was the center of thinking and decision making. You can see this in many of Paul’s writings when he refers to the heart.

You see this belief in the head being the source as in food, smell, breathing, etc in writings from ARistotle and Hippocrates. The “head/kephale” nourished the “body”.

About a hundred years after Paul, Galen, a physician proved that the “head” was the center of thinking and movement for the Body. Before that, it was thought it was the heart. He did this by opening up the heads of animals and proving the brain is what caused the body to move certain parts.

Head/Body is a unity metaphor in scripture. And it has been completely changed in it’s original meaning for 2000 years. Had the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate “authority over” then He would have inspired clear Greek words such as exousia or arche.

“Debra in the book of Judges was not allowed to stand and Judge from the same place as the men did and that should let us know that when it comes to God’s sheep woman and men roles are so different and depite how the enemy uses others to twist and manipulate the word of God I will continue to believe what is written in the bible opose the an opinion of a mere man or woman. ”

It is amazing to what people will believe in order to defend the “roles” teaching. I sometimes think it is impossible to change the belief in strict roles for male and female. yet, I have never seen a comprehensive list from scripture.

But I know someone who has started compling a list of specific roles for women that are in the bible:

http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2011/01/biblical.html

“And why does he bury this universal, timeless command for all churches for all time, in a personal letter to his deputy whom he has left behind to correct problems in one particular church having to do with false teaching (1 Tim 1:3)? Why does he commend many women in Rome who clearly have some influence (Rom 16), without mentioning to them that they would be going too far with this authority if they used it to teach or lead in a mixed-gender church gathering?”

Exactly. It seems only the Ephesian women and the Corinthian women were affected. And in Corinth, they had to be completely silent. Not even hello in gatherings… And the widows were out of luck in Corinth if they had no husband to ask at home. :o)

Another point you make would mean the comps must call Paul a liar. According to comps, women do not get a FULL inheritance of all things spiritual in salvation. Paul was not being honest in Galatians? Seems he would have listed the prohibitions on women here if there were any since he was proclaiming full inheritance for all…even if slaves, women or Gentiles.

“The questions I still have over egalitarianism are “smaller”.
For instance, with 1 Tim 2, I agree with you that the prohibition of v 12 is related to “the creation order and Eve’s deception”. Often comps however don’t seem to acknowledge how much they are assuming.”

This is the most mistranslated passage! If Eve’s deception is the factor (along with creation order) in not teaching men then why are men allowed to teach anyone since Adam sinned WILLFULLY and on purpose? Makes no sense.

Also, there is NO prohibition in the OT about women teaching men. Why a new legalistic prohibition in the NC?

And why isn’t the Cross and the indwelling Holy Spirit enough
for women when it comes to this so called “inherent deception” problem?

Perhaps we need to understand Ephesus at the time. Also understanding authenteo gives us a real clue as to what Paul was saying. It does not mean “assume authority” or “usurp authority”.

In fact, we know that John Chrysostom wrote later that men are NOT to “autheneto” their wives.

So, we know it is a real bad thing that both men or women could do. Calvin translated it as domineer. As did others. Which is closer to it’s real meaning. They had no problem translating the truer meaning because at that time they did not have to contend with equal women. It never occured to them that women were NOT inferior.

(Creation order as “importance” in God’s kingdom is silly. It would mean cows are more favored than women. Paul might be refering to creation order because the fertility pagan temple worshipers taught that Eve was created first. Since Ephesus had a huge temple of Artemis and this is what they believed, it makes sense in light of “saved through childbearing” as many women died in child birth so Paul was metaphorically saying “saved by the childbearing” as in Christ. It most certainly CANNOT mean that women have a “work” of salvation which is what most comps teach. It is insidious)

“Why, then, did “the whole church get it wrong for two thousand years about something so ethically important?”

Kristen does a great job answering this but I think this question is very important because so many turn to church history instead of the scripture to define a pet doctrine.

Church history is a bloody mess and we should be ashamed to appeal to it. How long did Christians believe in a state church? Divine right of kings? Or how about the Dark Ages when it was a crime to read the Bible unless you were a priest? Church history is full of wrong doctrine such as transubstantiation, sacraments as Grace, God-War shield, etc.

For goodness sake, just the facts about how the Church of England came about should give us all pause in referring to “church history”!

While Luther was courageous to stand up to Rome, we all now cringe at what he wrote about Jews. Some of us cringe on what he says about women, too.

To appeal to church history is to appeal to a lot of ignorance, blood, sin and disgrace. It only makes me see the Glory of God that He preserved a remnant for Himself throughout the ages. And someday, we will know who they were.

On another note, comp doctrine is illogical in many ways with the entire scope of the Word both Old and New Covenants. Women are never once prohibited from teaching men in the OC but are now prohibited in the New? Does this make sense?

The Joel Prophecy is ignored and/or taught that is only exists for one day? Salvic Roles for women are taught which make Joanna in Luke 8 a huge sinner. Women are taught a religion of “works” for only them because of a horrible translation of 1 Tim.

I could go on and on with the cognitive dissonance of how scripture is interpreted by comps. Someday, I am going to make a huge list.

All the different interpretations of 1 Tim 2 only prove it is not a clear cut foundational doctrine to be used to shut up over half of all believers.

” But on the other hand he seems to overlook the many examples of polygamy in the O.T. and if it was indeed a common practice in N.T times there is very little explicit condemnation of it and no details I can recall of how to deal with the problem in the way you suggest.
”

Craig, God allowed a lot of things because of sin. What was happening to widows in the OC? Or women who had been raped? Even married woman were nothing if they could not supply a male son. That is sin. It was the sin of patriarchy.

Because of the sin of Patriarchy women had to have protection of a male for basic food and shelter. Polygamy plays into all of this.

God does not “overlook” polygamy. He allowed it because of sin.
Have you ever wondered why God implemented the Law in the first place?

I think we make the mistake of reading the OT and thinking God approved of things He did not. He was working through sinful people for His purposes. Do you think God approved of Abraham having sex with his wife’s servant in order to have a son? Yet Abraham was praised for believing God. How can this be?

Do you think God approved of Solomon’s 600 wives? Or David’s sex with Bathsheba? Or his planned murder of her husband to get him out of the way? David lost their son over it.

Where do you find slavery condemned in the NT? Yet, we cannot imagine owning another human today even though, just 150 years ago, many professing Christians owned other humans and claimed it was Biblical? What changed?

Before the fall, God commanded One Flesh Union. He did not change His mind on that.

“I agree we shouldn’t get side tracked on kephale…i brought it up to simply show how your argument about truth is flawed, since egalitarians cannot show one example to support their argument”

Not true. TL gave you this link:

with regards to kephale meaning authority here are some excellent resources.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/kephale-in-literature.html

“I agree we shouldn’t get side tracked on kephale…i brought it up to simply show how your argument about truth is flawed, since egalitarians cannot show one example to support their argument”

Not true. TL gave you this link:

with regards to kephale meaning authority here are some excellent resources.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/kephale-in-literature.html

“to defend biblical truth”

Mark, to defend biblical truth would be to fight for last place as a servant. Not to continue to focus on some non existent authority or preeminance based on sex organs. And if the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate authority over, He would not have inspired Kephale since there are very clear Greek words for authority.

You are defending personal preeminance. Not a biblical stance.

‘”Perhaps you can show me where i have mentioned my understanding of authenteo in verse 12? Assumptions don’t help our discussion.”

I am afraid it is obvious. Authenteo drives the whole meaning of the passage because it is what that ONE woman was DOING.

“or does what that word mean actually help us understand the difficulties of verse 15. Verse 15 has to be understood on it’s own in relation to the context.”

Sure it helps. It is only used once in the whole NT scripture. It is a word that is used in the writings of Chrysotem where he states a husband should not authenteo his wife. It is a very bad thing that NO believer should do to another. Early on it was translated as dominate.

If the Holy Spirit had wanted to communicate authority over there are plenty of Greek words He would have inspired. But He did not. He used this obscure word.

The entire letter of Timothy is the ‘context’. Not each verse.

“n exegesis cannot be governed around one’s own opinion on what authenteo means driven into every other verse.
”

In this passage, it is quite relevant. And I agree with Dave. This is becoming a waste of time. If you are not willing to even look at authenteo outside of what folks like Kostenberger and Grudem say, then we are wasting our time. I have noted that few masculinists fight for last place in the Body.

“This is not a good argument. There is not one unquestioned prohibition on homosexuality either.”

HUH? Homosexuality is clearly called sin in both the OC and NC scripture. Yes, there is a prohibition on homosexuality

“I really like your last sentence and i completely agree, thus why Cheryl’s interpretation cannot be correct. This is where is inevitably leads…she will be saved (eternal salvation) if they remain in faith etc etc.”

Mark, It is impossible for you to understand this passage because you do not recognize the real meaning of authenteo which explains everything. But since it has been translated as “authority over” it takes you down the wrong road. The road that takes many to works salvation as women need to bear children (or be in a role of mother) to be saved.

“Cornelius’ salvation is conditional on Peter’s obedience.”

Mark, How can you be reformed and believe this? Do you think there was no one else God would use if Peter was not obedient? Cornelius was earnestly seeking God and we know what that means.

“Wife’s salvation is conditional on her faith and actions plus her husband’s faith and actions.”

How is a wife’s salvation conditional on her husband’s faith and actions? This view makes a mockery of the Cross.