Mark

Now what about Cheryl’s assumption that Eve left the garden (so not banished) because of Gen 3:16. The verse said this
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

And Cheryl therefore believes that Eve left because of her desire for him. I will show that this is a wrong assumption and does not fit with what the verse means.

1. First of all, we need to remember that this verse is within the corpus of punishment and curse. Therefore to assume that anything in these verses is ‘positive’ neglects the context. I say this to comps as well, since some believe that this verse is a remedy to the fall (that the husband shall rule over wives). This is wrong. This is a judgment on Eve and Adam therefore nothing here should be considered positive. Eve’s desire is not positive, nor is the husbands rule.
2. The above translation does not correctly translate the ‘ ‘el’ or ‘for’ your husband. It is true that the preposition here could translate as ‘for’ or ‘to’ but I think the best translation which fits the context should be ‘against’. Therefore the text should read “your desire shall be against your husband.”
   The reason I believe this is simple. There are only 2 occurrences of this precise construction, that is ‘desire’ (teshuqah) with ‘’el’ as well as with the rest of the verse with the ‘rule’ of husband. The other construction is found very near by in chapter 4. Let me put the 2 side by side
   Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
   Gen 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

In Gen 4, God is saying to Cain that sin is crouching at the door, and then we come to the important construction “its ‘desire (teshuqah) is ‘for’ (‘el) you, and you must ‘rule’ over it. It is non negotiable here that the desire is a negative thing since it is sin. For Cain, sins desire is against him (as it is all of us), but Cain must rule over it.

Therefore the preposition in 3:16 would be better translated as against (which is of course one of its many meanings) since the intention is the same. Eve’s desire will be against her husband (namely trying to dominate him) but he will rule (lord over negatively) her. Since again the context is in the middle of punishment this is the intended meaning of the verse. With sin, Adam and Eve’s relationship is destroyed. She will try to usurp his authority and he will lord it over her. It is a complete corruption of the original design.

Again Cheryl’s view conflicts with mainstream egalitarianism. Richard Hass agrees on this particular meaning for verse 16- quote “Susan Foh suggests that woman’s desire here is not a sexual desire but a desire to dominate, just as sin has a ‘desire’ to ‘rule over’ Cain (Gen 4:7). Applying the basic hermeneutical principle of translating an expression in one context by the same expression in a nearby and related context…Foh seems to have gotten it right…” (pg 92 Discovering Biblical Equality). It is not good enough for Cheryl to use 3:16 as her proof text for why Eve left the garden. In fact it has nothing to do with the sort. Verse 16 is a punishment and prophecy of the woman. Rather than a perfect relationship, she will now desire against her husband- to dominate him.

Summary
Therefore we must conclude that Eve leaving the garden was not simply because her desire was for Adam, and Cheryl’s proof text must be disregarded as bad exegesis. There is no reason to deduce this as the reason why Eve was no longer in the garden. Therefore we now have to conclusions.
1. Eve was a guilty sinner
2. Eve desire was against her husband not for him (negative context remember)

3. Also there is a grammatical problem with Cheryl’s view. When Eve quotes what God said the ‘You’ is plural right through verses 1-5. For example the serpent said “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat…” Eve replies verse 3 “but God did say, You shall not eat…”
   The ‘you’ is plural consistent throughout. Therefore if Cheryl wishes to be consistent, God’s ‘new’ prohibition that is given (which is not recorded) is given to both Adam and Eve, not just Eve. Therefore Cheryl must maintain that it wasn’t only Eve who was given this command, but both. But considering the only recorded prohibition we have is in chapter 2, it is far better exegetically to stick to the text, and not to an assumption that God gave a new command which is not recorded.

4 The omission of Yahweh in verse 1-5. Chapter 1 of Gen uses the name ‘Elohim’ for God as he created the world. In chapter 2, though we read LORD God (yhwh elohim). Why is this? This name is used consistently through chapter 2 and 3, except in the verses between the serpent and Eve.
It is interesting to note what Yahweh means. It is the covenantal or relational name of God (Ex 6:3), where as Elohim is not. This is the name by which God reveals himself to Israel at Mount Sinai. Therefore by introducing Yahweh in the passage which is now more relational between God and people we can see the emphasis of the writer. God is not only creator, but he is personal, relational with humanity. So why then the omission in Chapter 3:1-5. No doubt because these are the very verses where God’s ‘relational’ aspect is being challenged. The serpent knows he is God, but he wants to lure the woman away from believing that God cares about her. He tricks Eve into thinking God is restricting her. The narrator here has given an insight into the significance of this conversation by omitting Yahweh. The serpent wants Eve to abandon the relational God, and so she does. She doesn’t obey Yahweh and eats the fruit.
But immediately Yahweh Elohim is re-introduced into the story when God comes to the garden (3:8) and continues on through the rest of the narrative.

5. There is nothing in Gen 3 to make us think that Eve’s sin nature was different to Adam’s as some on this blog would like to suggest. In fact, the opposite is true. We are told that ‘both’ their eyes were open (3:7). They ‘both’ sewed fig leaves together in an attempt to hide their shame and nakedness (3:7). They ‘both’ hid from God in the garden after the fall (3:8). All of these actions which of course are a result of sin now entering the world are administered both by the man and the woman. The woman’s sinful nature responds exactly the way the man’s does. She is ashamed, she hides, she attempts to cover herself. There is nothing in this passage to make us think that Eve’s sinful nature is different to the man. Both are equally the same. Both ate from the tree which was prohibited, therefore both rejected the supremacy of God and his law. Although Eve was lured into sinning, the result is the same, rejection of God’s command and subsequent punishment. It is also important to note that the promised punishment for eating (death) is applied to both Adam and Eve. She is equally culpable before the Holy God.

Summary
The account of the fall shows a few things.
1. The serpent deceived Eve. This is consistent with NT teaching as well (2 Cor 11:3)
2. Eve is still guilty. She abandoned God’s prohibition, fell from perfection and is therefore sinful or has a sin nature.
3. The text of 3:1-5 disallows for the assumption to be made that God gave a new and different prohibition to the one he gave to Adam only. It is also grammatically incorrect even if one wishes to believe that God gave a new prohibition, that it was given to Eve only. This whole view is based on assumption, not biblical evidence.
4. God re-enforces himself that the prohibition was only given to Adam in the judgement (3:17)
5. The reaction of both sinful parties is identical, therefore 2 separate sin natures can not be assumed from the passage.

So why should we believe that Eve was banished from the garden with Adam.

Cheryl does not believe this to be the case. She believes that the definite article in verses 22-24 of Gen 3 exclude the possibility of Eve being included in the banishment.

Cheryl has said that Eve was ‘deceived’ and Adam sinned ‘wilfully’ (I agree), but Cheryl’s conclusion therefore is that she was no longer a threat to the tree of life.

Cheryl has also told me that although Eve did leave the reason is because her ‘desire is for her husband’ (3:16). Essentially she is fulfilling this prophecy by leaving the garden. Correct me if I am wrong on any of this Cheryl.

What about the bible- what does it say? I will look at some exegetical issues as well.

Lets begin in chapter 3 focusing first on the conversation between Eve and the serpent.
Cheryl believes that although Eve’s quotation of God’s words was a direct command given to her only, since Adam had already been told what not to eat (Gen 2:17), it is therefore her opinion that Eve did not ‘misquote’ what was already given to Adam.

Problem-
1.we only have I recorded instance of God’s command not to touch the tree of knowledge. This was given to Adam only (Eve was not created). Therefore the question is raised, how did Eve know. Either Adam told her or God told her. Since we have no recording of God speaking directly and only to Eve, it is far safer to go with the text we have. It is better to assume that Adam told Eve the prohibition not God. Therefore we conclude that Eve did not quote the prohibition correctly. She dropped ‘any’ from “we may eat from the fruit of (any) tree in the garden… This is an important omission since it already shows that God seemingly isn’t as generous as he first was. Next Eve adds ‘neither shall you touch it’ which is not in the recorded account we have of God’s actual words. This too is important for it now shows that God is crueller than before. So the serpent’s crafty question has begun to make Eve believe that God first of all is ‘stingy’ and second of all he is a harsh God, not even being allowed to touch the fruit. Now we know that it wasn’t the ‘touching’ of the fruit that caused the fall but the ‘eating’, (Gen 3:6-7) which is precisely what is predicted in Gen 2. So Eve was not correct by telling the serpent they couldn’t even touch it.
Also there is another problem with Cheryl’s view namely that during God’s judgement on Adam God directly refers to the dialogue between himself and Adam in chapter 2. God said “of which I commanded YOU, ‘you shall not eat’. This is not said to Eve because God didn’t give her the direct command. The blame here is given to Adam as the one given the prohibition but who worse than Eve, still rejected it. Therefore we must conclude that God did not give a new command to Eve, or even if he did give one to both (see below for reason) Adam is still held as the major responsible partner. It is not good enough to assume something into the text which can not be supported.
An important note- egalitarians are not even agreed on this point. For example in ‘Discovery Biblical Equality’, Richard Hess said this “the reader never learns how the woman received the information that she cites to the snake”.(pg 89) If Cheryl truly believes that Eve was given a specific revelation she should be willing to stand up against other egalitarians to say that they are wrong. It is not only comps who believe that Adam must have reported the prohibition to Eve.

2. The narrative also shows Eve’s ‘desire’ to become wise (Gen 3:6). The word here desire is the same that is used in the Ten commandments- translated do not ‘covet’(Ex 20:17). This is not a ‘good’ thing. Her desire for the fruit is negative showing her rejection of God’s truth. No doubt though, that it was the serpents trickery that led her to that point. We just must be careful to exclude Eve from any involvement in the account, and therefore come to the conclusion that Eve is innocent. She was deceived but she is guilty of desiring wisdom which was not for her. She acted against God’s command and took the fruit.

Cheryl,

To follow on with this post (and Eve’s banishment) i will post my reasons in pieces here. Comment freely

continuing on…

if we should agree with your over-literal interpretion, and ignore the significance of hebrew language, should we not therefore also conclude that God speaks hebrew, and that Adam and Eve spoke hebrew. You see, you can’t have it both ways. To understand this over-literally comes to the same conclusion- the hebrew language. Therefore a hebrew understanding of the words and what they mean is still the same.

gengwell

I am not saying Hebrew culture affected Adam and Eve. Simply to understand the hebrew language (which is obviously what the creation account is written in) and what words mean or represent is what is important. If Moses said that Adam named Eve, what would that mean to a hebrew? It would mean something to them.
Does this make sense?

Kay,

So Eve didn’t have authority over her children? OF course she did. The bible tells us that children should obey and submit to their parents- that is parents are in authority over their children. I am not saying that only Adam or men named their children. Naming to a hebrew indicates authority, therefore Eve had authority over her kids. Likewise Adam was in authority over his wife.

Although parents are in authority does that mean we lors it. Do you lord it over your children Kay. I’m sure you dont (if you have kids). Why therefore do egals come to the conclusion that authority=abuse or predjudice.

gengwell,

1. So God didn’t name things in Gen 1, he just classified them aswell? God therefore should not be understood as having authority over his creation in your opinion?

2. “There is no cultural naming convention between husbands and wives, so such an appeal to culture is an appeal to something that is non-existent”

Why are you appealing to culture gengwell to support your argument, i thought it was irrelevant? You are contradicting yourself.

3. “3. Adam’s classification of the animals was not an act of authority, it was an act of scientific discovery.”

Saids who? This is not in the scripture. But we do know that naming is authoritative in the hebrew culture. You are ignoring relevant information and supplementing it with speculation.

4.” There is no evidence that Adam even had authority over the animals before Eve’s creation.”

Gen 2 is not supposed to be read in isolation of Gen 1, it is supposed to expand and help us understand Gen 1. And since the hebrew culture understands it authoritatively this is the best way to undestand it.

5.” Even if Adam had authority over the animals prior to Eve, Eve aquired that authority in equal measure upon her creation. Eve can’t be subject to an authority she herself possess.”

This is false argument- A+B do not equal C. It shows that authority is not the same. Both are told in Gen 1 to rule the earth, but Gen 2 shows that Adam had the primary role for that. Also Gen 3 shows his punishment is associated with his primary role- the earth. Both have rule over it but differently. Authority is not equal. Women have the primary role of bearing children, which was also given to both as ‘rule’ in Gen 1. But i don’t hear any egals arguing that this is unfair or predjudice. Your argument is simply false.

6. “If Adam’s classification of Eve is equivalent to his classification of the animals and it was an act of authority, then Eve does not possess the same level of authority over creation as Adam, negating Genesis 1 and lowering Eve to the status of an animal.”

Again false methodology. It shows that their authority is not given in the same way with the same roles. Gen 1 does not say you will rule (in the exact same way with the exact same authority). Again reading Gen 1 in isolation distorts what Gen 2 reveals about this ruling.

We are obviously not even on the same page to begin with. My view is that what was written by the author needs to be understood within his culture, intention etc.

Everyone else (apart from Gazza) seems to think that the time of writing is not important. Therefore this whole discussion will never be on the same page.

However i have never heard any evangelical scholars attempt to understand the menaing of a passage and the words within that passage, without understanding the culture it was written in, whether that be the hebrew or greek influences. Sure Moses was not there at creation, but he is writing historical narratives for the Israelites under God’s inspiriation. Now since Christianity believes that God uses human agents to write his word, i am perplexed at any view that deliberately ignores the writers culture and audience.

I do hope therefore that all of you here who do not think the hebraic culture is important in understanding the writing within that culture, are consistent with your over literal view of scripture throughout all of scripture. If you were to be consistent, any appeal to understand ‘kephale’ from wihtin the greek culture for example, would be irrelevant for you guys. You can’t have it both ways, but it seems you are all just arguing irrationally.

How can you even attempt to understand what naming represents reading it from a 21st century perspective- it doesn’t work and does injustice to the text. Therefore this discussion on naming will never produce any fruit because we are simply interpreting the text from different perspectives.

I agree Pinklight, therefore the question is manyfold…

1. Is the reference to ‘the man’ (in the banishment narrative) to include Eve aswell, regardless of whether one sees Adam as the head or not.

2. Was Eve (now in her sinful nature) able to listen to God’s command and therefore not eat from the tree of life, or did she need to be banished aswell (i.e was she a threat or not). What does the bible say about sin and about the heart? Are we able to obey God as sinful people, therefore was Eve even able to obey God as a sinful person?

3. What is the true meaning of Eve’s desire for her husband? Is that really the reason she was not in the garden by chapter 4?

Anyway these and more questions i deal with as i try and prepare a suitable answer.

Cheryl

I feel like we continually go round in circles. Let me comment on a few things, particularly where you have misunderstood me aswell.

1. In your original post you said God named the woman “God called her woman before Adam did.” Now you say things like this “I said that God identified/called her woman when he built her.” Can you see the problem i am having. I understand that essentially you are saying that because the narrative says “he made into a woman” (Gen 2:22), that this narrative is identifying her as ‘woman’ and thus God calls her woman before the man. But it’s just dancing around the obvious. Yes God created her, but the job of calling her something was given to the man.

2. The sentence structure is the same as with the other animals. God ‘forms’ the creation ( and the narrative identifies what the created animal is i.e beasts, birds and woman), then God ‘brought them to the man’, to ‘see what he would call them’. To get hung-up on the narrative description of what God has made misses the point. The emphasis of the passage is not on that, it is on the declaration of the man- this is what is being stressed, not the narrative. The mans declaration is a completely different genre, it is poetry, this means we should stop and look why the narrative changes- it is emphasis. The fact that we are debating verse 22 and ignoring what verse 23 actually represents, obscures the intention of the author.

3. “When you say that God did not identify her as woman before He brought her to Eve” Here you misunderstand me. I am not saying God is ignorant of what he has made, simply that we do not have a quote before the man’s declaration that says “God said “you are called woman”. Therefore God allows the man to name the woman, the same way he allowed the man to name all the other animals. This does not mean that i am saying God did not know what he created, nor that he knew what Adam would call her, simply it was Adams role to declare to both the woman and himself what her identification was.

4. I am not trying to offend or attack you with the Islamic relations. But your deliberate denial of historical relevance is not proper scholarly exegesis.

5. No i am not arguing that this is myth. I simply believe that historical relevance is all important in understanding the bible. After all if we reject that, how can we possible claim to know what a word even means. If you say that understanding Hebraic naming is irrelevant, then by necessity you should deny any understanding of what ‘ezer kenego’ can possibly mean. I could simply follow your line of logic and say it is irrelevant what ‘helper’ means outside of Gen 2. Do you see the problem. You are picking and choosing which Hebrew things help your supposed argument. It is inconsistent.

6. “It is plainly there that God built a woman. You can say that this isn’t in the text and that God didn’t identify/call her woman when her built her as woman from the body of the man, but the text says she was already known as woman before she was brought to the man. My friend, you will have to deal with that instead of say it isn’t in the text.”

When have i ever denied that God formed the woman? Please show me. What i have said all along is that verse 22 does not say that “God called her woman” as you so matter of factly stated earlier. The literature is narrative- it is a description of what occurred, it is not a quote of God’s. Since when does “God formed a woman”= God identifies/names a woman. This isn’t logic, it’s word dribbling. God made the woman, brought her to the man who calls her woman, the same way God made the animals, brought them to the man who gives them names. The exception being that this creation of God’s is perfect as his ezer kenego. They are a one flesh union.

7. “but your comment that it is only narrative appears to deny that God really did create a “woman”
   How did you come to that conclusion. The literary genre is narrative-simple fact. Why do you then come to the conclusion that i deny that God created a woman. I have said several times that God created a woman, just not that we have a recorded quote of God calling her woman before the man. Naming her was the mans responsibility.

“If that is so, which I believe the text shows, then Adam’s glorious acclamation was an affirmation of what she already was.”

Agreed. Not denial of that. But Adam was also the one who named her. God did not say “here Adam this is woman”, nor did God say to the woman “you are woman”. God gave the identification naming to Adam. Only after he did that does the woman know her identity (i.e where she came from and why she was created)

8. “You said yourself that this was only God’s foreknowledge”
   First God’s foreknowledge is what he knows and ordains will happen. Therefore i do not doubt that God knew and ordained that Adam call her woman. But for the two of them to know this he gave the responsibility to Adam. I am not saying God did not create a woman nor know she was a woman, simply that the responsibility of calling her woman was given to Adam.

9. “Did God create a “woman”? Or did God create something that later became a woman when Adam identified her as such?”

God created a woman. However her identity is only revealed to the man and the woman after God brings her to him to call her something. Adam calls her woman because he recognises where she has come from- man.

10. Finally “Please prove your point. Where does it say that it was “God’s plan for the man to name the woman”. Please give me the inspired words that reveal this in the text.”

This is a big one. So are you denying that it was God’s plan for the man to name the woman. Yes or No?

And yes i did get a revelation that it was God’s plan to name the woman- its called the Bible. The bible says that Adam named the woman and since i believe that God is sovereign and that nothing happens apart from his will, then yes it was his plan for the man to name the woman. If it wasn’t his plan, it wouldn’t of happened. The fact that this is the inspired word of God, and the fact that this event happened, shows that this was God’s plan.

Now im not sure if you were pulling a bluff with your comment. But i would really like to know if you don’t think it was God’s plan for the man to name the woman. Please answer this question at least.

Cheerio

Pinklight,

Here lies the problem with your view. You are looking at it from a readers perspective. We do know alot of other details from verses other that verse 23. However how would Eve of known her identity had Adam not said it. If her identity was solely in God’s mind and was never declared by Adam, she would never have known would she? She would not have known how or why she was made. Adam’s declaration, i agree is about the intimacy of the relationship and joy at seeing God’s new creation for him, yet her identity is portrayed from the will and mind of God, to them both through Adam’s words. He names her because he now realises what God has done, created a woman from the man-his bone and flesh literally. Put simply God has given Adam the role of naming the other animals, and has now given him the role of naming the woman aswell. The context of the narrative is clearly linked to the earlier accounts where he names all the other animals. To be honest i’m quite amazed at the roundabout conversations on such a simple topic. The man named the woman. The bible says it so lets accept it and see what it means rather than trying to pull exegetical loopholes around it.

Kay

You said “It’s that we see a completely different thing than “naming means to have authority over something.”
And thats the point. You are ignoring the historical setting of Hebrew naming. Why should you do such a thing and still be considered evangelical? It is completely against how one should interpret the bible. You can’t just pick and choose which pieces of history you like. If you want to see that naming someone means something other than an ‘authorative’ pattern it won’t work, because it is simple fact.

Regarding 3:16, no i don’t see it as a continuation of the way things were. I deal with this more in my next post with Cheryl, but quickly, essentially the context is punishment, therefore verse 16 is not a positive thing. The womans desire for her husband is not a good thing, nor is the husbands rule- this is a puinishment. Basically it is a corruption of the original perfect relationship. But i expand more on that in another post soon.

Kay,

Its not about Adam being a hebrew, its about the author being a hebrew writing to a hebrew audience in a hebrew culture.

I am glad at least that you are willing to simply dismiss naming as authoratative than simply ignoring it. But your methodology is wrong. We know polygamy is wrong because the Jesus tells us that. Naming on the other hand is something God gave Adam to do so therefore it cannot be considered wrong, unless you wish to dispute that.
Your point makes no corrolation.

Just a quick comment.

I disagree Pinklight that Adam naming Eve didn’t give her some identity. The fact that ”isshah’, is th feminine form of ”ish’ is significant, since the poetry of the chapter says that he called her ‘woman’ BECAUSE she was made from ‘man’. The very reason Adam gives her that name is because of how she is made, namely his own rib. Therefore the name ‘woman’ suggests immense identity (not saying that that wasn’t God’s plan though). It identifies how she was made and why she was made (not good for man to be alone and to make a one flesh union). To simply diminish the significance of naming the woman, reduces the very words of the passage and there significance. If she had not been made in this precise way, and named in this way she would have no identity of ‘woman’ since her identity is based around her creation from the ‘man’.
Where as man (‘adam’) finds it’s identity in the ground from which he was made (ha’adam) and to which he returns after the fall. These are important points that need to be addressed by egals not just rejected because of 2:22

You were a bit unclear with a few things and didn’t really answer yes or no to whether what i said is what you believe. I am only asking so that i don’t misrepresent your view in my answer-fair enough.

1. So you do believe that quote ‘the man’ is ONLY refering to Adam and that it is not refering to Eve in the banishment. Yes or No

2. I am understanding that you only believe in the one sin nature (from Adam). Sin is attributed to Adam, and therefore Eve did not have a different sin nature to Adam. Yes or No

3. This was quite clear that you DO believe that Eve was not a threat to the tree of life- even as a sinner. Thanks

4. Again it was clear that you believe 3:16 is propheticaly fulfilled by Eve ‘following’ Adam out of the garden. You therefore reject she was banished. Thanks

5. Again i understand that you believe that this quote of Eve’s was a direct revelation to her seperate to the one given to Adam in Gen 2. Thanks. One last thing- was this quote that Eve gave, given to her ONLY or to her and Adam in your opinion?

Sorry for the slow answer. I have to try and talk here only after i complete my other work. Also i want to try and give a comprehensive answer so that i am not continually told that i am avoiding questions. I’m sure you understand

Cheryl,

Why are you back peddling. In your post you were quite confident that verse 22 shows God ‘naming’ Eve before Adam, and now you have just incorporated pinklights idea of ‘identity’ to support yourself. Either verse 22 says God named woman or it doesn’t. You can’t say that God did, and then try to skirt your way around it by justification.

We all agree on the sovereignty anf foreknowledge of God I hope. I am not questioning that. We know that God knew that Eve would call her sons, Cain, Abel and Seth, but that doesn’t mean Eve didn’t do the actual naming of her sons. The parellel is the same with Adam and the woman. Just because God uses a human agent does not detract from God’s foreknowledge. The text simply saids that it was the man who ‘named’ the woman.

“Try as you might, you cannot take away the accuracy of God’s story just as He relayed it.”

Whats with this? First of all it was you who said God ‘named’ the woman. I have simply said that is not what the text saids. And now you say I am the one distorting the accuracy. Are you serious. Is this the way you approach all people who challenge your views, just say that they are tampering with the text.

“What has culture got to do with God’s story?”

And here is the problem. You are approaching scripture the same way Muslims do, as if the historical setting is unimportant. Which is interesting because when it comes to 1 Tim 2 you revert the other way and say it is all cultural.

“Sure it is easy for complementarians to want to set aside the inspiration of the text as pure truth exactly as it happened because it contradicts their theory”

Whats this got to do with what I said. It was you who said something that is not in the text, and simply because it is your view that is contradicted. If you can try and dismiss the fact that it was Adam who named Eve then your view might stand, but the text is against you. Again please engage with my comments not attack comp theology and say it denies the inspiration of scripture. Arguing these lines makes me feel like you are avoiding the real issue. Not once have I questioned your belief in the inspiration of scripture, but you consistently say it about me under the label ‘comps’.

“then I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I hold to the account exactly as it is written”

Where have I ever said that I am denying the account as it happened. I have no problem saying that God was in control of what Adam said and knew what he said. In the same way I do no doubt that Jesus was the vessel chosen before the foundation of the world to save the world.I fully believe in that God’s plan was executed from the beginning. I am not denying scripture nor the attributes of God. If you really held to the account as it is written you would not have said God ‘called’ her woman before Adam, since that is not in the account.

“So God had nothing at all to do with the fact that she had her identify as woman?”

And what did I say “This was God’s purpose and plan for it to happen this way.” How can you assume that I am saying God had nothing to do with what Eve’s identity when the words you quote me on say the opposite. OF course God knew Eve before Adam did. The text simply shows that it was also God’s plan for the man to name the woman. I wonder with some of your comments Cheryl.

You seem to be throwing ‘identity’ around a lot now. If you have changed your opinion of what you said about verse 22 just admit it. We are on the same page that God’s plan existed before any human- just don’t ignore the way God uses human instruments to fulfil his purposes.

“Let’s just accept the text for what it says.”

Yes, lets do that and not say God called her woman before the man which is clearly not in the text.

“We are not discussing all the nuances of naming here. This is a blog about the comp/egal debate and the discussion is whether identifying the woman by name of title is an act of a God-given authority of the man over the woman.”

This is interesting! You want to support your view with the idea about prophetic naming and the like, yet you try and ignore the Hebrew culture in which naming was authoritative, but apparently this is a nuance. Why is it that the real important aspects of the text and culture you continually dismiss as nuances or ‘rabbit trails’ as if they have no bearing on the discussion. It bewilders me. You are refusing to look at all the relevant information before making your stance on what the text actually says. If you were serious about whether naming Eve was authorative, then you would look into what it meant in the Hebrew culture to give someone a name, and why in these accounts we have play on words and things like that, before criticising comps and just labelling them as denying the inspiration of scripture.

More soon

Cheryl,

As i prepare the question 2 answer, can you confirm some things for me about your view so that i dont assume the wrong thing. I have tried to remember things you have said previously.
1. The definate article of 3:22-24 excludes Eve?
2. Eve was decieved but Adam sinned wilfully. Therefore they have different sin natures
3. Eve was not a threat to the tree of life
4. Eve did leave the garden, but not becasue she was banished. She left becasue of her ‘desire for her husband’ (Gen 3:16)
5. Gen 3:1-5. Eve is quoting what God told her. That is, she was given the prohibition by herself from God, therefore she has not misquoted God and Adam did not pass on the prohibition.

Thanks and correct anything where it is not what you believe the bible teaches.

Hi Cheryl,

I agree with you now that God isn’t quoted here. Therefore I expect you to retract your comment “God called her woman before Adam did” from your main post, since we both agree that God did not ‘call’ her woman before Adam. Narrative is not the same as a ‘quote’ which I hope we agree on.

Regarding why the narrative doesn’t describe the woman as a ‘female’ is an argument from silence. It would be better to stick with what we do have and see why. The obvious reason that ‘woman’ is used (‘ishah) is because she was made from man (‘ish). It is a play on words used by the writer. This is common in Hebrew and particularly common in these early chapters of Genesis. We see it with man/woman, with man/ground.

Regarding where the narrative came from, as Christians we have to say both God and man. We do not believe as Islam does that scripture is the direct words of God per se and that there is no human agent. Inspiration of scripture is that God uses human agents to fulfil his purposes, so yes it is the word of God, but it is also the writing of man. That is why grammar, purpose, intention of writing, historical situation, culture etc are all important aspects for scholars when trying to understand the bible.

I agree that God knew before Adam that he would call her ‘woman’. What I disagree on is that God ‘called’ her woman before Adam did. This is not in the scripture. God is all knowing and sovereign no doubt, but that does not dismiss the fact that it was the man who named the woman. This was God’s purpose and plan for it to happen this way. Do you disagree with that?

Finally I find it interesting that you believe this “While it is possible that naming Eve was part of Adam’s sinful rule over her”, but that naming her before the fall is most definitely not to do with authority. Why is that?
In fact I would be more inclined to say that since Adam named her Eve (chavvah) which is closely associated with ‘life’ (chayyah), the naming is more associated not with sinful lordship, but with Adam’s recognition that through the woman would come the ‘seed’ to bruise the serpent’s ‘seed’. Adam’s post fall naming is more a declaration of God’s promise than it is sinful lordship. It is a recognition of God’s grace. Grammatically also, in verse 20b there is a causal clause linking the name ‘chavvah’ with the point that she would become the mother of the living ‘chayyah’. Again we see the play on words used when ‘naming’ occurs.
We see this again and again. In chapter 4 Eve declares that “I have ‘brought forth’ a man…’ Here ‘brought forth’ is closely associated with ‘Cain’. Literally Eve ‘cained a Cain’. Therefore there is more to naming something in the Hebrew culture than can easily just be dismissed. You seemingly recognised this with your comments on ‘prophetic’ naming etc, but for some reason think that the man naming the woman is insignificant (at least before the fall).

Cheryl,

I have an extensive critique of this post which i would like to post if thats ok. I have done this to not only show where i feel you are weak in your argument and plainly wrong, but also as a lead in to why i believe the bible teaches that Eve was a sinner banished from the garden (question 2).

Let me know

Cheryl,

ONe question. You say that God named ‘the woman’ before Adam in Gen 2:22. Aren’t you confusing narrative into a quote? Please explain why verse 22 should be understood as God’s words and not a narrative section of scripture?
Thanks

Interesting thoughts from all.

First it is interesting that Mabel things distinction of roles does not equal spiritual equality, but only distinction of gender roles equals spiritual hierarchy. What sort of reasoning is this? Smells alot like society talking.

Lin says that comps have a talmud? If this is the case why are there so many varying egal interpretations of passages. I am yet to see a consistent interpretation.

Cheryl always strays from the physical distinctions to the spiritual. No surprise really because she cant deny physical differences. Problem is, spiritually everyone is different. Now i don’t mean there is a hierarchy, simply that spiritually we are all gifted differently. Some are have a greater understanding of scripture than others. Some are more mature christians while some are more immature. But does any of this= spiritual inequality. Of course it doesn’t. It just means that some are given roles that others aren’t.

Also Cheryl it is interesting that you post about Genesis but yet tell us that the conversations is about spiritual gifts. What is it that you want to discuss?

Now it also interesting that all of you want to dismiss the grammar of Gen 3. You label it a rabbit trail, that i am going off topic, but is this not the very passage and topic we are looking at. Let me ask all of you this question…are you teachable? Are you even willing to look at the passages that are difficult for your position? You say i need to answer your tough questions which i have over and over again, but yet you refuse to answer mine and call them rabbit trails? I can only conclude your un-willingness to even attempt to dialogue. It seems that this blog is more interested in slandering other Christians like CBMW and comps rather than discussing scripture.

To answer gengwell, some roles are spiritual and some are physical. A father for example is a physical one. A pastor is both. Some are given the gift, but they must also physically do the work. They physically have a job to do for the body of Christ. Whether there is a purely ‘spiritual’ only role i’m not so sure. I would need to look more closely at that. But i guess that is why egals are so fixated on dividing the physical and spiritual, to combat comp theology rather applicable truth.

More on Genesis later

Cheryl,

You said “Also please respond to the issue that Paul raises of wanting to marry after making a pledge to Christ brings condemnation. How is it that a woman must pledge celibacy merely in order to be fed? Can you answer this?”

Now im not sure if you read my previous post, but i assume you didn’t otherwise you wouldn’t ask me this similar question. Please read what i wrote previously.

Second of all i think we are actually closer than you realise Cheryl on this passage. I am not denying that they pledged to be dedicated to Christ. In fact i support this because the passage says they are to continue in prayer and supplications. However i am also reading more than just verse 12 which extends Pauls intention to support for help aswell.

The difference though between us, is that you think this is an obscure type of ‘eldership’ or as one of your own sources made up, deaconesses. My argument is clear, the context reveals that the translation of verse 1 and 2 must be related to older women not elders. I am being consistent with the passage, you are pushing eldership into this passage when it doesn’t belong.

“Mark, you are wrong here. You have missed Paul’s point in that he isn’t saying that marriage is a condemnation for everyone but marriage is a condemnation for those who have pledged themselves to Christ in celibacy and after the pledge want to marry. It is then that Paul says that marriage brings condemnation.”

Let me repeat myself again an again. I DO NOT THINK MARRIAGE IS A CONDEMNATION!!! If you read my post and infact re-read verse 11 you will see that it is the ‘desire’ which disregards Christ not the marriage. The marriage is just the by-product of the sinful motive beforehand. I’m surprised you keep overlooking this important point. Like anything it is the motive of the heart that causes problems. Thus once the sinful desire disregards Christ, they get married and then cause condemnation upon themselves. Until you actually look closer at this verse you will keep having the issue of trying to balance ‘condemnation’ and the ‘pledge’. But it doesn’t really surprise me because of course you will look for any passage to seemingly support the egalitarian position.

So Cheryl before you ask me to again justify my position can you please read what i have already written. Im sure it will help us all.

Finally you quoted “The Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament calls this the “office of widow”.

Are you serious? You criticise me all this time for using the term ‘office’ and then use this when it supposedly supports your view. Please be consistent and not critique me if you are going to use the same term ‘office’

“Now I would like to challenge you to show that these are now widows in service to Jesus and the Church but merely on the “roll” for feeding.”

As i said above. I answered this in another post. But just so you know i don’t deny they are in service. They are to continue in supplications and prayers day and night, i have said this several times. I just don’t believe there is an office of over 60 women elders who are to shepherd the church. Also considering the rest of the context regarding older/younger women aswell as the numerous verses talking about support and caring and burdened, i also believe the enrolment involves support. Please tell me why you are ignoring these very clear verses talking about caring for people and think it has nothing to do with the list.

Kay you have misunderstood me.

You said “It is not a dishonoring Christ to get married unless one has made a pledge not to be married.”

I agree that it is not dishonouring Christ to get married. Bu tif you re-read what i said and why i cited the two verse from 1 Cor you will see my point. Namely, that it was the ‘desires’ of the younger widows that was the problem, not the marriage. It was the desires pulling them away from Christ therefore Paul urges them to re-marry so as to protect themselves. Then i quoted the 2 other examples because Paul says the exact same thing to the Corinthians.

” But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.”

“2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”

So the point is not that marriage is wrong which you seem to think i said, but that marriage protects us from ‘passion’ and ‘sexual immorality’, which was precisely Pauls instruction to the younger widows who were abondoning Christ to follow after their ‘desires’.

Please re-read my comment and you will see what i meant.

Also please show me exegetically why the emphasis of this passage is on widow elders ministry? I know you believe verse 1 and 2 are addressing elders as opposed to older men/women, and i know you have the presupposition that the enrollment is about a listing of widow elders, but please show me exegetically how the passage at all conveys this as the intended meaning here.

Hi all,

I dont think comp theology believes that men and women are different spiritually. Well at least i don’t, nor do i believe that is what is taught in ‘Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood’. After all Gal 3:28 teaches that in Christ none is spiritually more important than another regardless of gender or race.

However whether or not God gives us seperate roles is another matter, which does not detract from the spritual equality. For example God does not gift or use everybody in the same way but does that mean some are more spiritual than others? After all a good example from the Old Covenant is the restriction of priesthood for the Levites. Distinction of roles does not = spiritual hierarchy. Until this is understood egals and comps will never dialogue properly.

Comp theology therefore does not make men more spiritual than women just because we believe that men and women have different roles. That notion is a false idea pressed upon it by egalitarians. It is a false description unfortunately.

Cheryl it is a shame you dont have time to look into the ommission of YHWH in gen 3. It would most definately help you in your understanding of that passage.

Cheryl i would like to respond more here when i get a bit more time since this deals with that ‘question 2’ from way back.

Speak soon.

P.s some food for thought until i write back.
Why is ‘YHWH’ or LORD introduced in chapter 2? Why doesn’t the writer use God’s covenantal name before chapter 2, and namely why is his covenantal name used all throughout Gen 2 and 3 except in the 5 verses dealing with the conversation between the serpent and Eve. Now Cheryl as someone who is big on grammatical issues i would like you to look into this or think why this is the case?

1. “I would like to ask you to explain why there was a group of widows who could not be fed by the church unless they pledge to remain without a husband and who would be dishonoring Christ if they went against that pledge? Why was the pledge necessary? How did Paul and the church justify the requirement of this pledge? Mark, you have been asked quite a few times to answer this question but you have side stepped it without answering. Why the requirement of celibacy?”

OK what does the bible say.

Verse 9. Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband,

So only ‘widows’ over 60 can be enrolled. Correct? Also these widows to be enrolled could only of had 1 husband. Correct?

Verse 10. and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.

Now there are more qualifications for this enrolment. Good works, had children, shown hospitatlity etc etc. So therefore the widow on the role had to have certain ‘moral’ characteristics or a record of good works. Correct?

Verse 11. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry

So younger widows are refused because their ‘passions’ draw them away from Christ. I see this passion obviously as a negative thing, because it draws them away from Christ.

Verse 12. and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith.

Now this is the crunch verse. You see this as abandoning their ‘pledge’ or their enrolment as some sort of ministers or elders which is no-where mentioned in the text. I see this as abandoning their commitment to Christ, namely what is said in verse 11. Now what was this commitment? Again you would say that it is some sort of eldership but again this is not in the text. What is in the text is a devotion to supplications and prayers day and night (verse 5) because that is what a true widow is. So there ‘pledge’ is a commitment to Christ, giving supplications and prayers day and night, therefore showing them to be true widows and aloud to be enrolled for help. So you see Cheryl, your view is based on hypothesis, mine on scripture and context.

Verse 13. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not

So back to younger widows. Besides abandoning their faith after going after their ‘desires’, they also live ungodly lives. Their passions are for things of the world, not for Christ unlike the older widows who had already shown in their lifetime a commitment to Christ.(verse 10)

Verse 14. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander.

So why the instruction to re-marry for the younger widows. Well we know that Paul expects their passions to pull them away from Christ. If they remarry though and commit their lives to bearing children, managing their households, it will protect them from namely what Paul addresses in verse 13. This is exactly the same instruction Paul gives in Corinth
1 Cor 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

Again with 1 Cor 7:1-2
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Verse 15. For some have already strayed after Satan.

That is some younger widows have fallen pray to their desires and abandoned Christ.

Verse 16. If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are really widows.

Finally Paul gives the charge that believing women care for widows in their own family so that the church is not burdened, that it may car for the true widows, namely, those outlined earlier who commit themselves to Christ.

So now back to your original question
“I would like to ask you to explain why there was a group of widows who could not be fed by the church unless they pledge to remain without a husband and who would be dishonoring Christ if they went against that pledge?”

What you have done here is flipped the passage. They are dishonouring Christ because they abandon him, not because they get married. It’s not the marriage which is wrong, it is their sensual desires that they put before Christ. In fact Paul instructs the younger ones to get married to avoid straying after Satan.

Again you ask “Why was the pledge necessary?”
Now i assume you ask this because you only see the pledge as a commitment to eldership. Since i have shown this is not the intention of the passage, rather a pledge to service to Christ i would think such a pledge would be necessary in order for the church to see she is a ‘true’ widow.

Again you ask “How did Paul and the church justify the requirement of this pledge?”
Again your look for justification because you see the pledge as eldership which is not in the passage and think i am saying a woman MUST remain celibate to receive help. This is not what i have said. Younger women were driven by their desires therefore not a true widow. A true widow had a reputation as a Christ follower and was therefore to be enrolled and continue to serve Christ in prayer and supplication.

If this passage is dealing with eldership what is their ministry? Are elders instructed elsewhere i the bible to be over 60 and only pray (not to mention be widows)? No i don’t think so. They are to shepherd the church. Now because this passage clearly deals with younger and older issues it is not sensible to translate this passage as some sort of obscure eldership, not backed up by other scripture nor reliant on the context of the passage.

Cheryl,

First of all, i have no idea if the commentaries i quoted are complementarians. My point was to show that the rendering of this passage is not as clear as you say it is “Secondly it is very clear from the text that these women were on the “roll” for ministry in the church.”. Frankly i think it is absolutely ridiculous to emphasise this passage is about women widow elders and think i am the one who needs to justify my position. Kay says that the over 60 requirement is because it must be some ministry we don’t know about essentially or don’t do now. But how can we justify such an interpretation that is simply based on hypothesis or guess work.

All the indications point to an enrollment for some sort of support (whether you read that as food or not is up to you). For example…

“3 Honor widows ?who are truly widows.” So what is a true widow? Paul gives the answer in verse 5.

” She ?who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and ?continues in supplications and prayers night and day”. So we know what a ‘true’ widow is but what about an ‘untrue’ widow (verse 6)

“but ishe who is self-indulgent is ?dead even while she lives.”

Paul then qualifies the meaning of the passage several times.

Verse 8- “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for ?members of his household, he has ?denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Note the key word ‘provide’.

and again in verse 16 more clearly- “If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are really widows”.

So Paul instructs to care for widows, that the church is not ‘burdened’, so it can ‘care’ for those who are ‘really’ widows. And yet you say that the intended meaning of this passage is about eldership not caring for those ‘true’ widows in need.

Now to answer your supposed dilemma you say my view has. First your presupposition is that the enrollment is a ‘ministry’ thing. We both know this is not in the text so therefore i will try and understand the enrollment from the context of the text. A woman over 60 was unlikely to re-marry (60 then was alot older than 60 now is), whereas a younger women was more likely to marry, and in fact Paul says they ‘desire to marry’. Also a ‘true’ widow was one who devoted themselves to supplications and prayers (verse 5) ansd so made a committment to both be devoted to Christ and recieve help from the church. A younger woman driven by her ‘desires’ though would be prone to abandon that commitment to Christ and flee after earthly passions bringing condemnation. Therefore i see the ‘pledge’ as abandoning their committment to being on the ‘roll’ of widows needing help. To understand this in a ministerial sense abandons the context of the passage.

Now CHeryl answer some of my questions.
1. Do you agree with Kay about this obscure over 60’s club eldership?
2. If not, how to you reconcile that only widows over 60 can be ‘elders’.
3. If you believe this is about women elders, therefore can women elders only do this sort of ministry since verse 17 it supposed to switch to ‘male’ elders who therefore are the ones who preach and teach.
4. Why have you ignored all the obvious grammar about ‘caring’, younger/older correlations, not being burdened and dismissed this passage being about helping widows in need.

Anyway ive run outta time. Ill post more another time.

Kay,

I’m a bit lost with your points. I have said several times now that my view on 1 Tim 3:11 is undecided. Both meanings have biblical support for them but you seem to think i believe it must be translated ‘deacons wives’, since you asked me why the elders wives have no qualifications. Let me be very clear. I dunno which way to translate ‘gunaikos’ therefore i will not say t has to be one or the other.

Now the reason you rebut your own argument is because you believe women can be elders right? But yet you hold to verse 11 being about ‘deaconesses’, therefore you agree that verse 11 is NOT about eldership. So although you hold to verse 11 promoting female deacons, there is nothing now in 1 Tim 3 to indicate that women are included in the eldership, unless you wish to hold onto the ‘anybody’ and ignore who Paul then qualfies as the ‘anybody’ in the following verses. I just find it interesting that verse 11 has been used on this blog (not sure if it was you though) as proof that women are included in eldership.

Again in relation to chapter 5. Kay, i would encourage you to look at the immediate context of ‘prebyteros’. Paul expands in the very same verses his use of the word. It is completed surrounded by younger men/women, older men/women yet you wish to change the meaning to be about eldership. It doesn’t make sense to me. Do you actually believe this is about the office of eldership or just widows ministry. I would like you to be clear in your opinion on that. Also if you do believe it is about the office of eldership how do reconcile that only a widow over 60 can fulfill this role? Do you apply that sort of teaching?

Can you explain more for me what you mean by this question. Cheryl asked the same thing but i dont understand what you are meaning.
“Does this mean you are willing to contend that the church was instructed to demand celibacy in exchange for food?”

Thanks

Cheryl,

I understand totally where you are coming from. But unfortunately there are just as many other commentaries to quote in opposition to your view.

Bible exposition commentary
“From the beginning of its ministry, the church had a concern for believing widows (Acts 6:1; 9:39). Of course, the nation of Israel had sought to care for widows; and God had given special legislation to protect them (Deut. 10:18; 24:17; Isa. 1:17). God’s special care for the widows is a recurring theme in Scripture (Deut. 14:29; Ps. 94:6; Mal. 3:5). It was only right that the local church show compassion to these women who were in need. “

“At least sixty years old (v. 9a). A woman of this age was not likely to get remarried in that day, though sixty is not considered that “old” today. Perhaps the verb “taken into the number” gives us a clue. It literally means “to be enrolled and put on the list.” The word was used for the enrollment of soldiers. The early church had an official list of the names of qualified widows, and we get the impression that these “enlisted” women ministered to the congregation in various ways. (Remember Dorcas and her widow friends, Acts 9:36–43?) Paul probably would have told us if they had been officially ordained as deaconesses.

Bible knowledge commentary
” Next Paul offered instruction on how Timothy must deal with the widows in the congregation. Throughout the Old and New Testaments widows, along with aliens and orphans, are viewed as special objects of God’s mercy. As such they are to be taken under the wing of the congregation (cf. Deut. 10:18; 14:29; 24:17-21; Acts 6:1-7; James 1:27). As early as Acts 6 the church had established a charitable outreach to widows. Now about 30 years later the ministry to widows, of whom there were no doubt many, showed signs of being a major burden to the congregation. Paul was therefore eager in this passage to identify those who did not truly need help in order to leave enough for those who did.”

“5:9-10. The “proper recognition” of verse 3 is here made specific. Widows may be put on the list if they meet three primary qualifications. What exactly this list involved is not known. It may have been an official order for service in the congregation; more likely it was merely a roll of those widows who were to receive assistance from the congregation”
A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments.

“1. an elder—in age; probably not an elder in the ministry; these latter are not mentioned till 1Ti 5:17, “the elders that rule.” Compare Ac 2:17, “your old men,” literally, “elders.” Contrasted with “the younger men.” As Timothy was admonished so to conduct himself as to give no man reason to despise his youth (1Ti 4:12); so here he is told to bear in mind his youth, and to behave with the modesty which becomes a young man in relation to his elders.

The IVP bible background commentary
“Here Paul may refer to widows in general, but he probably refers to an order of widows who served the church, as in second-century Christianity. (Commentators disagree on this point.)

Note the commentators disagree at this point.

Now my opinion again. We cannot be sure what the ‘enrollment’ was. It could be women elders but then we must conclude that then only women (who are widows) over 60 shall ever become women elders otherwise we disobey the bible. If it involves caring for the widows in need, then we have problems with harshness of not allowing a younger widow who was truly in need. Either view has complications. On top of this we have the semantic renge of ‘prebyteros’.

Kay,

You say that widow women elders may be a possibility here. Perhaps but unlikely. Even those who see this passage as women serving the church would not relate this to the office of eldership. This is too long of a bow from the text. The fact the passage is dealing with ‘older’ widows and younger ones, gives all the indication that ‘presbyteros’ should be translated older men/women.

Now relating again to deaconesses. Like i have said before i am unsure whether i believe this is refering to wives or deaconesses. Regardless it does not impact on the office of eldership who are responsible for the overseeing of the church. The deacon does not have this responsibility. You are right to say that there is no ‘gunaikos’ in either mention of ‘elders’ so therefore you rebut your own argument. 1 Tim 3:11 could be either deaconess or wives, but it definitely does not relate to elders? Do you agree?

Anyhow i see we are going around in circles again. Speak soon

Hi Kay,

Now i will answer your other question about the teaching on widows being enrolled. Long stro short- no it doesn’t. And personally i see this passage more culturally applicable than anything. Sure we should learn to look after those in need, but our Aussie culture has governmental options to support those in need, such as a widow.

Seemingly the ‘enrollment’ Paul is talking about no one can be certain. Most probably it relates to financially assisting widows since this seems to be the main issue at hand. Paul says ” Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are really widows.” in verse 16, so this seems to suggest the reason for the instruction on widows.

Now i am no expert on the historical background of the NT but i think the fair presumption would be that widows were not properly cared for in those days. If a husband died, a wife could well loose all her financial support and home etc. So it seems that Paul is making sure that only the widows who were godly and needed the help of the church were cared for. Those younger who had ‘strayed after Satan’ should not be cared for or made as a burden for the church.

Hope this answers what you were after. No our church doesn’t have an ‘enrolment’ with certain age restictions because our society is very different to Paul’s. Women are cared for now in a way that they were not in the NT era. Although our church does still administer pastoral care to those who need it. Why the question about this passage?