Mark

Kay,

A quick response. First thankyou for your gentle and loving discussion. I do not wish to come across as harsh or painting you in the wrong way. What i feel is important that when we look at an issue (e.g Pheobe), we may put forward our own convictions of the passage but to say that Pheobe is proof of a female deacon could equally be untrue for the meanings discussed above. Therefore in ‘unclear’ or un-defined passages such as these i dont think we should say it HAS to be this or that, when it could equally be not true.

I have tried to express this in my posts when i say things such as ‘In my opinion’ or ‘my belief’, but seemingly i am criticised for talking in this way. But when it comes to biblical interpretation there are some things that we simply dont know and must decide what is ‘most likely’ such as the deaconess debate. Sorry if you felt i was harsh on you.

Obviously there are some things that are not negotiable, for example, grace alone through faith alone.

Hope this helps understand why i said what i did. I will reply more soon once i have a bit more time to answer more on the question that i missed earlier.

Ok i just had a look at the greek and need to correct something.

I said this

“Since Eph 4 does not have the term ‘gift’ in it (i dont think anyway)”

In Eph 4, Paul uses the aorist of ‘didomi’ meaning literally ‘he gave’, so the term ‘gift is not there but it is very similar to 1 Cor 12.

For example, in 1 Cor 12 Paul uses the forms of the word ‘karisma’ meaning ‘gift’. The verb form ‘karizomai’ means to grant or to give.

Therefore although Eph 4 does not use ‘gifts’ per-se the intended meaning is there by the word Paul uses. I correct myself.

Another quick thought to add.

In 1 Tim 3 Paul exhorts that people ‘desire’ to do the work of an overseer (not a gift).

But also after talking about ‘gifts’ in 1 Cor 12 again Paul says to ‘desire’ the higher gifts (1 Cor 12:31)

Is there a connection here? I dunno? But i love the way the bible challenges and teaches new things everyday (even if that teaching is that i am way off 🙂 )

Cheryl- if you are still floating around out there!!!

I came across an interesting verse while reading the bible the other day and wondered your opinion (or others)

In other posts you have said that an elder is a work (ergon) and NOT a gift. Note, in Eph 4:11 which we have discussed one of the gifts is an ‘evangelist’.

Now this is the verse that struck me

” As for you, ?always be sober-minded, ?endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, ?fulfill your ministry.” 2 Tim 4:5

The key phrase is ‘do the work (ergon) of an evangelist.’ Here Paul instructs Timothy to do a work (note same word as 1 Tim 3:1 used of elders- ergon). So the question has to be raised. Is an ‘evangelist’ a gift or a work? Perhaps both? Or are we all evangelists (in fulfillment of the great commission- Matt 28) which is a ‘work’ but the gifting of an evangelist is different?

Whatever the outcome how would this effect your understanding of an elder being a ‘work’ and not a gift per-se. Or is the officiating role of an elder (i.e shephard) simply another term for a pastor (literally a shephard) but Paul calls it a ‘work’ in 1 Tim 3. Since Eph 4 does not have the term ‘gift’ in it (i dont think anyway) have we been wrong by distinguishing between a so called gift and a work.

Interested on peoples thoughts?

Hi Kay,

I am so glad you have responded, and equally glad that you agree that context is important. However you are making a serious error by assuming that ‘presbyterio’ always should translate ‘elder’. Although the office of eldership is based on this word, Paul also uses it to describe simply older men and women, as is the case in 1 Tim 5 and Titus. In the Old Covenant the elders were ‘older’ men, so it is not surprising that the same greek word is used when both talking about the official work of an elder/overseer and both older men/women. The context of both Tim and Titus reveal that what is being discussed is older men/women not the elders. To get this wrong makes one misunderstand the passage. Therefore the NIV correctly translates the difference between ‘older men/women’ and ‘elders’. Also consider the base of the word ‘presbus’ means ‘elderly’. Therefore you are not exegetically interpreting the passage correctly. You have not taken into account the semantic range of the word in the greek.

You again make the fundamental mistake when you say things like this…

In Titus 2:3 Paul instructs Titus, the pastor of Crete: “Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good.” The Greek word used for these older women is ‘presbutidas’.
These elders are instructed “to teach what is good.”

This is most definitely not about the office of eldership. You need to stop looking for egalitarian proof texts that are clearly not there. All you are doing is distorting the meaning of the passage. Paul is expounding good biblical qualities and living for the older men/women of the church. This is not about the office of eldership outlined in 1 Tim 2. It is not about elders in the spiritual governing sense.

By the way i never said this

But you insist that after the Resurrection she would be in sin for doing this?

What i did say is that this should not be compared to preaching in the 21st century. Let me be clear that i see that Jesus cared deeply for women and used them in his ministry. I hold to that, i just don’t agree with the way some egals use this out of context and equate it to the spiritual leadership of the church.

Now about Pheobe the ‘deaconess’. What must be made clear with this argument or debate is that there is no definitive answer. The only two places to suggest women are included in this office are in 1 Tim 3 and Romans 16. And both these texts are obviously debated since women/wives could contextually fit 1 Tim aswell as ‘servant’ fitting in Romans 16. To say this is definitive proof is very misleading to suggest. Let me explain, contextually in 1 Tim 3 to insert ‘gunaikas’ where Paul does is unusual, since the verse immediately afterward describes once again the idea of ‘husband of one wife’. The more natural reading would seem to suggest his intention is the ‘wives’ of the deacons talked about as the NIV translates. However it could also mean as you suggest, namely that women are included in the office of deacons. In Romans we have the same delimma. It could rightly mean that Pheobe is a deacon. But it could also equally mean that Paul is simply describing her as a servant. Paul uses ‘diakoness’ in a nontechnical sense (i.e not referring to the office of deacon but intends to mean servant) in the end of 1 Cor also (1 Cor 16:15). Also Paul uses it in this nontechnical sense in Eph 3:7 when talking about himself. Again in Col 1:25 and 1 Tim 4:6 aswell as many other NT instances where the intended meaning is servant/minister. So the obvious question is which is Pauls intended meaning in Romans 16. Short answer, we can’t be certain because both meanings could equally fit.

What i didn’t like Kay, is that you didn’t make this clear. As people who are more interested in the bible and not our own theologies or ideologies, i believe it is inappropriate to mislead in the way you have. You may accept that it means ‘deaconess’ but you should not say it has to mean this when it may not, and there is good biblically evidence contrary. WE must therefore put ALL the evidence forward to be fair to the bible and to have good biblical discussion.

Now personally i am still undecided and praying that God will help me to know the truth. Evidence to support your view Kay may perhaps be the early church father Pliny, who made mention of them in his letter to Trajan (110AD). But this is something i haven’t looked at in great detail and am undecided on the issue. I just wanted to make clear the actual issue grammatically behing deaconesses and put all the evidence on the table, so to speak.

Lmb,

Good to have you engage in the conversation. Let me respond to your comment.

You said
“Actually it isn’t a stretch at all. In Greek a masculine plural is the grammatical form used for a group of men, or a group of men and women. So the fact that the paragraph starts out specifying the presence of men AND women actually strengthens the idea that the masculine plural in v. 17 is addressed to both.”

What both you and Kay are failing to recognise is the context of the chapter. Although Paul uses the masculine and feminine forms at the beginning of the chapter, this does not necessitate that the plural is even associated 15 verses later. The context must decide this. Are the two addressing the same issue? Of course they are not, clearly the beginning of the chapter is not associated with verse 17. For example we see a similar thing in Titus. Titus 1:5 we again the plural form ‘presbuterous’ because Paul is discussing elders/overseers. In chapter 2 Paul again calls the ‘older men’ presbutas (Tit 2:2) and the older women presbutidas (Tit 2:3). Again the context makes clear that the older men/women section is not in conjunction with the ‘elders’ passage of chapter 1. It is precisely the same as 1 Tim 5. Although the same base word is used the context makes clear that the plural form is not associated with the others. Therefore i maintain to rely purely on the plural form is weak exegesis. IN fact bad exegesis- it ignores the context.

You further stated

“The fact that he has already specified both men and women in vv 1-2, and then spent vv3-16 describing the requirements and characteristics for women leaders in the congregation means that when he gets to the summary statements in vv 17-21 he is talking about the men and women who lead the congregation.”

I disagree. Verse 3-16 have nothing to do with women leaders in the church. Paul is clearly instructing Timothy about widows.I fail to see where the ‘requirements and characteristics’ are for the women leaders. Please point these out! Verses 17-21 are about accusations against elders, not summary statements about the leaders. I cannot see where your line of reasoning nor your interpretation of the passage is coming from. Don’t push for a passage about leaders that is clearly not there.

Next you discussed chapter 3 and insist that the passage is not addressing males only because of the ‘ei tis’ (whoever, anybody). Important to always keep in close mind is context. Does the passage here address both male and female or just male. Although Paul does use ‘ei tis’ the qualifiers ‘husband of one wife’, ‘managing his family’ (related to Eph 5 as the head) aswell as the correlating passage in Titus 1 show us that Paul is addressing males. I have heard others attempt an argument that legally only men could have multiple partners, but this line of argument is very weak. There is nothing in the passage to think that this is why Paul makes the statement- it is assumption based not on the context of the passage. Not only that, when Paul expands on the qualifications of deacons, it is here that a feminine ’gunaikos’ is introduced. Now if women were meant to be included in everything proceeding verse 11 then there would be no need to separate a teaching into a ‘woman’ orientated section. The evidence is hardly worth comparing and to argue against this chapter shows a deliberate ignorance of the greek.

Now finally you said that Paul spends alot of time outlining the qualifications for women leaders. Now contextually what you must be saying is his relation to a ‘deacon’. If you wish to persist that it further relates to elder please show contextually or grammatically why verse 11 should be understood with elders. On top of that why should we translate that gunaikos means ‘deaconess’ rather than women or wives?

Look forward to your response

Kay,

regarding your comment #95. This is an interesting line of argument you have suggested, that being that 1 Tim 5:17 MUST include women as elders because of the masculine and feminine nouns earlier in the chapter. I have never had anybody attempt to push this line. A few things that must be considered.

1. Just because there is a feminine and masculine form at the beginning of the chapter to attempt to prove that the ‘plural’ form 15 or so verses later includes both genders, is a stretch. On top of that verses 1-2 have nothing to do with ‘elders’. Although a similar base word is used in the greek, it does not mean that these verses ought to be tied to verse 17. The context clearly shows that it isn’t. Verse 1 and 2 are about the older men and women. Verse 17 is about elders. The two are not connected.

2. Remember that chapter 3 can only ever be masculine when Paul outlines elder qualifications. For your theory to stand strong you must some how prove that women are included in chapter 3 where Paul explicitly is talking about elders. Unless you can do this, it is inappropriate exegesis to say that just because it is plural, women must be included. THe best way to know whether women are included in 5:17 as ‘elders’ is to see Pauls actual teaching on elders and see if women are included there. If you wish to attempt to prove this from chapter 3 go ahead, i would love to see you try this. But quite frankly what you have proposed is pure speculation rather than strong exegesis, which is actually contradicted by Pauls actual teaching on elders.

Kay and others,

Regarding ‘servant leadership’ i don’t have a great deal to say. I do believe it is a biblical principle. John 13 which Kay quoted above clearly indicates this. Jesus as our supreme leader set us an example to follow. Now regardless of peoples distain for mega churches or terminology, the principle behind servant leadership is biblical. It is biblical because we have leaders in the church. It is biblical because Jesus sets an example of how these leaders should act.

I’d like to suggest contrary to Lin that the majority of leaders within the church do not want to lord it over other people. The fact is simple. In the early church, leaders were established to govern and protect the church. It is true that we should not lord it over others, yet that does not remove the authority that these early church leaders had. For example Timothy is commanded several times to deal with false doctrine, establish elders. Now none of this can happen without leadership authority.

Kay i haven’t read that post yet

Sorry Kay,

No i havent, i just havent looked there again for a few days. I will go have a look and respond asap

Cheryl,

I assume this post has risen due to our discussions elsewhere- good to see it challenging you.

Now i believe you have made a few fundamental mistakes.

1. You quote Macarthur but ignore his clear expression ‘can mean…’ because elsewhere in scripture it does function the way he says. Now obviously the context will decide which best description for ‘kai’ it will be in Eph 4. So Macarthur is not wrong to suggest his interpretation because scripture agrees elsewhere with him. That is your first fundamental mistake.

2. Your ‘other’ examples of the two nouns being governed by the one article are slightly diffenrent to Eph 4:11. In both the texts you cited both nouns (pharisees/scribes, chief priests/scribes) are being compared against something. In Matt 5 they are governed around the ‘righteousness’ and in Matt 2 they are fitting around the ‘gathering together’. Now in EPh 4 we do not have this grammatical set-up. Clearly the pastor/teacher association is supposed to be more than you are suggesting. This is your second mistake

Also you have failed to address why Paul uses ‘kai’ in between Pastors and teachers, where as with the apostles/prophets/evangelist he uses ‘de’ instead

Hi Cheryl,

Sorry for the delayed response. Had computer difficulties and am now in the process of moving house down to Melbourne. Once we have settled there in a few days i’ll engage in the discussion again.

Cheers.

P.s. Are you or anybody else heading ‘down under’ for the CBE conference thing in Melbourne this year?

Cheryl,

Can i ask you to comment a bit more regarding post 14. I’d like to know whether you believe verse 10 has more authority than verse 12 of 1 Cor 7 because Paul makes the different distinctions between his charge and the Lord’s charge? Or is verse 12 another example of Paul using his ‘authority’ to expand on a marriage scenario that Jesus perhaps didn’t comment on? Opinions???

Thanks

in comment #20 i meant Ephesian situation not corinthian, sorry

Cheryl,

No i wasn’t saying that.

Kay,

you must not be understanding my questions. Let me try to re-phrase. You yourself said that many things Jesus said/did must be ignored to hold a doctrine of quote ‘hierarchy’ as you define it. You seem to emphasise an importance on servant leadership (as we should) but seem to imply that a comp position rejects this. Now if i have understood you properly this is somewhat your argument? PLease correct me if i am wrong.

Now you agreed with Cheryl’s exergesis that Paul is asserting his authority in the so called Corinthian issue. But it seems like you contradict because when i say someone can be a servant leader and yet be in a position of authority it is called all but heretical. SO why are you inconsistent. Why can Paul (or Timothy) have authority and yet be a great example of a servant leader, yet no such thing can be true now?

Yes Kay,

You say some overlook Jesus words to insist on hierarchy, yet you agree with CHeryl’s exegesis that Paul is using that very authority himself. So just interested to know whether you think Paul was wrong here by exerting authority, or whether the two can work hand in hand?

Hi Cheryl,

You asked me as one of your hard questions “Do you or do you not believe that Ephesians 4:11 gives “teacher” as a gift for the body of Christ?”

The short answer is of course. However i do not think it should be separated from the gift of pastor for the reasons i have given already, the greek doesn’t allow for it. The two are so closely correlated so that when you talk about Eph 4 and say pastor, you also think teacher. Likewise you say teacher, you should also think of pastor.

And again you asked me “Secondly do you believe that “teacher” is not a gift on its own but must be amalgamated with pastor so that only pastors can be “teachers”?

I do believe that in Ephesians the two are enormously close knitted together, but i would not say only pastors can be teachers. I think a pastor is a teacher, likewise an evangelist is a teacher. This is how i believe we should understand 1 Cor 12 when it lists ‘teacher’, but neither pastor nor evangelist are listed.

I agree with this “Yet there is only one gift of “teacher”. There are not different levels of “teacher” although there may be different kinds of “teaching”.

“Yet in discussions with you, you seem to continually stress that a woman is not allowed to be a teacher because pastors are the ones who are given the responsibility of being teachers in the church. Have I misunderstood you?

Sort of! I do not believe that women are given the responsibility of oversight of the church or shepharding, and therefore they should not have the teaching responsibility of those in that position (pastors and elders).

You asked “Are women allowed to be “teachers” in the church?”

Now it is important to remember that we are discussing the bible not what ‘I’ allow or disallow. Perhaps you mean do i believe the bible teaches that women will be ‘teachers’ in the church, then i would say no. The reason being the resposibilty of the gift and its correlation to the gift of pastor which i believe the bible teaches are for the men of the church. Now i have no doubt that you will disagree with me on this but remember that the gift of ‘apostle’ was only ever given to men aswell.

You said “Related gifts that are related by function does not negate the separation of the gifts. “Pastor” is not “teacher” although a Pastor can also be a teacher. A pastor using teaching in the function of the gift just as one who prophesies uses teaching in the function of their gift. Do you agree or not?”

I disagree in the fact that i believe a pastor is a teacher aswell. The very gift of a pastor necessitates an ability to teach. The catch phrase “they are a good pastor but a bad teacher” i disagree with. Someone who shephards the flock but doesn’t teach is an elder. Someone who shephards the flock and teaches is a pastor in my opinion. Now about a prophet teaching i cant say because i have never seen this gift before, but i have no doubt it did have elements of ‘teaching’ in it as it was inspired by the spirit for the early church. Have you ever seen a prophet?

“Actually using such a term distorts the NT teachings which show that there is a common “class” of Christians. All Christians are brothers in Christ and no one can lord it over another and because leaders are to be servants, there is no such thing as “offices” which would divide the body into clergy class and laity. Christians are one class not two.”

You have a very negative attitude toward leadership it seems. But i disagree that it is unhelpful using certain terminology to explain things. What would you label elders and deacons as if you dislike the word ‘office’. I definitely agree that leaders are to be servants though. The difference i guess is that i don’t think using the word ‘office’ negates that belief. Also the reality is that we are all called to submit to our church leaders as men who will have to give an account.

“There is no apostolic “office” that was given to the 12. Rather these ones were chosen to be witnesses to the resurrection and were held accountable for the doctrinal foundation of the church”

Maybe you prefer the term ‘chosen ones’ rather than office :-). I have to say i disagree with you on this one. Yes there were 12 apostles chosen as the founding members of the church (Eph 2:20) but i would call this the ‘apostolic office’. The reason being there are other passages which call James and Barnabas ‘apostles’ but they were not ‘apostles’ in the same sense i mentioned above. For example look at 1 Cor 15:7, Gal 1:19, Acts 14:4, 14. Now all these had the gift of ‘apostle’ which means ‘one who is sent with a commision’ yet not all had the resposibilty as the founders of the church. I’d be interested to know if you believe this gift has ceased to be given?

“Really? You pointed to Ephesians 4:11 and tied it to 1 Timothy 3:1. There is no problem with people “shepherding” but there is only one gift of “pastor”.”

You have misunderstood me and i will take the blame because i now see i didn’t explain myself clearly. What i meant was not all elders are pastors. But i do believe they both have the same responsibilty of shepharding the flock.

You said “But all elders are supposed to be teaching”

Now do you mean what this seems to mean that all elders teach or are supposed to be teaching? If so i would say this is contrary to scripture. 1 Tim 3 says a qualification for an elder is that they are ‘able to teach’, but yet Paul says 2 chapters later in 5:17 that ‘elders who rule well are worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching’. So the assumption is not all will teach yet they should be ‘able to teach’. See the difference? IS this why you don’t like discussing elders because of Pauls correlation between them shepharding and preaching and teaching and that he only instructs men to take this resposibilty.

I have to say that i don’t know why you dodge discussions on eldership. I know you say we are discussing gifts, but it seems silly to discuss gifts that are enormously important for the church without discussing leadership responsibilities. Is it because the two don’t mesh with your view? Are gifts a safer argument for you? Since often gifts and natural abilities are so often confused.

You said “Do you believe that God can gift women as pastors? Or do you believe that God is limited in His work of giving out His gifts? Are you willing to answer this question that has been posed to you many times or are you going to bypass it one more time?”

No i will not answer this question because im not going to pretend i am God. I will answer questions in relation to His revealed truth, but i will not sin by making myself an idol before my Lord. Please direct you questions in a way that is not leading or loaded?

You asked “If I am wrong, then do you now admit that one who prophesies is a teacher?”

No i do not think a prophet is a ‘teacher’ because Paul seperates the gifts. Like i said earlier im sure the NT prophets ‘taught’ things but it does not make them now have the gift of a ‘teacher’ necessarily. Are you now mashing prophecy and teaching after accusing me of doing it?

To my above statement you probably answered it by this

“Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have never said that teaching is the same as pastoring. Nor have I said that prophesying is the same as teaching. We have both agreed that one who prophesies will teach in the act of using their gift, but prophesying is different than teaching just as the gift of Prophet is different than the gift of Teacher. Are you really sure you understand my position?”

I guess it is easy to get confused when we keep using terms interchangeably.

You said “If “teacher” must be attached to another gift and we then define that other gift as not being available to one gender, we have in essence removed the gift of “teacher” and replace it with an amalgamated gift belonging to men alone.”

Are you agreeing with me here that only men should be pastors?

“But this is necessary to do because many men are determined that God gives males alone certain gifts and they alone are privileged with an “office” and “authority” and “kingly rights”.

Cheryl your above comment shows your definite bias and deliberate intent not to understand their position. Unless you realise this, you will never be able to dialogue unhindered. I’m sure the majority of comps aswell as egals believe that waht they say is biblical truth not about authority and kingly rights. Of course people will always be deceived by their own sin and self-righteousness but your above comment really speaks of your position. Now i do understand you better. Please try and dialogue with me without having these assumptions about me.

Finally you asked me “What do you mean by not separating them “extensively”? This isn’t clear? Do you mean that we cannot separate them at all? Do you mean that one can be a teacher but not a pastor as long as one is male, but the two must not be separated if one is talking about a woman so that a woman cannot be a teacher because she is not to be a pastor?”

What i mean is when we come to 1 Cor 12 for example and see the gift of ‘teacher’ it needs to be understood in relation to the other listings of gifts. So in Eph we both agree Paul correlates it to a pastor. So by separating them extensively i mean emphasising a ‘teacher’ as something without keeping in mind Pauls other use of the term. When we read one verse alone and emphasise something about it without looking at all relevant passages we could get in trouble. That is why so many scholars associate a ‘teacher’ with an evangelist and/or pastor. It is keeping the whole bible in view rather than mis-representing one verse.

Enough for tonight. Anyway i want to begin to write a response to question 2 for you.
Speak soon.

Cheryl,

Again i have never said i don’t believe in a gift named ‘teaching’ nor have i said there are two types of teaching gifts. Please stop with the assumptions that i am never saying. What i did say, is that the Pastor and teaching gifts are correlated in Eph, so it is wrong to only focus on a ‘teacher’ and not understand it in relation to Paul’s listing, which here in Eph he has incorporated it with a pastor. It now seems to me that you somewhat agree with what i said, where as previously you were trying to use teacher as stand alone by citing Eph 4:11. If you wish to do that then 1 Cor 12 is a far better text to discuss rather than Eph 4. To ignore the way Paul has correlated the two until someone picks you up on it is not very good.

I understand that there is no word ‘office’ listed in the greek. It is helpful however to use a term such as it to portray accurately the Nt teachings. For example there was an apostolic office, which not all apostles were given. Let me explain, the twelve had an apostolic ‘office’ as did Paul, which had certain authority in establishing the early churches, yet an ‘apostle’ were people who saw the teachings and works of Jesus. For example when the disciples replaced Judas, they chose someone who had been there from the beginning. So there is a distinction between an apostle( someone who was there from the beginning) and the apostolic ‘office’. So i have no problem talking about an office of ‘elder’ as it is helpful in translating the NT teaching accurately.

Again i never said that an elder is a pastor. What i did say is that they both are told to ‘shephard’ the church. A pastor in my opinion is an elder with the gift of teaching. Do you believe that a pastor is seperate in responsibility than an elder? DO you believe women can be elders?

you said about me “It is not faithful in my opinion to disregard the gift of teacher in Ephesians 4:11.”

Where have i ever disregarded the gift of teacher? Or is this another assumption of yours? I simply pointed out how Paul correlates the gift of teacher with gift of pastor in Eph 4, which you are now agreeing with.

again you said “But you deny that prophesying is teaching”

I have never said such a thing. Quite the opposite really. Again what i did say is that prophesying is not the same teaching as that of a teacher/pastor/elder or whatever else. Remeber how i said we are taught in various ways but they are not all the same. IT is you who is being unfaithful by saying that pastoring/teaching/prophesying are all the same. I have simply used the bible to show where you were wrong.

Now about 1 Cor 12! First of all i don’t believe it is a less ‘teacher’ than Eph 4. Second the reason why Paul numbers the gifts and instructs the corinthians to desire the higher gifts is because they are more beneficial to the church, where as the corinthians over-realised eschatology and emphasis on ‘tounges’ was misguided.

Now many scholars believe that that the apostolic and prophetic gifts ended at the completion of the canon. LIke i said previously this is something i have not done alot of study on. However the thrid gift ‘teaching’ most agree is still given by the Spirit. Some believe that evangelists and pastors fall under the banner of ‘teacher’ because of Eph 4 listing. From what i have read on this i would somewhat agree. What ever the case i do believe in the gifting of ‘teacher’ but do not believe it is the same as a prophet.

Finally to answer your final question. I dont know why Paul said Pastor and teacher rather than the other alternatives, im not Paul. What is clear though is that they are seperate gifts but should be understood as closely tied together. The two gifts are similar and both vitally important for the ministry of the church. We shouldn’t mash the two nor should we seperate them extensively.

HI Cheryl,

I would like to comment to your above response where you say i am ‘noodling’ with the greek in Eph 4:11. What i find interesting is your lack of actual greek exegesis in this verse.

First you asked if i see it as a combo type deal and thus dont believe in the gift of ‘teacher’. I do believe in the gift of teaching, but however in the Eph 4 verse i do believe it is tied up with the ‘pastor’ gift. Now if you wanna discuss corinthians that would be different, but here in Ephesians Paul definately combines the two.

Now about the greek! Before the gifts of apostles, evangelists and prophets we get the word ‘some’ but this is not repeated with the pastor/teacher grouping. On top of that both pastor and teacher are governed by the one article (it appears before pastor but not teacher) aswell as the ‘and’ (kai) differing from the rest in the verse (de). Now it is evidently clear that a proper reading of the greek here shows that Paul has the two gifts in mind as a combination or as some commentators put it, one ‘office’. There is plenty in the grammar here to come to the conclusion that this is a combination.

Again pointing out that a pastor is a shephard, and likewise so is an elder, what do we have here in Ephesians? A complete parallel with Pauls other teaching on elders/teachers aswell as his direction for only male elders. Some shephards are gifted also as teachers.

You should not claim that i am noodling under an assumption of yours. I am not ‘noodling’ with the text, rather the complete opposite, being faithful to it. Eph 4:11 should not be used by you or others in an attempt to prove your argument about spiritual gifts. THere is simply too much against your argument. You fail to correlate a shephard to an elder, thus removing Pauls teaching on eldership which has a massive bearing on any leadership discussion. You may want to fall back on me restricting the holy spirit, but you are not providing good biblical arguments for your position. I will look forward to your response.

Cheryl,

Thanks for the post. I’d be interested to know your take on 1 Cor 7:10ff where Paul correlates between the Lords command and his own to the Corinthians. I know it has nothing to do with 1 Tim 2 but it is somewhat similar as a ‘man of God command’ type scenario.

Kay,

I find your comments striking. You seem to imply that comps ignore the teachings of Jesus who teaches servant leadership, but yet agree with Cheryl that Paul is using his apostolic ‘authority’. Is Paul being unfaithful to the teachings of Jesus by exerting his ‘authority’. Interested to know your line of thought!

Cheryl,

Yes i did feel you were harsh or frustrated and i understand that, but i still do not believe that i am throwing a low ball or presenting logical fallicies. Very briefly i will respond in a hope to answer some of your and others questions. Your original question was do i think a woman can teach good doctrine to men. Now i felt this was a loaded question because ‘teach’ is a broad use. IF you meant pastor, then no, if you meant teach in prophecy then yes. It is only in your last post that you made it clear that you meant the spiritual gift of ‘teaching’ from i presume Eph 4. So i will now look at that.

In terms of the ‘higher’ gifts 1 Cor 12:27-31 further expands on Cheryls point. Paul clearly instructs the Corinthians to ‘eagerly desire the greater gifts”. And more than once is the listing of gifts given as apostles, prophets, teachers…

Now about Eph 4. Is it a gender restricting gift of ‘pastor-teacher’. Note the greek word ‘poimenas’ (translated pastor in Eph) is the only instance in the NT where it is translated this way. Every other translation is ‘shephard’ or ‘Shephard;. For example Jesus is the ‘good shephard’ (Jn 10:11). Now compare this shepharding with Pauls exhortation of the ELDERS in Acts 20:28 to ‘shephard the church of God’. We begin to see that the gift of a pastor-teacher is officiated in the office of an elder. Now since again Paul only instructs the men to be elders it must necessitate then that a pastor-teacher will be a man and not a woman. It is vital not to read Eph 4 on its own ignoring all the other texts. By doing this i feel Cheryl that you have come to wrong conclusions on giftings.
Finally to respond to a few of your queries about my personal position. No i am not an elder. In fact the church i have been attending don’t even follow the biblical pattern of leadership in this way. This is something i have been wrestling with myself. However i do believe those who ‘teach’ in the sense of preaching at church should only be men who either are the pastor/elder or younger men training and gaining skills in that area.
In terms of prophecy, no we don’t have women or men prophecying in the church. I am in no way an expertise on the matter of gifting, and looking into it more closely is something i would love to do in the future in terms of searching out the different views as to whether certain gifts ceased at the completion of the canon. But like i said i need to do more study in this area before commenting extensively on cessationalism.
It is interesting for me Cheryl that you think by restricting a woman from being a pastor for arguments sake, that makes men higher. Why do you feel this way. After all only women can have children yet society does not make that a prejudice distinction.
My hope Cheryl is that your frustration may be a conviction about the position you hold regarding the gender debate. You say you are interested in only the truth and you know what i do actually believe you, i pray you come to see it.

Hi Cheryl,

Thankyou for your reply. A few observations.
I have to disagree that i failed to answer the original question. What i attempted to do was distinguish between the different gifts because i felt your question was a little broad. So i tried to demonstrate that the oversight ruling and teaching is different to other teaching like prophecy. If you continue to feel that i haven’t answered the question i fear it is based purely on our understandings of the various type of ‘teaching’ or gifts given in the NT.

I agree with you that an elder is not a gift, and like you stated an elder is someone qualified with other gifts.

Now you seem to think that i believe there are 2 gifts of ‘teaching’, one manly and more important than another. This is not true. I do believe that there is a gift of teaching. I also believe that there is a gift of prophecy. The difference is i don’t believe that the gift of prophecy commended for women by Paul in 1 Cor 11 is the same gift as that of teaching in Eph 4:11. Paul numerously distinguishes between the 2 gifts which is all i am doing. I’d be interested to know if you distinguish aswell since i have heard it several times used on this blog in an attempt to prove that ‘prophecy’ is not different to teaching. Now what is interesting is you think that i am saying that ‘teaching’ is higher than the prophecy. However does Paul not list prophecy before teaching and instruct us to desire the ‘higher’ gift.(1 Cor 12:27-31). It seems that you feel that teaching is the higher gift and it is unfair if a woman is not aloud to be a pastor, when infact a woman with the gift of prophecy has a higher gift than that of a teacher.

Cheryl i am also intrigued why you feel that the issue of eldership is not important in a discussion about teachers. This is perplexing since several times Paul instructs that elders are to teach and protect the church. Is it that you think elders have nothing to do with teaching?

It is hardly a comparison to say that the first witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were ‘preachers’ in the same sense as someone at a pulpit. These have no correlation biblically.

“Are you saying that only men are allowed to “rebuke false doctrine” and that only men are to have “sound knowledge of good doctrine”?”
No i am not, i simply quoted the bible which instructs elders to do this- it is part of their responsibility.

“There is no such “gift” as elder. And the “gift” of teaching is not limited to males. Why do you twist the words of Scripture and remove the gift of teacher and add the gift of elder? Why do you make the gift of teaching to have two levels when there is no such division in the Scripture? Is it possible that you have to change the Scripture in order to fit your own bias? Should we be listening to you as a “teacher” when what you say about the gifts isn’t found in the Scripture? Are you gifted in giving out Scripture doctrine just because you are a male? If you are gifted why does your teaching not match up to the inspired Word?”

This is an interesting paragraph. I will assume it was because you were stressed with your husband. None the less i have not once twisted scripture. I quoted scripture which clearly shows that one of their responsibilities is teaching and that the bible only ever instructs men to be elders. I then said how i think that the gift of propechy is not the same gift as teaching. Now why is that twisting? If you can show where i was twisting please do. Please show me where elders do not have a teaching responsibility. Please show how women are included in eldership. Please show how prophecy and teaching are the same gift?

“I noticed right away that you said “it is my opinion”. Mark, this is part of the problem, in that you put your opinion above the clear Word of Scripture.”
Wow, enlightening! Isn’t any exegesis or interpretation one’s attempt to explain a passage. The last sentence i will just ignore for now, because it is hardly a fair comment considering all the discussion we have had together. Let me be very clear, i hold a very high view of scripture. Just because i don’t agree with you Cheryl does not make me someone who is more interested in myself than the truth of the bible.

“There is no separation as if one is a higher gift than the other so that one is only an encouragement while one is manly preaching.”

Not in Ephesians 4 does Paul call one higher, but he does in 1 Cor 12. You must look at all relevant passages not just Eph 4 and 1 Pet 4 because that seem ‘universal’ to you. But in terms of ‘manly’ that is a distinction you are making.

“Here you are implying that only those with the gift of prophecy need to be tested and those who have the gift of teaching the body are not to be tested in the same way.”
Not at all. IF you read it again what i am saying is that the prophecy of the NT is not the same as the prophecy of the OT because it is spirit led utterance and is instructed to be tested. I said this to show how it is wrong to make a large correlation between the prophecy of the OT and the NT which some egalitarians do in an attempt to enforce female pastors. Of course all things need to be tested. Please read me more carefully.

Also i never said that men have a higher gift than women. This is a very wrong assumption you continue to make. Like i said above, prophecy is a higher gift, the very gift Paul expects women to have. If you realised this you would not be saying that i am making men more important than women. This is an issue i think you need to deal with within yourself.
Anyhow i have tried to give you an answer to your question. We have gone far and wide to try an answer it extensively so i hope you feel i am trying to explain my views to you. I will begin to look at question 2 in more detail and post a response soon.

Hi all,

Hope you all had a great Christmas and New Year!

Cheryl i have a response for that ‘question 1’ from way back so im just gunna post it hear…feel free to move it or whatever. Please know that i wrote it really quickly so i am sort of expecting to be picked up on things i may have missed- i just haven’t got the time atm to put as much research into the question as i like. None the less i’m sure it will create some more good discussion.

Here it is…note that i have gone back and cut and pasted your original question and the follow up answers and questions….then i added my final response.

Question and Dialogue
You said
1. Is it a “sin” for a godly Christian woman to teach correct Biblical doctrine to men in the church? Yes or no? If you would answer my question in a clear manner, then we can understand your stand.
Then i answered…
1. No according to your question. I think it is a sin for a woman to hold the office of elder and pastor / teacher which involves the regular spiritual leadership and preaching of the word.
Then you responded…
So you admit that it is not a sin for a woman to teach the Bible to men in the church? Okay, then. Let me take this a step further. How many times is a woman allowed to teach the Bible to men in a church before it might become a sin? May she teach every Sunday? If not, where is the Scriptural “law” that defines the number of times a woman may teach before she enters into sin.
Then i responded…
1. I have said all along that men and women teach each other in various ways. So for example if a woman prays or prophecies (in the spiritual gift of the NT) sense then of course she will ‘teach’ a man something. However the office of elder should only be held by men. That was my point.

Then you responded…
You did not answer my questions. I am not concerned that men and women can teach each other in “various ways”. I am asking about a gift of teaching the Bible for the benefit of the body. Since you say that women may teach men, I am asking how many times is a woman allowed to teach the Bible to men in a church before it might become a sin? May she teach every Sunday? If not, where is the Scriptural “law” that defines the number of times a woman may teach before she enters into sin? Would you please answer the questions that I actually ask instead of answering questions that I am not asking? I think that my questions are appropriate because God does gift His women with the ability to teach His Word. I am asking questions about how that can possibly be a source of sin.
Okay that was a restatement of question #1. Please, Mark, I would really like an answer to my questions especially on #1.

My final response…
In order to answer these questions we need to understand what Cheryl meant by ‘teach’ and who has that resposibilty. I will show how scripture requires that the overseers are resposibile for the teaching or preaching of the word in church, and how that is different to other forms of ‘teaching’ that i believe women will be gifted in and told to use to build up the church.

I believe that scripture teaches that men are only to hold the office of an elder (presbyter, episkopos). 1 Tim 3 outlines the characteristics and resposibilty of an elder…

“The saying is vtrustworthy: If anyone aspires to wthe office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore xan overseer2 must be above reproach, ythe husband of one wife,3 zsober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, ahospitable, bable to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but cgentle, not quarrelsome, dnot a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity ekeeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for wGod’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may fbecome puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by goutsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into ha snare of the devil. ”

Paul also further expands on the resposibilties of the overseers in 5:17

“Let the elders zwho rule well be considered worthy of adouble honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. ”

Here we see that elders both oversee and direct the affairs, but also some, not all are responsible for teaching and preaching. This is often where the distinction is made between a ‘ruling’ elder and a ‘teaching’ elder.

In Titus 1 we again see more about the resposibilites of elders. Note again that only ‘men’ can be in this role.

“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and pappoint elders in every town as I directed you—6 qif anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,3 and his children are believers and not open to the charge of rdebauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer,4 sas God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not tbe arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent uor greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, vand disciplined. 9 He must whold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in xsound5 doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. ”

Here Paul further qualifies that they must be able to rebuke false doctrine by sound knowledge of good doctrine.

Now it is my opinion that since we are talking about a ‘church’ scenario and this is what the letters of Timothy and Titus are addressing (an already established church), the gifting of apostles, evangelists, prophets (Eph 4:11) are not to be understood as having the same responsibility for the ‘teaching’ and overseeing of the church as the elders do.

Therefore to come back to the original question, the ‘teaching’ I think Cheryl is implying is the ‘preaching’, therefore NO, a woman should not be fulfilling that position. That responsibility falls onto the elders of the church, who Paul very clearly indicates are to be men of sound doctrine who oversee the affairs of the church.

Now to further expand on my point, being that men and women ‘teach’ each other in various ways. 1 Corinthians 11 teaches us that women can pray and prophecy in the church. Now to me, that would involve some form of ‘teaching’ to men in the congregation. However it is not the same ‘teaching’ as to those who are called and gifted to be elders of the church.

Also in relation to the ‘prophecy’ of the New Testament, it has to be understood that we can not relate it exactly to the prophecy of the Old Testament. For example the OT prophets spoke the very words of God, with full authority, and ultimately it was recorded as scripture for us. The prophecy of the NT does not seem to function this way. Note in 1 Cor 12 Paul seperates the gift of ‘prophecy’ to the gift of ‘teaching’

“Now qyou are the body of Christ and individually rmembers of it. 28 And sGod has appointed in the church first tapostles, second uprophets, third teachers, then vmiracles, then wgifts of healing, xhelping, yadministrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But zearnestly desire the higher gifts. ”

Not only that, but the prophecy Paul describes in Corinth is one of spirit guided utterance that needs to be tested.
“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others vweigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, wlet the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets (1 Cor 14:29- 32)

Again also note that the prophecy Paul speaks of in Corinthians is for believers not unbelievers. The OT prophets spoke a message of repentance for idolatry etc (unbelievers). This is not the same as the prophecy of the NT- the NT is for the ‘church’ to encourage and strengthen each other.

“Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign2 not for unbelievers but for believers. ” ( 1Cor 14:22)

Therefore it is evident that we should not stress to much on the continuance of prophecy of the OT to that of the NT. There seems to be variable differences. Paul expects woman to be gifted in this way and allows them to use that gift. However the gift of elder is only ever spoken of in relation to men, and men should only be in a position of oversight of the church and the teaching and preaching of the word.

Cheryl, now in relation to me showing you where a ‘law’ is that tells us how many times a woman can teach, I hope you can see that I have no intention of answering this question because it is not what I have said. What I am saying is this. The ‘teaching’ or ‘preaching’ of the word must only be the responsibility of the elders who the bible says are to only be men. I believe women may ‘teach’ in the sense of prayer and prophecy and singing etc but this teaching and gifting is different from that of the elders.

Look forward to your comments/questions

Hi all

As you are all aware i have been slow in response and the comments here seem to reflect that i am avoiding answering questions, thus my view is terrible, i treat women unfairly.

Due to this what i would like to do is slowly go back over the 10 questions and post the original questions and all the responses thus far. I will do 1 question at a time and answer as succinctly and accurately as possible. If others dont want me to do this let me know, otherwise i will concentrate on those questions. Please be aware that i have always tried to be concise and answer to the best of my abiblity without simply cutting and pasting every question ever asked- i simply don’t have the time to do such things. If this has appeared as evasive i apologise, but please don’t read into my responses or opinions from what is not said. I aprecaite gengwell’s understanding on this issue.

Quickly i just wanna answer Kay’s last comments regarding church fathers. INdeed they are fallible and got many things wrongs, as we all do now aswell. However they are the closest people we have to the NT times who would best understand language, culture, exegesis than we can ever do this far from Christ- that is why there imput is invaluable. To be accurate historically we need a good understanding of history. They give us insight into early theological crisis, early ministry formation, interpretation of scripture, language difficulties and ultimately how the church began and grew through the early centuries of persecution. And not only that they show us what was ‘orthodox’ christianity in those years.

The further we are from the culture of the NT and indeed the OT the harder it is to understand the culture. The only downfall in my opinion about their writings, is often we don’t have the writings of those who were not ‘orthodox’ e.g Arius because often their works were burnt or lost once condemned, so we have to reconstruct the early ‘heresies’ from what is written within the orthodox… the old ‘history is always written by the winners’ debarkle.

I will be back over the next few days with my re-posting of question 1

I just wanna say a few brief comments. It greatly disturbs me with comments like the ones below. It is no wonder that comps do not want to dialogue with you all when you don’t even understand the teaching. It does however reveal alot to me about this topic and how people are more inclined to listen to society than each other.

“In the end it’s just all about power and the manipulations one must go through to get it and keep it.”

“And men who lust for power and authority continue to dishonor women and deal treacherously with them.”

This is what feminism saids, not what complementarians say. It is disappointing to hear these type of things. If egals think that comps are lusting for power and manipulate and downgrade women it will be very difficult to ever dialogue effectively on these issues.

Cheryl, you said that false teachers were not believers and i agree, however it is not always evident to tell the difference. For example we are having a discussion over the woman issue. Now one side of the camp is in error and teaching ‘false’ doctrine about this issue, so one must be wrong and repent of their sin.

Therefore to say that comps are restricting women is as good as saying they are teaching false doctrine in my view, which i think is fine. We need to be passionate about the word, but make sure we teach it right.

I also agree that the prophetic word was judged on what came out of the mouth, not if it came true. However, i don’t see many prophets running around predicting the future. Now if i am saying that women should not be elders/pastors and i am wrong i am teaching false doctrine. Likewise if Cheryl continues to promote her view of equality and is wrong she is teaching false doctrine.These are very serious issues of which why i quoted our Lord Jesus above-

“Not everyone who ?says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will ?enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who ?does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ?On that day ?many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons ?in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I ?never knew you; ?depart from me, ?you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:21-23)

It seems to me that these people had ‘fruit’ in their ministry yet it was not God’s. Therefore i think it is vital to a discussion like this to distinguish between a true gift and a false one, and definaterly not by a book which determines the gift.

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

Cheryl,

I would love for you to write a post on actually being able to distinguish between a true God given spiritual gift and those of false teachers. To me it seems un-practical to be discussing whether we are restricting women’s gifting if we don’t actually have a proper understanding of that which is actually a gift. For example we have many warnings about false prophecy or teaching.

Jeremiah 14:13-22
2 Peter 2:1-22

…and one of the scariest of all- Jesus words

? “Not everyone who ?says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will ?enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who ?does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ?On that day ?many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons ?in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I ?never knew you; ?depart from me, ?you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:21-23)

It seems to me that it would be more helpful to discuss between a true gifting of God and a false one. And for further thought whether or not people think some gifts ended in the first century…any thoughts

Frank, please do not think i have just ignored what you have said. As i said in my original post, 1 Cor 11 is not a primary text regarding the Trinity, so the basis of the passage should not be primarily based around it. Thus the reason why i haven’t necessarily gone so much into it here. But since there is so much tension around it now, i will briefly comment and hopefully give some ‘proof’ that others want.

Dave, your little comment about Calvin can be between us. I’m sure the PTC would be appaled at such a statement, although it probably does have an element of truth :). Also i will be at PTC on Monday, got an exam in the morn.

Now about the Trinity. I would first like to say that i believe God is unchanging. Therefore when i attempt to understand the Trinity i believe that the Father has been the Father from the beginning. Likewise with the Son and the Spirit in terms of ‘relations’ between the Three. Therefore whatever Jesus revealed to us about his Sonship in the NT, in my opinion is reflective of his person as the second member, since in terms of essence He cannot change. This has been from beginning to all eternity. Jesus did not become something ‘different’ at His incarnation in regards to His divinity. Hope we all agree upon that!

Jesus is revealed as the Son of God (one of many titles) which reveals his unity with the Father in relation to ‘essence’ (Jn 10:30). However there are passages that refer to Jesus as the ‘Son’ before his incarnation (Rom 1:3-4, Gal 4:4) showing that what Jesus was at the incarnation in relation to his deity, he was before his incarnation. See also Jn 1:1-14 where “Word’ is obvious reference to the Son-Jesus. Note in verse 18 of Jn 1, the Son is refered to as in the ‘bosom of the Father’ which is in the present tense, expressing permanent being- from eternity to eternity (this is precisely what my quote of Calvin was dealing with)
So what ever was His Godness in His incarnation is exactly that which was His Godness before his incarnation.

Therefore the ‘kenosis’ debate of Phil 2 must conclude that Jesus did not lose anything that was divine in His incarnation, he was rather restricted by taking human flesh. So any attempt to use Phil 2 to show that Jesus was different in his Godness in His incarnation should be abandoned as it changes Christs deity, thus changing God.

Combine this with the fact that the Father is not begotten, but the Son is (Jn 1:18, 3:16, 1 Jn 3:9) and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (Jn 14:26, 16:7) aswell as the great eschatological passage of 1 Cor 15:20-28, and we begin to see the unity of the one God, expressed in the distinct subsistence of being. Therefore it is unsatisfactory to simply say that the Father is not the Son and vice verse. The bible teaches far more than simply that.

So Jesus is of one substance with the Father, yet distinct in subsistence. Now i want people to prove from scripture and church history, how a subordination of subsistence leads to inferiority or un-equal in essence. The only ‘evidence’ i have seen for such a claim comes from ‘Discovering Biblical Equality’ that Frank quoted way back which is simply based on opinion, not scripture or history. It is simply an attempt to reject orthodox Trinitarian doctrine to favour an egalitarian interpretation, and thus needs to be challenged and condemned.

Since Calvin is rejecting the whole notion that Jesus was in a ‘different’ position at his incarnation to his previous position(before incarnation) it is extremely important. Perhaps you can ‘deal with this’.

The question pinklight is in what way is the Father not the Son and the Son not the Father. It is not good enough to just say what you did. I had a Christadelphian say exactly the same line as you and he didn’t even believe that Jesus was God? Let’s begin to try and understand the ‘subsistences’ so we can better know the word.