Mark

Cheryl,

I don’t have a problem with the Jewish context outlined by MacCarthur, but i fail to see how you can link this as a ‘church’ the same as Corinthians.

I’m happy to do exegesis for you, but i thought we were trying to discuss the videos? The issue remains that i have shown that these 2 texts are addressing a formal type setting, and no one has been able to show otherwise from these texts.

Cheryl,

“I am saying that Eve quoted God. She didn’t paraphrase Him by saying “God told me” she simply said “God said” and she quoted exactly what he told her. ”

No, she misquoted God by introducing the words “and you must not touch it”.

I think also you missed my point. In 3:2 she tells the serpent what we see in Gen 1:29, but then introduces verse 3 with “but God did say”… Did God not say what was in verse 2? OF course he did, but that subtle “but God did say” which was actually NOT what God did say is something significant.

Regarding whether or not she knew the term Yahweh is insignificant. Of course she didn’t, that wasn’t known till God revelaed his name to Moses. But none the less, the writer of Genesis is using it in the early chapters of Gen, and the ‘Lord’ is dropped first by the serpent, then by Eve. You need to better to reconcile this than just dismiss that Eve didn’t know the term.

Cheryl,

Is it not legitimate for Eve to say “God said” if it was Adam who told her what God said- i don’t think so, it is still God saying it.

” But “God said” is either the truth and God indeed did tell her, or she lied.”

She is not lying if Adam told her what God said. You are disregarding this possiblity. It could be equally true and not make Eve a liar nor make her a sinner before the fall.

“If God would have told her only the exact same food to eat as He told Adam (He spoke to her and gave her additional foods to eat in addition to what He had said to Adam), and we ignored Eve’s claim that God said, there is still the problem of the additional information that God gave to Eve that is not directly quoted to Adam in chapter 2.”

So you believe Cheryl that God gave Eve some ‘extra’ information, is this correct? Can you explain more for me what you mean by this.

“It isn’t natural at all unless one assumes that God wouldn’t stoop to speak to a woman”

This is barely worth commenting on because you know this is not what i believe. God gives instructions to 1 person all the time, to pass on to others i.e preaching, prophecy, toungues

Cheryl,

your comment #137 is a whole lot of assumptions which is not in the text of Acts 16. Frankly i don’t see how you read out of Acts 16 that women were aloud to bring forth the word of God. Also i don’t see how that has any connection to what Paul is addressing in 1 Cor 14.

Frankly i have shown why i believe a woman should not preach in the church. I’m not really sure what else you expect of me to show.

Kay,
again no that is not what i am suggesting, but it was what was happening at the ‘formal’ church in Corinth at that time, because their church had those gifts.

Are you denying that the context i’m providing is NOT addressing the gathered body?

Kay,

sorry i did mean chapter 16- thanks for spotting my mistake. NOne the less you didn’t answer my question where does it even talk about church in that chapter. Since you didn’t respond i’m assuming you relalise you were reading into the text a ‘church’ that was mentioned.
Interestingly about the Phillipian Jailer, Paul went back to his house aswell and baptised him and his household aswell. Was this church aswell? Was there then 2 churches within the space of a few days in Phillipi? One at Lydia’s and one at the Jailers?

I’m not suggesting a certain number needs to be present for ‘church’. But the activities we do in a gathered assembly is different to other situations and again Paul is addressing the gathered assembly.

Dave,

no i am not saying we need to be speaking in tounges to be in a ‘formal’ church. The point is simple. The gathering of the assembly of believers i.e church is different to our other weekly so called ‘church’ things. You might like to say they are not, but the activities we do in each, indicates that they are.

I agree that Jesus is with us in spirit and body because we are his body, but Paul is not addressing 2 brothers hanging out together. He’s giving instructions to the church, the ‘whole’ body of Corinth if i can put it that way.

If you can’t see the differnet contexts of the bible regarding evangelism, mission, church then there isn’t much more i can say to help you. If you continue to think that 1 Cor could essentially be applied to you and me when we catch up for coffee thats fine, but i totally disagree.

According to Gen 2 only Adam was instructed about the tree. IN gen 3 we know that Eve knew the command so we either must think Adam told her, or God told her. According to Cheryl’s video she believes God told her. Perhaps this could be true but is this not also an argument from silence, as the bible NEVER tells us that God spoke directly to Eve about the command. No where does Gen tell us that God commanded Eve…. about not eating the fruit. The natural flow of the passage is to assume it was Adam who instructed her. Does this then make Eve’s statement void? Not at all. Adam simply told Eve what God had told him. So i agree with the JW’s that is was more probable that Adam was the one who told Eve, but again i wouldn’t push the significance of this too far as the JW’s seem to have done. I wouldn’t say that God only communicated with the man.

It is interesting that Eve introduces in 3:3 but “God did say”… even after telling the serpent in verse 2 something that God also told her- the account of Gen 1:29. Perhaps this is deliberately done by the author to emphasise a point. I noticed you didn’t discuss this in the video Cheryl. Should we assume in your view Cheryl that God didn’t say what Eve quotes in verse 2? It is also interesting that Eve follows the serpents lead by referring to Yahweh as ‘God’, not ‘Lord God’. Is this perhaps another subtle insight by the writer? Maybe it is discussed in later videos and i’m getting ahead of myself.

Ok now i am going to watch video 3

Cheryl,
Again you are playing semantic games with my words. If you have any legitimate claim to show that there is no difference between Pauls letters and Acts 16 for example please provide.

Lin,
I’m very familiar with the ‘supposed law’ arguments of 1 Cor 14. ATM it is not really my concern, perhaps a bit later. If you likewise have any supporting evidence to show that Paul is NOT addressing a formal gathering of believers please show me.

Kay,
1 Corinthians 14:26. Paul addresses when they ‘come together’. He rattles off hymn singing, word of instruction, revelation, toungues- “All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.” This is clearly instructions about the complete gathering of believers, ie formal church not about Paul evangelising to Lydia, not about 2 or 3 people gathering together in a bible study because such things are for the benefit for the church- all believers in Corinth. How can these things be strengthening for the church if only a few people are there? It is ridiculous to see this any other way.

Regarding Timothy see my post above. Paul’s instructions are about corporate worship-formal gatherings and significantly who can/can’t teach, who can/can’t be elders/deacons.

Also Kay you said
“Paul stayed with Lydia in her house. He and the rest of the new believers held ‘church’ in her home and possibly others, but no synogogue or church building is known to have existed there at that time
1. Where does it say in Acts 17 that they held church there with ‘possible others’?

Quick question for Dave,
You said this a while ago…
“I think we first need to work out what each other is talking about, but at Ryde Pressie I am not sure if we have what you call a “formal”church meeting. It is one of the times during the average week that we meet together as a church. It is no more formal than what we call our “Small Church” meetings during the week, or what we call our “Kid’s Church”. Nor is it more formal than things we do where we have not attached the word “formal” – like our dvd night, our kid’s club and teens, or even my “open office” time each week where someone comes for a chat. All of these things are church, and they are all a part of Ryde Pressie church and the Body of Christ.”

Just wondering when you have your ‘small church’ do you sing hymns, talk in toungues and prophecy? Do these things happen in your kids clubs, youth groups, even in your office. My i would be impressed if everytime your assistant pastor walks in you start singing hymns and prophecying together. The reality is 1 Corinthians 14 is addressing the ‘formal’ gathering of believers.

gengwell you asked of me

“Mark – what is special about formal church that makes it a setting where women teaching is inappropirate when the identical teaching by a woman in other settings would be deemed appropriate? For example – why can your wife teach you at home, but cannot present the identical teaching to you in formal church? What are the specific differentiators of church vs. other contexts that disqualify women from teaching in church but allow them to teach in those other contexts?”

First of all Paul differentiates. The teahcing restrictions are in the context fo a formal church so that is how i read it. Also the teaching that is presented at home, in studies etc ar not IDENTICAL to that presented in a church. Bible studies are about discussions not 1 person presenting the passage in an expository fashion. Again you are confusing everything in an attept to prove a point, but the reality is, the bible has differentiated such things.
Phillip is evangelising to an un-converted Ethiopian. Paul does the same to Lydia. However this is not the purpose nor the context of 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy. Lets not confound all the scriptures all the time to always be saying the same thing.

Paul resticts a woman in ‘church’, but admonishes us to be teaching and encouraging and be building each other up. I am simply obeying the bible.

Just a quick response as i dont have much time. Gengwell i will give you a more detailed answer soon.

I am astonished at the extent that people ignore the obvious. Both 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 ARE in the context of a formal type church gathering. Dave i said earlier how i see this in 1 Cor so please look there. Chapter 2 of Tim is a focus on public worship. Chapter 3 then goes on to give the qualifications for the church leaders. It is all about the ‘formal’ church. Perhaps try and read the text!

Dave i have no doubts that Jesus is present when we meet together. In fact isn’t His spirit with us ALL the time. The point is clear, both the passages above are in the context of a more formal church gathering, and that is where Paul restricts the women from teaching. Dave your quote of Jesus shows little but an ignoring of the context of passages. PLease show me FROM the passages how this is NOT a formal type church gathering context?

Cheryl, the reference to creation doesnt cause a problem for my view- rather the opposite. The reason only a man should be an elder/pastor/preaching is because the man is in effect the ‘head’ and this is to be shown in the body of believers and leadership. It is exactly the same way Paul uses creation in 1 Cor 11, to show that the husband is the head of the wife. I think the problem lies with your view. Why would PAul even bother talking about Genesis in either text if we are to accept the egalitarian position?
Also your whole post #116 really shows me that you don’t look at the overall biblical picture and attepmt to disprove my position by trying to cram all information out of 1 small passage. Please give proper arguments or critiques.

Let me just say a few things,

Kay, i think your probably right, Australia and the US are different in may ways so it probably does effect our perceptions.

I understand people may be hurt or hurting by abuse but we should be careful we do not let sin creep into our lives with this hurt. Sin is a disease and and will harbour bitterness if we are not quick to recognise it. Jesus commanded us to forgive- are people doing this?

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

These things are truly disturbing. BUt rather than labeling it under the banner of ‘traditionalists’ perhaps egalitarians should be more careful with their terminology between those who support biblical headship of a man and those who openly accept abuse which is evidently sinful and should in no way be accepted.

Such poor lack of terminology is seen as…

“1. Marriage is not a hierarchy. Traditionalists assume that a Christian marriage is defined as a dominant husband who makes all family decisions while the wife graciously obeys without input”

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

I honestly see it as a misrepresentation. Too often egals link ‘domination’ with our theology. Either they are blinded to the actual teaching and or choose to ignore it.

None the less we definately should protest against those who foster abuse under the name of ‘submission’.

Pinklight,

i do feel like i am going around in circles because i seem to be saying the same thing over and over again. I apologise if it gets confusing, but i think its because i am confusing myself trying to answer everyone one. Maybe if everyone can limit their resposes to 2 or 3 words it might help :)- but im guessing this is impossible. Let me perhaps try and summarise my position.

1.Kingdom of Priests is metaphorical for body of believers (Jewish or CHristian depending on which Testament)
2. This metaphor should not be used in conjunction with the Levitical priesthood to emphasise that woman are now incorporated into roles from which they were earlier excluded i.e specific roles given to specific men.
3. Only men are to be elders/pastors from what Paul saids.
4. This leadership of the church is analgous to the ‘headship’ of the husband, which is analogous to the headship of Christ. This is the prodimate theme of male leadership portrayed throughout the bible.
5. Since the leaders of the church are the teachers of the church, and since 1 Cor and ! Tim are in the context of church gatherings i believe women should not be in that position.

I might have to agree with Cheryl and take a break for now. If i get a chance to respond again to peole i will, if not i will comment next after i watch video 3. Wow, i just realised, im only up to number 3- seems like it never ends.
Cheryl, you should get some sponsors who give you money everytime someone comments 🙂

Cheryl, now i am confused,

in the video the claim rests that the Levitical priesthood was the firstfruits of the true priesthood and israel failed in producing the proper priesthood, but now you say it was meant to happen this way and you agree with me that women were never meant to be literally slaughtering the animals.

So is it literal or metaphoric? You seem to be changing your opinion all the time.

If the whole nation was to be a kingdom of priests and the priests literal role was to slaughter animals why are you no back tracking and saying women were never meant to be in that role?

Either you believe that the priesthood of Exodus 19, 1 Peter is metaphoric for the people of God or it is literal, so that women can perform the priestly duties? Previously you saw the priesthood as literal but now you seem to be saying it is literal?

ok i think we need to clarify a few things…

it seems like Dave and Cheryl are expecting me to find the term ‘office’ in the NT to back my claim. I have no intention of trying to prove such a thing because its not there. The point i am making is just because the word isnt there, doesn’t mean the picture/meaning is portrayed. Pastors/Elders/ Deacons are all offices in the sense that they are positions/roles within the church structure.

Cheryl, im not denying woman are part of the ‘priesthood’. I’m simply saying that your understanding of the priesthood is not correct and should not be used as support for your view. The priesthood is metaphorical for the people of God as a whole. The Levitical priesthood was a designated role, for designated men to perform. In answer to your question, the Levitical Priesthood became void at the sacrificial death of Christ, once for all. The need for the Hebrew cult is no longer necessary.

Hence why i disagree with you using it for your view and likewise i disagree with you using the ‘prophesying’ of 1 Cor as evidence for your view. Neither is being accurate of the overall biblical picture of prophecy and priesthood.

Again, just because Paul doesn’t call timothy a ‘pastor’ doesn’t make his role void. You have yet to show how his role was NOT that of a Pastor. The reality is you can’t. He was acting in a Pastoral position regardless of whether Paul called him ‘Pastor Timothy’ or not. After all where is ‘Trinity’ in the bible? You should not be so quick to dismiss stuff just because the word isn’t there. The meanings are clearly present.

Let me clarify one thing. The only false teachers we know about in Ephesus, where Timothy is ministering, are men. An argument from silence is hardly as convincing as we what we are actually told.

pinklight,

you asked

“What is “the spritual head of a man” category? How do pastors and elders fall under this category? And how does a restriction on women teaching in church fall under this category??”

This category falls under the man i believe because men are the only ones aloud to be elders/pastors. We can engage in a discussion about the relevant texts for this but atm i’m trying to concentrate on these videos, but im sure we will get there at some stage. The restriction falls to women teaching because women are never given that position and Paul does not permit women to teach in those settings. Thats my position anyway.

Yes Cheryl, i would be willing to back you up in those circumstances. Although i disagree with you that woman can preach in church, i have no problem with a woman leading a bible study, leading youth, sunday school etc.

Ultimately these things still fall under the spritual head of a man i.e pastor/elder adn i think that is the whole point. Women are still able to exercise their giftings, but I believe Paul restricts them where i have already said.

woops,
this…
We see elsewhere (Acts with the Ethiopian Eunuch where baptism follows evangelism and witnessing.

was supposed to read like this…
We see elsewhere (Acts 8)…

sorry

The comments are extensive so i will reply the best i can…

1. Obviously i believe that there is a ‘formal’ type gathering demonstrated in Pauls epistles, and many don’t. I have shown why i believe this but no one has given any evidence to conclude that 1 Cor 14 is not directed to a ‘formal’ type gathering. Likewise do any of you bother going to church on a sunday? IF you do, why do you bother, if Sunday ‘Church’ is the same as bible study and the like. Your own actions if you go to church, contradict your own view.

2. Cheryl, i don’t see prophesying in Cor as the same as teaching. If that is what your bible exposition looks like in your church i would be very intrigued to visit one day. There are many different types of ‘prophecy’ outlined in scripture. We ought not bulk them together under the banner of ‘teaching’ or preaching. If you think we should, please show how scripture does this? Also i have repreated said that 1 Tim was written to Timothy not a church. If you can outline from 1 Timothy how is role is not a ‘pastor’ from what Paul is instructs him to do please also show?

3. The term ‘Pastor’ is an office of the NT. IT derives from the idea of shephard/prebyter/overseer. It is not man made tradition. In fact im a bit sick of being referred to traditon all the time. It’s in the bible. Maybe we should question who is more influenced by society, the comp view or egal view? I’ll leave the answer up to you.

4. Cheryl, again i totally disagree with your understanding of the priesthood. Exodus 19 is actually the only occurance where the 2 hebrew words form together ‘kingdom of priests’. The Levitical priesthood could only ever be done by men from the tribe of Levi-scripture teaches this. Calvin summarises Israels adn Christians role as ‘Prophet, Priest and King’. Symbolically we are a kingdom of priests- we represent God on this world. Priesthood imagery and symbolism is used all throughout scripture. If we are to always take it literary you contradict yourself. You used Exodus 19 as ‘proof’ but then said the Hebrew priesthood never came to fulfilment? Did God lie or fail with Israel in your view? If Romans 12 is literal why dont we literary sacrifice ourselves. Like it or not, the ‘priesthood’ is symbolism and should not be used as supposed evidence to support the view that women can be pastors/elders.

you said “Can you back up your claim that there are “real” priests and only “symbolic” priests? The onus is on you to prove that there is only symbolism.”

yes i can- scripture only ever had men from the tribe of Levi a ‘priests’ in the real sense. If you think women filled this role show me. THe rest of Israel was symbolised as kingdom of priests- all genders included. How else could God say that they were a kingdom of priests if it is not understood this way. It would make God a liar and untrustworthy. How do you reconcile this? Jesus came as the great and final sacrifice, and instituted the ‘kingdom of God’. Is this literal or metaphoric Cheryl? Peter saids in his first letter “But you are a chosen PEOPLE, a royal priesthood, a holy NATION, a people belonging to God, that you may DECLARE THE PRAISES OF HIM WHO CALLED YOU OUT OF DARKNESS INTO HIS WONDERFUL LIGHT”. If this is not metaphorical for our role as ‘priesthood’, how is it then literal. The fact is, you have entangled the literal Levitical Priesthood of the Hebrew cult with the with the metaphorical understanding of the people of God as a kingdom of Priests.

Again i would be very interersted to hear Daves view on this. I will be very surprised if he supports your view here Cheryl. Covenant theology is very well understood in Prebyterian circles, in Australia anyway. Also no body else has said anything about this issue. DO people support Cheryl’s view on this?

Just a quick side note. Acts 16 is not the establishment of the Phillipian Church, nor is it a ‘church’ gathering. Verse 13 tells us that they were looking for a place of Prayer. They met Lydia, evangelised to her and baptised her. This is evangelism/mission not a church gathering. We see elsewhere (Acts 8) with the Ethiopian Eunuch where baptism follows evangelism and witnessing. This is a very weak argument unless you want to conclude that Phillip and the Ethiopian where having a church service aswell?

The fact is Cor is addressing a formal church gathering. Please use relevant ‘proof’ texts to show otherwise.

Kay you asked “Why do you catagorize the preaching to or teaching of youth/children as less ‘formal’ or authoritative than other times believers gather to worship/learn the Word?”

My answer, because Paul does. Again 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim are church gatherings. What you and others here are classifying as church are not what Paul is discussing. If you can disprove this please do? The fact is, both texts are in the context of believers gathering together in a ‘formal’ way, what is appropriate and what is not!

I believe the onus is up to all of you to show how the Levital Priesthood should be understood as literarily growing into a kingdom of Priests where men from other tribes and any women would have been aloud to perform the sacrificial system of Israel. Also it is up to all of you to show how Paul is NOT addressing a formal gathering in these 2 texts.

Dave,

1 Corinthians 1:2- To the Church of God in Corinth.
2 Corinthians 1:1- To the Church of God in Corinth

Not to mention all of Pauls other epistles addressed to Churches. Not also to mention all the historical evidence to show that believers gathered in homes or synagogues in a ‘formal’ way.

Also 1 Cor 14:26- ‘when you come together…All of these things must be done for the strengthening of the Church’. The whole context of this letter is addressed to the church, and chapter 14 particular the gathering of believers in a ‘formal’ way.

Maybe you think Dave that Ryde Pressie should give up meeting together on Sundays in a ‘formal’ way. BUt surely that would be contradicting Hebrews 10:25- “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing.”

Dave do you disagree that 1 Cor 14 is in the context of a ‘formal’ church setting? Also do you agree with Cheryl regarding the Levitical Priesthood idea in video 2?

Cheryl,
Paul is addressing a church in 1 Cor and the pastor of the church in 1 Tim. 1 Timothy is a pastoral epistle not an epistle addressed to a church like 1 Cor. Therefore there is no need to find evidence in Tim to show that it is addressed to a church because that is not what i believe. Maybe i should have been a bit clearer, sorry.

That said, this is what i understand about Paul’s 3 pastoral epistles (1,2 Timothy, Titus). They were all written toward the end of his life. They are called ‘pastoral’ because both Timothy and Titus were co-workers with Paul in his ministry. At the time of writing, Timothy served in Ephesus and Titus in Crete.

Timothy was now the pastor representing Paul in the large church of Ephesus, constituting many congregations. Timothy was young and probably felt some reluctance to lead the church (1Tim 4:12, 15-16). In addition there were potential problems with false doctrine and superstition coming into the church ( 1Tim 1:19,4:1-3,5:15,6:20 and Acts 20:28-30). Note the ONLY false teachers we know of are Hymenaius and Alexander, both men. Timothy’s role included instructing the elders and deacons, guarding against false teachers, caring for the widows and importantly 4:13- “devote yourself to the public reading of scripture, to preaching and to teaching”.

If this is not a description or ‘role’ of a pastor/presbyter/overseer i will be astonished. Timothy should most definitely be described as the ‘pastor’ of the Ephesian Church when Paul wrote this letter. Any attempt to say otherwise is really just ignorance of the facts.

Let me address people 1 at a time…

Pinklight,

I think you are trying to push what i was saying to mean something else. Of course i don’t think we do things in our own ‘power’. Maybe my australian terminology is interfering in this concept. The point is, in both situations the husband/elders/leaders put others first and dont lord it over others/wives.

Lydia,

Pastor is both in my opinion. You do not want someone as a pastor who is not gifted to be there. Also it is an office. Overseer/elder/ shephard all convey the same meaning as ‘Pastor’. Don’t let our English translations and bias’ against roles interfere with terminology conveying the same things. Perhaps you want to dispute like many that there are no such offices at all in the New Testament? I’m not sure? As far as i know Paul is VERY interested in overseers/elders/presbyters/deacons which were all present in the early church and his letters.

gengwell,

if you think there is no distinction in the ‘church’ and other ministries i am very confused. Are you suggesting that Paul was writing to bible studies and youth groups etc. Surely not! What is the early church based on…the synagogue? There is most definately a ‘formal’ church in Pauls writing and this is precisely the context of what i am saying about men teaching. IF you think this is not the context of 1 Tim and 1 Cor please show me why?
The reason why i dont think there are no other guidelines for who leads ot teaches in other circumstances is because it doesnt matter. This is precisely my view. Paul only restricts a woman from the formal teaching/leading of the church.

One last question for everyone. Do other people agree or disagree with Cheryl’s understanding of the priesthood?

Also, lke the majority of you i believe the church is ‘the body of believers’, not a building. Sorry, i should have clarified that.

Paul in writing those letters was addressing a church and a pastor of a church. Both the immediate contexts of the passages refer to the ‘formal’ if i can call it that assembly of believers. Not bible study, not youth, not mission, not bible college, but ‘church’. Simply stated with the exponding of Pauls comments regarding eldership and how i see that role in the bible, i conclude that men should only be in that position teaching in the church.

That said there number 1 priority should be to humble themselves and do everything in their power to make their ‘church’ as much like Christ as possible. They should teach the word faithfully and be submissive in character and action to their sheep. They should never lord it over or demand things, but they also have the auhtority to make decisons knowing that one day they will give an account for what they do.

That is my rant

Pinklight,

i believe Genesis shows us something about Adams headship not about teaching. In both mine and my wifes understanding of the scriptures i am the ‘head’, but it doesnt mean she can’t teach me or show me things in the bible or be able to have an opinion. Headship isnt about domination, Christ revealed it is about love and submission and doing everything in my power to make my wife more like Him. If husbands dominate, it is not representative of Christ and is really fulfilling Gen 3. I dont think we should confuse teaching between spouses and the teaching roles involved in churches.

Ok i have now watched video 2 and have a few thoughts/ comments.

1. I’m not very familiar with the Jw’s or there theology, so i can only go off what is presented in these videos. I do not agree that Eve ‘sinned’ by talking to the snake. If this was true the fall would be insignificant and the bible wrong. I do not believe that, so i am not willing to accept that Eve sinned pre-fall.
2. I would also not use the Levitical priesthood as ‘proof’ for my argument for the headship of Adam in the garden. The priesthood does show us something about Leadership and its requirements/who was aloud to do it etc, but i don’t think it supports the JW view either.

Cheryl, im assuming you are the Narrator? If so, i am also concerned at a few things you had to say apart from the accent 🙂

Your whole argument for this video around the priesthood if i can put simply was this ‘The Levitical Priesthood was the foundation and it was supposed to spread to everyone (women included) not just men’. If this is what you were saying i disagree.

1. The ‘covenant’ nation Israel is not the same as the Levitical Preisthood. You attempted to argue your view from Exodus 19 where Israel is called a ‘kingdom of priests’, to show how women are essentially included into the priesthood- they are not. The covenant community was chosen as God’s people to be a nation of preists in the sense of projecting God’s glory to the world. This of course included men, women, children as it does now. ‘The Church’ i.e covenant community has the same role to fill. The metaphor for a nation of priests is symbolic of their role as Gods chosen people and i think you have confused it with the role of Levitical men wrongly.

2. The Levitical Preisthood was established as God’s priests to fulfill the role of the Hebrew cultic system, i.e temple. This role could only be performed by men of the tribe of Levites. No women were aloud to perform this role, nor men from another tribe. The Levites were set aside by God for this role.

Therefore i am concerned how you confuse the two in an attempt to show that women were just as much ‘priests’ as the men. This is simply not the case. The role given to the Levitical priesthood should not be confused as the same role/idea as the kingdom of priests, or the ‘royal priesthood’ of the New Testament. We all have the role of being Christ’s representatives here on earth as did the Hebrews, but the role of priests belonged only to men in the OT. Likewise the positions of elder/pastor are only held by men in the NT and we should follow that. All it really did was show a poor biblical theology.

Thanks

Ok i watched the first one. Thats all i have time for atm. There didn’t seem to be much to drastically discuss at this stage. I’m guessing that comes in the next couple of videos.

I would like to state my position on woman ‘teaching’ because there is ovbiously alot of different ideas about this out there. Do i think a woman can be gifted to teach…yes. Do i think God doesn’t want women to teach men…no.

I believe that we all teach each other at different times and in different ways. It is inevitable that men will sit under women teaching at various times and places. Where i do not believe a woman should teach is in the church. The 2 main texts concerned here are generally 1 Tim and 1 Cor 14. Both of these texts are within the framework of church worship and propriety, therefore that is why i believe Paul is restricting women teaching in that specific place.

‘Teaching’ is thrown aroung loosely regarding sunday school, youth, mission to try and show how ridiculous a comp position is. Realistically though this is not the setting of Pauls letters, so we should not throw into the text all other various instances of teaching which we might think of.

I do think God has gifted women to teach, i also believe he has put a parameter around that in regards to Church worship. Hope this clarifies my position a little.

Look forward to watching the rest of the videos, although i may struggle to understand the weird accents these people have 🙂

Quick question?

What is it you want me to do? Do i watch all 3 videos or one? If only one, which one are people discussing?

Thanks

Cheryl,

Again you have said pretty much the same as Frank and others in ‘Discovering Biblical Equality’.

“Also subordination of function necessitates a subordination of essence.”

This is a novel modern understanding, and throwing this back to early trinitarian debates is not correct in my opinion. In all honesty it seems like it is the egal attempt to discredit the distinctions made by some comps on essence/roles. I truly dont see any evidence of this type of understanding/reasoning in early church debates. But perhaps this is one of those areas we will agree to disagree.

Cheryl

you said this

““Mark’s comment shows a great misunderstanding of the male/female issue on this blog. The issue here is spiritual equality.”

I disagree. I dont deny spiritual equality. If this is what you believed your blog was about, then there wouldn’t need to be discussion about roles. No one is denying spiritual equality. What i am disputing is this… your own comment

“This blog is for dialogue on the issue of women in ministry and the freedom for women to teach the bible in a public setting.”

Seems like your blog is about ministy and ‘roles’ not spiritual equality.

Also another quick note,

I’m a bit tired of hearing how comps are just in their positions for money- what an outragous statement. It is easy to sit and judge people from behind a computer screen, but lets avoid that.

After all i don’t see anyone here criticising Cheryl for her DVD’s, books she has and will produce. I think it is far better to see this people on both sides as convinced by the Spirit that their view on scripture is correct, and thus publish works for this reason.

It is no wonder many comps dont want to engage in discussions when things like this are contantly being said.