Mark

Dear Egalitarian friends,

Thankyou for your kind words.

I have no quirks in understnading that God judges sins differently. What i am trying to point out is that ALL sin has the same result- seperation from God. So my concern lies in Cheryl believing that Eve could have stayed in the garden because she wasn’t a threat. This is disagree with.

I do believe Eve was deceived into sinning. I do believe Adam was held more accountable. But i don’t beieve that Eve wasn’t banished. If i understand that Eden was where God dwelt on earth with perfect sinless people, then it is incomprehensible to think Eve ‘could’ have stayed in the garden as a sinner in the presence of God. SO therefore they both must have been banished.
It seems far more reasonable to me that ‘the man’ is spoken to for the precise reasons we have already discussed. He ‘listened’ to his wife instead of God. He is held accountable for this. He indeed is the ‘head’ of Eve if i can throw that in. As such God deals with him in this way as the leader.
I am truly intersted in further discussing the idea of ‘head’ as i think Kay brought it up earlier in relation to Corinthians. Any thoughts.

Cheryl,

I do believe that my view is consistent with the rest of scripture and im more than happy to begin looking at other texts aswell to help Lauren better understand my position.

I am still concerned from what you wrote in relation to your doctrine of adam and eves sin if im going to be honest. I’m failing to see how you hold to Eve being a sinner and yet say “At the time that she ate she fully believed that there was no command that brought death. She believed that God was just directing them away from the fruit that would make them equal with God. She no longer believed God meant the command because she was deceived. By being deceived, Eve now believed that what she was doing was a good thing and not a disobedient thing.”

There is a lot of Eve ‘believed’ this and that in what you are saying. Is this not equally reading into the text?

In choosing to believe the tempter over God, she rejected God-that is the essence of sin. She had 2 choices, what God told and what the serpent told her, in choosing one, she rejected the other. I cant help but feel you are watering this down. Maybe i am misunderstanding you, i dont know. Are you saying Eve accidently sinned?

A quick response…

If Adam and Eve’s sin is so different, i.e his is deliberate and hers isnt, why does Eve hide? If Eve’s heart was innocent, she would have had no need to hide or be ashamed.

I am worried about the theology that Eve was just ‘decieved’ and Adam deliberately sinned. They both deliberately sinned! Eve quoted what God had said and yes she believed the lie, but she deliberate didn’t obey what God had said.
This has major results on the banishment aswell. If Eve only ‘followed’ Adam and was not banned, what are we to make of sin? The garden was God’s presence on this earth. God cannot tolerate sin, therefore if Eve sinned, there is no way she could have been allowed to stay in the garden. This is a contradiction of what we know about the character of God who cannot tolerate sin.

It is dangerous to suggest the quality of sin was different between Adam and Eve and in my view this simply is coming because the egalitarian position doesn’t fit with the bible. Likewise suggesting that ‘knowing good and evil’ is somehow related to Adam’s deliberate sin and not related to Eve, is a big stretch i am unwilling to make.

I see what some here are suggesting that poor Eve was innocent in her sin. Sin is not innocent. It is a deliberate act to go against God. She was equally guilty, equally banished. We are treading on dangerous ground when messing with the doctrine of sin and its introduction into the world.

The fact that God deals primary with ‘the man’ can only be understood as his function as the ‘head’ of the family.

TL also…

you obviously aren’t reading what i am saying. This is evident by your comments…

“…”What i am saying is that the hebrew grammar only talks about ‘the man’ not man(gender inclusive).”

This would be incorrect. When God created the human, God created the human as male and female. And God named them human. This is all gender inclusive.

”Therefore we can come to 2 conclusions. God addresses ‘the man’ because he is the leader,”

God does not say this. This is an assumption, a reading of intent into Scripture that is not in Scripture”

In your use of my first quote you have taken me out of context. My sentence was regarding Gen 2&3 where the grammar is definatley ‘the man’ not ‘man’ or ‘human’

The second quote of mine you used was again out of context, because i clearly said later in that post, that my conclusion was ‘read into’.
But i think it would be good to discuss what does ‘read into’ mean? 2 options in my opinion.
1. read into a passage something that is not consistent with scripture.
2. read into a passage something that IS consistent with scripture (my view).

Any time we deduct a meaning from a passage it is vitally important that we look at it inductively- that is, in the broad spectrum of the rest of scripture. My view does this.
If we only can ever deduct a meaning from that distinct verse, then the only means to understand the bible is by each individual verse. Hence this cause problems. For example, if we read the book of James just on its own it would appear we have a works based salvation. However if we try to understand it in relation to saved by grace alone, accompanied by obedience to God and His commands, then we are reading the passage inductively before drawing out our deduction. This is faithful to understanding scripture and what my position does in relation to Gen 1-3.
Likewise the egalitarian position sometimes attempts to look at passages inductively but only when it suits, otherwise the passage is to be understood in a deductive sense only, i.e Cheryl’s big emphasis on inspired words and grammar. But i have shown how this fails simply in Gen 3 with the grammar contradicting her understanding of the passage.

So i would like to state that both views ‘read into’ the passage. But which one is faithful to what scripture actually teaches? I dont think i need to say which one i believe is faithful.

TL,
“The woman was never stated to be the man’s helper.”
Really? Gen 2:18b…”I will make a helper suitable for him.”

“Rather the timing of her creation was after the man realized what aloneness was and how it was not good as God stated, and then the woman was created to allay the man’s aloneness. ”
Where is this in the bible? I dont see anywhere, where Adam said he was lonely. What i do see is God’s comment “that it is not good for ‘the man’ to be alone.” It’s got nothing to do with what Adam wants, but solely what God wanted and ordained

gengwell,

you said this “This equality, of course, does not also indicate sameness. Adam and Eve, men and women, are certainly not the same, even though we are equal.”

This is precisely the comp position. Gen 1-3 talks about equality of essence, not function, my precise point.

I will try my best to answer people, but please frogive me for being unable to answer every question or statement of every person

Kay,

No i am not saying Eve was not banished for her sin aswell. Her sin seperated her from the presence of God, she was equally banished, she was equally kept form the tree of life.

What i am saying is that the hebrew grammar only talks about ‘the man’ not man(gender inclusive). Therefore we can come to 2 conclusions. God addresses ‘the man’ because he is the leader, but the punishment/ knowing good and evil applies to both. Or, only ‘the man’ was banned and Eve wasn’t.
In the first instance we have to read into the text this presumption (my view). in the second it has to be true that if Adam was the only one banished( Cheryls view), then Adam was the only one who became like God, because again the grammar only refers to ‘the man’. If we take the literal grammatical approach it contradicts with verse 7 where ‘both’ their eyes are opened after eating the fruit. That is they both equally rebelled against God and sinned.

The first view is what we see in the rest of scripture, that is, the leader has a resposiblity that the others don’t.
The second is a contradiction and therefore following the precise grammar here cannot be the proper way to interpret this text, otherwise the word IS fallible, which i dont believe.

Again with the ‘with’ text, it comes after the coversation with the serpent.

Kay, your final questions are good ones. Although i think it would be far more beneficial to first look at all the contorversial texts in more depth, before we begin discussing the practical sides of the arguments. The reason i say this is because it is easy to pick practical implications of both views and try to use them as proof that that view is invalid. However atm i am more interested in seeing what the bible says before discussing those things, so as not to distort the bible itself, especiallty if we are going to try and help Lauren understand the views fairly.

First of all i want to address sm and talk about the word hierarchy. My view is this- men and women are equal in essence, in the image fo God, but not in function. e.g- Adam is commissioned to look after the Garden and Eve isnt- she is his helper. Does this make Eve any less a person or less important,not at all. They simply have different roles to play in God’s created world, both equally precious in the eyes of God. I do not think Eve or women are less important, loved etc

If Adam is the ‘leader’ of Eve, it makes perfect sense that he is the one spoken to by God in those circumstances. In fact throughout scripture it is the ‘leaders’ who are held more accountable for their actions over people, look through the historical books and prophets to see this outlined very clearly. However if we want to stick to the literal translations of Gen 3 (CHeryl’s view) it is a contradiction of previous verses.

The reason i ask about the ‘image of God’ stuff is because this is a constant fall back for egalitarian position. Maybe you dont hold to that particular teaching, im not sure?

also you said “I disagree. You have yet to indicate what specifically points to ‘the man’ being the leading party”
That is precisely what i have already said, i don’t see a speific verse in Gen saying ‘Adam is the leader’. Likewise i don’t see a specific text that saids ‘They are equal in essence and function’. Both arguments/ poistions draw threr conclusions not from n explicit text. I believe in weight of the arguments, the comp position is stronger.

I also disagree with TL who claims ‘ezer kenegdo’ means equal. This word is used in other parts of the OT in reference to God being our help. Surely we are not equal with God. In fact TL explicitly confirmed that, so his/her position is a contradiction. I would also like to point out that some comps use this same word to denote atuhority, but again i disagree with them, because we do not have authority over God. It is a complicated word which i believe can’t be used to prove either sides argument.

TL, i also disagree that Adam’s exclamation of Eve shows equality, if you mean equality in every way. I think you were right when you said “I do think he was exclaiming that finally there was one like him”. It is simply a statement saying ‘she is fellow human, made from me’. It has everything to do with equality of essence, nothing to do with equality of role/function unless you want to read into it.

Now what about the ‘one flesh’. I have many times also heard this used as an egalitarian argument. But how is it used/quoted throughout the rest of scripture. No where in the Bible is it used to reference equality. It seems to be used for two functions from what i have read.
1. To represent simply the marriage and sexual union, that it is God ordained and as such divorce is not God’s intended design.
2. To represent the relationship between Christ and the Church.

Therefore i see it as non-sensicle to use this verse to support the egalitarian view, as scripture never does such a thing.

sm,

i dont try to gain my hierarchy from Gen 1:26-27 explicitly. What i see throughout the rest of scripture is mens leadrship resposibilities and so i believe that same was there at creation. Adams responsibilty for what happened, his banishment, his conversions with God is consistent with this in my view. Could you please explain how you get equality in roles from being made in ‘the image of God’

you said “The point that IS clear from this portion of text is that Adam was sent from the Garden, and we read in subsequent verses that Eve did not stay in the Garden. Regardless, I do not see a connection between a hierarchy between a husband and wife and “the man” being addressed and banished from the Garden. That is another leap based on inference I am not able to make.”
read my above comment on cheryls interpretaion of this text. It is quite easy to see that ‘the man’ is discussed by God because he is the leading party. I agree that Eve did not stay in the garden, but i disagree with cheryl that she ‘followed’. No where in the text is this discussed. “The man’ is resposible for what has happened in the garden as the leader of his wife.

Richard Hess is an egalitarian that has written a paper on Gen 1-3 in ‘Discovering Biblical Equality’, so therefore is a leader or spokesperson for egalitarians on this issue. My point in ref him was to show that the egalitarian position is just as gulity of reading into scripture although they dont want to admit it.

Perhaps we could delve a little deeper with more in the text. What does it mean to be created in the image of God? Is it equality? What did Adam mean when he said Eve was ‘bone of my bones’ etc? What is the meaning of becoming one flesh? Is this all equality statements in your opinion?

Thanks sm

Tl,

Neither doe the text say men are women are equal in every way. Both my vie and your view are interpretations we have gained from the overall picture of the bible, so please stop insisting that it is only the comp view which is read into- it is clearly not.

The problem i have with the TNIV is not what you have shown with the scholars. Merely that it is just another way to water down the text so as not to offend people. If its masc it should be translated masc. Any good exegete can figure out even though Gen 1 is masc that it refering to humanity, not just man. That is the whole point of translations-to translate the words, not commentate on what they are portraying- this is the mistake of TNIV in this area.

Also you said “In 3:16 we have God warning Eve of the future changes to their relationship being that in response to her turning toward and yearning for her man, he would harshly dominate her.”

When did this take place? With Adam, Abraham, David. When does the prophecy start? If it is not an immediate mandate, when does chiildbearing become painful? Maybe after Cain and Abel? This idea of a prophecy has to be read into. The only prophecy i see in any of the curses is perhaps the one commonly accepted as a ref to Jesus with the serpent.

Great stuff, i love it, and everyonesobjections and opinions. Thanks
I guess i might just comment one person at a time.

Cheryl,
You said about it only being the man who was banished not the woman by ‘the man’ refence in Gen3. Your view then only suggests that Adam was the only one who became like God, ‘knowing good and evil’ because this is directed only to ‘the man’. But then this is a contradiction to what is said in 3:7 where both their eyes were opened and they new they were naked. You see if it was only Adam who was banished as ‘the man’, then in your interpretation it was only ‘the man’ who became like God. Therefore Eve never sinned, nor did she suffer the consequences.
While Adam was with her it explicitly happens AFTER the conversation, that is my point. The text doesnt say that Adam was their during the conversion, so your claim that this was where Adam listened to his wife is just as much reading into the text as my view. In fact you are drawing verse 17 to fit back into verse 2.

None the less thankyou for your imput- i value you highly. But it is evident that there are just as many holes in your argument as what you say about comps arguments.

Thankyou once again sm for answering my questions and helping me understand your views. I’m glad you talked abit about Genesis as i think it would begin to be helpful if we could begin looking at texts to help Lauren understand the positions.

I obviously disagree with you that Adam is not the leader in Gen 1-3. You talked about the ‘them’ of Gen 1 and how both genders were to rule the living creatures- I agree. However i have a few semantic issiues with these chapters from an egalitarian viewpoint. Let me attempt to be clear in what i am trying to say.
1. ‘Adam’ in the hebrew in Gen 1 is gender inclusive because of the ‘them’ phrases’. However hebrew does not have a ‘neuter’ gender, only masc and fem. So just as a small sidetrack- i have an issue with the TNIV for example which uses gender inclusive language as this is clearly NOT being faithful to the inspired words and grammer (which i know Cheryl loves). Just because English does have a neuter, if we are going to be faithful exegetes we should keep the original masc words translated into masc english words, otherwise we are changing the original language and commentating on it, even though i do agree that it is talking inclusively… sorry for the sidetrack
2. In Gen 2 there is the introduction of the definate article so it is rightly translated ‘the man’ dealing directly with Adam not Eve.
3. However in Gen 3 when they are banished from the garden, it is again ‘the man’, not ‘man’ (gender inclusive). Should we assume then that only Adam was removed from the Garden- i don’t think so.

Therefore my argument is that to get hung up on the combined function of ruling animals to prove equality and no leadership soley by the gender inclusive language is weak. Clearly we all except Eve to have been banished from the Garden also, even though the inspired words are directed to Adam only

So i am happy to read into the text that ‘the man’ was held primarily accountable for the fall and thus is addressed first by God, and is the primary one spoken of in the banishment. You might be big eyed at my claim of ‘reading into’ but in reality we all do. What is Richard Hess’ understanding of God approaching Adam first…
1. Because he was given the injunction not to eat first
2. God has to address them seperably.
Neither of these two options are available from the text and are in fact ‘read into’ also. So please dont jump to the conclusion that the comp is merely again reading into the text.

A quick question for Cheryl or others. Egals claim that Adam was ‘with’ Eve when she was conversing with the serpent and thus dismiis the notion that Eve strayed from the protection of Adam as reading into the text. Where in Gen 2 is it explicit that Adam was there during the conversation? It is after Eve has eaten the fruit, after the conversation that Adam is mentioned as being ‘with’ her. I could easily say of course he was with her, he was in the garden. But it doesnt mean he wasby her side during the conversation. Is this egal view not just as guilty of reading into the text?

Also Cheryl, how have you come to the conclusion that the curse of the woman is not a mandate given by God, but just a prophecy of what fallen man would do? Could you point me to the text where it explains this?

sm,

is the question you are posing… do i think there are gender distinction or roles? Do i think there are differences in how a husband and wife train each other to become more like Christ? Or am i offended if my wife has more ‘knowledge’ than me? Maybe ill give a brief answer to all.
1. Yes. In fact i am a bit unclear on egal teaching in this topic. Some claim there are no positions or roles in the church/marriage, but alot of material ive read claims the opposite of this view. The comp view however, is consistent in showing biblical that there are differences, none more important or Godly than another, but definately distinctions in roles in all aspects of life.
2. Yes- obviously due to personalities and the like, how people do things differs from one relationship to the next. My point was this… men are giving certain commands, women likewise. Should we mesh them all into ‘mutual submission’ and no distictions in roles? Absolutely not! Why not? The bible doesn’t do that.
3. No i am not offended if this was the case. In fact it was the case when we got engaged/married as i was a new Christian. She probably still does have alot more knowledge on certain things biblically. Leadership is not just about ‘gnosis’. This is just an attempt to discredit comp teaching with no foundation about anything.

Let me ask a question back to you. What does it mean to be made in the ‘image of God’.We would both say obviously it isn’t physical things. What then is it? Is it everything else except our physicalities. Could you point to a verse that saids it is everything else? Becasue the egal teaching is we are equal in every way and it is based on Gen 1:26-28, perhaps you could explain where this conclusion comes from. Not from the text- it is read into? In what ways are we different or the same to Jesus who is the ‘image of the invisible God’-Col 1:15?

sm-thanks

i think i need to re-word my question as i dont think you understood what i was asking.
1. Egals believe there is no creation order and the idea or corruption of mans ‘rule’ is a result of the fall, correct?

2. If the above is correct, the redemption acheived through Jesus has in effect reversed this male leadership, that we are all now ‘co heirs’ in everything, including church leadership? Men are not to rule, because Christ rules. Is this a correct understanding of your view?

I will go back and have a look at the comments you asked of and reply asap. Thanks

Gengwell,

Thanks for answering my question 1. Perhaps you or someone else can address question 2? Thanks for your interpratation of 1 Tim aswell, although i wasn’t referencing that… just trying to get an answer to my particular questions.

Also you make some strong claims…”The idea of a hierarchical authority structure as God’s design is completely man made. (Actually, it is Satan made). ” I so often here egals say this- just repeating what some egal has said in a book, but i dont see the point! I could equally say the same about egalitarianism that it is ‘man made’, but both are actually un-helpful to the arguments or attempts to understand the passages. It is merely a sludging match.

Like i said earlier, i am reading through ‘ Discovering Biblical Equality’ atm. I just finished reading the essay on Gen 1-3. There are most definately things ‘read into’ and ‘man made’ in Richard Hess’ interpretation of these passages. But that might have to be discussed in a different blog.

Sorry another point,

Aussie Aussie Aussie- Oi Oi Oi

Great to have a fellow skip on board!!! Sorry if the Americans and Canadians dont understand my Australian slang.

HI Lauren,

I hope i can help you to understand these tough issues. I too have found this blog helpful as the people here seem to be genuinely interested in this topic and not just criticising or attacking each other. The bible passages you quote are probaby the most talked about in these discussions so im sure there will be plenty of people to help.

I would like to point out to you that my view is different to everyone elses here i think. I am labelled a comp, believing that men and women are equal in essence, salvation ect, but have different roles in the home, church ect.

I am going to let my dear egal brothers and sisters be the first to give their interpretation on those passages and if i feel they are wrong or i have different opinion i will let you know.

A note to everyone else- i am currently reading through ‘Discovering Biblical Authority’ and would be greatly interested in discussing issues in it with people- Cheryl should this be done on another blog?

Sorry a final point. Do egalitarians believe…
1. That women only were under men because of the fall. Pre-fall they were totally equal.
2. With the new covenant of Christ, women were redeemed from the curses of Gen 3, therefore we are again all equal in every aspect of life? Help please!

Kay, thanks for the prompt on your thoughts!

I agree that mutual submission is totally unknown to the world outside of our great God. But i do dis-agree with cheryl that comps neglect Eph 5:21. Mutual submission IS ESSENTIAL in the body of Christ. However the 12 verses following verse 21 distinguishes differences in certain relationships. I think this shouldn’t be ignored and claim it is all wrapped up by verse 21. If this was so, Paul would have had no need to write these other 12 verses.

you said “We all presently live in a world where tragedy and sin are the reality. A husband who has lost his cognitive function cannot exercise “authority” over anyone. ”

I think this is precisely your problem Kay, you think men need to exercise their authority. I hold that none can demand or exercise their authority. When a wife submits she does it ‘as to the Lord’. Her submission to her husband as the head is between her and the Lord, not what the husband demands. I’m sorry you have some tough life situations, but i still don’t believe that this makes the men any less the ‘leader’ of the family. Sure he may not be able to work, or live normally, but being the head in my opinion is not about demands or exercising some sort of authority. I believe the authority is there just not demaded by the man… make sense???

I believe Paul talked about staying single for this one reason- to be more devoted to Christ and not have your life split between family and God, not because of some sort of authority issue. I will hold that when a marriage occurs, it is primarily to be a reflection of the covenant between Christ and the Church, which definately has mutual submission in Christs actions, and authority in Christs Lordship. Let me ask you this question- when Christ washed His disciples feet, do you think for a moment they questioned who it was who had the authority in that room? Yes Christ demonstrated mutual submission in His actions but he is still Lord- the perfect example for a husband, except obviously we are not God.

It seems to me Kay, that you are caught in this authority issue. I agree with everything you have said about servanthood and humility and the like, the only difference is i dont think those things negate authority. Authority is a good and healthy thing, provided it is a refection of Christ- there lies the challenge.
Thankyou for your effort in writing that post.

Good questions and i hope i can give some insight on some of them. I’m out numbered here so if i miss someone forgive me.

First of all… to claim that comp teaching is ‘made up’ simply indicates that alot here do not understand the comp teaching. The whole position is based on scripture, to argue otherwise is silly and shows me either peoples ignorance of the teaching or purely trying to give it a ‘heretical’ label to serve their own agendas.

I think both husband and wife help each other become more like Christ, but men and women have different roles and resposibilities in the family. I dont see it helpful for me to explain or the differences as im sure we have all heard the arguments- clearly i accept them and others dont. Why is it that wifes are told to submit? Why is it that husbands are told not to be harsh? There are specific commands given to each gender in the bible. We should not mesh everything to say the same things always apply to everyone- this is not what the bible does.

I agree that none can ‘make’ someone like Christ. We can both help each other and help our children, but ultimately unless the spirit acts my words will be powerless.

Leadership is both God ordained and neccesary- the question is who is the leader? I believe leaders will give an account for what they do and teach. If men abuse this, they will be judged for it. If men are the ‘leader’ of the family, the same applies.

Sorry i haven’t been able to talk over the last week or so-very busy!

I’ll try to post something in response to Cheryl’s and others comments soon.

Perhaps i should comment considering you are all talking about me 🙂

My wife and i have no decided that i make the final call because i am a better decison maker or the like. I make the final call because we both believe that God has made the husband as the ‘head’ of the wife i.e- the primary leader of the family. The way i respect my wife and discuss things with her is remeniscent with what the bible teaches about loving your wife, not being harsh with her etc-and i would be bold enough to say this is true complemetarian teaching. Perhaps your egal marriages are actually comp, but not just high comp which is what you seem to see comp as.

I dont think men are the bosses of women. Eph 5 doesn’t support that at all- indeed men are the head in my opinion. But what does that headship looklike is the question? Loving your wife in such a way as to help lead her to becoming more like Christ, the same way Christ acts to help His Church. Does this help understand my opinion.
I have a few problems with egal teaching on Eph 5
1. kephale has a different meaning than usual
2. hypotasso has a different meaning than normal
3. Whenever we have to change the meanings of words to fit our theology, that rings alarm bells for me.
4. How does ‘as to the Lord’ fit if submission is always mutual.
5.Although Christ did sacrifice himself for His bride etc, he is still Lord and has authority. Therefore i see the husband as acting like Chrsit and still having authority. Therefore an abuse of that authority is un-Christlike.

The question i pose is this… although sinful men do abuse their authority would that automaticallly mean that this is not a God ordained principle? If this is what the bible teaches, which is what i hold to, then i am convinced that it is good, because God is good even though some men don’t reflect it.

Could someone outline clearly an egalitarian marriage. Thanks

Thanks gengwall- interesting name by the way

I’m not sure what you would clarify John Piper as, but from the sermons ive heard him talk about marriage, it is very similar to what i have said. So perhaps there is alot of mis-understanding in each others views e.g- egals focus on extreme comps, and comps focus on extreme egals. The usual metaphor of the pendulum swinging. Hopefully through these dialogues we can all see the true teaching of each line of thinking.

Cheryl,

thanks again for talking to me. I do not think i live out an egal marriage. I do try to love and serve my wife as if it is my own body. I try hard not to abuse my position of leadership and focus my energy and helping my wife and children become more like Christ. However my wife recognises that although co heirs in the grace of Christ, i bear a certain resposiblitly for our family that she does not. When a tough decision has to be made we talk about and my wife expresses her opinions, thoughts and concerns. But she will ultimatley leave the decision up to me as the ‘head’ of our family to make the right decision. She willingly submits to me in this way and respects me as her husband, of which i am eternally grateful. She recognises that i am sinful and Christ is not, and ultimately Christ is her Lord not me. and even as the head if i tried to lead her astray she would refuse. I would hope that she would encourage me to grow more like Christ in the same way i do for her. This is how i understand Eph 5 and live it out. I try to love her as CHrist does his church, and she tries to submit to me as the church does to Chrsit. Obviously we are both sinners and fail all the time to fulfill these God ordained roles.

Im not sure what comps you base all your opinions on, but it is nothing like what the comp position teaches nor what i have seen in my experience. I am saddened though that men abuse the comp pos for their own glorification. Any comp i know would not restrict women preaching to women and the like. I do not think people miss out on anything by not having a woman pastor/preaher- the word of God is not gender orientated. They miss out if preachers are gender orientated.

I’m not sure whether you see yourself as gifted in teaching, but you are definately gifted in writing. I have never seen somebody so able to write as much as you do 🙂

Just a few comments,

Cheryl i cant help but feel that you base the comp position on yours and others experience, rather than the bible. You refered to seeing “what male rulership looks like even if the intent is benevolent. “- Is this not an argument based on sinful man not scripture. I am truly sorry for the abuse people have faced by mis-use of authority. But whenever sinful man is involved it will never work properly as God intended. I do not see myself as a weak comp, but rather am actually interested in understanding you position and engaging in dialogue rather than just ignoring you. If that makes me seem weak, so be it, but i am simply trying to do what you ask of comps-talk to you.
You said that the christ/church, husband/wife analogy has no authority and is simply tradition. Cheryl how wrong you are! What about Ephesians 23 ff. What is Pauls repsponse in verse 32 – it is PRIMARILY a reflection of Christ and the Church. And any exegesis which tries to talk about ‘head’ not having any authority is absurd. And im sure you will appeal to not having a ‘plain’ reading of this passage.

One last point. The comp position in NO way encourages abuse or anything of the like. If people think it does, it is purely an indication that they dont understand the comp position very well.

Cheryl,

You seem to hold strong to your positon on the fact that Comps can’t identify this ‘law’. I have a few questions about your interpretation.

1. If this is a Jewish oral law quoted from the Corinthian letter, how can you be certain? Your view holds onto a lot of ‘probables’ aswell. For example, if this is a quote, it is very unlike any of the other quotes used throughout the rest of 1 Corinthians. What is your evidence that Judaizers had infiltrated Corinth? Perhaps you are refering to the ‘super apostles’ of 2 Cor but again, this was written later and is only probable that they were there when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. And what is ‘super apostles’ actually refering too?

2. The evidence of the letter itself in the issues it deals with i.e prodimantly Hellinistic issues in wisdom and resurrection, aswell as the confirmation of Acts 18 which shows the rejection of Paul by the Jews, suggests that prodominantly the congregation was non-jewish. This is a view that alot of scholars hold to and which i agree with. Therefore why would Jewish ‘oral’ law have been an issue at Corinth?

I see just as many probables in your view as any other. We can NEVER be certain that this is a quote from the corinthian letter unless it is discovered, which as far as i’m aware of hasn’t happened yet. None the less i appreciate that both you and Carson and others are trying to understand it.

The first thing which i think is important to keep in mind is that women were actually liberated from the culture of the day by Christianity. When we argue that the men/women issues were always just cultural i think we are wrong. Sure some things are e.g head coverings, but in the wider picture Christianity brought women to a place where they had never been before, so the early church is not inerrently sexist or stuck in their culture of the time.

“But in the Christian setting submission is something that we do out of love not out of necessity.”
I totally agree with you Cheryl- but the authority aspect is still there. Christ submitted himself for us, but he is still our Lord. No one has the right to demand submission from another.

” I am claiming that no one is given authority over others in the body of Christ so that they can demand submission.”
Again i agree because we have no right to demand it.

It seems Cheryl that you think Comps demand submission from another- am i right in assuming this?

I hold though that people DO have authority, but can’t demand submission from someone i.e wife for arguments sake. If there is no authoritative aspect to a marriage for example, then it is not a true reflection of Christ’s covenant with His church. Let me make this clear-my view- Authority is there, but does not promote ‘betterness’ or ‘lord it over’ but is seen in loving and serving like Christ did. Authority should promote Christ likeness in my opinion. But i dont think we should through authority out the window as if it doesn’t exist in the bible.

Do you think the husband has any authority over his wife?

I just had to type ‘friend’ as my anti-spam word, which i hope is a reflection of what can be achieved with these dialogues?

I have noticed Cheryl, that you have a big emphasis on gifts. DO you feel that the comp position restricts people using gifts? I don’t think that is what is at hand, rather that comps want people to use their gifts in acoordance with how the bible instructs us to use them. I would also like to strongly emphasise, that although i am a comp, i in no way do not love my sisters in Christ any less.

The comp position doesn’t promote un-love towards women. What they hold to is this, that if God has mandated only men as elders for example, it is most loving to see this lived out. I don’t think it is helpful for egals to see the comp position as one which is sexist or unloving. But that said, there are many people who would come across that way or even promote it. But this is not a true reflection of what the comp position is. Did i explain this well? Probably not as is my habit 🙂

Hi Cheryl,

Thankyou for all your explainations. I fear that i must not be very clear in what i am trying to say and i apologise for that. I don’t have any problems with anything you have said about the Trinity- especially about the unity of the Godhead. What i am trying to emphasise is that Jesus and the Spirit are not just ‘faces’ of God, but distinct people in the Godhead. Do you disagree with this?

I’m afraid i still dont agree with head being ‘source’. I have read all the arguments for both sides which im sure you have aswell. I still dont believe that this is the true implication or explanation of this word as used in its biblical context- but thanks for your imput.

I am intrigued with how you link Jesus or the second member of the Godhead with Lord of Hosts in the OT. Hopefully i get a chance to see your DVD on it at some stage.

Thanks again. P.S- how is your ministry trip going?

Hi TL,

Thanks for your engagement. I think you have misunderstood me. What i was questioning was Cheryls comment

“But what you have missed is that the humanity of Jesus cannot be used to teach what He is in the Trinity. You must go to the OT to see the full complete Deity of Christ without His humanity.”

I honestly think Cheryl has probably just worded this badly, because my point is that Jesus deity (man- ness and God-ness) can only be present when he is both. I am not saying Jesus didnt exist until his incarnation-that is complete heresy, do not think this is what i mean.

I agree with your definition of the Trinity. The problem i see is this, when we stress the unity of the Godhead and neglect the individual persons of the Godhead we fail to fully describe the Trinity. This is what was known as Monarchianism or Modalism in the early church and was condemned as heresy. Essentially the teaching is the Trinity are so united that they claim the Father was the one crucified- there is no direct dstinction between the persons of the trinity. Therefore i will always claim that the Father sent the son. The son redeemed us, and the spirit sanctifies us. I am not saying that any member has more authority than the others, just that they have different functions in salvation history.

Hope this helps understand my position. If it doesn’t or you disagree please le me know.