Paula

Yes, we have some delegated authority in proportion to our responsibility. But these examples of authority point to that done by the entire congregation and not selected individuals such as “pastors”.

Teachers, for example (see James) will be held to a higher standard. Why? Because they are looked up to as examples. Yet even so, they are never given authority to rule or boss as individuals. Even elders were to be publicly reprimanded if they strayed (1 Tim. 5), and the minimum 2 witnesses were not specified to be from any select group. So while leaders have some authority and responsibility, it is not absolute; even they must answer to the people.

But all of this depends upon how “authority” is defined. The authority taken by leaders in The Institution has no basis in scripture. It is an autocratic rule which the people are not to question. It stifles the expression of various spiritual gifts and calls only some of them “authoritative” and thereby off-limits to many. It demands that all others follow its “vision”. It is very much like that taken by Diotrephes.

That would be an interesting study: why was Diotrephes someone John intended to rebuke? How was Diotrephes’ leadership wrong?

I’m somebody’s mom, so I’ll take a shot. 🙂

I think that if someone was trained directly by Jesus or was a first-generation disciple of one who was, that person has a unique authority to speak for Him. This is one reason why I consider the canon of scripture closed. But mainly, it means that no one else has authority, including any and every “pastor” there ever was. For this reason I believe that the argument over “authoritative teaching” is fundamentally flawed. The authority and power is all in the words inspired by God, not the vessels appointed to pass on the words.

We should also be aware of the heavy influence the KJV has had on almost every Bible translation that followed. And we should add that the process by which the KJV was translated was most definitely agenda-driven:

http://www.nomorehoaxes.com/content/view/24/1/
http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/king-james.htm

The “divine right of kings” was heavy on James’s mind, and his deputy in overseeing the translation committee was most zealous to see to it that the king’s wishes were carried out.

Now this is not to say the KJV is a bad translation. For its time it was very good and an admirable piece of English literature. The Gospel is there, and in many places it is more “egalitarian” than modern translations. It has many fine qualities. But this is no excuse to ignore or whitewash its faults, or to underestimate its negative influence on translation for generations to come.

Personally, I don’t have issues with “adding words”, but with adding ideas or extra-Biblical teachings. It’s the thought that counts! We have to take whole sentences and letters in order to try, to the best of our fallible ability, to determine the intent of the writer, and in this there is no way to avoid some form of bias. So having a large number of people working on the same translation has obvious advantages, provided the members come from a variety of prejudicial angles.

But even then we must recognize the universal nature of prejudice against women and in favor of chains of command. These two things run deep in human history and are not easily overcome. An example of this need to keep women behind men is seen here:

http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html
Scroll down to Junia, the apostle: part 17. Here is an excerpt:

No, Epp is fascinated by how it came about that something which is evidently not so, could have been considered so. How on earth did this happen, how did a non-existant name Junias, enter the text and the lexicon (BADG) and why has Junias now been removed without an all-out confession of male bias?! That is what fascinates Epp. Are the men responsible simply going to sweep the male Junias under the carpet? So it seems.

We see in this case that not even a committee can safeguard us against these universal prejudices. But now, with access at least to interlinears and awareness of these problems by more people, there is hope that we can finally free the scriptures from their long imprisonment. The last hurdle, I believe, is to make sure that we can get access to up-to-date dictionaries.

Groovy.

Oops… didn’t write the whole sentence I was thinking. Shoulda been “Would that be similar to…”

Would that be the Hendrix version, Greg? (Don’t tell me you’re an old coot like me!)

I think we also have a golden opportunity here. We need to make our message known and try to intercept these who are finally finished with The Institution before they go from the frying pan to the fire.

Actually, I think the Reformation needs to Revolt! They sought to reform the RCC when they should have abandoned the whole thing and went straight back to the Bible. It’s the difference between trying to filter out poison from a glass of water, and getting a clean glass of water from a clean source.

A frequent tactic of those who are told that “pulpit” and “pastorate” are not in the Bible is to claim that these Exulted P’s are on the same level as the Trinity; that is, that since the Trinity is not expressly stated but has to be inferred, then pretty much anything can be inferred.

And of course that’s fallacious. The Trinity, unlike the Exalted P’s, has scriptural support (for example, the simultaneous presence of all three Persons when Jesus was baptized). There are many OT scriptures as well from which the Trinity can be derived. But for the Exalted P’s there is deafening silence. Paul never addresses any “pastor”, elders are addressed as a group and not “head pastors”, and as you pointed out, none of them had authority of their own.

Excellent points, as usual. And we could add the fact that if these passages meant what they allege, then what about the women? Why weren’t the women also “weak and seem entirely lacking even in common sense. They cannot control their little children…”? Does God only judge men and punish them?

The writer you quoted seems to think so: “…so He used a brave, willing woman. We can praise God for women like Deborah who are willing to be strong when the men are weak.” Note the bold words: do women actually have the power to will themselves strong and brave, but men don’t have this power? And if God is to be praised for such women, why is that evidence of a curse?

This, once again, shows the poor logic and inconsistency of male supremacist eisegesis.

Yes, great points, Pink! It’s just like the false dichotomy between patriarchy and egalitarianism; it’s really between patriarchy and matriarchy, with egal. in the center. With that false premise, no matter what concessions patriarchalists would either make or get from us, we’d still wind up with some form of patriarchy. The game is rigged!

As I’ve said before, the “extremes”– whether patriarchy, hyper-Calvinism, or radical Islam– are the “honest” positions because they take their teachings to their logical conclusions.

What CBMW is experiencing right now is what has been called “cognitive dissonance.” They are finally faced with two mutually exclusive convictions and are trying desperately to reconcile them with more additions to their Christian Talmud.

And, at least we all get to watch as male supremacists vie for preeminence. Very entertaining.

Strong’s is a concordance, which gives the usages of words in a particular book. So each translation or paraphrase of the Bible would need its own concordance.

Strong’s is tied to the KJV and thus only tells us how the KJV used each word, not necessarily how first century Greek used a particular word. For that we need to use a dictionary or lexicon, preferably one that gives the full semantic range and uses the most up-to-date discoveries.

In other words, Strong’s does not tell us the full semantic range of Greek words, but only how the KJV rendered them. It would be much better to use a concordance on the Greek texts.

A helpful article:
http://www.dabar.org/SemReview/bibtrans.htm

Here is Ann Nyland’s discussion on the issue. I wish she’d listed sources for this as I have been unable to find them online:

In the late 1880s and again in the mid 1970s, large amounts of papyri and inscriptions were discovered. These impacted our knowledge of word meaning in the New Testament dramatically. Why? Well, the papyri and inscriptions were written at the time of the New Testament. They were non-literary sources, that is, they touched upon all aspects of life – everyday private letters from ordinary people, contracts of marriage and divorce, tax papers, official decrees, birth and death notices, tombstones, and business documents. Why is this important? Prior to these discoveries, people who made up New Testament dictionaries didn’t have a clue what many of the words meant, as I said. But now, these rare words appeared commonly in different contexts, and everyday contexts too. We would use formal language in a letter to a politician, but we use everyday language in letters to friends. It is this everyday language that appears in the New Testament, and up popped hundreds of examples of these words. Large numbers of previously uncommon words found in the New Testament now appeared commonly in everyday documents as well as on inscriptions. Many mysteries of word meaning were thus solved. 15 volumes of new papyri were published in 1976. This meant that the meanings of a large number of words previously unattested were discovered. In the last 20 yrs, 4,000 inscriptions have been found at Ephesus alone. These discoveries have been largely overlooked by Bible translators. The problem is that laypersons and a significant number of Bible translators alike are unaware of all this as it is tucked away in technical journals. Available Bible dictionaries do not have this scholarship to any useful degree. BDAG has a little of it, but not much at all. In other words, Bible translators rely on dictionaries. The dictionaries are wrong, for many words. Nearly every recent New Testament dictionary is based on this outdated work while older ones are based on work prior even to that of Moulton and Milligan. the resources for translation have not been available to the Bible translator. Translators need decent dictionaries, and the current New Testament lexicon project (going on in my town, although work has stalled) won’t be in print for many, many years. As a lexicographer, I had to do my own dictionary work. every New Testament translation of today, apart from The Source, follows the traditional translations of the earlier versions, which were published centuries before the evidence from the papyri and inscriptions revealed to us the actual meanings of numerous New Testament words! The disregard of this evidence for word meaning has had a terrible impact on Bible translation. Many words suffer, but technical terms and idioms suffer particularly. For example, the term mistranslated “husband of one wife” is actually “faithful to their partner” and has been found on the tombstones of women. It is also clear that many modern translators have followed the KJV, whether directly or through the lexicons (dictionaries). The translations of most New Testament versions are based on a lack of understanding of Greek word meaning. Available translations do not sufficiently regard the abundant evidence from the papyri and inscriptions and thus in many cases present a far from accurate translation of the New Testament … because the tools are not available to the translator – the tools being published lexicons In many cases, the trouble is that religion based on mistranslation has laid down certain things in the Christian community on the whole and tradition is a very powerful thing. The Source is different because: The meanings of many words in other available Bibles are, quite bluntly, wrong. These meanings were discovered only recently but have been published only in technical academic journals related to the classics discipline in secular universities. The lexicon to replace Moulton and Milligan will not be published in fascicles [=multiple pieces over time], and is years away from publication. The Source is the only translation to date to take account of these word meanings. My field of research is lexicography.

“unless you are not up for it… you didn’t really refute it… you just kinda pointed out a mistake a made in clarifying a topic…”

Taunting, denial, calling an obvious flip-flop a “mistake”… those are the hallmarks of desperation, the fear of losing one’s tradition-granted privileges.
And “I believe he has more credentials and experience than I or you” is thrown down as if it trumps the Berean card. It’s exactly what the evolutionists do: they make sure only they get “credentials”, then dismiss everyone who doesn’t meet them!
Cheryl, this guy’s not looking for a debate, he’s just looking for a fight. He wants a piece of the “let’s trash Cheryl” pie. Had he displayed some respect and Christian love, he might have earned the right to be listened to. But then, we haven’t exactly seen a lot of that coming from those who think Y chromosomes are what God values most.

It would be a hoot to see what he does with 2 Kings 22:14-16–

Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Akbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophet Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the New Quarter. She said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me, ‘This is what the LORD says:

I’m guessing he’d take the “escape clause”, “She was an exception to the rule.” But exceptions can only disprove rules.

Good catch. It’s always fun and educational to take the made-up meanings people use and see how they work in various places.

But I’d also ask for a precise definition of “teaching with authority”. Where does scripture stipulate exactly when teaching is “authoritative” and when it is not? Some invent an imaginary “office” such as “the pastorate” or “the pulpit”, but of course neither of those terms are even hinted at in scripture.

In fact, I think the ONLY people in this age who could ever claim authority in their teachings are Jesus and the NT writers. It is those teachings that the early church devoted itself to, and those teachings that are the Word of God. Nobody else has any authority beyond that. There are no “levels” of authority beyond that.

There are mature believers who are to train the immature until they “grow up”, and there are SERVANTS who warn against falsehood. But no “authorities”. Does anyone know of an instance in the NT where either exousion or archon is used to show authority of one non-NT writing believer over another?

To quote a line from “Pirates of the Caribbean”, “Reason’s got nuttin to do with it.”

That is, if somebody refuses to listen, then all you can do is point out that such fallacies amount to a forfeit, and therefore you win. What can they say? After all, that’s exactly what they’re saying too: that they get to win by default. They’re trying to declare you unfit for the debate. Same lame tactic evolutionists use with creationists.

It’s a cop-out, pure and simple. And a logical fallacy (fits several categories).

If emotion were affecting your logic, then it should be easy to point out the logical errors you make only when “emotional”. I’d like to see them pinpoint such errors, prove their “causes”, and then prove that they have no such emotional influence to their logic.

But of course none of that will ever happen, because it’s just a cop-out.

Kinda like saying nobody has a right to teach Bible without that magical umbrella known as “covering” or “oversight”.

Good stuff, Cindy. There is also an excellent expose of cult-like control at http://www.biblelife.org/bondage.htm .

The problem is that the original Greek ms. were written in all capitals, so we don’t have that to go on. Same issue with accents; there were few if any– see Scripture4All

This issue came to light with the treatment of Junia. They could make her a man just by adding an accent.

Yet we must be careful since not every instance of “but” or “however” in scripture infers a quote.

In the case of 1 Cor. 11, there is a “but”, it’s just separated by Paul’s response first of all confirming that society calls a woman with uncovered head “disgraceful”. Let me try to illustrate by highlighting the beginnings of the sentences:

11:4 Every man… (fact stated about men not covering)
11:5 YET every woman… (fact stated about women covering)
11:6 FOR if a woman… (the dilemma stated)
11:7 FOR man INDEED should not cover, YET the woman… (Paul agrees with men not covering, but introduces an overlooked fact: that woman is also the glory of another and should therefore not cover; this is his objection to what has been stated)
11:8 FOR man not from woman (i.e., “while this is true”)
11:9 FOR ALSO woman for man (i.e., “and this is true”)
11:10 THEREFORE woman has authority (i.e. “however this other thing is true as well”)
11:11 HOWEVER neither/nor… (i.e., “in spite of all that”)
11:12 Judge for yourselves; this is trivial!

In other words, Paul agrees with the situation as stated (“indeed”), but then introduces an overlooked fact that actually increases the complexity of the problem. And in doing so he shows that forcing women to cover their heads is “bowing to culture” as the saying goes!

I don’t seem to have gotten the main point across.

Whether it’s an actual verbatim quote or not, Paul is presenting a dilemma for which the Corinthians need an answer. He explains why a woman should not cover, but also recognizes why she may have to cover anyway. So he presents the problem, then the “theology” behind the problem, then leaves the final decision up to the women. He emphasizes this by saying “we have no such custom”, that is, we have no church-wide ruling.

I tried to put lines to mark the scripture quote but it didn’t take it. It starts with “now I want you to understand” and ends with “any such custom”.

‘morning Cheryl,

I too believe Paul is quoting the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 11:4-6. Although there is no explicit “he” afterwards, I believe the Corinthians are presenting the problem the Christian women were facing, concerning the impossible position they were in regarding head coverings. To uncover was to indicate loose morals, yet to cover was to shame Jesus who paid for their sins. Here’s how I see it:

Now I want you to understand that the source of every man is the Anointed One, the source of the woman is the man, and the source of the Anointed One is God. [You write,]
It is disgraceful for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, but it is disgraceful for a woman to do so with her head uncovered, because it would be like having her head shaved. Because if she doesn’t cover then let her be shaved too. But if being shaved is shameful then let her wear a covering.
Certainly a man shouldn’t cover his head since he is the image and glory of God. Yet at the same time, the woman is the glory of man, because she came from man and was made for him. So she has the power to decide what to do with her own head. After all, she too will judge messengers.

However, woman and man are not independent of each other in the Master. Woman came from man, but after that all men have come from women, but we all really come from God. You figure it out! It is proper for a woman to pray to God without a head covering. Nature tells us nothing about hair being a disgrace for men or a glory for women; it is a natural covering for both. But if anybody wants to argue about it, consider that none of God’s communities of believers has any such custom.

The passage just seems to flow much more smoothly with that being a quote Paul is responding to. He told them not to cover in worship as had been the Jewish practice signifying guilt before God, since Jesus took that away. But if women did not cover their heads, they would incur the wrath of society and their husbands, since only “bad” women didn’t cover at that time. They were between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

So that’s their question (indented and italic), and Paul’s answer is first of all to explain that women are the glory of men and therefore should not be covered. Yet neither could society be instantly overturned. So Paul’s solution is to let the women themselves decide, since it’s literally their “heads” that are on the line.

I also included the verses about long hair. Most translations render it backwards (the ISV is the exception). It isn’t even a question in the Greek, but a statement of fact: nature tells us nothing about hair length since both men and women can grow it long.

When Paul wrote “that is what some of you were”, we can all agree that the list of things believers should not still practice are things that are universally recognized as sinful. But I don’t see “women preachers” in any such list.

When Paul wrote to have a man thrown out of the Assembly, his sin was something that belonged on that list. When he or Peter wrote about false teachers, things on that list were part of the evidences of falsehood. But women preachers are never lumped with such people.

Again, I believe the simple, clear, bottom line is whether or not there is a penalty. Does Paul say to throw out women preachers from the assembly? Does he say their teachings “spread like gangrene”? Does he show by example that women are to be unseen and unheard? Does God have a history of rebuking women who speak the truth to men?

Obviously, seeing the complete absence of any shred of evidence that women are to be silenced, restricted, or bossed, and remembering “not so among you”, it simply astounds me that we’re still having to prove in this day and age that women are free, equal, and human.

The only thing this whole debate shows is the depth of pride in the flesh, the spiritual immaturity, the complete misunderstanding of the very basics of what it means to be a Christian on the part of these people who desire power and control and preeminence. It’s a pathetic indictment of the church today.

Which only goes to show that those people DO consider women “filthy”.

I sure am glad I put zero weight on what “they” think.

Cindy, I understand you’re not saying she couldn’t speak, but asking a rhetorical question. That is, “If it was true that women before Christ were not allowed to speak in religious settings, then what was Anna doing in the temple all those years?” You’re wondering what answer comps would give to Anna’s presence in the temple, do I understand your question right?

Don, there’s a huge difference between law and relevance. I said nothing about relevance. I said nothing about how we might learn from and apply what Paul wrote. I only said Paul is not giving universal laws here. As commands to individuals they do not apply to others. As observations of how Paul handled various problems they are of great value to others.

I didn’t just make that up. As I said, I’ve used it for a long time.

A command can be given to an individual or a group, but a law requires penalties and agreements between parties. This is vital for understanding all the NT says about the sharp divide between the Law and the Promise. So this definition I use came from scripture.

It is important to define terms because people tend to equivocate on the meanings during debates, resulting in poor communication and wasted time.

So the question is whether Paul in this passage is giving a law or a command, and no, they are not identical. If a law, then there had to have been a witnessed agreement between the parties involved, stipulating penalties for violation. If a command, then it cannot be claimed to have universal application as the comps insist.

For example, Paul gave a command for Timothy to drink wine. No one would mistake that for a universally binding law. In the same way, Paul gave a command about a woman teaching falsehood. It is no more a binding law for other women than his command to Timothy is binding on other men.

But if these were laws then they would apply to all male elders and all women. That is the question Cheryl is asking.

A law is something said to be binding upon all the people of a group, such as a nation or religion, for a specified time, and must include penalties for violation.

This definition has served me well regarding such topics as water baptism, “church” membership, observing sacraments, etc. I always look for penalties whenever someone claims a law. After all, a law without penalties is useless.

God clearly issued no law regarding Abraham and his offering of Isaac; it fails the test of penalties, universality for a group, and duration.

If Paul made this new law, he never referenced it either before or after this passage. Would such a law never be written down before he referred to it? And when he did give a decision about anything, he used terminology such as “I, not the Lord” or “I do not allow”. Here he simply said “the law”, not “my law”.