Ryan

Great comments.

I believe a husband has been given full authority IN THE NAME OF YESHUA to protect his wife from all spiritual fallen angels including Satan, but 99.99% of men have no idea that there is a real enemy who desire to steal their wives destiny and joy and therefore don’t learn to fight in the heavenlies on behalf of their wives. We men need to be on watch 24-7 on the walls of our own Jerusalems (City of Peace) our wives. Our Messiah desires to be tangible through us to them and ooooh what a feeling to feel Yeshua touch our wives through us men. Honored!

I don’t think the original post or comments are lost. I can see them in wordpress, its just that it cannot display them for some reason. I think we’ll need to upgrade to the latest version of wordpress as 2.7 may have had a bug in it in the display engine.

Paula, thanks for your response.  I will try to read through your articles when I get a chance.  My intention is not to derail the discussion on authority and what kind of authority is given to people, but to discuss it in light of some illustrations… such as the doctrine of binding and loosing.

PS> I also appreciate the ministry of Paul Washer and John N. who were a part of the True Church Conference.  I also would have said something here.  It was because of a similar teaching which resulted in me not even being taken before the deacons or the church and being expelled in the privacy of the pastor and his group of elders.  In case any of you are wondering what I was expelled for, it was for calling the pastor to repent for subverting the gospel message he was preaching in outreaches. My other sin, and I have this in writing, was “rebellion to authority”…..of the pastor, of course.

Don wrote:

To bind is to forbid some act and to loose is to permit some act, as a Jewish idiom used in the Mishnah.

I must ask, the day before the Jerusalem council met, was circumcision required by God for the salvation of the Gentiles? Or were the gentiles permitted to continue in sexual immorality and now they must not? I think that in this Jerusalem council, nothing was changed but the minds of the Jewish believers who were trying to impose on the Gentiles something that is neither required for the Jewish believers nor the Gentile believers… neither before nor after the council met! They were merely coming to a recognition of Christ as the fulfillment of the ceremonial laws, that the moral commandments of God still stood for all (“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath,” Acts 15:21, NASB). If at this council they had decided to the contrary that physical circumcision of the Gentiles was required, most likely Paul would have stood up and condemned them all for it. They had no power to change what God had already established.

I have no idea what “declaring someone is bound to their sin” means.

Perhaps Numbers 15:30-31 will help:
“But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.” (NASB)

So perhaps it would have been better to say that the guilt of sin is what is bound; the unrepentant person is not released from their sin and its burden…and its curse.

Don wrote:

On Mat 18:18 my understanding is that this was said to the original disciples and is a Jewish idiom for deciding about something, to bind is to forbid and to loose is to permit, which is exactly what happened at the Jerusalem council.

Don, if something is forbidden and you continue to do it unrepentantly, you are cutoff… right?  From this scripture, I do not see a teaching that says the original disciples were able to add to God’s word or subtract from it. I see perfect agreement with what Jesus said, that if they forgive someone, they will be forgiven, and if not, they will not be forgiven. The revealed will of God is constant, but declaring that someone is bound to their sin or not is something that is wrought out through the process of church discipline. And this is where binding and loosing comes into play.

Paula, you can believe in security as the bible teaches it without having to believe that someone who once believed can not fall away in this life.  The doctrine of eternal security is a dangerous teaching.  You’ll have to examine the scriptures and come to your own conclusion, but this teaching is a serious problem in the church today.

My understanding of the illustration of branches being grafted in or cut off is to represent Jews (natural) and Gentiles (wild). But I won’t get into a debate here on eternal security. I also don’t take Mt. 18:18 as applicable to the issue of disfellowshipping, but instead to the following discussion about asking God for something.

Paula, please explain for me Rom 11:20-22 which seems to disagree with your interpretation:  “Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.  Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.” (NASB)

Here Paul is speaking to those who are “in the vine,” and in particular those who are unnatural branches.  He says (post-cross) that it is possible that they will not be spared just as is the case with the natural branches who do not continue in His kindness.

By the way, this shows that the teaching of (eternal) perseverance of the saints (the ‘P’ in Calvinism’s TULIP), is in error. Scriptural perseverance doesn’t teach mean that a branch in the vine (someone who is “safe”) cannot be cut off and therefore be lost.  The teaching that “once a saint always a saint” is unscriptural and should be rejected.  I believe that the saints will persevere, but only if they continue in the faith, and that faith means to not harden your heart toward God and to continue in repentance. If we put ourselves into the hand of God, nothing can take us out; however, if we would rather do things our own way and take ourselves out from under His protection, we will get what we desire…unless we repent.

Paula, being expelled from the body corresponds to being cut off.  Unless the branch that is cut off is grafted back in, it is in dire danger of being gathered and thrown into the fire.  For all intents and purposes, if it is not for God’s patience and an actual repentance, the one who is expelled is cut off from the community and also from right-standing with God…

“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Matt 18:18, NASB).

The intention, if scripture is followed accurately, is that there is no disagreement between heaven and earth.  Therefore, one cannot be cut off from the body of Christ on earth but remain in good fellowship with God in heaven.

Hello Don,

As I read it, the consequence is not mere disfellowship from a congregation, but from the body of Christ, which should include all congregations.  The body is not to execute final judgment and put someone to death (that is God’s responsibility), since it is still possible for them to repent and to be fully forgiven and restored to fellowship.  However, disfellowship has little meaning if one can simply move to another local fellowship (until they find one that lets them continue in their sin).

It would seem that your view would result in the fracturing of the body into many small and independent congregations, whereas in my understanding, there would be accountability between congregations which would unify and not fracture the body and would present a much different picture to the world.

Thoughts?

Yes, indeed.  The final authority in Matt 18 rests on the congregation as a whole which upsides the world’s pattern of authority.  So it is not an aristocracy (in the human appointees), nor is it democratic (in that rule is by popular vote)… it is the duty of the congregation to carry out discipline.  And it always has been since early times.  When a stoning was required, the witness(es) who testified against a person were to cast the first stone followed by the entire assembly.

The duty of the pastors (or shepherds) seems to me to be responsible to lead the congregation to function as it ought, not to take autocratic authority over it… though Paul does seem to suggest that if they do not function as they ought, then he would discipline them.

hmm… this is an interesting thought: since the body of Christ is not divided, I wonder if such a thing were to happen today, if one local congregation shouldn’t be disciplined by another healthy congregation?  Often even the overseeing body (ie. the Baptist General Conference, for instance) strays in its teaching or practice.  It should be that another part of the body can discipline them as well, should it be necessary.

Thoughts?

Ha…too many mom’s out there.  😉

I agree with Paula and Don… first that the apostles were special in their commission because it was given them directly from Jesus and also because they were given the revelation of God… and also that Paul had a special place in these churches because he helped start them and also suffered much for Jesus’ name’s sake and the gospel.  However, despite the fact that the authority is based on the Word of God and does not come from onesself, it still does seem that there are times when Paul suggests that he would exercise an authority over believers which extended beyond just trying his best to convince them to do what is right.  And in fact, in 2 Corinthians, he was exhorting people in this church to carry out their responsibility to discipline (against the will of the person being disciplined), so this kind of authority does not belong to Paul alone.  We have to remember that we are talking about professing believers, and not those outside the church (don’t profess to follow Christ).  According to 1 Cor 5:12, we as the church have both the right and responsibility to judge professing believers. It is an authority which comes from God’s Word, but it has been delegated to those who shepherd God’s flock.

In John 20:23, it would seem that Jesus (to whom belongs all authority) has also given believers the authority to forgive and to not forgive.  This did not belong to the apostles alone because Paul said that the Corinthians also had this authority in discipline (2 Cor 2:10).

Interested in hearing all your thoughts on this.

Mom,

There are are few more instances where there seems to be authority given to a leader to act, even forcefully:  2 Cor 13:10, 2 Cor 10:6,10.  2 Cor 10:6 is particularly intriguing.  At any rate, we know that the authority given to Paul was for building up the church and not tearing it down, but nevertheless, it seems that he has been given authority to “punish” those who continue to refuse to listen.

How would you understand this in light of the discussion of this and your previous posts?

Don:

I realize that this is getting a bit off the original topic for Cheryl’s post, but I’d like to carry this one through.

Don, I like how you showed earlier that the Pharisees and other Jews were requiring something for salvation that wasn’t to be a requirement.  However, to say only that “Jews and gentiles are saved by accepting Jesus and accepting the Spirit in them v.8 & v 11” is missing the whole idea of Jesus’ statement, “If you love Me, you will obey My commandments.”  Both Jews and Gentiles in OT times were saved by faith looking forward to God’s future work.  However, until the way was made clear, Gentiles were separated from Jews in some way unless they also physically became Jews under the covenant of Moses.  I can’t say I fully understand all of this yet, but this does seem to be the case.  Feel free to correct me from scripture.

As I read Acts 15, the Jews who believed didn’t understand there was a fulfillment of the ceremonial and food laws which were previously intended to separate Jews from Gentiles such that they were done away with when the way was made known and the veil was torn from top to bottom.  These were no longer to separate Jews from Gentiles.  However, we have a similar practice which all who profess to believe ought to do which is baptism.  Baptism separates those who believe from those who do not believe and it separates these two groups from fellowship together in Christ.  Baptism is a sign like physical circumcision (though much easier and universal to include both men and women), representing inner workings of the heart.  To say that someone is not saved because they have not been water baptized is insufficient.  It may be that this person has not yet had an opportunity to do so (ie. you need water to carry it out like you needed a knife or flint stone for circumcision).  But if such a person was negligent or refusing to do so, that is more serious as it communicates a heart condition which is not healthy.

I think this is more clear when we understand faith as an action word like trust, intending that we believe so we obey.  How will anyone (even ourselves) know we have saving faith in our heart if it is not evidenced in our actions?  And if we continue through the tests of life and see no evidence of that faith in our actions, what good is such faith?  Further, if the evidence proves the contrary, then it makes evident something about the heart condition which would otherwise not be known.

These are the 4 minimal requests, from a Jewish POV these were gross things that exemplified what it meant to be a pagan, so please stop doing these worst things from the Jewish POV so that Jewish believers in Jesus can be with you in fellowship.  Remember, they are trying to make it as easy as possible on the gentiles v. 28.

Was sexual immorality something that believing Gentiles would be free to do if it weren’t for the sensitivities of the Jewish believers?

Looking forward to your response.

@Greg Anderson # writes:

For me it is pretty simple actually, from the book of Acts Chap. 15. The text makes it pretty clear to me that God was long finished with writing in stone out of the thick darkness atop Mt. Horeb.

In verse 20, and then repeated in verses 28 & 29, I am assured that there are only 4 things that I am to refrain from in my Christian walk, and that sitting under a gifted woman teacher of the Bible is not among them.

Greg, I don’t think it is quite that simple. When the apostles concluded “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality,” surely they didn’t mean to say that they were free from the moral commandments such as those requiring them not to murder, steal, covet, lie, etc. Indeed, after listing these few restrictions which they were to communicate, the apostles make it clear why they don’t have to repeat all of the moral requirements: “For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21).

The apostles were only addressing the issue of those ceremonial and judicial laws which were stipulated to separate the Jewish people from other non-Jewish people. In other words, all that was being said here was that Gentiles were not required to follow Jewish customs, aside from a few of the food laws and an emphasis on avoiding all sexual immorality, not that they were freed in any way from the transcendent moral requirements given by Moses.

On the issue of women in ministry, while there are clear verses which seem to be very clear on the treatment of men and women in the Kingdom of God, it is these difficult passages listed before which people use to oppose it and restrict women. Therefore, the best way to prove a view to be correct is to show how it fits with both the verses which seem to agree as well as those which seem to disagree.

Hope that helps…

Ryan

It is also a reminder to me to not to respond in kind.

I think this statement from Lin is a good reminder.  The promotion of the truth will be all the more powerful if our response to criticism is simply to address ideas themselves and not the attitudes, feelings or behaviours of our opponents. Let’s focus on keeping up the high quality of discussion on this board doing this very thing, demonstrating what mature Christ-like character ought to look like, and remind ourselves to lay our emotions and desire for justice at God’s feet through prayer.

I’d like to second Jennifer’s comment.

Paula – great observation on Eph 2 and thanks for the online link to an interlinear!

Mom, you might want to add these links to your sidebar.  If so, just add them under a new category (perhaps called “Research”) and they will show up after your “Product->Purchase DVD” link.

One thing that might make a complementarian think…. if both men and women will judge angels… in other words both men AND women are above the angels… then if a man won’t listen to teaching from a woman, then to be consistent, he should do an “Elvis leaves the building” when an angel from God comes to him, no?

Also, if it is the vessel that God is concerned about over and above His message, then God should have chosen a man to rebuke Balaam… but He uses his donkey.

Mom,

Stay focused on expositing scripture and whatever you do, avoid defending yourself. Kindly remind Matt to please refrain from assuming your motives or ad hominem, and ask him if he would let you explain how you exposit these hard scriptures he keeps referring to. If he doesn’t let you speak, ask him questions and teach him by leading him to the water as you usually do.

Will be praying for you!

Ryan

Very well done and effective! Your diagrams really helped to make the connections clear. Though all decendents of Adam and Eve inherited Adam’s sin nature, by only coming from Eve’s line and the woman (Mary), this is how Jesus did not inherit Adam’s sin. I also liked how you drew our spiritual geneology from Jesus’ line as a branch off the woman.

Ryan

Yes, the NET Bible Translation notes unfortunately favour the interpretation of ruling the husband, but the commentaries of Welsey, Gill and James, Fausset and Brown (JFB) don’t seem to infer that she was looking to have authority over her husband (after all, she did offer him the fruit — if she had bad intentions, wouldn’t she have kept it to herself?). Wesley says, “She is here put into a state of subjection: the whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is for sin made inferior.” JFB write, “…her condition would henceforth be that of humble subjection.” Gill said, “…it should be liable to be controlled by his will, which must determine it, and to which she must be subject…”

The thing that really bothers me about every interpretation that I have seen thus far is that they all interpret these things as God cursing the man and woman. However, this is not the case. God curses the serpent in Gen 3:14 and the ground because of Adam’s rebellion in Gen 3:17. Otherwise, He merely says that He will increase Eve’s pain in childbirth and prophecies about Adam’s toil, Eve’s desire for her husband and Adam’s rule over her. Given that Eve had not yet had any children and din’t know the pain of childbirth, its hard to imagine that this is what God is speaking of. Perhaps what is meant is in reference to the heart and emotional anguish she would experience with the sin of her children — her first son was a murderer. After all, it is the mother who bears the children from her very own womb, breast feeds them and mothers them and so has a closer connection.

Your article is very well written, immediately engaging and a powerful argument.

Great reasoning from the scriptures. Its wonderful how scripture interprets scripture!

I think that you may have been able to list some of these verses just to show that there were women elders, prophets and others in positions of leadership. I think the additional support would have added more weight to your arguments in certain areas. I don’t think it would have been necessary to go into detail on these scriptures in the video, however you certainly could add a brief synopsys of the women in leadership from scripture in your study guide as an appendix.