Zwagmeister

Cheryl
thanks for the clear and succint explanation.
Good to have you back in front of your PC again!
i look forwards to the next few updates on shame and glory.
Kerryn

Cheryl,

so sorry -the formatting didnt line up the 3 ‘couplets’ well when it put my post up on the site – sorry!

bascially they should read like this:

1) wife: To be subject to husband
husband: to sacrifice himself for his wife

2) wife: the body of he husband
husband: the head of his wife

3) wife: make sure she respects her husband
husband: to love his wife as he loves himself

Hope that format comes out better – i’ll click and ‘see’ if it does!

regards
kerryn

Cheryl

great stuff. clear and well presented. thanks.

the way ‘head’ is traditionally connected with authority and men over (all) women simply cannot (as you have demonstrated) be proven from scripture.

i found Sarah Sumner’s comments (Men and Women in the Church, p 159-164) on Ephesians 5:21-33 to be helpful in getting my hmind round some of these issues. This is the other passage where the husband is also described as head of the wife and this relationship is likened to Christ and his church (also described in other places as Christ, the groom and his Bride)… clearly a ‘marriage’ analogy. not ‘all’ men in authority over ‘all’ women. Sumner highlights that there are 3 distinct couplets presented in the passage, but all too often these have been mixed up and the true message twisted.

Although the ‘pairs’ match up as below in the text:

Wife: Husband:

To be subject to husband To sacrifice himself
for his wife

Is the body of her husband The head of his wife

To see that she respects To love his wife as her husband himself

Often the ‘submission’ of the wife is falsely ‘connected’ to the headship of the husband. This is not what the passage teaches. the subjection or submission of the wife is ‘paralleled’ to the husbands selfless sacrificing for his wife! we must be very careful not to twist things and make them say what they do not!

There is nothing about authority in Eph 5, just as there is nothing about authority (other than a woman’s own authority over her own physcial head) in 1 cor 11:2-16. Rather, the ONENESS and perfect unity (which i believe is how we are to mirror the unity of the trinity through the bond of marriage) is the point of the passage – Eph 5:31. i believe that 1 Cor 11 passage also stresses the importance of unity b/w men and women (husbands and wives)stressing that everything comes from GOD and even as the first woman came from the first man, so after that, all men have come from women! (1 Cor 11:12) It amazes me that people use verses 3-10 to somehow claim that men have a special leadership calling over women, but seem to ‘ignore’ verses 11-12 which turn such a claim on its head!

God please help us to understand and implement practically the beautiful God-intended unity and balance in our male-female relationships designed at the point of humanity’s creation but lost at the Fall! After all, we are the ‘Redeemed’, right, so our relationships must be redeemed too!

(-:
kerryn

Thanks for your helpful comments Cheryl, and taking time to answer my qns so thoughtfully.

In Christ
Kerryn

Just in follow up to the above, most (all?) major translations choose to translate aner as ‘man’, not husband.

I am also not sure that translating every aner and gunaikos ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ works in the passage.
Can we move from aner meaning ‘man’ (male), then to ‘husband’ and back do you think?
how would you tranlsate the passage – vv 2-16?

sorry – it’s late now – so i’ll do some more thinking on each specific verse and translation of these nouns over the next few days… not even sure if my qns make sense! feel free to ignore them if i am speaking gobbly goop!

(-:
Kerryn

Hello Cheryl,

i was wondering, do you have a comment as to why there is a definite article for aner (the man/husband) but gunaikos (a woman/ wife)has none?

Do you see the ongoing use of these two greek words as best being translated husband and wife all the way through the passage?

In Christ,
Kerryn

Cheryl
great job on setting the context – how critical this is to Ch 11!

i am constantly struck in Paul’s writings about how much emphasis he places on not offending ubelievers ‘unnecessarily’. Of course there are the clear ‘non-negotiables’ that are central to the gospel … eg: the cross is offensive and foolishness to those that are perishing (1 Cor 1:18)… but time and time again on things he implores believers to live lives of peace (1 Tim 2:2-4) and not cause unbelievers to disdain the gospel because believers live out their ‘freedoms’ without considering the consequences. (1 Peter 1: 13 – 17; 3:1 echoes this too – asking believers to have a similar attitude of putting their ‘rights’ below their desire to reach the unreached.) Perhaps the most amazing example for me is Paul pushing for circumcision to not be demanded of Gentiles at the Council in Acts 15, then he turns round and asks poor Greek Timothy to get the ‘chop’ in the very next chapter – because it would help them ‘not offend’ the Jews in the area they were going to… incredible, hey!? (I have always felt particularly sorry for Timothy!!!)

What would Paul’s advice be to us in western culture today in regards to how we apply the gospel to our culture? Of course sin is sin and must not be considered as a ‘cultural’ issue…but how much of what we ‘do’ in church is actually tradition based, rather than ‘sin’ or ‘not sin’?
As paul says… we need to ask ourselves what is BENEFICIAL (but not contrary) to the gospel?

Looking forwards to getting into vv 3-16!
(-:
k

Thanks Cheryl,

As usual much to ponder from your words.

For those who are interested, Michael Kruse has an interesting post on “shame and glory” today – in terms of how we view it in the ‘modern western world’ compared to how “shame and glory” was understood in the Greco-Roman world. Considering Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 11 regarding ‘shame and glory’ it’s quite relevant i think to what you are discussing at the moment Cheryl. For those interested, see
http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/
(May 24)

(-:
kerryn

Thanks Cheryl,

As usual much to ponder from your words.

For those who are interested, Michael Kruse has an interesting post on “shame and glory” today – in terms of how we view it in the ‘modern western world’ compared to how “shame and glory” was understood in the Greco-Roman world. Considering Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 11 regarding ‘shame and glory’ it’s quite relevant i think to what you are discussing at the moment Cheryl. For those interested, see
http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/
(May 24)

(-:
kerryn

Oh dear – I apologise to all for my many typos above! writing with kids on my lap can cause challenges! hopefully it’s vaguely cohesive and intelligible?
sorry and thanks for your patience.
K

Gidday Cheryl

Can i pls ask you some qns and make a few observations for you to perhaps comment upon?

what do you make of the singular ‘a woman’ in verse 3 and the pluaral ‘every man’?

I think that paul’s statement in v 12 that EVERYTHING comes from God is crucial to the passage – especially if you hold to “head” as meaning ‘source’ or ‘origin’, v 12 is key. Can you clarify for me, are you actually claiming that the three ‘pairs’ of v 3 are referred back to in some way in v 12? or just that paul clariies the male-femle relationship one of interdependence with all originating from God?

what do you make of the phrase “in the Lord”?
i know some who use this phrase as a kind of ‘spiritual’ status in Christ, rather than applicable to ministry/ roles in the church body …just as some argue Gal 3:28 is ‘purely’ salvation ‘status’…

I also believe that verse 7, where Paul says ,man is the image and glory of God, and ,woman is the glory of man, is the key to unlocking the meaning of the passage…
Paul’s argument is about glory and shame. Not about authority and hierarchy.
(…but i am sure you will ‘unpack’ that for us shortly, right???!)

further regarding v 3: what is interesting to also note is that paul does not explicitly refer to the 3 ‘pairs’ again – only the ‘pair’ of man and woman is used. for example, if v 3 was the ‘basis’ for the entire passage, then surely Paul would have said that man is the glory of ‘Christ’ (not ‘God’) in v 7, to link back to v 3?

why does paul introduce a thought in verse 3 – that man is the head of a woman… then basically ‘reverse’ or revoke his argument in v.12?
What do you make of this? is this what he actually does in your opinnion?

what about Paul’s metaphorical use of ‘kephale’ (head) in Ephesians 1:10, 22; 4;15; 5:23 and Colossians 1:18; 2:10;19? can we assume that Paul is consistent or ‘repeating’ his use of ‘head’ in these other passages?

is paul always consistent / repetitive in his teaching to ‘different’ churches/ recipients? (i haven’t studied this at all, so just wondered what you think.)

i could ask a million more qns – but i am sure you have a full palte already!
i look forward to any comments you can make to my rambling thoughts.
your teaching is always thought provoking!
many thanks.

(-:
kerryn

Hello Cheryl
it is taking me (still not finished!) hours and hours to read through all the original post and comments on Wade’s blog site.
May God continue to give you patience and kindness as you deal with others who don’t always ‘discuss’ things with an attitude christian humility and love.
You have a lot more gentleness and patience than me i think!
(-:
k

Amen.
God is also “bread”, a “door”, a “light”, a “vine”.
yet no one takes those metaphors to their full ‘literal’ degree. Sarah Sumner makes some good points on the way in which we should/shoud not understand the use of metaphors/similies in the Scriptures in her book “Men and Women in the Church.
Still – it’s a major ‘sticking point’ for many complementarians that they just ‘cant’ see past!

if women, as the scriptures clearly say, is indeed made in the image of God (Gen 1:26) then how can God be ‘only’ male. although God is not a reflection of ‘me’ as a human, i am a (partial/imperfect) reflection of him. i think the problem, as you mention is that we try to constantly bring God ‘down’ to fit into our little ‘boxes’ so we can understand him. yet this is indeed idolatry. michael kruse makes some good comments that are relevant on his blog…. (dec 18th 2006 http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2006/12/male_and_female.html. he quotes Francis Schaffer regarding what it is that differentiates us as being made in the image of God… Gender – since the animals and even some plant life etc have gender is certainly not in itself something that distinquishes as as being made in the image of God. So how can some make such a big deal out of God being supposedly “male”?

it’s just so illogical and unbiblical to say that God is ‘male’ (and ‘not female’). it literally pierces my spirit. it frustrates me that it’s not ‘obvious’ to everyone that such claims are totally flawed! may God give us (me!) patience and love while we learn to handle the Sword of Truth to cut through the millenia of patriarchal bias around us.

(-:
kerryn

Gidday Cheryl,

I completely agree with what you have written above. However i know a number of people who really struggle with ‘not’ believing God is indeed male. One of them wrote his thesis on the fact that God is male and consequently the offices of the church should be held by men alone… Certainly those who believe that God is male tend to go hand in hand with those who believe in restricting women’s roles in the church.

this gentleman claimed that only ‘similies’ (God is ‘like’… a mother etc) are used to state God has feminine ‘qualities’ in the Bible, whereas metaphors (God “IS” our Father) means that he is indeed male and not female! (incredible, i know!) I have some thoughts on how such a statement can be debated/refuted, but what are your commments?

In Christ
Kerryn

This is so heart-breaking. Listening to these clips – well, i am simply shocked that it’s come to this. It’s unusual for ‘words to fail me’, but i am feeling (almost!)speechless. Satan is having a field day… turning the ‘Body’ on itself. Father God please help us fight the REAL enemy – not our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Kerryn

Cheryl

I am digesting your very interesting teaching here…
I guess just as Jesus was born with a sign of sin in his body to identify with sinful humanity … so too he chose to be identified with us and our need for the spiritual cleansing in his water baptism – though he himself needed no ‘personal’ repentance.

Keep the revelations coming…
(-:
kerryn

Cheryl,

you raise some excellent questions for me to ponder.

i am amazed that in all my reading (dozens of books on the topic) i haven’t yet found this teaching – certainly not this perspective set out so clearly and logically.

Are you aware of any others supporting this teaching?

(-:
kerryn

Thanks for your succinct response Cheryl.

1 Tim 3 is ridiculously ‘obvious’ to me. Just as you say… that if you take the ‘one-woman man’ bit ‘literally’, you have to take the others bits likewise – which ‘no one’ really does.

Esp when a few verses below it says deacons must be a husband of one wife, then it goes on to describe female deaconesses… (cf Rom 16:1 with Phoebe as an example) so obviously proving that the one-woman elder is not restricting women, but polygamy.

1 Tim 3 seems to be such a ‘no brainer’…yet it’s a major stumbling block for so many regarding females being ‘elders’ or pastors’ leaders etc…
The bias we can all unconconciously bring to Scripture is frightening and something that we all need to constantly ask Holy Spirit to set us free from so we can receive true revelation of God’s Word.

There are no ‘female elders’ specifically cited in the NT. This is something that is often thrown in my face too. (Any comments?)

Yet the more i study both Paul and Christ’s teachings, the more i believe that they were extremely counter cultural – offering woman amazing freedoms and liberation within Christ that were revolutionary in 1st century greco-roman/jewish culture. As we read the NT texts from our 21st century western point of view it’s easy to miss just how radical Jesus and Paul actually were on the behalf of women. Mary welcomed to sit at the foot of Jesus learning like only male students were ‘allowed’ to sit at a Rabbi’s feet…the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the daughter of Abraham who stood straight after Jesus healed her…the woman with bleeding who dared to touch the Holy Jesus…

Some say “hey, there’s no female examples of elders named… so therefore female elders were not allowed… and use 1 Tim 3:2 as the ‘law’ from God that supports this… Yet this is firstly an argument from silence and secondly, we need to consider the ‘direction’ in which Christianity was moving towards the liberation of women – even though it was slam bank in the middle of 1st century patriarchy.

If you haven’t read it before, William Webb’s book “Slaves Women and Homosexuals Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis” (IVP, 2001) provides some great food for thought on this. Webb proposes that in the case of slaves and women the NT presents a ‘forward moving’ hermeneutic. Although the 1st century church is still operating within a patriarchal society, there is a clear momentum towards equality for women. He contasts this with the clear stationary stance on homosexuality. That is, the NT does not offer any movement towards an acceptance of homosexuality, but continues to condemn it as does the OT.

Apart from presenting the very logical arguments yo make above for 1 tim 3 regarding ‘one-woman’ man not restricting women from being elders… do you have any other advice for me in terms of encouraging those ‘stuck’ on this verse? I guess praying for wisdom and revelation is a good thing too!

I continue on my journey seeking truth and God’s will for me as a woman who feels called to teach and lead. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss these important issues on your blog.

In Christ

Kerryn

Hey Cheryl,

I am continuing to read through all your archives. Lots of food for thought – thank you for such stimulating discussions!
Some questions/comments I have regarding this particular post…

1) Comments:
The verses you use to make your point regarding Adam being a ‘man’ use the word anthropos, (Romans 5:12,19 and also likewise in 1 Cor 15:22, 45 when Paul teaches it is through Adam that sin / death came into the world). Although most translations would have this read ‘man’ it must be recognized that Paul is in fact avoiding gender specific language here. If he wanted to highlight Adam’s maleness in any way, he would have to have used a gender specific word such as aner. (Just for interest, similarly in the gospels, Jesus Son of ‘man’ is in reality Jesus Son of ‘Human’ with anthropos always being used, rather than the gender specific aner).
By comparison, 1 Cor 11: 8, 9 do use gender specific terms for Adam, but that is very logical since it is in the context of a discussion regarding ‘dress codes’ for men and women, nothing to do with Adam (“the maleâ€) bringing sin into the world.
The quote you use from 1Timothy 2:14: “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgressionâ€, simply states the case that Adam was not deceived. Gender is indeed in view in the context of 1 Tim 2:11-15, but I don’t see Paul using the verse to highlight Adam as a ‘male’ bringing sin into the world – just an illustration by Paul as to why ‘a (specific?) woman’, who is arguably in deception herself like Eve, should not teach in Ephesus.

Question:
Can you pls clearly show me how Scripture highlights the ‘maleness’ of Adam in relation to his “rebellious†sin which led humanity to our fallen state?

2) Comments:
Cheryl I am not sure how watertight the use of “he†in Gen 3:15 is for your argument… (My Greek is better than my Hebrew!) I do believe that the Scriptures are inspired by God. Yes Father knew that the Christ would be male, cos he knows everything from beginning to end. But does the ‘grammar’ itself really emphasise that the Messiah would be male through this one pronoun? If there was going to be a choice between a female or male personal pronoun (“it†for the Messiah surely would not have been appropriate?!) then surely in the patriarchal society in which the scriptures were written, “He†would have been the obvious choice. I am not saying that God allows culture to ‘dictate’ his Word… just that the Hebrew (and Greek) language had to specify gender in the pronoun and by ‘default’ it would always be ‘he’ unless God very specifically wanted it otherwise. This is the case time and time again where various male pronouns are used to represent all people…eg 2 Peter 3:9 the indefinite masculine plural pronoun τινας is used in reference to God not wanting “anyone†to perish.

There certainly are other ‘male’ terms used in the Scriptures that refer to the Messiah in a male sense – eg “Prince†(not Princess!) of Peace and Everlasting “Father†(Is 9:6). I am sure there would be others? Mind you do if these are metaphorical I am not sure again how much they ‘prove’ the promised gender of the Messiah.

Question:
I am not saying your argument that the Messiah had to be a ‘male’ is wrong. Just that I am not clearly (yet) convinced by the Scriptural references you have used to support it. Can you help me further?

Warm regards
Kerryn

Gidday Cheryl,

I am really chewing over the info in this section of your blog. Thanks for the diagrams etc. very helpful.

I have spent more time in the Word than in any science books… so tell me what you think …
Getting specifically ‘biological’ … is it true that sperm carry ‘life’ where as the female egg is not ‘alive’ until joined with the sperm at the point of conception? (Hey forgive me, i did english lit and german, not biol and science at school!) If this is true, (i am not sure?!) then is this also a ‘literal’ connection with the spiritual principle of the ‘male’ passing on the ‘death’ seed. And Jesus, NOT having an earthly father, therefore being exempt from sin nature?
Perhaps you have already sort of said this above but not been so ‘biological’ or literal in your explanation:

“Yet that seed of life in the woman, could not produce life on her own. When her seed was mixed with the man’s seed, the result was always death because Adam was the father of the dying…”

Am i on track here?

have a great weekend!

(-:
K

Cheryl
glad to see you are back on deck.
I have listened to your DVDs (Women Silenced or Set Free) once so far – ordered and received them while you were away… very well presented. Much to consider and think through. I will watch them all through again before i ask you any particular questions. BUT YES! please do a series on marriage the headship issue. It is very needed.
My husband has watched the first of the four DVDs and is ‘cautiously’ impressed… so we’ll see what he thinks of the next 3…
many thanks
Kerryn

Hi Cheryl

you sure do post ‘food for thought’! just trying to get my head round this stuff…

can i clarify… cos i think i might be misunderstanding you… so forgive me if that is the case…

are you saying that “men” carry a different sin nature to “women”? ie it is through our “fathers” and not “mothers” we inherit our sin nature? even though all men (after Adam) are born of women…and all men and women since the Fall have been born as the result of the union b/w Adam and Eve?

Rom 3:23 says All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Pretty clear that we all have inherited a sin nature i think. How does “eve’s” trangression through deception help ‘us’ when we still have Adam as our ‘father’? Like you say, Mary was born of a sinful nature, yet jesus was her son?

I don’t believe that Adam is representative of “men” but of humankind… because he was the first HUMAN (ie – irrelevant that he was male). Note: Paul’s deliberate use of anthropos, not aner in passages such as 1 Cor 15 regarding Adam as humanity’s representative.

i must have missed something in your explanation i think… work with me here!

question – i haven’t done hebrew as much as greek… is the “you” plural or singular in Gen 3:17 when God says to Adam i “commanded you…”? if it’s singular it might add to the case for God only giving Adam the command not to eat of the tree directly. (forgive me if it’s something you have already noted in another time and place before i began reading your blog!)

in Christ
(-:
k

thanks cheryl
safe travelling.

Cheryl,

Just to expound on my statement above about Paul’s emphasis being on ‘learning’ (v 11), do you think that this can be closely linked with vv 13-14… more so than v 12?

can it be that Paul’s is emphasising that Eve didn’t ‘learn’ God’s command (passed on from Adam indirectly in the garden???) and thus she was deceived? in some ways v 12 is then a comment made in the middle of the flow of 11, 13-14?

with ‘learning’ as the only imperative, should we give it the ‘greatest’ focus in the passage?

just wondering what you think…
zwagmeister

Gidday Cheryl,

I have printed out this stuff for my hubby to read!
He is a loving husband from a strict reformed background… (although now we both go to a church where there are ‘junior’ female pastors). I come from more of a baptist/methodist tradition in which women were not ‘too’ limited in ministry (at least in the last 20-30 years!) I am studying at bible college and feel strongly that the Lord might well have given me a teaching gift and a call to leadership beyond that of ‘women and children'(not that they are in any way unimportant!)

We both love the Lord and are praying that he can lead us to unity on this difficult issue…

Hubby always comes back to 1 tim 3 to say that a woman cannot be ‘an elder’.
Secondly because Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, uses Gen 2-3 in 1 tim 2 and 1 Cor 11 to (according to hubby’s view)confirm a patriarchal view of men/women in ministry it must ‘therefore’ be a transcultural teaching. (Reformed folk are big into the whole ‘creation ordinance’ stuff!)

personally i feel that the argument made by patriarchalists that 1 tim 2 ‘confirms’ patriarchy in the Garden and then that in turn confirms Paul as prescribing patriarhy as somewhat of a circular arguement…

anyway, i’ll see how hubby goes with your well thought out response to elders ‘must’ be men!
thanks for your insights. i look forwards to more of your posts and comments.

growing in Him…

zwagmeister

Hello!

what an interesting blog.
i have spent several hours reading through your material today and really enjoyed it.

One question/comment though…
I am not sure about the “distinction” b/w Adam and Eve’s “sin”…
Sin is sin. Any sin separates us from God. (thank God for his grace to us all!) Once we start ‘judging’ sin into different categories i think we can get ourselves into trouble. Are you saying that if Adam had NOT eaten the apple, we would still be in the Garden?

i do believe that Paul is focussed on the issue of deception in 1 tim 2:11-15 (cf main theme of the letter) and this is why he stresses Eve’s story – because Genesis tells us she was deceived by the serpent (Gen 3:13). Another interesting thing – Eve immediately acknowledged her sin – she said to God “the serpent deceived me and i ate…” Interestingly, Adam on the other hand showed no repentence or admission of fault, but rather looked to palm the blame off on the one who he used to see as ‘bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” (Gen 2:23)
1 Tim 2:11 is clearly about learning – the need Paul felt “a woman” had to learn so that she would not be deceived – like Eve. In fact my rusty greek tells me that it is learning (mantheo) that Paul is stressing with the one imperative in the entire passage.

I have studied just a little about Paul’s use of Adam in 1 Cor 15. Certainly there is no emphasis made of his ‘maleness’ in representing mankind. I believe that Paul clearly uses anthropos (rather than aner) or a pronoun that is not used in a way to specifically emphasise Adam’s maleness.. cf Rom 5:14 too) in every case. Adam was the first HUMAN created (and he just happens to have been male) is the way i read it. He is our representative because he was the one ‘through’ which all human life ultimately came. Could this not be the reason why transgression is laid at ‘his’ feet, rather than his sin being ‘greater’ than Eve’s?

(I am working on a research paper at the moment on Paul’s use of Gen 1-3 in 1 Cor 11 and 1 tim 2… so your discussion are right on track to get me into the ‘thick’ of all the debate!)

I welcome your thoughts?