Cheryl Schatz

Mark,

This is a massive debate which we have barely touched on, so i hope you can appreciate why i had to probe your view since it was producing a contradiction in the word. But it is good to see you be corrected and accept the word.

Like I said, I was corrected before I looked up the “contradiction” in the resources I have. I just accepted the words of Eve that were recorded as the words that she spoke. Since it appears to me that you do not accept that Eve spoke these words and they were added later, this “fix” of the contradiction allows for additions completely outside of the knowledge of the person who is quoted. Not good. This view makes the Bible deceptive by claiming something that is not true. I would reject that outright because in my world view God is not a deceiver nor does He inspire His Word to be deceptive. I also accept every word that is recorded of what Eve and the serpent said as statements that they did say and not later additions. I accept the words and the grammar as accurate. My belief in the Bible allows me to pay attention to what is said and understand the circumstances by the clear words and grammar.

The other conservative view is somewhat basically what i am putting forward. But again the research here is extensive and i am by no means an expert on it,

I have seen a lot of “research” from people who dispute the validity of Genesis. When God says something two or three times (two or three witnesses) it is determined.

Gen 41:32 “Now as for the repeating of the dream to Pharaoh twice, it means that the matter is determined by God, and God will quickly bring it about.

Yet people feel free to set aside God’s clear words and to make them into Genesis “parables” so that they can determine what they think God is saying that will conform to their own understanding. My view is that I take God at His Word. From there I work to see why there is a contradiction, but I never “solve” the problem by making God human who can lie or deceive. Words put into someone’s mouth that they didn’t actually say is nothing less than deceptive.

For example, did Jesus perform the same miracles 4 times over, did he say the same parables 4 times over etc etc. I’ll leave this here and hopefully if you choose to look into this further you might see why it is inaccurate to label me a liberal.

I have already done a lot of work on the so-called contradictions and when you pay attention to the words and the grammar the “contradictions” disappear. I don’t have to set aside any accuracy of the account to do so. Those who solve the problems by believing that those whom the Holy Spirit inspired add to the words of Jesus or add to the words of Eve are heading down the path of liberalism. What else has been added? And what else has been taken away. It is the Mormon claim that great and precious truths have been removed from the Scriptures. Is their view true? Why can’t it be true if people are allowed to embellish on the story, surely they can remove a story too. Adding to and taking away are in exactly the same camp. I would not want to see you slide further in to this camp for once you grant that the account is inaccurate and you don’t have to pay attention to the exact words and grammar, it is only another step to start the doubt on other passages and on and on. I will not go there. I already had my own crisis of faith in 1986 and I chose to accept God’s word even though I saw a major contradiction. I chose to accept that He was right and there was no contradiction even though I could not accept it. By God’s grace, He gave me that answer later that year, but I was very happy that I believed God first without knowing the answer. He is faithful! No one will ever convince me that God allowed additions to the words quoted as being from a witness of YHWH.

Not totally sure what you mean by this? Do you think this is what i believe?

Yes. If I understand you right, you seem to be saying that either Moses added God’s name to Eve’s quote in Genesis 4 or else Eve was following the serpent’s lead at removing God’s name in Genesis 3. You said that Moses could add God’s name in Genesis 4 in to Eve’s quote and that would apparently be fine with you. I strongly disagree.

For example it is almost universally recognised that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, yet it records his own death. If another writer redacted this at a later date does that make it less ‘inspired’ in your opinion? Or is it some sort of prophecy on Moses behalf about his own death?

I haven’t studied this one because my life is too busy right now to be distracted to other issues, but I can accept that either Moses prophesied about his own death or else another writer finished the story. Either way does not have another writer adding words to Moses’ mouth. Did Moses say “I died”? or is it written in the third person? Add words to another person’s mouth is deception, pure and simple.

“Although the term “source” is used for often than anything else, there can be other meanings.”
I’m glad you have said this, it makes it much easier to progress in the arguments.
In the OT septuagint, I believe that the translation (not inspired) used head to mean something other than source so apparently those writers were aware of another usage. However it appears that you now are ready to accept that “source” or “point of origin” is also an acceptable meaning while you were disputing the validity of other lexicons before. Have you now accessed the writings of Wayne Grudem to see where he admits this? I think his admission is a vital piece of evidence.

“It is Andreas Kostenberger who teaches that women will be saved from deception if they continue in their roles as wives and mothers.”
So he is NOT saying it is her works that gives her salvation? Was Lin wrong in what she said about works salvation? His view is that it will just stop her from being deceived right and has nothing to do with her salvation?

He is saying that her role saves her. Being deceived by satan is being carried away from the faith. Keeping her role will keep her in the faith. He is very clear about that. Andreas believes that if a woman teaches the Bible to men she is removing herself from her God-ordained role and God will remove His protection from her and will allow her to be deceived by satan. In essence the only thing that remove her out of the place of deception will be her repentance and her placing herself under the proper role. Perhaps “works” salvation would not be the right term. It would be more appropriate to say that he teaches a “role” salvation, which in my mind means the exact thing as “works” salvation. It is the work or place of a woman in her proper domain that will save her. Clear enough? Yah, I know pretty bad. I talked to him about that. I told him that it is showing a prejudice in God in that God never promised to save and keep preserved men who stay in their proper “role”. He said that my questions were good and deserved an answer but that he didn’t have an answer for me. I don’t think that he has properly thought this one through.

I didn’t say people haven’t rejected male leadership until feminism, i said people using ‘source’ as a definition combined with rejecting male leadership is new. I got that from David Garland’s Exegetical Commentary on 1 Corinthians. He might be wrong, i dunno???

First of all rejecting male leadership is not “new” and neither is the term “source” or “origin” a new term. In my DVD I document one of the early fathers using this term for head.

Secondly since David Garland admits that “Earlier interpreters understand (kephale) to mean “source” but with subordinationist overtones.” and since the rejection of male leadership is at least hundreds of years old, then how can you appeal to Garland as proof that the term “source” and rejection of male leadership is a new thing stemming from feminism?

Let’s see what Garland has to say in some of his comments that are very eye opening:

This analysis is not without its critics. First, the word “head” was rarely used to describe the relationship of one individual to another. Conzelmann (1975: 183 n. 21) notes, “Head does not denote sovereignty of one person over another, but over a community.” Thiselton (2000: 815–16) goes further and maintains that (kephale) “does not seem to denote a relation of ‘subordination’ or ‘authority over.’ ” He cites Chrysostom’s (Hom. 1 Cor. 26.3) comment that if Paul had intended to convey the idea of rule and subjection, he would have used master-and-slave imagery rather than the figures of man and woman. Chrysostom, however, is primarily interested in fending off any possible heretical interpretation of the subordination of Christ to God (see additional note). Second, Perriman (1994: 602–10) argues that Grudem misinterprets the texts that he adduces as evidence.8 Cervin (1989) is more pointed in challenging Grudem’s examples and methodology (see also Fee 1987: 502 n. 42). Third, this interpretation projects anachronistic physiological notions onto the meaning of “head.” Perriman (1994: 610 n. 20) notes that Plutarch’s fable (Agesilaus 2.3) about the serpent whose tail rebels against the head and takes the lead with disastrous consequences does not illustrate the head’s authority over the tail but that the head is specially equipped to go first. Finally, Perriman (1994: 620) maintains, “The question of authority is irrelevant to a discussion of the proper manner in which men and women should pray and prophesy; nor is it a valid deduction from the idea that man has authority over the woman that she should veil herself in worship, an activity directed not towards the man but towards God.”
A second alternative understands (kephale) to mean “source.” Christ is the source of man’s existence as the agent of creation (cf. 8:6, “through whom all things are”) or as the archetypal man (15:46–49). Man is the source of woman’s existence, since woman was made from man (Gen. 2:18–23; cf. 1 Cor. 11:12). God is the origin and final goal of all reality and is the source of Christ (3:23; 8:6; 11:12; 15:28). Earlier interpreters understand ?????? to mean “source” but with subordinationist overtones.9 Many recent interpreters who prefer this option seek to eliminate any hint of women’s subordination.10
Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (514–515). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

So Garland gives some excellent points for why source or origin works within the text. Although he doesn’t appear to favor this option, but his words seem to set aside a subordination/rulership option for 1 Cor. 11:3. Garland continues:

Paul lays out an order of relationships that asserts the man’s precedence over the woman. Some conclude that he is trying to reinforce the idea of the woman’s inferiority and subordination. But if woman stands in a lower place, why does she stand in the middle of the sequence, and why is God mentioned last? Paul is not outlining a chain of command, since references to Christ frame the statements about man and woman.
Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (513). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

So 1 Cor. 11:3 is not about a chain of command and Garland gives women’s freedom to prophesy as being under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

(1) Paul takes for granted that women may pray and prophesy in the assembly as long as they have an appropriate head covering. Meier (1978: 218) thinks it an “astounding fact—astounding at least for a group rising from a Jewish synagogue—that women were free in the church to pray openly and to prophesy under charismatic inspiration.” (2) The passage is not about the subordination of women, because the patriarchal order expressed in 11:3, 7–9 from creation is counterbalanced by the emphasis on the “mutual interdependence” of men and women in the Lord in 11:11–12.
Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (510). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Garland goes on to list the meaning of the show that the passage is about the shame/honor culture and that women’s public speaking is permissible.

In a hierarchically structured shame/honor society, Paul is concerned about the propriety of women’s appearance in public worship. He is not worried about male Christians becoming more effeminate in appearance. Nor is he concerned that women should wear something to show that their speaking in public is permissible
Garland, D. E. (2003)…This passage is “not about wearing hats to church or about proving that women are intended to be subordinate to men” (R. Williams 1997: 59). The command “let her be covered” (11:6) communicates different things in different cultures…Faithfulness to the teaching of the text can be maintained by female participants in the worship service by observing the proprieties of polite society.
Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (510–511). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Maybe you can point out to me Cheryl, someone before the rise of feminism who used ‘source’ as the basis of the rejection of male leadership. His evidence shows that even scholars who saw kephale as source, still did not reject male headship.

You greatly misunderstand. I am not rejecting male “headship”. It is what this “headship” means. It does not mean rulership or authority over just as the early church did not believe that the Father was in “authority over” Jesus in the Trinity.

Have you done a thorough study of the egalitarian view? Which books have you done a serious study of that present the other view? If you have looked into this from both sides, why do you have a problem understanding our view? If you haven’t looked at the other side, why not? I believe that looking at the other side may be even more important than bolstering your own view. This is what I do. I research the opposition to find out if there are holes in my argument and if so why there are holes. If I only look at one side, then I may be wrong and not even know it.