Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

Now about 1 Cor 12! First of all i don’t believe it is a less ‘teacher’ than Eph 4. Second the reason why Paul numbers the gifts and instructs the corinthians to desire the higher gifts is because they are more beneficial to the church, where as the corinthians over-realised eschatology and emphasis on ‘tounges’ was misguided.

So the gift of “teacher” in Ephesians 4:11 is equal to the gift of “teacher” in 1 Cor. 12? Then is a woman allowed to be gifted by God to be a “teacher” of the church? If not, why not?

Also Paul does not talk about “eschatology” as a lesser gift? I am not even sure what you mean by that. Paul makes it abundantly clear in 1 Cor. 14 that any gift that benefits all is the higher gift. Speaking in tongues without an interpreter benefits only the speaker so it must of necessity be considered the least of all gifts unless it is combined with the interpretation. Then it too becomes the higher gift.

Now many scholars believe that that the apostolic and prophetic gifts ended at the completion of the canon. LIke i said previously this is something i have not done alot of study on.

Those who have this view must deal with the issue of the doing away of knowledge. Only when knowledge is not needed will the gifts not be needed for the edification of the church. If we can do away with the gifts that God has given to some members and we say that these are not needed for the body, then we fall into the trap of arbitrarily deciding on our own wisdom what is and isn’t needed for the body. But God is the ultimate Sovereign ruler who decides on what we need. When he gifts a person with the gift, then obviously it is still needed.

Some believe that evangelists and pastors fall under the banner of ‘teacher’ because of Eph 4 listing. From what i have read on this i would somewhat agree.

This is your problem again. You attach “teacher” to another gift so that there is one less gift that can be given to an individual. If “teacher” must be attached to another gift and we then define that other gift as not being available to one gender, we have in essence removed the gift of “teacher” and replace it with an amalgamated gift belonging to men alone. This is essence is exactly what I have been saying all along. When you amalgamate a gift you remove it as a “gift”. It becomes a hyphenated gift without the power of the gift alone. But this is necessary to do because many men are determined that God gives males alone certain gifts and they alone are privileged with an “office” and “authority” and “kingly rights”.

What ever the case i do believe in the gifting of ‘teacher’ but do not believe it is the same as a prophet.

I agree. Teacher is not the same as Prophet, but one can be a Teacher and a Prophet. One can also be a Teacher and an Evangelist. One can have more than one gift. But each gift is unique in its own right and to attach it to another gift without allowing it God’s power on its own, is not correct NT doctrine.

This statement amazes me:

Finally to answer your final question. I dont know why Paul said Pastor and teacher rather than the other alternatives, im not Paul. What is clear though is that they are seperate gifts but should be understood as closely tied together. The two gifts are similar and both vitally important for the ministry of the church.

If you now admit that pastor and teacher are “separate gifts” then why do you say that a woman cannot be a teacher in the church because she cannot be a pastor or elder?

You said:

We shouldn’t mash the two nor should we seperate them extensively.

What do you mean by not separating them “extensively”? This isn’t clear? Do you mean that we cannot separate them at all? Do you mean that one can be a teacher but not a pastor as long as one is male, but the two must not be separated if one is talking about a woman so that a woman cannot be a teacher because she is not to be a pastor?