Cheryl Schatz

Dear brother Mark,
You said:

So Cheryl before you ask me to again justify my position can you please read what i have already written. Im sure it will help us all.

I have read what you have written. But you seem to be the one who can’t read. Here is my proof of this. In my comment #165 I deal with the issue of marriage being a condemnation and you state that marriage is not a condemnation as if you are being accused of saying such a thing. That’s the problem. You should be saying this because this is what the text says. I am trying to get you to understand that there is one instance where marriage is a condemnation. The question I asked you from my comment #165 should bring this out. If a person’s gives a pledge to Christ to remain single (and a pledge is an oath) and then sees a godly woman who is perfect for them as a mate and marries them, is that marriage a condemnation to them by breaking of their pledge, yes or no?

Finally you quoted “The Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament calls this the “office of widow”.

Are you serious? You criticise me all this time for using the term ‘office’ and then use this when it supposedly supports your view. Please be consistent and not critique me if you are going to use the same term ‘office’

I did “use” the term office, I merely quoted a source that would use your term so that you could “get it”. I do not believe there is an office, but I would say that “office” means “doing the work of”. The “office” of overseer, is one who does the work of an overseer. I used the reference because I wanted you to see that the “work” of the “elderly widows” is a real work or ministry that would be translated into your language as an “office”. It is not merely elderly widows who are good enough to be fed by the church. It is women dedicated to this “work” so that they are permanently put onto a “roll” (think “role”) of one who serves the church.

More on the next comment.