Thursday, December 6

Women shepherds

Back in November I posted a blog entry entitled Shepherd: function or office? I took the liberty of posting these same thoughts on the Church Planting Forum in hopes of generating more discussion on the whole role of women in church planting and shepherding.

One of our missionary colleagues wrote...
Could it be that, in the biblical sense, that a woman could be a pastor in the city/region church just as there were women prophetesses and a female apostle in the city/region church, but that women could not be elders in the house churches?
I confess these thoughts have gone through my mind as well: women functioning as ApostlesProphetsEvangelistsPastorsTeachers in the city/region church, and men only as "elders" of local assemblies.

But we still have to deal someway with the whole "Let the women keep silent in the churches for they are not permitted to speak..." and "I [Paul] do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man but to remain quiet..."

Are women to be silent in local assemblies, but free to speak to the church at large? If so, Paul's admonition doesn't make much sense. If they are to be silent in one, shouldn't they be silent in the other as well?

I fear all of us have violated these admonitions of Paul because I see plenty of women out there speaking in churches and teaching men. What was Paul saying when these admonitions were made?

In most of the churches we relate to we don't refer to leadership (whether men or women) as pastors. We try to instill in all our people that ALL of us are ministers of the Gospel charged with fulfilling the Great Commission.

We stress Peter's words in 2 Peter 2, "YOU [all of us] are a chosen race, a royal priesthood...that YOU may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light..." All of us.

Our part is to "make disciples". His to "build his church". When half of the work force are women. It only makes sense that a good percentage of these have been gifted in shepherding. But again, is shepherding/pastoring a function or an office?

When it comes right down to it, can we wiggle our way out of the mess by saying we will not give the title/office of pastor to women, but women who are gifted in shepherding should be encouraged to exercise their giftedness?

In 1Tim.3:1 most versions say, "if anyone (male or female?) sets his heart on being an overseer..." I am no Greek scholar but a literal reading of the text implies ANYONE can aspire to being an overseer/shepherd/pastor/bishop/presbytero/elder.

Or if the above interpretation is too hard to swallow, how about a scenario where named "elders" of local assemblies will only be men, but any believer (male or female) who possesses shepherding gifts use those gifts to build up the church? In such a scenario male elders would share the shepherding and care of the local church with all those who possess the gift and aspire to shepherd/oversee/pastor.

Still open for input and instruction from anyone out there caring to share your thoughts on the matter.

112 comments:

Anonymous said...

Guy, Big topic. Lots of messy teaching about this around the world.

I offer only thought: that a gift is gender neutral. Male and female alike must be able to be prophecy, teach, evangelize, give, etc.

BUT I see that being an elder was not a gift but had requirements (something hardly found in the NT)!! One of them was to be the husband of one wife and rule your children well. (see Tit 1/I Tim 3)

Yours for the least in the Kingdom,

Jeff G

Steve K. said...

Guy,

This debate ended in my mind when I realized that what is needed is a hermeneutic that allows Paul to interpret Paul. What this means is, we are quick to quote Paul when he writes "Let the women keep silent," but we fail to quote Paul when he writes "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Paul (by the Holy Spirit) wrote both things. We must hold both in tension with each other and not lean on one side or the other. We must have a hermeneutic which allows Paul to interpret Paul.

Shalom,
Steve K.

GuyMuse said...

Jeff G.,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. As I said in my post, I welcome and am quite open to further explanations and instruction. From what you write, though, it would seem you would hold that "pastoring/shepherding" is an office, rather than a function. How then do you deal with the Eph.4:11-12 passage? Are APEPT offices too? If so, who are the apostles? Prophets? etc. amongst us? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts!

Steve K.,

Interesting observation about allowing Paul to interpret Paul. Both statements were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is the tension of both statements co-existing that seems to be at the root of the confusion.

Alan said...

I think too much energy is spent on trying to appease people and their selfish ideas. This is not an issue of value or worth, it is an issue of roles. Women are not called to the role of pastor, but neither is every man. In fact, most men are NOT called to be pastors. Another analogy just as it is not a mans role to bear children, it is not a womans role to pastor the flock. As far as hermeneutics is concerned one must never forget the first rule of hermeneutics, context. When Paul says there is not male nor female he is speaking soteriologically, not about pastoring.
In Christ
Alan

Steve K. said...

Alan,

I understand context, and I am fully aware that Paul is not referring to pastoring in Galatians 3:28. That wasn't my argument. My argument (again) is that we must allow Paul to interpret Paul. What Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) says in one context must be held in tension with what Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) says in another context.

Your position is that women are ontologically incapable of "pastoring" (just as men are ontologically incapable of giving birth to babies -- as you said in your example). So you're saying that you believe women are physically created inferior to men (since they are physically incapable of "pastoring"). I simply don't believe that, that Scripture supports it, or that the reality on the ground reflects it.

God has been (and is now) raising up women all over the place to lead his Church. The history of our mission organizations is filled with the stories of courageous, heroic women who have pioneered church planting around the world. That's the history and the reality I think Guy is describing here.

I know you may disagree with how I've characterized your theological position, but I think if you're honest that this is what your view boils down to -- women are inferior. And that view of women in the Church has done nothing but grieve the Holy Spirit, in my humble opinion.

Shalom,
Steve K.

GuyMuse said...

Alan,

Welcome to the "M Blog", I believe this is your first time to comment here and glad you have done so. I take it from your comment that you understand "shepherding the flock" as a role matter. Fine. But going back to my original post on this subject, what happens in our missionary context is that many sisters--in obedience to Christ's command in Matt.28--will go out, win men/women to Christ, disciple them, make sure they get baptized, and continue to teach them. They begin meeting with them in new church plants. In effect they end up "shepherding" (pastoring) the new flock. Which part of the Great Commission have they violated? What are they supposed to do?

Here are the possible scenarios that I can envision:

1) Tell them to leave the flock that they have given birth to...

2) Name one of the new believing men in the group to take on the shepherding (even though most times there are no men in the group with this gifting)...

3) Tell them to walk away from the group and let the church manage on their own somehow...

4) Call a male pastor from outside the new church plant to come in and "be the pastor" (experience shows that called-in-from-the-outside pastors usually expect renumeration and are usually a poor match for these kinds of highly participative kinds of churches...

5) Do nothing and leave them in God's hands.

My position has been #5. It is not my church; it's HIS. He will know what is best for that particular blossoming congregation.

What do you say?

Mark M said...

[My mistake... I made this comment on the Nov. 27th post without noticing the newer post. So I'm copying it here. Some of it is redundant to what Guy already said. -mark]

Very interesting post. I came across your blog today and this post caught my attention because I have a special interest in this subject.

The NT provides only two offices: elder and deacon. Pastor is not really an office, but a gifting or function (Eph. 4). The Bible is pretty clear that the office of elder is for men (1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1). I don't think we should make much of titles either, such as Pastor So-and-so. The best title is simply "Brother" or "Sister" (Mt. 23:8-11).

So how does this apply to the situation you described? I think your answer is exactly right. God provided these women to shepherd the flock and has not yet provided men to serve as elders, so let the women do it. It is not the long-term ideal, but it serves God's purpose.

In time God may provide the men to serve as elders, who are the authorities in the church. Paul did not immediately appoint elders in the churches he planted--he had to go back and do that (Acts 14:21-23, Titus 1). These churches needed time for their members to mature.

One other point: Many churches have a sole leader called The Pastor, but this is not biblical. The leadership is to be shared among a group of elders, not by one man. There are many good reasons for this, which I would be happy to discuss if asked.

An excellent book on this subject: Biblical Eldership by Alexander Strauch.

Grace & peace.
-mark

GuyMuse said...

Mark,

I really appreciate your good remarks. Thanks for taking the time to write them out.

If "pastor is not really an office, but a gifting/function" then are you saying women should be free to exercise this gift if they have been so endowed by the Holy Spirit?

I can see where you are coming from with only men as elders. It is difficult to make a biblical case for women elders, but cannot women function in the shepherding capacity if given those gifts? This is all I am really trying to explore.

I also agree with your other point that leadership is to be shared, and not rely only on a one-man pastor. But, again, what do you do when there are no men available to take the reins and serve as elders? This is a common situation here. Are we to simply to name any existing men in the church as "elders" just because they are male? Many times the women in the church are much more of a leader and shepherd than many of these new men coming to faith. It takes time for the new believers to mature to the point where there may be a man or two willing to be named "elder".

I would very much like to get a hold of a copy of the book you refer to: "Biblical Eldership", if you can provide me with a way to obtain this book I would like to read what Strauch has to say.

Alan said...

Steve,
I never said women are not ontologically incapable of being a "pastor," that would be silly of me since many denominations have put women in that role in spite of what scripture says. They do this in blatant disobedience to the word of God and by denying the ultimate authority of scripture.

To say that we must take what Paul says in one context and apply it to another is just plain silly and illogical. If I said to you "Do not swim in this lake." And this lake had man-eating alligators in it. It would be silly and illogical for you to apply my words when at another lake that does not have man-eating alligators in it.

Guy, I think Mark did a good job of answering this, the only thing I would add is that if only men are called to be elders and you are having a hard time finding men to be such, challenge the men around you, someone is probably resisting God's call.

In Christ
Alan

Alan said...

My first sentence should read, " I never said women ARE ontologically incapable of being a"pastor." Sorry for the double negative, that's what happens when I let my fingers go faster than my brain:)

Mark M said...

Yes, the women should be free to exercise this gift if they have been so endowed by the Holy Spirit. I would add though that if the church has elders, the members (women and men) are to submit to the authority of the elders in the exercise of their gifts.

If the church has no men available to take the reins and serve as elders, then do not appoint any. A man should only be appointed as an elder if he is biblically qualified (1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1). I can imagine that a church might go on for a long time like this. The members of that church and the church planters should be praying for God to raise up men to serve as elders. It will be a work of the Holy Spirit.

I think the situation you are describing is like what Israel experienced in Judges 4 when Deborah became the leader of the nation. It was not according to God's ideal that a woman should become the leader, but where were the men? Why wouldn't they lead? God sovereignly provided a woman do it, but there was no honor for the men (Judges 4:9).

The book Biblical Eldership is available from the big online book sellers (Amazon, Buy.com) or directly from Lewis & Roth's website (click on the Elders button at the top of the home page). We use the the Biblical Eldership Study Guide for mentoring elder candidates at our church. You can read an abridged version of the book online here.

I've been impressed with everything I've read by this publisher. It's a good time to buy right now because they are having a 3-for-1 sale--yes, that's 67% off! I recently got their book Men and Women: Equal Yet Different, but have not read it yet. I wonder what it says about this subject. I'll have to take a look this weekend.

-mark

Strider said...

This is a good post Guy- as usual. The truth is that Western theology has built little boxes that scripture does not support and then throws a fit if those boxes are broken out of.
ie- Alan's first line,
'I think too much energy is spent on trying to appease people and their selfish ideas.'
Right Alan, tell us how you really feel! Like all those really selfish Chinese women who are being jailed and tortured for their faith as they go out and plant churches and shepherd them. Who do those self-serving women think they are?
But on a less sarcastic note I am very happy with Guy's offering here. The role of the Elder is defined and it seems it would require some serious hermeneutical gymnastics to make women qualify- Although I have seen some good attempts and I do not judge so harshly those who believe this way. On the other hand, if you remove the modern American blinders and see that NOWHERE is the office of 'Pastor' even mentioned in the Word- Pastor is used just twice in the NT and both times refers to a gift- then we can make a lot more sense about the rest of Paul's writing. Paul mentions many women whom is proud to minister with. Women minister with Jesus and are the first to proclaim His resurrection. It is crazy how some modern evangelicals forbid women to preach and then stand in the pulpit and give sermons based on the ministry that women did in the Jesus own life and work.
Now, Elders as leaders I can see as being male out of reverence for the family. It has happened in my own ministry that Godly women will minister for a long time before their husbands (prideful creatures we men are) accept Christ and catch up. It is of course, healthy and good for these men to lead their families but I will not call the ministry of women in the meantime 'inferior' or 'second best'. The Holy Spirit of God empowers all true ministry and He is not capable of 'inferior' or 'second best' anything.
I think we should struggle with all of our roles, we should wrestle with the Word of God and apply it ruthlessly to our lives but I am afraid that when it comes to judging another's ministry- especially one that is clearly being blessed by God- we run the risk of judging God Himself, and I ain't qualified for that!

Alan said...

Strider,
I don't know if you were agreeing with me or not, but I agree with you. I was speaking of modern American evangelicalism when I talked of selfishness. I also agree that many women can and do have blessed ministries, but they are not called to be pastors/elders.

In Christ
Alan

Steve K. said...

Alan,

Either you don't understand what I'm saying about a hermeneutic that allows Scripture to be held in tension with other Scripture, or you're simply unwilling to consider it because you are holding so firmly to an already hard-and-fast theology -- which I'm sure you realize I think is a mistake. In fact, I think your "lake filled with man-eating alligators" analogy is what is "silly and illogical." But I don't expect to convince you to change your theology due to one blog comment conversation, and I hope you'll understand if I don't change mine either ;-)

I trust that Guy understands what I'm saying, so I'll just leave it at that.

Shalom,
Steve K.

GuyMuse said...

Mark, Strider, Alan, and Steve,

I asked for input/instruction and appreciate each of you for your valuable input. Thanks!

I think issues like this one are not as black-and-white as we would wish them to be. When I try to come down hard on either side, I find myself coming up against something in Scripture that says seems to say, "back off, and don't be so sure of your position..." It's like one of you mentioned above about living with the tension and not coming down hard on either side.

This issue is certainly one of the more difficult to Scripturally understand. Strider mentions, for example, all the Chinese women church planters/shepherds out there. This is the very situation we have on our hands as well. If the office of "pastor" is not to be found in the NT, then why can't Chinese or Ecuadorian sisters use their gifts of shepherding/planting churches? What Scripture is being violated?

I agree with most of you when you speak of "elders" appearing to be only men. But until male elders are named, is there anything in Scripture prohibiting a sister from functioning as a shepherd, pastoring her flock of new believers?

Steve K. said...

Guy,

I personally do not believe that Paul's very specific prescriptions to the 1st century church in Corinth are applicable to the 21st century church in Ecuador (or the U.S. or anywhere). This is the issue of "context" again, as I see it.

Look at the other things Paul says in these passages: women should not braid their hair or wear gold or pearls, 1 Tim. 2:9 (do we practice this? NO); slavery is accepted and not argued against, Titus 2:9-10 (do we follow that? NO); "be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues," 1 Cor. 14:38 (do we practice this in all of our churches? ummm, NO) ... and the list goes on and on.

Attempting to apply these passages -- written at a particular time in a particular place to address particular issues in a particular church -- to our day and time is anachronistic and wrong. There I said it ;-) That's where I stand.

Keep following the Holy Spirit as he leads you, Guy. And may his grace cover us all where we fall short.

Shalom,
Steve K.

GuyMuse said...

Steve,

Thanks, I appreciate your words. I think the key is, as you say, "keep following the Holy Spirit as he leads you..." That is really the crux of the matter--His guidance in a case-by-case walk.

One related question to what you write: how does one go about determining which "passages were written just to a particular place to address particular issues" and thus not really applicable to our 21st century?

My personal belief is didactic passages of the NT carry more weight than narrative passages when forming theology.

In the Corinthian passage, right after telling the women to be silent in church, he states, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. That to me is pretty strong language. Yet, most of us ignore this whole passage and attribute it to 1st Century only and not applicable for us today.

That's why I stated in my previous comment, every time I start to come down heavily on either side of the issue, there seem to be Scriptures that keep the issue in tension. Your original comments "We must hold both in tension with each other and not lean on one side or the other..." come pretty close to my own conclusions about these matters.

Steve K. said...

Guy,

Good question: I simply affirm that this WAS "the Lord's commandment" via Paul to the 1st century church in Corinth. Just as "the Lord's commandment" via Paul WAS apparently to not rock the boat concerning the system of slavery that existed in the 1st century, but which we would reject today (based on other Scripture -- again, holding things in tension). At least, that's how I interpret and discern Scripture (by the Holy Spirit). There's more to it than that, of course, but that's the short summary of where I'm coming from. As a wise mentor/pastor/friend of mine once taught me, "The truth is in the tension." ;-)

Shalom,
Steve K.

GuyMuse said...

Steve,

"The truth is in the tension." I like that and it pretty well sums up for me this whole discussion.

Alan said...

Hey everyone,
good discussion. I like it when people who disagree can discuss things like Christians and not get angry or hostile. By the way, Guy, I answered the question you asked me in the comments on my blog, hope you get a chance to read that soon.

In Christ
Alan

GuyMuse said...

Alan,

I agree, it has been a good and helpful discussion. I have a better understanding of the issues than I did before the posting.

And, yes I did read your comment on your blog and was greatly encouraged. It almost brought tears to my eyes. We get so much flak for what we try to do and usually sense more opposition than support. Your words were much appreciated.

Burkhalter Ministry said...

Hi Guy,
I love the post! I just read a really great book on the subject called, "Why not Women" by Loren Cunningham. I'm not sure about all of the different interpretations, herman "who" tics etc... :) But as a woman I feel the Lord is unleashing women all of the world to serve him, to go make disciples and for some to shephard. It is a beautiful thing to see women shepherd and to see them actively making disciples. I applaud the post, I support what you do in Ecuador. I am inspired by the women who sacrifice so much, who truly seek first the Kingdom. I feel God has called us to minister in the home to our families and to a lost and dying world. Thanks to all the men who encourage and support us.
Beth

GuyMuse said...

Beth,

Thanks for the kind words. Of all those commenting, you are the only one who has seen first hand what I am trying to point out. It is a reality of what God is doing, regardless of what we may do or say. I couldn't stop it if I wanted to. God is bringing in what I believe is one great final harvest and is using every available worker who has the spirit of Isaiah, "here I am Lord, send me".

In Christ Alone said...

Hi Guy,
I have been watching this post with much interest...I love Beth's post...and I haven't got a whole lot of Bible teaching....but I know that God is moving and the gender of the available and surrendered receptacle matters not to Him. His Word is alive and active not trapped in the what, who, and when....He does the leading through us .... male or female....nothing that I do but Christ in me....my answer to everything sometimes but to me it is a simple Gospel.

In Him,

GuyMuse said...

In Christ Alone,

I too have been enjoyed the discussion over the past few days. While I don't have all the answers, one thing I have learned over the years is that we can't put God into any of our theological boxes. Every time we try to do so, He seems to show us another angle to his vast love for mankind. God so loved the world...

Jim Palmer said...

There seems to be an underlining belief held by a number of people who would oppose gifted women serving as sheparding pastors. It says that it is OK for women to serve as shepard/pastors as long as there aren't any men that can do that job. I hear references especially to the missionary context where it is seeming acceptable for missionary women to teach men or national women to pastor because there are no men to do that job. Does this not call into question God's sovereignty? If God uses women to call people to salvation and to follow the Lordship of Christ, doesn't it make sense that God would provide the right kind of shepard/pastor to lead them in maturity? Or maybe God has?

Billy Howard said...

Hey Guy,

Wow! What a discussion.

Steve K’s argument might hold water if there were only one passage that suggested that women are not to speak or teach in assemblies. I am about to tackle I Timothy chapter 2 after the holiday season and boy is it a difficult passage (I’m not really looking forward to it-but I’m preaching through the book so I can’t pass it up). What stands out to me is that it doesn’t seem to be CULTURAL for the fact that Paul takes it all the way back to Adam and Eve. “Adam was formed first” and “Eve was deceived”. He seems to makes it a role issue! I agree with Alan that roles have nothing to do with value or salvation, but are important to fulfill God’s perfect plan. God knows best!

Here is the inconsistency I see. I don’t believe a woman is to be an “elder”, but if women are speaking during church gatherings (assemblies)-clear New Testament commandments are being broken! Which is worse, a women “pastor” OR the fact that women speak in assemblies across this globe every week? I don’t know the answer to this problem or question, but I sure wish there were an easy one!

I served in Canada for a few years and one of the greatest soul winners in our church was a woman from Colombia. She didn’t take no for an answer and she knew her Bible! She was used of God to reach and teach tons of Hispanics. At one time we had a larger Hispanic crowd than English crowd and she was my translator (during assemblies) until I learned to preach and teach in Spanish myself. At the time it seemed to be the obvious way of doing ministry. What do you do in these types of situations???? I know what you mean!

Although I know this is a difficult subject and I don’t have all the answers, when I preach this passage after the first of the year we are going to discuss ways (adjustments) in order to obey these clear New Testament passages and roles. Pray for me and our church!

GuyMuse said...

Jim,

As always, it is good to hear your experienced field voice on a tough issue. Sounds like you have had to face the same situation there in your own context. Just last night one of these women shepherds on our team shared how frustrated she was that she is still "stuck" in the same church waiting for God to develop leaders so she can leave. It is not her desire to remain and shepherd the flock, yet, where are the men? Where are those who can take over from her and lead the new congregation? Our team counseled her the same basic words you use above: God is sovereign. It is HIS church. He has chosen HER to be there as his servant (at least for the time being). Be patient. Be faithful to the task HE has given her to do.

Billy,

I hear you loud and clear and feel the same tension you are talking about. It is interesting that you point out we draw the line on women pastors, yet ignore the other clear command of allowing women to speak in assemblies across the globe!

For me, as is spoken of above in a couple of the other comments, I feel we must simply live with the tension of not fully understanding these seemingly contradictory positions that Paul takes. It almost seems he is talking out of both sides of his mouth! Yet, I would quickly add, that WE are the ones probably not smart enough to discern the truth. Someone above said wisely, "THE TRUTH LIES IN THE TENSION." That is pretty good advise for me.

After you tackle this subject in your sermons, I would be most interested in hearing how you are going to "discuss ways (adjustments) in order to obey these clear NT passages and roles." If you can remember to do so, I would appreciate your emailing me at gmuse[at]samregion[dot]com.

Thanks for stopping by the "M Blog" and for the comments.

Brent said...

Guy,

What exactly is the difference between an elder and a pastor? I think this discussion would benefit from a clarification of these two terms.

If a woman can serve her brothers and sisters in the gifting or role of pastor, but she cannot hold the office of elder, then once elders are acknowledged it doesn't seem to make any sense that the woman could not continue serving in her pastoral gifting.

If however we say that a woman can serve temporarily until a qualified man comes along then we really are saying that a woman shouldn't serve in a pastoral capacity and are effectively equating an elder with a pastor.

GuyMuse said...

Brent,

A belated welcome to the confusion! :)

I hear what you are saying, and all I can say is that some see pastor/elder as an "office" and others as a "function" or a "gifting".

I personally lean more towards the idea that "pastoring" is more of a function/gifting. Therefore I do not have problems with women functioning in the role of caring for other fellow believers (shepherding).

The problem comes when we understand that "pastor" is an office of the church. If you are a Baptist, only men can hold the office of "pastor".

I know this probably is as clear as mud, but that's the best I can do for you. Your thoughts and input are appreciated.

Brent said...

Thanks Guy,

So you see pastor and elder as two terms for the same thing.

In Mark M's comment above he described pastor as a role and elder as an office - hence he sees them as two distinct things.

"The NT provides only two offices: elder and deacon. Pastor is not really an office, but a gifting or function (Eph. 4)."

It would be very interesting to learn what Mark sees as the difference between an elder and a pastor. We can't really understand his what he is sharing until we do.

GuyMuse said...

Mark,

Not sure you're still following this thread, but if you are, how about taking a shot at answering Brent?

Mark M said...

Hi Guy and Brent,

Yes, I've been watching this discussion and itching to reply. I'll try to post something tomorrow. My son just got home from college and my two daughters have a big concert tonight! Yay!

Until then, grace & peace.

Mark M said...

Brent asked, "What exactly is the difference between an elder and a pastor?"

In this comment I will try to answer this question. This does not answer the question about women serving as shepherds--I'll cover that in a separate comment later.

In the New Testament, a pastor (or shepherd) is one who provides spiritual care for the flock, the local gathering of believers; it is a role or function or gifting. An elder is a local church leader; it is a biblical office and includes the functions of shepherding, teaching, and overseeing (ruling as an authority in the local church).

Alexander Strauch explains further in Biblical Eldership as follows (p. 31-32):

Although the term elder is the predominate New Testament term used to local church leaders and is especially suited to the nature of the new Testament churches, it conveys to the overwhelming majority of Christians and non-Christians today ideas that are different from those found in the New Testament. People today think of church elders as lay, church-board members who are separate and distinct from the professional, ordained pastor (or clergyman). I refer to these elders as “board elders;” they are not true New Testament, Christian elders. They are advisors, committee men, executives, and directors.

A true biblical eldership is not a businesslike committee. It’s a biblically qualified council of men that jointly pastors the local church. So to communicate the New Testament idea of eldership, we need to reeducate ourselves as to the New Testament usage of the term elder, and in some cases choose a different term.

The New Testament uses [another] to describe local church leaders. The term is overseer [or bishop], and it comes from the Greek word episkopos. The term overseer was a common designation used by Greeks for a variety of officials. In contrast to all priestly or lordly titles, nothing in the title overseer (or elder) violated the local church’s family character, humble-servant nature, or priestly and holy status. The fact that the apostles and first Christians used the term overseer as a synonym for elder demonstrates flexibility in the use of leadership terminology and the desire to communicate effectively among Greek-speaking people.

GuyMuse said...

Mark,

Thanks for the clarification. What you share is helpful. I'll be interested to read what you also have to say about women serving as shepherds. I'd like to get hold of a copy of "Biblical Eldership", sounds like an interesting book.

Billy Howard said...

I also enjoyed what Mark shared in his last post.

Here is my new question...

Can a woman be a pator/shepherd (not an elder/bishop) and never speak in an assembly?

GuyMuse said...

Billy,

I'll let those much wiser than myself take a stab at answering your interesting question.

From my own perspective I would say a woman pastor/shepherd can speak in an assembly just like any other believer. In 1 Cor. 14 Paul exhorts the believers to, not only speak, but "each one" has a psalm, teaching, revelation, tongue, interpretation, etc. The condition placed upon all of these is that "all things be done for edification..." not whether they are spoken by a man or woman.

Billy Howard said...

pastor

Cheryl Schatz said...

Hi,

The comment was made that there would be interest in hearing how one can obey scripture regarding the passages that seem to limit women's ability to speak in church.

I would like to comment if I may on the hard passages of scripture. I have written on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/30/the-rest-of-the-
story-1-timothy-211-15-and-matt-slick/ (you will need to copy and past the entire link and put it back together since I couldn't get it to fit on this blog)
and I have also produced a 4 DVD set on all of the hard passages of scripture that sets out the two opposing positions side by side. The result is that the hard passages of scripture are allowed to speak for themselves. There are audio clips in the series from well respected Pastors and theologians who present a strict view of women and there is a strong refutation of their viewpoint that is presented in a very respectful and gentle way because these too are our brothers in Christ even if we can disagree over these secondary issues.

I think you will find my interpretations that use the complete inspired context of the hard passages, the inspired words and the inspired grammar to be very thought-provoking. Viewing the hard passages on women in the complete context instead of just a few isolated verses removes the contradictions that some see in scripture. For example 1 Timothy 2 needs to be interpreted within the context of the complete passage starting with 1 Timothy chapter 1 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 needs to dealt with in the complete context of chapter 14, otherwise we have Paul contradicting himself. What at first glance appears to be a unilateral silencing of women is a whole different matter when you allow Paul to interpret Paul. If you are interested in seeing another side of the issue that is guaranteed to get you thinking, I highly recommend MM Outreach's "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" 4 DVD set. You can also see 6 free clips on Youtube.com Just type in "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" in the search box at youtube.com Start with the introduction and that will give you a good feel for the respectful nature of this DVD series.

Can women teach men? Are women equally gifted by God to serve the body of Christ? Absolutely and we would do well to see how scripture can be interpreted to affirm God's gifting of women as well as understand the restricting passages in context in such a way that they are fully God-breathed yet do not contradict God's gifting and his use of women for the benefit of the entire body of Christ. Those who hold to the complete inspiration of scripture as I also hold to God's complete inspiration, will be greatly challenged by the material and it is produced with graphics, video and audio clips that will keep one's attention.

bill said...

Great discussion of a timely issue! I have a question. If a man is suposed to be the head of the family both physically and spiritually, can he truly be the head if his wife is his pastor?

Cheryl Schatz said...

The biblical statement is that the husband is the "head" of the wife not of the family. Also there is only one spiritual head and that is Jesus. Scripture does not say that the Pastor is the spiritual "head" of the church (that would be usurping the position of Jesus) or that the man is the "head" of the children. The picture is one of body and head and the body is only the woman (not the child). So what does "head" mean? We know for sure that "head" means one who sacrifices for the "body" so can the husband be one who sacrifices for his wife if his wife is the pastor? I don't see a problem with the man loving and sacrificing for his wife and providing for her. Her gifts in the body of Christ shouldn't change his sacrifice for her. What do you think?

GuyMuse said...

Cheryl,

Thanks for stopping by and sharing with us the wealth of material you have on this subject. I clicked on the link and am listening to the radio talk show even as I type. It looks like you have done a lot of study and thought on this articular
subject! I would hope to go through your blog material in the days ahead to be able to better understand your thoughts on the subject. One question, is your DVD set available in Spanish? The purpose of my two posts on the subject is not to try and resolve the ongoing debate about women in ministry, it is simply to get a better grasp on whether or not shepherd is a church "office " or a gifting/function? Of course the answer to this question brings into play the whole women in ministry issue. I personally feel comfortable with what one of the earlier comments says above in that
the "truth is in the tension". This is indeed a tough issue to fully understand and I doubt it will ever be fully understood until we get to Heaven! Again, thanks for all your study and work on this subject. I look forward to giving more careful attention to what you have written on the subject.

Bill,

Interesting question! Cheryl has shared her view with you. I confess I still have a lot to learn about this subject and would not want to give an "off the cuff" answer without careful thought and study. What do you think?

Billy said...

I'm not sure of the reason Cheryl made a big deal about the man being the head of the "wife" vs. "the family" but her answer was "off the cuff".

Cheryl Schatz said...

Guy,
"Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" is not in Spanish yet although we have received requests to translate it into Spanish since the DVD has gone into countries where Spanish is the major language. The hold-up right now is mostly time. MM Outreach is presently in production on a DVD on the Trinity and another project on the women's issue regarding marriage and headship is planned so the projects we are already involved in take precedence.

You are right in that whether a woman can be gifted by God as a pastor is key to this issue. The thing that we need to resolve is whether we let scripture speak for itself. Is God allowed to decide on whom he gifts as pastor? Or do we challenge God's sovereignty and say that God must decide where to give his gifts depending on one's gender. We must make this decision since pastor is listed as one of the gifts that God gives. The other alternative is to make some gifting as "blue" gifts and other gifts as "pink and blue" gifts. I think that would be imposing our tradition onto scripture. God has not added information in the passages on his gifts that would cause us to see his gifts as being divided according to gender, race or social standing.

Billy,
My comment wasn't quite "off the cuff" since the issue of "headship" is a major area of study for me. I worked for two years on the subject of the hard passages on women and the DVD series on that has been highly acclaimed. Right now I am working on a project on "headship" and the script won't be written until every base has been covered. Thanks for the thoughts.

Blessing!
Cheryl

Cheryl Schatz said...

One other comment about the family, 1 Timothy 5:8 says that if "anyone" does not provide for his own and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. The "anyone" here is generic male or female. Also in 1 Timothy 5:14 Paul says that he wants the younger widows to marriage and "keep house" NASB. The actual Greek word for "keep house" is oikodespoteo and it means to rule the family or be a "master of the house, to be master of a house exercising authority, with the emphasis on absolute rule, as of a despot" WordStudy Dictionary. So both husband and wife are the rulers of the household and family.

Billy said...

My question then is...

When does the family begin? On the wedding day or when the kids are born?

Cheryl Schatz said...

Billy,

Great question! Since the wife is to also be the "ruler" of the family, it is apparent that the one-flesh union begins at marriage. Neither husband or wife rules the other in their marriage, but both rule the household.

Billy said...

So only the male (husband of one wife) pastor is to rule over his household? In other words the pastor is to rule but every other man is to HELP rule his house? Is the woman the helpmeet or the man?

Cheryl Schatz said...

Billy,

I don't understand your questions. We were discussing marriage. Where did you transition and what did you misunderstand from what I said? You will have to explain because I lost you here.

Billy said...

Cheryl,

In the entire discussion of your blog, this thread, concerning roles in general who was created as the helpmeet?

Secondly, does the Bible teach that God desires men to be the spiritual Leaders and Rulers of the Home and Church or is the responsibility equally the same for the man and the woman?

Third, do you believe I Timothy 3 allows a women to be a bishop?

Cheryl Schatz said...

Billy,

Again, thanks for asking! My blog deals primarily with the issue of women's ability to use their God-given gifts for the benefit of both men and women in the body of Christ. I also deal with the issue of marriage as it relates to the women's issue.

Regarding whether God has made males alone to be the spiritual leaders in the home...nowhere does God say this. God has made both mother and father to be spiritual leaders/examples for the children and children are to pay attention to and listen to both of their parents.

Regarding the church....scripture is clear that the only spiritual head is Jesus. The ones who serve in the church by their gifting are not listed as either male or female. Gifting is God's prerogative. God chooses whom will serve the body of Christ through the gifts that he gives them and there are not "blue" gifts vs "pink" gifts. God gives the gifts as he sees fit.

My friend, truth is very important to me. I have made you a money-back offer regarding my DVD "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" If you buy the DVD set and can refute the exegesis in it, I will give you your money back. No one yet has provided a refutation at all. In fact one Calvary Chapel Pastor has had my DVD set for almost 2 years and he has obtained another 4 copies to give to his Pastor friends so that they could help him refute the exegesis in the set. The only comment that his friends gave him on the series is that the DVD set was "well done". I am still waiting for a refutation from him and it appears that none will be forth coming. If you disagree that women are allowed to serve in their gifts for the benefit of the entire body of Christ, then I challenge you to show me where I am wrong. I will listen. It won't cost you a cent if you can prove me wrong.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Billy said...

What would I use to refute your teachings when you do not accept the literal scriptures but reject them as absolute truth? You just bounced around my questions and completely rejected I Timothy 3.

Please make sure you don't use me as an example of a male chauvinist because I am not one!

Cheryl Schatz said...

Hi Billy,

I do accept the literal scriptures. The difference is that I accept the literal scriptures in context. I believe that the words are inspired and the grammar is inspired as well as the complete context is inspired. Don't worry about how you are going to refute me. You will see how when you view the material. The important thing is for you to understand that I do accept God's word as God-breathed.

As far as I Timothy 3:1 the inspired word is not "aner" but "anthropos". And whether a woman can be a bishop or not, I say that if a woman is not allowed to teach the bible to a man then she cannot be in any kind of leadership position that requires the ability to teach the body of Christ. So it all comes down to whether scripture forbids women from teaching men. What does scripture say? Is there a "law" that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men? If there is, then a woman cannot be a bishop. If there isn't, then the inspired words in the scripture need to be paid attention to instead of our man-made tradition.

I look forward to your review. If you can show me the holes in my argument from scripture you will get your money back. I promise. However you will need to work hard. Every Pastor that has viewed the material has commented on how much hard work I have done and how well documented it is. None of them has been able to even start to refute it. If you can, then I commend you.

And...my friend, I wouldn't call you a male chauvinist. You are a dear brother in Christ.

I look forward to you taking up my challenge. What will it hurt? You will have a copy of the DVD for your library and you are out a small amount if you cannot refute it. If you can refute the material, you have instructed a sister in Christ.

Grace and Peace,
Cheryl
PS My DVD is not focused on the issue of whether a woman can be a bishop. The DVD focuses on whether women can teach the bible in a public setting to both men and women and use their gifts for the benefit of men. I think you will find it very thought-provoking.

Billy said...

Do you feel there is any room for you to be wrong or do you think that by me buying your material you will prove me wrong?

Cheryl Schatz said...

Billy,

Of course there is room for me to be wrong. That is why I have chosen complementarians to view the material. If I am wrong, I want to know. While I was still in the script process I recruited a complementarian Pastor to work alongside me and correct me in any area where he could show me where I was wrong. He has not provided any part of the exegesis that he saw as wrong. In fact he said that some of what he saw was "powerful". He has recruited 4 other Pastors to help him and they have not provided him any help at all. If you believe that you are able to view the material and show me where my holes are where I have disregarded the inspired words, the inspired grammar or the inspired context, I would love to have you do that. I have been open from the very beginning and I still bug the original Pastor every once in a while to provide a refutation. If I am wrong, it does no good to continue in the error.

As far as where you will be after seeing the material, you will have to judge from scripture alone and your own decision on whether you will hold to tradition or the inspired scriptures. By viewing the material in order to refute me you are doing what scripture requires of an overseer - that is to refute error and provide a loving refutation. If you are the one who has misunderstood scripture in any area, then it will be a very eye-opening thing for you too. All of us have our blind spots and if we are indeed confident of our position, then there is no harm in having our position challenged. If we love truth, we need to be open to be challenged.

My work in ministry has mainly been in helping Jehovah's Witnesses come free from the Watchtower and into faith in Christ. I tell them not to fear having their doctrine challenged because if you have the truth it will indeed stand up to the test. If it isn't truth would you want to know? I would.

I hope that helps. Blessings!
Cheryl

Mark M said...

Here is what the Bible says:

1 Cor 11:3 - But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

We see a hierarchy of headship here. There is no indication that this headship is about sacrifice. Rather it is clear from the following verses that it is about authority. It is saying Christ is in authority over man, and man is in authority over woman, and God is in authority over Christ. This is a matter of authority roles, not gifting.

1 Cor 11:8-10 - For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Authority is another way of saying to rule over. So to say neither husband or wife rules the other in their marriage is a contradiction of these verses.

1 Tim 2:11-14 - A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Here it is explicit: A woman is not to teach a man or exercise authority over a man.

Now, I do not take this as an absolute rule because a woman may be teaching a man who is a new believer. But in a mature congregation, the men will assume the roles of authority in their homes and for some, as elders in their churches.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Mark M,

In 1 Cor. 11:3 there is no "order" of hierarchy. If that were so then the inspired word "order" would be different.

"Head" is about sacrifice but it is about more. In 1 Cor. 11 the context is not about authority. There is not one word about man's authority over woman or God's authority over Christ in the context. I recommend you get a copy of my DVD to see a verse-by-verse exegesis of the passage. The passage links origin with verse 3 not authority. The only authority in the passage is the woman's authority over her own head. The inspired words in the passage are very, very eye-opening. We just cannot ignore the specific words that the Holy Spirit used. The word "symbol" is not in the inspired context.

Nowhere does the scripture ever say that God "rules over" Christ and neither does it say that the husband is to take "authority over" his wife. These are traditions not scriptural injunctions.

As far as 1 Timothy 2 the context is extremely important and the key to the context is 1 Timothy 2:15. This verse cannot make sense unless one has the entire passage correct. I would love to discuss this more with anyone who has seen the DVD series and would like to dialog.

Lastly if 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal "law" then we cannot say that a woman is allowed to teach a man who is a new believer. Either it is a "law" or it isn't. The context is key and we need to learn how to separate our traditions from what the scripture actually says.

On my blog at strivetoenter.com/wim there is a community of believers including Southern Baptist Pastors who dialog on the subject with me on women in ministry. You are welcome to come over and join in the discussions. We value each other and the dialog is respectful and kind. Scripture tells us to love one another and to be patient and kind and this attitude is something that we highly value with the people who visit my blog. I hope you agree that this is the way that we should treat each other even if we disagree on the non-essentials of the faith.

Mark M said...

Cheryl, I stand by all that I said in my previous comment. Most of what you have written appears to be false teaching. If you were a member of my church, it would be my duty to investigate and refute it. However, I have other priorities than to watch your DVD and discuss this issue with you in detail. I don't mean to be unkind, but as long as I suspect you of false teaching, I cannot give you any encouragement.

For anyone wanting to read a good biblical exegesis on this subject, I recommend the book Equal Yet Different by Alexander Strauch.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Mark M,

Thanks for commenting. It "appears" you haven't done the research that is necessary in order to identify something as "false teaching". I would trust that you would be more careful with your own congregation. I am a sister in Christ but not of your flock and apparently that makes it different for you. I wish you well.

Blessings in Christ,
Cheryl

Billy said...

Just some straight forward notes with clear scripture ref.

In General / The Family-

1. Adam was created first. Gen. 1, 2 I Timothy 2:13 Why?

2. Jesus was a man not a woman. Why?

God created and operates with an authority structure…

3. Wives are to submit to their husbands specifically as the church is to submit to the Lord. Ephesians 5:22, I Peter 3:1

4. The Husband is the head of the wife specifically as Christ is the head of the church. Eph. 5:23, I Cor. 11:3, 8-10

5. The wife is commanded to respect her husband. Eph. 5:24, 33

6. Being submissive is seen in the example of Sarah obeying Abraham and calling him lord. I Peter 3:5-6, Titus 2:5 (obedient to husbands)

7. The primary responsibility of the married woman is to manage her house (homemaker). The woman is to be the primary caretaker of the children. I Tim 5:14, Titus 2:4-5, Proverbs 31:10-31

Def’s.
a. manage house (compound word in original)- to be a faithful keeper of the household. It has the idea to take care not rule in authority.

b. homemaker (keepers at home)- to take care of the house, household affairs.

8. The husband is the primary authority figure in the family, but the children are to obey the mother just as the father (the husband is never commanded to obey the wife). Ephesians 6:1-3

In The Church

1. The 12 Apostles were men. Matthew 10 Why?

2. Men are to rule as bishops/elders. I Timothy 3:2, 5

3. Men are to serve as deacons. I Timothy 3:8,11

4. Women are not permitted to speak during church assemblies. I Cor. 14:34-36 (verse 36 makes clear that we don’t make the rules). It is shameful for women to speak in church assemblies. If she has a question she should ask her husband, relative, close friend, or elder when not assembled.

5. Make clear women are not to teach or be in an authoritative position over men. She is to be silent (quite) in church assemblies (this does not seem to include singing). I Timothy 2:11-12
Def.
a. usurp- to govern, or exercise dominion over.

b. If there is no distinction between roles why use this word in reference to a woman in the first place?

6. Women are to teach other women and children. Titus 2:3-4

7. Women are not to lead prayer in church assemblies. I Timothy 2:8
Def.
a. men- gender specific of a male

Note: There is no scripture that suggest that a mother cannot teach her grown son outside of a church assembly. Yes, Priscilla seems to be involved in 2 (with her husband but not alone) on 1 mentorship with Paul, but not in a church assembly. The issue lies in the structure of authority while assembled as a church.

None of the above undermines the incredible responsibility and purpose that God has entrusted to women!

Cheryl Schatz said...

Reply to Billy,

In the family:

1. Adam was created first, why? Because God wanted to create the woman from the man’s flesh so that they would be a one-flesh union right from the start.

2. Jesus was a man and not a woman, why? Because sin came into the world through a man and not a woman.

3. Wives are to submit to their husbands Eph 5:21 and believers are to submit to each other. Nothing out of the ordinary here. We all are to submit to the others in the body of Christ.

4. Christ sacrifices for his Church to feed her in order for the church to grow. No domination here or any sense that Christ as "head" of the church is stopping any of the church body from using their spiritual gifts. Why would we think a human husband would stop his wife from using her gifts?

5. The wife is commanded to respect her husband and he is commanded to honor her. Not a problem here regarding women using their spiritual gifts. We don't say that a man cannot be a pastor because it is a conflict since he must honor his wife.

6. Submission is seen as an example of all godly Christians. Even Jesus (a man) was submissive. Not a problem here either.

7. You say the primary responsibility for a married woman is to manage her home (I Tim 5:14) and the inspired words are that she is to "rule" her home. No problem here if she can manage both to rule her household and to use her spiritual gifts outside her home as well.

The rest I will have to wait to answer because I am going out the door for a day out.

Lots to talk about and to digest as we discuss the freedom for women to use their God-given gifts for the benefit of men.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Reply #2 to Billy:

Regarding your definition of keeper of the household in 1 Timothy 5:14 the definition from the WordStudy Dictionary is: the master of the house To be master of a house exercising authority, with the emphasis on absolute rule, as of a despot

To say that this word is not “to rule in authority” is plain deception since even Strong’s and Thayer’s define it as “rule”. Paul makes it clear that the woman along with the man has rulership in the home.

8. You said: “The husband is the primary authority figure in the family, but the children are to obey the mother just as the father”

However the NT command for the family does not state that the husband is the primary authority alone in the family. According to 1 Timothy 5:14 the wife is equally in authority in the home.

Secondly scripture never commands the wife to “obey” the husband. The word obedience is only commanded for the children.

In The Church

1. “The 12 Apostles were men. Why?”

Because Jesus wanted it this way. They were also all Jewish. Does this mean that only Jewish men may be leaders in the church or use their spiritual gifts for the benefit of the entire body of Christ? Hardly.

2. “Men are to rule as bishops/elders”

The leaders of the church are to be servants and not rulers. 1 Timothy 3:1 does not use the male term but the generic term. If “anyone”….

3. “Men are to serve as deacons. I Timothy 3:8,11”

Paul specifically says “likewise women” and a woman is listed as a Deacon (not Deaconess) in scripture. Phoebe was a Deacon. The early church had women deacons and this has been well documented in church history.

4. “Women are not permitted to speak during church assemblies. I Cor. 14:34-36 (verse 36 makes clear that we don’t make the rules).”

Then why are you allowing women to sing or say hello to their friends? Silence is silence if this is a "law". And where is the “law” that is referenced in verse 34? Please give me book, chapter and verse so that I can see this "law"? Unless we can identify the “law” that is referenced we cannot understand the inspired intent in these verses. Please see my DVD for the documented evidence regarding where this “law” is found.

“It is shameful for women to speak in church assemblies.”

The word that is used here is the word for vile, shameful, morally degraded. When did Paul ever say that a woman’s voice is shameful or vile in the assembly? This contradicts what he said previously in the chapter where everyone is allowed to speak. You are left with a major contradiction in your interpretation.

5. “Make clear women are not to teach or be in an authoritative position over men. She is to be silent (quite) in church assemblies (this does not seem to include singing). Timothy 2:11-12”

The word used here is not silent but quietness. This is the same way that all rabbinical students are to learn in quietness. Paul also does not say “women”. By inserting the plural in this passage, verse 15 no longer has a singular noun to reference back to. {Please see my DVD for the documented evidence regarding the inspired language and the inspired grammar that we must not disregard in this passage)

Definition:
”a. usurp- to govern, or exercise dominion over.”

You forgot to add the definitions included in Thayer’s and the WordStudy Dictionary:

murderer, absolute master, which is from autós (G846), himself, and éntea (n.f.) arms, armor. A self-appointed killer with one's own hand, one acting by his own authority or power.

”b. If there is no distinction between roles why use this word in reference to a woman in the first place?”

See my DVD for the detailed verse-by-verse exegesis of the passage.

6. “Women are to teach other women and children. Titus 2:3-4”

However scripture never says that women are to teach women the bible. It only mentions teaching women how to be managers of their home and how to love their husbands. The scripture never teaches that bible studies are to be segregated so that women are to only teach women the bible.

7. “Women are not to lead prayer in church assemblies. I Timothy 2:8”

Where does it say that women are not to lead prayer in church assemblies? Look in verse 9 where it says “in like manner also”. This is a connecting phrase linking back to verse 8. Men are to pray in a respectable manner without bringing wrath into their prayers and women are to pray in respectable manner without bringing attention to their outward adornment. The scripture never once denies a woman the ability to lead in prayer.

I will be eagerly waiting for you to order the DVD so that you can try to refute the specifics in the exegesis there. There is a lot that you are missing and it would be good for you to see what you have missed.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Steve K. said...

Cheryl,

I just want to say Thanks for what you're doing! May God continue to bless your ministry. Thanks for taking the time to share here on this comment thread.

Shalom,
Steve K.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Steve K,

Wow, thanks for making me feel so welcome! I sincerely appreciate that my brother.

Mark M said...

This is a reply to Cheryl's first reply. I have included her comments and my reply is in brackets. I wish I had time to write more, but my day's work is waiting for me.

1. Adam was created first, why? Because God wanted to create the woman from the man’s flesh so that they would be a one-flesh union right from the start. [MM: Gen. 2:18 gives this reason: Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."]

2. Jesus was a man and not a woman, why? Because sin came into the world through a man and not a woman. [MM: While it is true that Jesus is the "last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45,47), it is not because sin came into the world through a man that Jesus had to be a man. In fact, sin came into the world through a woman. 1 Tim. 2:14 says, And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.]

3. Wives are to submit to their husbands Eph 5:21 and believers are to submit to each other. Nothing out of the ordinary here. We all are to submit to the others in the body of Christ. [MM: Women are especially instructed to submit to their husbands, but husbands are not instructed to submit to their wives (Eph. 5:22,24).]

4. Christ sacrifices for his Church to feed her in order for the church to grow. No domination here or any sense that Christ as "head" of the church is stopping any of the church body from using their spiritual gifts. Why would we think a human husband would stop his wife from using her gifts? [MM: A husband ought to stop his wife from acting contrary to God's Word. For example, a woman may be a spiritually gifted teacher, but that does not mean she may exercise this gift any time she pleases. 1 Tim. 2:12 says, But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.]

5. The wife is commanded to respect her husband and he is commanded to honor her. Not a problem here regarding women using their spiritual gifts. We don't say that a man cannot be a pastor because it is a conflict since he must honor his wife. [MM: A wife is also commanded to submit to her husband, but not the reverse. The husband is to be in authority over his wife (Eph. 5:22-24).]

6. Submission is seen as an example of all godly Christians. Even Jesus (a man) was submissive. Not a problem here either. [MM: Billy correctly observed that a wife's submission to her husband includes obeying him as Sarah did Abraham (1 Peter 3:5,6).]

7. You say the primary responsibility for a married woman is to manage her home (I Tim 5:14) and the inspired words are that she is to "rule" her home. No problem here if she can manage both to rule her household and to use her spiritual gifts outside her home as well. [MM: Obviously part of the wife being a good homemaker includes being in authority over her children. However, she does so under the authority of the husband.]

Cheryl Schatz said...

Mark M,

I am busy today and leaving to see my grandkids for the Christmas season tomorrow so I will work through your questions one at a time as I have time today. I do have the Jehovah's Witnesses coming today so I will be busy sharing the gospel with them and working in ministry a lot today but I will take the time for you and I thank you for giving me an opportunity to answer your questions. They are good questions and they show that you are thinking these things through.

Your questions and comments to me are below with [MM] belonging to you and my comments are indicated by (CS)

1. Adam was created first, why? (CS:) Because God wanted to create the woman from the man’s flesh so that they would be a one-flesh union right from the start. [MM: Gen. 2:18 gives this reason: Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."]

(CS:) You are answering a question you did not ask. You did not ask me why Adam was not created alone or even why Eve was created at all. You asked why Adam was created first. The correct answer is that Adam was created first because it was God’s sovereign plan to have the woman created from the side of Adam and not as a separate unrelated person created at the same time as Adam. Also the Kinsman Redeemer and the virgin birth are necessary for salvation and are directly tied into the fact that God created the man first so that the woman could be created from his body.

See my full answer here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-
the-family/
(you will need to connect the two together to get the link or go to strivetoenter.com/wim and type in adam as head of the family in the search box and scroll down to the posting on Nov 20, 2006 titled "Adam as head of the family")
That particular post of mine is good to see as it has diagrams to explain clearly why the creation of Eve from the body of Adam was absolutely necessary to fulfill the requirement for the Kinsman Redeemer.

God also chose to wait to have Eve created to allow Adam time to understand that he had a need. Adam was the one with the need and because he didn’t know he had a need, God created a task for him to discover his need. After naming the animals and seeing both male and female of each kind, Adam saw that he alone was without a corresponding mate. Once Adam saw his need, Eve was created from his very own body and she alone was unique of all the mates that God created as she was the only one created from the body of the male. No wonder Adam exclaimed his delight in her that she was flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. She was indeed special just for him.

Blessings to you brother Mark and I will be back to answer questions 2 - 6 later today.

Billy said...

Cheryl,

Mark didn't ask you a question. He was responding to the questions I asked in which you commented and said certain stuff wasn't in the Bible. You must not take a literal approach to scripture. This is sad that you keep trying to explain away the literal.

"that they may teach the young women... to be keeper at home, good, OBEDIENT (5293) to their own husbands..." Titus 2:4,5

5293 ὑποτάσσω [hupotasso /hoop·ot·as·so/] v. From 5259 and 5021; TDNT 8:39; TDNTA 1156; GK 5718; 40 occurrences; AV translates as “put under” six times, “be subject unto” six times, “be subject to” five times, “submit (one’s) self unto” five times, “submit (one’s) self to” three times, “be in subjection unto” twice, “put in subjection under” once, and translated miscellaneously 12 times. 1 to arrange under, to subordinate. 2 to subject, put in subjection. 3 to subject one’s self, obey. 4 to submit to one’s control. 5 to yield to one’s admonition or advice. 6 to obey, be subject. Additional Information: A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a miliary fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”.

Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed. Ontario : Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996, S. G5293

Cheryl Schatz said...

Dear Billy,

Mark M did ask a question and whether he asked it of you or of me isn't the issue. The issue is what question he asked.

Secondly I take the bible very literally. The word in Titus 2:5 is subject as in being submissive. It is not the same word as "obey" that is demanded of children.

Tit 2:5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

Every believer, not just women are to be in submission to one another.

Eph 5:21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.

Do you take this literally? I do. We are to be in submission to one another in the fear of Christ. That is every one of us. The entire body of Christ is to have an attitude of submission.

Regarding obedience that is demanded of children, it is a different word that is not an act of our willingness to submit but an act that is demanded even when one isn't willing:

hupakoúō; fut. hupakoúsō, from hupó (G5259), and akoúō (G191), to hear. To hearken, obey.
(II) To yield to a superior command or force (without necessarily being willing).

Children are to yield to a superior command or force because their parents are rulers over them while they are children. But in the body of Christ we are to give each other willing submission as equals. That is men giving submission and women giving submission. It is a Christian act of subjection while the act of obedience is forced on one who is under a superior.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Cheryl Schatz said...

Billy,

One last thing....read over the definition you provided and the one I provided for the distinct word for obedience. Notice submission is "willing" and obedience is required not dependent on one being willing.

Have a great day and thanks for your comments!

Mark M said...

Cheryl, you certainly have thought a lot about this subject. You make a good point that I was answering the wrong question (it was Billy's original question, by the way). My answer would better fit the question, "Why was woman created?"

Your article you provided a link to seems highly speculative to me. Aren't you reading a lot into the Bible to arrive at these conclusions?

I believe we need to build our theology on the plain, literal, straightforward teaching of the Bible. Your approach seems to be to find hidden meanings that fit your preconceived notions and then call them "inspired". To put this in your way of looking at things, if Adam's sin of rebellion is passed down through men, then Eve's propensity to be deceived is passed down through women.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Mark M,

Thanks for clearing up the "who asked who" question. I think I got lost in the shuffle. I thought it was such a good question though.

You are right in that Adam's sin of rebellion is passed on to all of us. However Eve's deception is not passed down to women because Eve did not have a propensity to be deceived. She was deceived because she did not have the sound doctrine about who God was that Adam had. To see the full argument you would have to get my DVD as it is included in the 1 Timothy 2 section that is approximately 1 hour long. It is not speculative, it is very carefully documented and I encourage you to check it out. These blogs are not capable of allowing us the time it takes to provide the full exegesis. I think you will find the verse-by-verse treatment in the DVD to be very thought-provoking. The pastors that I have heard back from who have viewed the material say that this is the best exegesis they have ever heard on these passages. Just this morning I got another email from a Pastor in Alaska who was so impressed with the DVD set that he ordered another 5 as Christmas gifts for his fellow Pastors in his denomination. Check it out and if you find anything out of place in the documentation, please do let me know. No one yet has pointed out any errors and the light has switched on in many hearts as they see the importance of the creation of man and woman in the plan of salvation.

God bless and I will get back to you later. The JW's are coming in 15 minutes and I have to really go now. It is such a privilege to be able to share Jesus with those who are lost, isn't it? These JW's are listening to me and allowing me to teach them about Jesus and salvation. Amazing! There is just nothing better in this world than to share Jesus!!

Billy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve K. said...

Mark M.,

What I see Cheryl doing is looking at the historical context in which these Bible passages were written and looking into the original Greek or Hebrew language that is used to arrive at an understanding what the biblical author was trying to communicate to the original audience to which they were communicating. This is not "reading into" Scripture at all (as you seem to be accusing Cheryl of doing)! This is simply good Bible study and exegesis, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think you're going to "out-Bible" Cheryl, frankly, and I don't think that should be the point, because so much of this has to do with interpretation anyway (IMHO). But I think her challenge still stands: Are you seeking to discern what the Bible says about this issue, with the context fully in mind and the Holy Spirit guiding you? Or are you seeking to fashion Scripture into an intellectual framework that upholds your preconceived theological position on this issue? It seems to me that that's the real issue here.

Shalom,
Steve K.

Billy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Billy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Billy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Billy said...

Cheryl,

Why is the husband likened to Christ (to love) and the wife likened to the church (to submit)?

In other words, why isn't the wife likened to Christ and the Husband to the church?

The huband (the head) is to love the wife as Christ loved the church. The wife is to submit to the husband as the church to Christ (the head). Is there not something special about the wife submitting to the husband that is different from the submission of other believers to believers?

In an earlier comment you said the husband is to honor the wife, but you left off the rest of the verse. The husband is to honor the wife as the weaker vessel. Is there not something different about the man and the woman?

The difference has nothing to do with value. You seem to want power instead of accepting God's clear literal instructions. The authority structure is clear in the scriptures from the beginning, but it seems you aren't willing to submit.

BTW- Your arguement falls apart with I Peter 3:6. The word used as Sarah "obeyed" her Abraham is the same word as children "obey" your parents. Here Peter clarifies what submission of the wife is all about.

Stop telling us to buy your video and explain your point right here.

In love,

Billy

Mark M said...

Steve,

I think I have made my approach clear, which is to build my theology on the plain, literal, straightforward teaching of the Bible. I will not quickly abandon my current theological position as that would amount to being "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14).

I work full time, have a wife and four children, and serve as an elder in my church, so I have to prioritize my Bible study time carefully. I usually stick to issues that have special relevance to my church or family. We are generally of one mind on this subject of the biblical roles of men and women, so I am trying not to get "sucked in too deep" on this interesting doctrinal issue. But it's hard to resist because the related subject of biblical eldership is near and dear to my heart.

Grace & peace,
-mark

Cheryl Schatz said...

Billy,

You said: "BTW- Your arguement falls apart with I Peter 3:9. The word used as Sarah "obeyed" her Abraham is the same word as children "obey" your parents. Here Peter clarifies what submission of the wife is all about."

This is exactly my point. It is not wrong for a woman to honor her husband and she may do this through obedience, but obedience such as spoken of in 1 Peter 3:6 is never commanded to women. Never. Instead what is commanded is what is given to all of us - that we are to live a submissive life just as Jesus lived. This is the Christian way and it isn't a gender way but a Christ-like way.

If we are going to say that women are commanded to obey their husbands because Sarah obeyed Abraham, then I am afraid we will have to go further. We will have to say that husbands will have to obey their wives because God commanded Abraham to obey Sarah.

Gen 21:12 But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named.

Should all men obey their wives because Abraham was commanded to obey his wife? I don't think so. What is commanded of us? We are to model our lives after Jesus and be submissive to one another. This is the way our Savior lived his life and we are to do the same.

So your point that a woman is commanded to obey her husband falls to the ground. Nowhere is such a command given. Children are commanded to obey their parents. That is because for a time they are under their parent's rule. When they grow up they are no longer commanded to obey their parents but fall into the same category as the rest of us. They should submit as to one another.

BTW I had an awesome time with the JW's today. I am just flying high. I was able to show them gently and from scripture that we need to put our faith in Christ to have our sins forgiven and that it isn't biblical as they claim that our death pays for our sin. They looked at the scriptures and they were shocked to see that we can be assured of our salvation right now. I asked them if they are relying on their own death to "wipe their slate clean" of their sin, then how will their "slate" be cleansed if they do not die? They apparently had never been asked this question before and they really struggled saying they just don't know. These are two very precious people who need Jesus and they love coming to visit us because we care for them, love them, and give them the truth of God's word. In all the years that I have witnessed to JW's, I have never met a more precious and open couple to God's word. I pray that the Lord will continue to bring them so that they can continue to be challenged with the truth of God's word instead of the lie.

Jesus is so good, isn't he!!

Billy said...

Cheryl stated that Phoebe was a deacon because the word translated servant in Romans 16:1 is the same word used as that of the office of a deacon. However, the word translated as "servant" (and rightly so) is not always used to refer to the office of deacon. See John 2:5,9, 12:26

Billy said...

In Acts 6 when the first slection of deacons took place as led by the Holy Spirit-7 Males were chosen for a multitude of people.

It would be hard for a women to be the husband of one wife in either case of a bishop or deacon.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Billy,

You said: "The difference has nothing to do with value. You seem to want power instead of accepting God's clear literal instructions. The authority structure is clear in the scriptures from the beginning but it seems you aren't willing to submit."

I have said not one word about my own power. In fact I am an extremely submissive person not only by nature, but because I believe that Jesus requires us to submit ourselves to learn from others.

Billy, you also said: "Stop telling us to buy your video and explain your point right here."

My main ministry is to share Jesus with Jehovah's Witnesses and to disciple them towards faith in Christ. For 16 years I led a support group for ex-Jehovah's Witnesses and God allowed me to walk them through the hardships of coming out of the Watchtower and into faith in the real Jesus Christ. I am also a video editor bringing to life doctrinal teaching that helps the church understand how to witness to those in the cults. I do love talking about women in ministry but for me to take the hours and hours required to properly document all of the points and bring the teaching to life here in this format just cannot work. Would this be the best use of my time when I have already spent considerable time in putting it in a very visual format? I did offer a money-back guarantee to you and that extends to anyone in this forum. I have never heard of anyone doing that before.

The information is there for you to use. It will be free to you if you are able to provide a scriptural refutation. That is the best use of my time and you can't get a better deal than that, eh?

I praise God that he provides all of us as the "sons" of God with ways to serve him. Praise the name of the Lord! He is to be lifted up and honored!

Billy said...

In a previous comment I said that "every one" in I Cor. 14:26 referred to men and not women based on the fact that the membership was numbered by counting the men. Acts 4:4 states, "and the number of the men was about 5000", therefore if in context the remarks are meant for the men you could say "every one" and it would be understood as men not the women. "Every one" is determined by context not simply a word study. How in context could v.34 say what it says and v.26 mean women? That is a rhetorical question!

Cheryl Schatz said...

Billy said:

"Cheryl stated that Phoebe was a deacon because the word translated servant in Romans 16:1 is the same word used as that of the office of a deacon."

I appreciate that you want to quote me and correct me, however I ask that you be so kind as to quote me correctly. I never said a word about an "office" of a deacon. In Romans 16:1 the word for used for deacon for Phoebe is the male term for deacon/servant. All of the deacons are servants.

Now onto answering the other questions I was asked. Again, it will take me some time as my husband has asked me to cut his hair. I am at his service since it is my pleasure to serve him in this way.

If I understand this right, it is Mark M who gets the answers next.

Cheryl Schatz said...

Mark M,

Here are my further replies to your post. Your questions and comments to me are below with [MM] and my comments are with indicated by (CS)

2. Jesus was a man and not a woman, why? (CS:) Because sin came into the world through a man and not a woman. [MM: While it is true that Jesus is the "last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45,47), it is not because sin came into the world through a man that Jesus had to be a man. In fact, sin came into the world through a woman. 1 Tim. 2:14 says, And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.]

(CS:) In fact, sin did not come into the world through a woman. 1 Timothy 2:14 says that Eve fell into deception. She did not bring rebellion into the world, but Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 2 that the woman fell into transgression through deception. God himself says that it was the man who brought rebellion into the world and this is why sin came through the man. Hosea 6:7 shows us that the blame falls squarely on Adam’s shoulders:

Hos 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

Adam was the one who dealt treacherously and in his rebellion he transgressed the covenant.

3. Wives are to submit to their husbands (CS:) Eph 5:21 and believers are to submit to each other. Nothing out of the ordinary here. We all are to submit to the others in the body of Christ. [MM: Women are especially instructed to submit to their husbands, but husbands are not instructed to submit to their wives (Eph. 5:22,24).]

(CS:) There is no word “submit” in Ephesians 5:22 or 24. The word is found only in verse 21 where the form is “genitive plural from G243 reduplicated; one another –each other, mutual”. Since all of us are instructed to submit to one another, this would not leave out husbands also submitting to their wives because they are part of the "one another". Again, this is the Christian standard following the example set by Christ.

4. (CS:) Christ sacrifices for his Church to feed her in order for the church to grow. No domination here or any sense that Christ as "head" of the church is stopping any of the church body from using their spiritual gifts. Why would we think a human husband would stop his wife from using her gifts? [MM: A husband ought to stop his wife from acting contrary to God's Word. For example, a woman may be a spiritually gifted teacher, but that does not mean she may exercise this gift any time she pleases. 1 Tim. 2:12 says, But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.]

(CS:) 1 Timothy 2:12-15 have been the most difficult verses for translators because of several very difficult translation hurdles. While I will recommend you get a copy of my DVD for a verse-by-verse exegesis which takes care of each of the problem areas, let me say a couple of things in this forum. First of all, Paul never ever advocated a husband to take authority over his wife or to stop her from using her gifts. If one was going to take this verse ripped out of its context, the very least that one should do is to allow the women to teach, but force the men to leave the room. Encourage the women to teach and do not forbid them, but remove the men. This would be the respectful thing to do it if you are stuck on a faulty tradition that falls flat when taken in its context. There is a much better exegesis that does not have the traditional problems of stopping godly Christian women from using their God-given gifts in public. All I can do is recommend you either love women enough to see the evidence for yourself or at least love a woman teacher enough to refute the evidence. It should be fun for you either way.

5. (CS:) The wife is commanded to respect her husband and he is commanded to honor her. Not a problem here regarding women using their spiritual gifts. We don't say that a man cannot be a pastor because it is a conflict since he must honor his wife. [MM: A wife is also commanded to submit to her husband, but not the reverse. The husband is to be in authority over his wife (Eph. 5:22-24).]

(CS:) You have misquoted scripture. Ephesians 5:22-24 in no way tells a husband to take authority over his wife.

6. (CS:) Submission is seen as an example of all godly Christians. Even Jesus (a man) was submissive. Not a problem here either. [MM: Billy correctly observed that a wife's submission to her husband includes obeying him as Sarah did Abraham (1 Peter 3:5,6).]

(CS:) See my previous answer in a previous post above as this obedience is never commanded for a woman. God commanded Abraham to obey Sarah but we certainly are not going to use that fact to command all men to obey their wives.

7. (CS:) You say the primary responsibility for a married woman is to manage her home (I Tim 5:14) and the inspired words are that she is to "rule" her home. No problem here if she can manage both to rule her household and to use her spiritual gifts outside her home as well. [MM: Obviously part of the wife being a good homemaker includes being in authority over her children. However, she does so under the authority of the husband.]

(CS:) Give me book, chapter and verse for this. Where does the scripture say that a woman is to have rule over her children “under the authority of the husband”? There is no scripture that says this and this is a perfect example of man-made tradition.

I really enjoyed this dialog. I hope you did too.

By the way, I cook, bake my own bread, cut my husband's hair, I used to sew all of his suits, I sew my own curtains, make my own soup and take good care of my husband. I also LOVE apologetics and the defense of the faith. I LOVE sharing Jesus and discipling both men and women in the faith. During my 16 years of leading Jehovah's Witnesses to Christ I was not prejudiced against the men. They had nowhere else to go. They would not go to church and Pastors did not know enough about their doctrinal problems to help them. In fact I was called all the time by Pastors to help them because they had no idea how to deal with JWs when they came to their door. All they knew how to do was argue and be frustrated. God gave me a special gift of patience for those who have been lost in the cults but who need Christ.

Mark M said...

(CS:) There is no word “submit” in Ephesians 5:22 or 24.

[MM] Let's see if we can find those pesky submits: 22 Wives, *submit* to your husbands as to the Lord. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should *submit* to their husbands in everything. Yep, still there. You had me worried for a minute. :^) This reminds me of the famous Bill Clinton quote, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement."

Cheryl, I don't agree with your interpretation of Scripture, but bless you for your outreach to the JW's (I mean this sincerely).

-mark

Cheryl Schatz said...

Mark M,

Hey, thanks for the blessings! And I sincerely mean that!

Regarding no "submit" in verses 22 & 24, I should have specified that there is no "submit" in the original. It has been put into the English but it is not there in the original Greek. I do most of my reading from the original languages and sometimes I forget that others aren't doing the same thing. Kind of a forgetful blind spot that I have. I apologize. Here goes what I should have said: The word "submit" is in verse 21 however it is not there in verses 22 or 24 in the original Greek. This is very important. I believe this is done so that we are forced by the Holy Spirit to go back to verse 21 to pick up the verb and we then have to understand that submitting is to be reciprocal since it is clear in verse 21 that it is to "one another". If you don't believe me regarding the Greek, just check with a Greek expert and you will find out that I am correct.

I just love the way the Holy Spirit works with his inspired words. My eyes have been really opened up many times by immersing myself in the original languages. I think it was about a year or year and a half ago that a well respected bible translator purchased my DVD set. He makes his living translating the bible into languages that do not have a bible in that language. He was impressed with the depth that the DVDs go into the original languages and he was not able to correct one thing that I had written.

I apologize again for not stating that I was referring to the original Greek language in the inspired autographs, not the English. The English translation does not do a good job to make it clear to us that there is something missing. What is missing often is as important as what is actually there.

Blessings and may your family experience the true meaning of our Savior's love this Christmas!
Cheryl

Billy said...

LOL- Before I read this post I was going to tell you there was nothing fun about the subject. This is hilarious!

If I were you, I would get a better copy of the original.

Cheryl Schatz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cheryl Schatz said...

Dear Billy,

Boy you are easy to entertain, aren't you? LOL. Okay, here you go http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/eph5.pdf
(the end of the link is .pdf)

Have fun. Check it out really carefully. Now everyone can see for themselves. Humor is wonderful and God-given but we should also take the scriptures seriously.

It is important especially for Pastors and those in spiritual leadership to use these kinds of biblical helps as it gives a greater depth to your biblical understanding. Compliments of my bible translator friend. The site is free and the grammar and helps are awesome. Enjoy!

Oh and Billy, I will be waiting for you to produce a copy of the Greek that has "submit" in Ephesians 5:22. There is none. And the "submit" in verse 24 is concerning Christ. The reference to wives goes right back to Ephesians 5:21. Don't worry, my friend. I won't be holding my breath waiting for a Greek reference from you for Ephesians 5:22 because I already know the answer. You have to go back to verse 21 to get it.

Smiles!
Cheryl

Billy said...

Cheryl,

1. Do you call reading an interlinear bible Greek?

2. Do you think the "Westcott-Hort text from 1881" is the original text?

Are you kidding me?

Billy said...

that is with lots of love ofcourse!

Cheryl Schatz said...

Billy,

I gave you one of the best resources for checking out the inspired grammar and the inspired Greek/Hebrew words.

I guess you don't have a resource that has the word "submit" in Ephesians 5:21, eh? I guess you were the one doing the kidding.

No matter. I am off for Christmas. If you want to find me and discuss further, you are welcome. Go to strivetoenter.com/wim There are lots of Pastors who also stop by who will dialog with you in a respectful manner. They also have my respect.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Billy said...

There is your resource.

5:21 upotassomenoi allhloiV en fobw Qeou.

5:22 Ai gunaikeV, toiV idioiV andrasin upotassesqe, wV tw Kuriw.

5:23 Oti o anhr esti kefalh thV gunaikoV, wV kai o CristoV kefalh thV ekklhsiaV, kai autoV esti swthr tou swmatoV.

5:24 All wsper h ekklhsia upotassetai tw Cristw, outw kai ai gunaikeV toiV idioiV andrasin en panti.

5:25 Oi andreV agapate taV gunaikaV eautwn, kaqwV kai o CristoV hgaphse thn ekklhsian, kai eauton paredwken uper authV

5:26 ina authn agiash, kaqarisaV tw loutrw tou udatoV en rhmati,

Billy said...

BTW- its called the Textus Receptus

Billy said...

It wouldn't post the correct lettering in the original so here's a link...

http://www.afii.org/hpgbypg/gknttr.htm

Cheryl Schatz said...

Billy,

I stand corrected. Although the oldest manuscripts do not have the "submit" repeated in verse 22, the one that the KJV is based on does. I had not noticed that before.

At the same time the reciprocal nature of verse 21 still stands and verse 22 refers back to verse 21 as a repeat if you take the Greek that the KJV is based on. I do not make a habit of using that Greek text as it is not the oldest and I do stand corrected that there is at least one text that has "submit" in verse 22.

Your point is made and I bow to your correction.

Cheryl

Billy said...

Just want to point out that the Textus Receptus is much older than your "best resources for checking out the inspired grammar and the inspired Greek words.".

Cheryl Schatz said...

It is the best source that I have found to show the nuances of the grammar. It is an absolutely wonderful source. I do use the Greek from the NASB first of all but for the grammar I have never found anything better.

Now are you ready to give my DVD a try or have you no humility of your own?

Billy said...

Cheryl,

I appreciate you admitting you are wrong, but I'm not going to buy your DVD at this time. You have shared enough in the last couple of days to lead me to believe that your DVD is nothing more than explaining away clear scripture.

On the other hand I too honor you for your ministry to the JW's which I do not believe contradicts any scripture!

Cheryl Schatz said...

That is fine. I would expect that if you think it is just "explaining away" clear scripture then you would have an easy time refuting it. I didn't think you could but I guess we will never know will we?

Thanks for your words of honor. Working with the Jehovah's Witnesses is my life work. If you need resources to help with witnessing to the JW's, the DVDs The Witness at Your Door, The Witness Goes Out and Jehovah's Witnesses and the Real Jesus have brought many, many Jehovah's Witnesses free in Christ.

I am at your service.

In Christ,
Cheryl

Alan said...

Wow, seems like I take a couple of days off and this topic explodes.

I want to address a couple of things I noticed as I read the entire thread tonight. First, Cheryl, you seem to be coming across as more of a salesperson than I believe you intend. You do mention buying your dvd too often. I also agree with Mark, I think your teaching is a false teaching and do not intend to help fund that.

You said that pastors have watched your dvd and not one can refute your exegesis. I can do so on just what you have published on this post but I am sure you will still not see it and would not consider it valid so I would not get my money back and you could still claim to being "unrefuted."

CS:)As far as I Timothy 3:1 the inspired word is not "aner" but "anthropos".

Wrong, neither word is in that verse, there is the word “andra” in verse 2 which is the accusative, singular, masculine of the noun “aner,” you know the meaning of this word I am sure, it means husband.

CS:)God commanded Abraham to obey Sarah but we certainly are not going to use that fact to command all men to obey their wives.

In a particular situation, this is bad hermeneutics to claim an analogy with Sarah obeying Abraham.

CS:) There is no word “submit” in Ephesians 5:22 or 24. The word is found only in verse 21 where the form is “genitive plural from G243 reduplicated”

Wrong, it is in the nominative.

CS:) You have misquoted scripture. Ephesians 5:22-24 in no way tells a husband to take authority over his wife.

Yes it does, it says the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the church. This analogy could not be clearer, unless you want to deny Christ’s authority over the church.

In Christ
Alan

Cheryl Schatz said...

Alan,

Thanks for commenting. I mention my DVD whenever I need to let people know the information is there and I do not have the time to write it out in full here.

Regarding 1 Timothy 3:1, you are right in that I gave the wrong word. I was so busy yesterday I gave it off the cuff and the Greek word is "tis" not anthropos. I did not make this mistake in the DVD :)
However my point was that the inspired word was not "aner" clearly saying that only males may aspire to overseer. Regarding verse 2 that is another story and I wasn't discussing that. My main focus is not on whether a woman can be an elder but on 1 Timothy 2:12 on whether she can teach men. Don't worry, this is what you would have to refute so you would actually have to work to get your money back :) It is not easy and this is why the Pastors who have seen the material have said it was well done and have not been able to refute it.

Regarding God commanding Abraham to obey Sarah, you misrepresented me. I did not say that one should use this to claim to say that men are to obey their wives. I said that this would be a wrong thing to do in the same way that using the example of Sarah obeying Abraham would be wrong in claiming that God commands women to obey their husband. I asked for a verse that said that God commands this and none was provided. It isn't in the bible.

Regarding the "genitive plural" for "submit" I copied this as it was. I'll have to look to see if I missed copying something and right now I don't have time as I am heading off for vacation. In any respect, I have checked again and you are right in that it is nominative plural. Again that mistake is not in the DVD :)

Your hermeneutics are faulty in saying that Ephesians 5:22-24 tells a husband to take authority over a wife. It does not. It says that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church. You are reading "taking authority over" into the passage. Christ certainly has authority over the church but he has so because he is God. The husband is never told to take "authority over" his wife. You cannot arbitrarily take "headship" and make it rulership. God the Father does not rule over the Son even though he is the head of the Son. The Son does voluntarily submit to the Father in the incarnation. To make "headship" to be rulership is to distort the Trinity.

Again, I apologize for my rush. I would ask you to have another look at the other things I said.

Have a blessed Christmas and now I am off.

GuyMuse said...

Cheryl, Billy, Steve, Alan, Mark,

May I interrupt this dialog long enough to say FELIZ NAVIDAD A TODOS USTEDES (Merry Christmas to all of you!)

Thanks to each of you for the effort and time put into this discussion. I think we can all learn something from each other. I appreciate the graciousness exemplified by each of you.

Alan said...

Everyone,
I am getting ready to walk out the door and I meant to say exactly what Guy said, this time of the year we must rejoice in the fact that God condescended to become one of us in order to save us. I hope everyone can share in the celebration of Christ's birth with joy and people they love.
Merry Christmas
Alan

Billy said...

Guy,

Muchisimas Gracias! Espero que tu familia tenga la mejor Navidad este año que han tenido hasta hoy en dia.

Merry Christmas to everyone else!

Bruce Dickey said...

Ha ha, I'm glad I'm not the only one who's be way-layed by this topic. I went to Korea in 1988 to Cho's church. It was around 700,000 at the time, tons of cell groups. 65% were led by women, I was quite surprised.

His mother in law was his right hand man, or maybe it was the other way around. As old as this tread is, it may be closed and that is fine.

I was surprised to find the long list of simple and organic church folks in favor of full-blown rights to women in ministry, here is a partial list: Frank Viola, Alan Hirsch, Felicity Dale, and Jon Zens. It was noticeable that they ignored passages by talking really really loud, citing every passage of scripture that had a woman's name attached to it, and using an avalanche of rhetoric to silence any critic. (squeak) This will be the last time I mention this in public.

Guy, I'm glad you brought it up. I know Jesus would have no problem embracing the subject. Paul, well, he's just so out of date we should probably burn all the new testament he wrote and be happy with what is left. (tongue bitten and in my cheek)

Cheers one and all. I know of no more fulfilled woman in the church than my wife and she has never aspired to apostlehood, elderhood, or shepherding, but she does a ton of ministry every day, week and month of every year since we married 38 years ago. Go baby go!

Bruce

GuyMuse said...

Bruce,

This post generated more comments than any other I have ever posted. There is a lot I could say about this subject, but locally the whole "women in ministry" thing has never been that big of a deal. Since we do not use ministry titles, and refer to one another as "hermano" or "hermana" there hasn't been much reason to squabble! One of the aspects we have long emphasized is that we are ALL servant leaders. What differentiates us is gifting, but not gender. Since we don't have pastors as such, we don't have to get into all the sticky stuff that seems to be an issue with folks north of us there in the USA. Anyway, thanks for stopping by and reading and for the comment!

Mark said...

Greetings to you, brother Guy. I was surprised to see new comments in my email inbox on this old post. I skimmed all the comments to remember what we discussed. Very interesting and edifying! Blessings to you in 2011.

Grace & peace.
-mark

Bishop bernard jordan said...

The article has really peaks my interest. I am going to bookmark your web site and hold checking for brand new information.

Internet churches

Forhim922 said...

My wife and I have been discussing this topic for years. Off and on I have done my own reading and resaearching and what not. For me where I have come to is that one of the biggest problems for the western church is that we are so set in how we do church that we are unable to truly see how church should be done. For example, we are set on the fact that we must have a Senior Pastor to function of do anything. The fact of the matter is that we don't. This is kind of like the Israelites saying that they needed a King when God knew that they did not need one.

I know that as a church planter I was faced with dealing with ideas of how to structure a church from the beginning and what I realized is that it was probably going to look a lot different than most of the churches I had been a part of.

I enjoyed reading the discussions and I learned even more about this subject. Thanks.

J. Guy Muse said...

Forhim922,

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to read, not only the blog post, but the above comments as well. You are a real trooper! It is interesting to me how this subject continues to maintain a high level of interest amongst Christians of all stripes and colors. For a more in depth treatment I would highly recommend our friend Felicity Dale's blog Simply Church: A House Church Perspective. There you will find a gold mine of insights on this subject.