7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured [it] on His head as He sat [at the table]. 8 But when His disciples saw [it], they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? ... 13 "Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her." 14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15 and said, "What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?" And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. 16 So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him. (Matt. 26:7–8, 13–16, NKJV)

35 Peter said to Him, "Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!" And so said all the disciples. ... 40 Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "What? Could you not watch with Me one hour? ... 43 And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy. ... 45 Then He came to His disciples and said to them, "Are [you] still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. ... 56 "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled. (Matt. 26:35, 40, 43, 45, 56, NKJV)

69 Now Peter sat outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came to him, saying, "You also were with Jesus of Galilee." 70 But he denied it before [them] all, saying, "I do not know what you are saying." 71 And when he had gone out to the gateway, another [girl] saw him and said to those [who were] there, "This [fellow] also was with Jesus of Nazareth." 72 But again he denied with an oath, "I do not know the Man!" 73 And a little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, "Surely you also are [one] of them, for your speech betrays you." 74 Then he began to curse and swear, [saying], "I do not know the Man!" Immediately a rooster crowed. (Matt. 26:69–74, NKJV)

55 And many women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, were there looking on from afar, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. ... 61 And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the tomb. (Matt. 27:55–56, 61, NKJV)

1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first [day] of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. ... 5 But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 "He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 "And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go [and] tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me." (Matt. 28:1, 5–10, NKJV)

• A woman was extravagantly pouring out for Jesus; the men were indignant, counting the cost, and presenting their suggestion for its use. (Jesus liked her way.)
• The women were watching; the men were sleeping.
• The women were at the cross; the men were mostly absent.
• The women were at the grave; the men were not. (Jesus revealed Himself to those there.)
• A woman saw Jesus and told the men; the men heard but didn’t believe. (Jesus rebuked them for not believing her.[ Mark 16:9–11])
• The women mostly went toward Jesus; the men mostly left Him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake ... Its a good thing that a man who impulsively controlled his wife and kept her in her place with cutting and manipulative words had a change of heart and realized the error of his ways, repented to her and the family, and set things right between them. I personally have not met many Christian husbands who acted that way in or outside of the Lords Recovery. But for those who are like John once was they would do well to follow his lead even at the risk of being accused of being henpecked. In repentance, over compensation is not a bad thing. ... Drake

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. (Matt. 7:15–17, KJV)

Sandra Brown and a few other sisters, including me, loved to read Christian biographies and autobiographies. They found some that they had not read at libraries and bookstores, acquired them, and began passing them around. With more time on my hands while in the Harvest House, I started reading such books. I loved them. I read about Hudson Taylor, George Mueller, John and Charles Wesley, David Brainerd, George Whitefield, John Bunyan, John Newton, Charles Spurgeon, Amy Carmichael, Mimosa, and others. In all of these books, I saw people of faith in love with Jesus. The One I knew and loved, my dear Jesus, was on display in their life stories.

Biography reading was not a practice sanctioned by the church. The church bookroom sold only books by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. In earlier years, the bookroom carried a few other books, mainly on “deeper life” teachings, but this stopped not long after we moved to Houston.

After we started reading biographies, the leading brothers began to mention things in church meetings to discourage us from reading such books. Why? We were told that they were too old and too religious, and hindered us from staying in Brother Lee’s present-day light. I kept reading them anyway in my Harvest House hideaway. (Thread of Gold, 137–138)

I was embarrassed one Saturday morning at breakfast with a number of other service group leaders and the four Houston elders. At one point, one of the elders introduced a topic that the four of them had been discussing in private—some of us needed to move to another city to start another Local Church….

One of the four elders looked at me and said, “How about you and John?” Knowing that I wasn’t considering such a move for even a minute, I responded, “You’ll have to ask John about that.” He retorted, “Oh really? I thought you ran things at your house.” Everyone laughed. I was humiliated and furious with him. How cruel and how unnecessary his comment was! He didn’t live in my shoes. Who did he think he was? Granted, I wasn’t a naturally submissive or quiet or meek sister, but I was trying to be. The rest of the day, I considered various things I could do or say to show him he was wrong. Then the Lord spoke, “Would you rather show him your self-made submission now or let him see Me living in you when I have finished My work in you?” After pondering that awhile, I decided to give up the self-improving, self-justifying route and hand myself over to the Lord to let Him do His work in me, in His time. (Thread of Gold, 114–115)

One time, a young woman who had been to three or four of our meetings, was taken aside by Sam Jones, one of the Houston elders, into one of the church offices for a talk or “fellowship.” He stopped me as I was passing by and asked me to sit in on the talk. Sam asked her if she was dating someone. She said, “Yes.” He started talking about the importance of purity in following the Lord. She was looking at him somewhat blankly. This wasn’t the response he wanted. Suddenly, he picked up a book and slammed it loudly on the desk. I was so startled that I literally jumped in my seat and had to regain my composure. He raised his voice and began ranting at her about the sin of fornication and its danger to her Christian walk. I was appalled. The young woman never returned to another one of our meetings. Sam’s behavior made me feel sick inside; I knew there was something very wrong with it. (Thread of Gold, 132–133)

A number of years after we had left the church, I said to John once, “You know, the Local Church was like a men’s club!” He laughed. I responded, “No, I am serious. Think about it. Everything there was for men. Men didn’t have to help with household responsibilities. They didn’t have to spend time with their children. They had wives who didn’t go shopping and didn’t spend their money on clothes or make-up or jewelry. They didn’t have to celebrate holidays or purchase gifts. They didn’t have to put up with home décor issues because only the basics were acceptable. Keeping secrets about church matters from their wives was expected. They met with each other all the time to take care of church business matters. The wives had to prepare good meals every day, work at home to keep a well-run house, and take care of children. This exactly fits most men’s natural tendencies and desires. What was there that fit a woman’s natural tendencies and desires in the Local Church? Nothing.” I don’t think John really understood my viewpoint or assessment of the situation, but then, he saw it through male eyes. (Thread of Gold, 240)

I have been in emotional turmoil (conviction) ever since our heated discussions on Wed. evenings. I would like to ask for your forgiveness and apologize for my belligerent and rude behavior. I was very much out of line and I believe out of character. Please forgive me for my pugilistic posture, that was not my intention, although i believe after looking at my behavior, that is exactly what it was. I was not a good representative of a man of GRACE.

Strange how that occurs, I was trying to convince you about the validity of the Doctrines Of Grace, and I was not very gracious. In the future I will not be so quick to discuss this topic in a cursory manner.
Please forgive me.

a Brother in Christ
[name removed]

Then the man said, "The woman whom You gave [to be] with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate." (Gen. 3:12, NKJV)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah If we look at the passage in Genesis identified as one of these "lemon verses" the translation of "desire" is considered a bad translation that should be "turn to". However, there is no dispute that the verse talks about the trouble that women will have in childbirth and childrearing. There are biologic reasons why human babies are born completely helpless and requiring much more time and effort in the rearing than babies of all other mammals. Therefore, whether the woman's "desire" is to the man, or she "turns to" the man, the context is the difficulty involved in bearing and rearing children. This is a fact, not a bias. We know that raising children requires a tremendous amount of labor, perhaps for 20 years. We know that single parent mothers are the largest group of poor in this country. So then I disagree with the interpretation that the woman is being warned against "turning to" the man, that doesn't make sense. In addition, according to the interpretation she presents the woman is not held accountable for her actions in the fall. However, that supports the interpretation that the man, as "head", is held accountable. So again, I don't think this is an accurate interpretation since the interpreter agrees that the man is the one held responsible for the woman's actions. Third, the interpreter argues that the woman is never banished from the garden, only the man. However, they also bring up Genesis 5 where Adam is considered to include both the male and female (i.e. Mr. and Mrs. Adam). If God banished the Adams that includes both Adam and Eve, they are now a unit. This is supported by Jesus interpretation that "what God has joined together let not man separate". Therefore in looking at this one very critical "lemon" verse I don't think the translation "desire" or "turn to" changes the meaning and the attempt to interpret the way this person has is fatally flawed.

If we look at the passage in Genesis identified as one of these "lemon verses" the translation of "desire" is considered a bad translation that should be "turn to".

However, there is no dispute that the verse talks about the trouble that women will have in childbirth and childrearing. There are biologic reasons why human babies are born completely helpless and requiring much more time and effort in the rearing than babies of all other mammals. Therefore, whether the woman's "desire" is to the man, or she "turns to" the man, the context is the difficulty involved in bearing and rearing children. This is a fact, not a bias.

Unto the woman He said, "A snare has increased thy sorrow and thy sighing. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children. Thou art turning away to thy husband and he will rule over thee.

We know that raising children requires a tremendous amount of labor, perhaps for 20 years. We know that single parent mothers are the largest group of poor in this country.

So then I disagree with the interpretation that the woman is being warned against "turning to" the man, that doesn't make sense.

In addition, according to the interpretation she presents the woman is not held accountable for her actions in the fall. However, that supports the interpretation that the man, as "head", is held accountable. So again, I don't think this is an accurate interpretation since the interpreter agrees that the man is the one held responsible for the woman's actions.

Third, the interpreter argues that the woman is never banished from the garden, only the man. However, they also bring up Genesis 5 where Adam is considered to include both the male and female (i.e. Mr. and Mrs. Adam). If God banished the Adams that includes both Adam and Eve, they are now a unit. This is supported by Jesus interpretation that "what God has joined together let not man separate".

Just as a small finger held up between the eye and the sun can completely block the orb of the sun from view, the one word change from “turning” to “desire” has blocked a proper understanding of the account of the Fall in Genesis 3. The word “turning” in Genesis 3:16 reveals that it was Eve's choice to “turn” from God to Adam. This reference to her turning to him may mean that she was not driven out of the garden with Adam, but that she chose to follow him out. Regardless, in this verse, God was warning Eve that, because of her turning to Adam, Adam would rule over her. Rather than a command for the man to rule over woman, this was a warning to Eve of what was going to happen to her as a consequence of her choice. Whether she went out of the garden of her own volition or not, it is clear that God saw her turning away from Him to Adam and warned her of the danger of doing this. (A Woman of Chayil, 46–47) [underline added]

Therefore in looking at this one very critical "lemon" verse I don't think the translation "desire" or "turn to" changes the meaning and the attempt to interpret the way this person has is fatally flawed.

• One poster has asked more than once about what Jane’s mission is. The mission, should you choose to accept it, can be easily found by looking at the title of this thread. That’s a hint, by the way. Let’s see, “New Jane Anderson Website.” Have you looked at the website yet? There is an “Our Mission” tab on the home page.
  
  
• Another poster thinks, I guess, that if something is repeated often enough that people will eventually believe it. If you want to know what Katharine Bushnell and Jane Anderson think, you will have to read their books. If you believe what you read on this thread from others about what Jane and Katharine wrote … well, let’s just say that you will be left with a twisted, inaccurate presentation. I finally got tired of reading about the hermaphrodite view that Bushnell and Jane supposedly believe in. Here is what Bushnell states in her book:

We have already (par. 24, and Additional Notes thereon), commented on the possible original bisexual nature of the human being,—the androgynous, or hermaphrodite state, which persists, imperfectly, to the present time within the human family. (God’s Word to Women, para. 41) [underline added]

She wrote, “possible.” Katharine does not have a stated belief in the hermaphrodite, and Jane does not even mention it at all! If you are going to post with integrity, you should accurately reflect what someone wrote. By the way, this thread is supposed to be about Jane’s work, not Katharine’s. Although posting about Bushnell is not a bad thing, to do it to associate her with Jane in order to try to discredit Jane is wrong; or, to do it just to avoid engaging with Jane’s presentation is also wrong.

• Another couldn’t see the connection between male gender bias in the Bible and John and Jane’s marriage. The following sequence is an over-simplified presentation to, hopefully, get the connection across:

1. John and Jane believe in Jesus and the Bible.
2. John thought about and treated Jane according to a traditional understanding of the Bible.
3. John did not feel right about this, and Jane did not respond as John expected.
4. John wondered why what he understood as the traditional perspective seemed to run counter to what Jesus taught.
5. John read God’s Word to Women, in which he learned that there was apparent bias in the translation and that the bias was likely due to the male perspective of the translators.

Jane and I have seen, up close, many failing or failed Christian marriages (many of them because of the Local Church). The most infamous, without a doubt, was the Local Church elder who carried on an affair with another Local Church elder’s wife that led to both of them divorcing their spouses and marrying each other! One large, contributing factor was that the wife believed that she had to submit to her husband (and the elders) in everything, even in things that were wrong; and, their marriage suffered as a result. She eventually threw off her marriage and the Bible, rejecting a God whose Word had consigned her to such a subservient role and miserable life.

Jane wrote Chayil, mostly to speak to Christian women; but, of course, men can learn from it, too. Hers is a fairly comprehensive look at the topic, more than these posts would lead you to believe. The writings that I post are my appeal to the men, but in a much briefer way, to try to get them to at least consider the topic more thoroughly.

• There has also been some attempt to connect Jane to feminism and equality for women and similar political endeavors. I’ll just state that it is obvious to me that those kinds of comments come from those who have not read her book, those who do not understand what they have read, or those who deliberately want to distort the issue and discredit her. Jane does not call herself a Christian feminist or Christian egalitarian, as some women do today.

I have found a woman of chayil, and she is worth far more than rubies.
I can safely trust in her.
She does good for me and not evil.
She is always busy.
She goes as far as it takes to get what is needed.
She is up at all hours, communing with the Lord. She stays in contact with others sharing what she has received from Him.
She is generous and always working for others.
She helped provide for her family what they needed, including spiritual food. Her children are born-again, and they seek to walk with the Lord as they actively serve Him in His church.
She trained herself to use a computer, and then started and ran her own software company from home.
She applies her hands to the keyboard, preparing words of help for those in need.
She is strong, honorable, and wise. She spends much of her time helping others.
There are other women of chayil; but, to me, she is the most excellent.
She is a woman who fears the Lord, and she teaches others to do the same.
I, her husband, praise her, and so do her works.
Her name is Jane; and, in less than a week, we will have been married 50 years.

• “army” and “war”—58
• “host” and “forces” —43
• “might” or “power”—16
• “goods,” “riches,” “substance,” or “wealth”—31
• “band of soldiers,” “band of men,” “company,” or “train”—4
• “activity”—1
• “valor”—28
• “strength”—11

• “valiant” or “valiantly”—35
• “strong”—6
• “virtuous” or “virtuously”—4
• “able”—4
• “worthy” or “worthily”—2

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies. (Pro. 31:10, KJV)

Oikodespotēs (pronounced oi-ko-de-spo'-tās) is a Greek compound noun.

It is made up of two Greek words: oikos and despotes.

Oikos means house, as well as household or family.

Despotes means master or lord. This is the same Greek word from which we get our English word, “despot,” which means a ruler who has absolute or unlimited power over others. This was the biblical word used in the slave/master relationship.

Oikodespoteō (pronounced oy-kod-es-pot-eh'- ō)

I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. (1 Tim. 5:14, KJV)

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim I think we should sick John after him....that will put a little hitch in his giddy up -

1. Does not differentiate between fact and opinion. For any interested, there are writings available that point out fallacies in argumentation. (Some of Evangelical’s posts could be used as examples of what not to do in argument. I pointed out problems with just a few paragraphs of one of his posts [“Woman’s Role” thread, #96]. Most of what I listed probably doesn’t even rise to the level of proper argument on his part but are simply problems with his use of English and lack of logic.)
   
   
2. Avoids an issue by just ignoring it. (Example: In “Women’s Role” #96, I wrote fourteen points about Evangelical’s opening paragraphs in one of his posts. He responded to only half of them by number and didn’t address all of the issues in the numbered items that he did address.) When I see this kind of behavior, I realize that the person is not being intellectually honest.
   
   
3. Avoids an issue by addressing a different issue, addressing it as if it was the same one. (Example: I brought up in “Women’s Role” #106 that Evangelical stated that Satan sowed Judas, and I cited a verse stating that Jesus chose Judas. I requested that Evangelical retract and repent. Instead, he gave an explanation that Judas was a tare (which was not the point) and concluded with, “God allowed Satan to use Judas.” As if that wasn’t enough, he then joked about it (#116) by seconding Drake’s joke on the matter (#110). This kind of sleight-of-hand does not clear him of ascribing to Satan what the apostle John attributed to Jesus. This kind of behavior is either disingenuous or displays an inability to understand the point being made.
   
   
4. Is guilty of hypocrisy. (Example: Read Evangelical’s posts in this thread [“New Jane Anderson Website”] about Jane’s statement that the devil was behind lemon translations and compare it to his ascribing to Satan what Jesus did (as explained in #3 above.)
   
   
5. Displays an attitude that belies its words. It’s somewhat captured in the saying, “What you are is speaking so loudly that I can’t hear what you’re saying.” (Example: Some of Evangelical’s posts have given away some of his true thoughts and feelings about women and what he thinks that their place should be. And, yes, this is an opinion; and, yes, this is something that I cannot know for sure. Note that I am not the first one to express such.)
   
   
6. Reveals an agenda. (Example: This thread began when Koinonia posted one night what was basically just a notice that Jane Anderson had a new website. Evangelical, early the next morning, began a personal attack against Jane. He was joined by Drake, who mounted another personal attack. Next, Evangelical turned it into a joke and, this time, Drake was the one who joined in with the joke.) One thing that people do when they do not have a good answer to a question or response to a statement is to respond with a personal attack or a joke.

Caveat:
It doesn't matter a hang to me if women preach and teach in church. After Witness Lee, I don't cotton to preachers, male or female. And I'm with Paul -- in one of his undisputed books, Galatians -- in Christ there's no male or female.