A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies by Jane Carole Anderson

[Nell]

A new book by Thankful Jane (Jane Carole Anderson) is available today (Nov. 24, 2016) on Amazon.


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MXQ62M2...arole+anderson

Nell

[Evangelical]

Just reading the outline of the book. I don't think men abuse women because of their Bible translations. Men will surely use these bible passages to justify, but changing the passages will not change their heart. I think it is a human problem and man "ruling over woman" was one of God's curses on Eve. It is a male vs female issue that transcends religious belief. The fact is there are men who abuse women. Some of these men are Christian, some are Muslim, some are atheist etc. I would think that in general Christian men, in general, are far kinder to women than non-Christian men (particularly Muslim etc).

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Just reading the outline of the book. I don't think men abuse women because of their Bible translations. Men will surely use these bible passages to justify, but changing the passages will not change their heart. I think it is a human problem and man "ruling over woman" was one of God's curses on Eve. It is a male vs female issue that transcends religious belief. The fact is there are men who abuse women. Some of these men are Christian, some are Muslim, some are atheist etc. I would think that in general Christian men, in general, are far kinder to women than non-Christian men (particularly Muslim etc).

The Lord Jesus has zero tolerance for the abuse of women. He said there is no male and female. Local church brothers that rule over their wives are satan's angels in my opinion.

[TLFisher]

By no means do I feel abuse of women is comprehensive in society.
I've known brothers whose approach towards marriage life having tendencies towards abuse and others who aren't.
Does one as a brother feel that his spouse's feeling and opinion bear no weight? That's a brother who tends to lord over his wife.
Does a brother listen and value his spouse's feelings and opinion? That's a brother likely to have an Ephesians 5 view towards his own marriage. From personal experience I was raised in a home I never heard my father raise his voice at my mother. My father never called her names. He never expressed any temper at my mother. Though there were many opportunities he could have. My father never did.
General I have felt in the local churches sisters have been devalued. Sure, it's encouraged for sisters to speak and exercise their spirit in prophesying meetings. However if a sister or sisters feel there's too much emphasis on the ministry and not enough on the family, you can expect a condescending word from elders and responsible brothers. One I've heard from RK in many a message.
There's a big disconnect with brothers and sisters. Brothers are ministry oriented. Jockeying for position who's going to be first among the disciples. Sisters are Christ oriented. Just like Mary, they're lovers of Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

The Lord Jesus has zero tolerance for the abuse of women. He said there is no male and female. Local church brothers that rule over their wives are satan's angels in my opinion.

The abuses that brothers endured in the meetings often spilled over into the homes.

For some that was a strong signal that the system was sick.

[ZNPaaneah]

It seems to me the point of the book is an inherent sexism in many Biblical translations.

The prime example is translating the expression "virtuous woman" rather than "valiant woman". In Proverbs 31.

Here are examples of how the word is translated.

ASV — “worthy”

KJV — “virtous”

Amplified — “excellent, spiritual, capable, intelligent, and virtuous”

CEB — competent

CJB — Capable

Douay Rheims — Valiant

Wycliffe — strong

Orthodox Jewish Bible — valor

(In Proverbs 31 the word translated as "virtuous" KJV is Chayil which is generally translated valiant, or some other similar term).

[Nell]

There's a lot more to the book than this.

Jane actually makes the observation that the Hebrew word "chayil" is translated one way when referring to men but the same word is translated another way when referring to women.

Nell

[Ohio]

English words are like that too!

[Evangelical]

If she just writes a book saying that translations are wrong, no one is going to change the translations because of her or that book. She should write her own bible version, for females only, if the translation is the problem. There are some bibles published for women, or for particular purposes.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

There's a big disconnect with brothers and sisters. Brothers are ministry oriented. Jockeying for position who's going to be first among the disciples. Sisters are Christ oriented. Just like Mary, they're lovers of Jesus.

In general, perhaps. But I know of women who are jockeying for positions in the church as well, in denominations. And don't forget the scheming mothers or wives behind the scenes, the ones pushing their sons or husbands to achieve greatness.

[Nell]

The Message of this Book

Through time spent at His feet and many experiences over the years, God has fine-tuned for me a biblical truth that is foundational for the message of this book: God requires us to do our part in having and maintaining right relationships with Him and with others in the body of Christ. Offenses among believers must always be biblically addressed with the goal of reconciliation. When they are not, the parties involved are left with broken relationships with each other. Our heavenly Father is not pleased when there are such problems in His family. He considers failure to address such relational offenses to be sin. His Word requires that all believers involved in any relational conflict, whether they be victim or perpetrator, take biblical steps to remove the offense. Failure to do so leaves the unaddressed offense like a spiritual cancer in the body of Christ. It silently grows and gradually spreads. It interferes with the normal function of the body and brings death. Prayers go unanswered because ongoing sin among God’s people always hinders God’s answers to their prayers (Isa. 59).

A Woman of Chayil [khah’-yil] takes an in-depth look at a huge, long-term relational sin in the body of Christ. This sin has gone basically unidentified, unrecognized, and unaddressed. This spiritual cancer began at the time of the Fall and has been growing and metastasizing among human beings for several millennia. In the Body of Christ, it is found in the improper relationship that exists between Christian women and Christian men. Since the early beginnings of the church, the devil has been able to use Christian men who hold errant beliefs to carry out his hatred of women, hatred which began at the time of the Fall, by stifling, subduing, and abusing them under the mantle of male authority. Christian women also have been used to silently enable abusive men and, thereby, perpetuate their own mistreatment. Thus, both genders are responsible for the cancerous state of affairs that has hindered and blocked much needed answers to the prayers of the body of Christ. Both genders are responsible for grieving the Holy Spirit and frustrating the work of the Holy Spirit on the earth.

I believe that when both men and women begin to acknowledge and correct the part they each play in the perpetuation of this great offense, healing will begin. The church and the earth will begin to experience a fresh outpouring of spiritual life. There will be a spiritual revival the likes of which have never been seen. Such a revival is certainly needed in the times in which we live.

I am not a feminist. I am a free woman in Christ. I have written this book from my perspective as a Christian woman who spent many years in enabling silence, having been subdued and suppressed by numerous Christian men. I have since learned to a large degree to overcome my sin of enabling my fellow believers. Enabling comes naturally to many women and thus remains unidentified as a sin. It is fitting that I do my part to help other women recognize this sin and learn how, by walking with Christ, to end their silence and stop enabling the Christian men who sin against them. In this way they will begin to do what God requires of them towards the removal of a deadly spiritual cancer from the body of Christ.

A Controversial Topic

In many Christian circles, women cannot speak about the subject of this book without facing criticism, opposition, and even shaming from those who have historically played a major role in silencing them. For Christian women to break silence and question the validity of their traditionally-defined place in the family of God is, in itself, an act outside the boundaries which have been established for them over many centuries. This sad situation is made even sadder by the fact that many God-fearing Christian women don’t even venture to think about the topic, much less pose questions about it, lest they be found guilty by God of questioning what the Bible appears to spell out plainly. I was such a woman until God set me on an unexpected and unsought-after path that, to my great surprise and joy, led me into the discovery of the wonderful freedom I had in Christ, freedom that I had no idea was mine.

I pray God will bless this writing and use it to convict both men and women of improper gender roles they play which further the purpose of God’s enemy. I pray they will find the way to full freedom in Christ in their relationships with one another. I also pray that all who read this book will be challenged to rethink and re-examine its crucial topic—and be changed for the better!

A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies by Jane Carole Anderson

Nell

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Nell

"The Basis—A Short but Important Word

Pr 31:10 "A worthy woman who can find?"

So then, who can find her?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Pr 31:10 "A worthy woman who can find?"

So then, who can find her?

Z, this is generally believed to be a rhetorical question. Right?

Nell

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Nell

Z, this is generally believed to be a rhetorical question. Right?

Nell

I consider it the focus of the chapter.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I consider it the focus of the chapter.

With all due respect, ZNPaaneah, the focus of my post #11 is not Proverbs 31:10. You should read what Jane has titled "The Message of this Book" again, since Jane has articulated her message quite well.

In any regard, I would like to challenge you to rethink and re-examine this topic, along with Jane. To do otherwise could widen the chasm between Christian Women and Christian Men. Listen to what Jane is trying to say. You might even read the entire book in order to lessen your presuppositions.

Hopefully we can all be changed for the better.

Nell--

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

. .. Our heavenly Father is not pleased when there are such problems in His family. He considers failure to address such relational offenses to be sin. His Word requires that all believers involved in any relational conflict, whether they be victim or perpetrator, take biblical steps to remove the offense.. . .

A Woman of Chayil [khah’-yil] takes an in-depth look at a huge, long-term relational sin in the body of Christ. This sin has gone basically unidentified, unrecognized, and unaddressed. .....

A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies by Jane Carole Anderson

Nell

Great topic. That there's currently a disjointed approach can be seen in women such as Ruth Lee and Peace Wang, among many others, who are held to be "lionesses of the early recovery", but none of them could exist for a minute in the current regime.

It's as if they were commodities, to be used up and discarded when no longer helpful to the Cause. And the fact that we typically can't even raise such issues, shows how fractured the Cause really is.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

Great topic. That there's currently a disjointed approach can be seen in women such as Ruth Lee and Peace Wang, among many others, who are held to be "lionesses of the early recovery", but none of them could exist for a minute in the current regime.

It's as if they were commodities, to be used up and discarded when no longer helpful to the Cause. And the fact that we typically can't even raise such issues, shows how fractured the Cause really is.

Aron, I think the following from Jesse Penn-Lewis is a God's-eye explanation for what you observed. God cursed the serpent and put enmity between the woman and the Serpent. The cursed Serpent would meet his end through the seed of the woman he had deceived. The Serpent began to, in your words, to hopefully use up and discard the woman whose seed would one day crush his head.

"Henceforth it is also war by Satan upon the womanhood of the world, in malignant revenge for the verdict of the garden. War by the trampling down of women in all lands where the deceiver reigns. War upon women in Christian lands, by the continuance of his Eden method of misinterpreting the Word of God; insinuating into men's minds throughout all succeeding ages, that God pronounced a "curse" upon the woman, when in truth she was pardoned and blessed; and instigating men of the fallen race to carry out the supposed curse, which was in truth a curse upon the deceiver, and not the deceived one (Gen. 3: 14).

"I will put enmity between thee and the woman," said God, as well as between "thy seed and her seed," and this vindictive enmity of the hierarchy of evil to woman, and to believers, has not lessened in its intensity from that day. "

Jesse Penn-Lewis, War on the Saints

To me, the disaster of world history, up to today, can be viewed in this context, and it makes perfect sense. That is, to the serpent the message is "the woman you deceived will one day END you." The serpent is fighting with every breath to carry out its evil revenge against the woman whose seed will crush his head.

The result is the relational sin between Christian Women and Christian Men who are both used by the Serpent in an effort to save his sorry skin from his certain end.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by HERn

The Lord Jesus has zero tolerance for the abuse of women. He said there is no male and female. Local church brothers that rule over their wives are satan's angels in my opinion.

The Bible says husbands are to rule over their wives:

Genesis 3:16 Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible says husbands are to rule over their wives:
Genesis 3:16 Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

I don't see why you came to the conclusion you did.

As you pointed out, the verse says "will rule over". It does not say "is to rule over". This verse is talking about the effects of sin in the fallen world:- The wife will try to control the husband but the husband in turn will dominate the wife. God is not endorsing this state of affairs in this verse.

What God desires is set out in Eph 5 v 21:- "Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ". As we all know, v 21 is the precursor to Eph 5 v 22 to 33 (the section on marital relations).

[Nell]

micah6v8,

There's a good reason why Evangelical came to the conclusion he presented below. Here it is:

"IN THE BIBLE, THERE ARE A SMALL NUMBER OF FAMILIAR PASSAGES that are at the root of wrong beliefs about women and authority. These few verses exist like one bunch of “lemons” hanging on a grapevine in a Biblical vineyard laden with many “grapes.”

Satan is behind the production of these lemon translations, translations which have adulterated and corrupted the real meanings of God’s words. All of these passages are fundamentally about authority and, in particular, about women and authority. It is time for men and women alike to stand up and speak the truth as Paul did when he said:

1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, 2 but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor. 4:1–2, NASB)

There is one big lemon translation in the Old Testament: Genesis 3:16. There are seven lemon translations in the New Testament: 1st Corinthians 11:2–16; 1st Corinthians 14:29–40, Ephesians 5:22–24, Colossians 3:18, 1st Timothy 2:8–15, Titus 2:3–5, and 1st Peter 3:1–2."

I'm quoting from Chapter 2 of A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies with Jane's permission.

Nell

[Nell]

Jane's commentary on Gen. 3:16.

THE BIG LEMON IN THE OLD TESTAMENT is the translation of Genesis 3:16 as it appears in current Bibles. This mistranslated and, therefore, misunderstood verse exists as a foundational building block in Satan’s strategy against mankind and, in particular, in his strategy against women. It is the Old Testament base upon which the lemon translations in the New Testament rest. In order to comprehend the seriousness of its mistranslation, we first need to take a look at a conflict that began many eons ago between Satan and God. Understanding the fundamentals of this conflict will give us the key to understanding the devil’s reason for the subtle mistranslation of Genesis 3:16 and why it is critical that the translation of Genesis 3:16 be corrected.

…

The Power of One Word

Genesis 3:16 is part of the story of what happened to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. A seemingly small, but very critical, change to the meaning of one word in this verse took place in a sixteenth century translation. This change made it possible to conceal the most likely scenario of what happened during and immediately after man’s fall. It also made way for the enemy to offer a view of God’s character which was false. Another part of Genesis 3:16, which was also poorly translated, afforded the way for interpreters and teachers to say that God had cursed woman. Finally, a third part of Genesis 3:16 came to be understood as an imperative or command when, grammatically, it was not. These three translation problems made it possible for the devil to use this verse to fight against and subdue women, and to do so in the name of God.

Problem 1 in Genesis 3:16: Turning or Lust?

The translation of this verse now stands in the King James Version of the Bible as follows:

Unto the woman he saith, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception3; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16, KJV).
__________________________
3 According to Bushnell, this is a translation error: The word “conception” does not exist in the Hebrew. The word should be “sighing.” A detailed explanation of this error is found in paragraphs 120–121 of God’s Word to Women.
__________________________

After studying this verse in Hebrew and reviewing the historical development of all the translations of this verse over eighteen centuries, Katharine Bushnell found that its translations and resultant interpretations were the basis for a stronghold of wrong beliefs about man ruling over woman. She discovered that the devil had craftily used natural male bias to torque the translation just enough to lay a foundational false belief about woman. After much careful study of the verse in Hebrew, she concluded that an accurate translation of this verse would be:

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.4
__________________________
4 See Bushnell’s God’s Word to Women, paragraphs 117, 119, and 124 for a detailed explanation of her suggested translation.
__________________________

She discovered that the Hebrew word, “teshuqah,” was translated “turning” in the earliest translations. It remained “turning” for sixteen centuries until Pagnino’s Latin version changed it to “lust.” It then read, “Your lust shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you.” In the seventeenth century, the King James Version softened the translation by using the word “desire,” which is a more genteel rendering with a similar meaning as Pagnino’s word “lust”. Now, in the twenty-first century, the word, “desire,” is used in the vast majority of English Bibles.

Of note is the fact that the International Standard Version has in recent years resumed the use of the word “turning” and has translated Genesis 3:16 as follows:

I'll greatly increase the pain of your labor during childbirth. It will be painful for you to bear children, since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you. (Gen. 3:16, ISV)

Although this translation sounds awkward and falls short of clarity, it is an improvement because the meaning given to teshuqah is that of the Hebrew meaning (turning).

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. For more detail on Genesis 3, see paragraphs 66–74 of Bushnell’s book.

In light of the earlier explanation about authority and freedom, it should be no surprise why Satan wanted to remove the word “turning” from Genesis 3:16. It showed Eve exercising her own authority, her God-given freedom, to make a choice. Satan saw to it that this word was replaced with a crude word, “lust,” meaning inappropriate sexual desire. In this way, he brought about a change in the understanding of the first part of the verse that made it possible for the latter part, “he shall rule over you,” to be misinterpreted as an imperative, a command, one that appeared to be given by God for man to rule over woman. The reason for this was, according to subsequent interpreters, so that man could keep his wife and her lust under his control.5 It was a master stroke of the devil to win men fully into his woman-subduing camp by making it not only convenient for them, but a matter of obedience to God. It is strangely ironic that males—the gender that is known for out-of-control male lust—were behind a translation that said they had to dominate women because of their out-of-control female lust!
__________________________
5 See Bushnell’s Lessons 13–22 in God’s Word to Women for her full explanation of Genesis 3:16 translations and her insights on the account in Genesis 3.
__________________________

The discovery of the correct meaning of this one word opens the way for revelation and understanding that has the potential to benefit millions of women and men and their marriages. It can wake up millions of Christian women and empower them to become women of chayil who, in the light of how God really sees them, will be able to do their part in paving the way for the second coming of Christ. Much more will be said about this potential, but first we need to look at two other problems with the modern understanding of Genesis 3:16.

Problem 2 in Genesis 3:16: Is Woman Cursed?

Bushnell also noted that nowhere in the Bible did God curse Eve; rather, God cursed only two things: the ground and the serpent. She also noted that nowhere does the Scripture say that God put Eve out of the garden. It does plainly say, however, that He drove Adam out of the garden and that He gave a consequence that was specifically tailored to fit with what Adam’s job had been in the Garden of Eden—to cultivate and guard it. The truth is that, at the time of the Fall, God blessed woman and her seed in the pronouncement that He made to the devil. After hearing God’s pronouncement to the serpent, Adam called his wife, “Eve,” which means the mother of all living.

Neither did God curse Adam; however, He did place the responsibility for the Fall with him when He said, “Cursed is the ground thanks to you” (Gen. 3:17, NET). Upon examination of corresponding New Testament verses, it can be shown clearly that God’s Word holds Adam, not Eve, responsible for the Fall (Rom. 5:12–19).

Problem 3 in Genesis 3:16: Did God Mandate that Man Rule Over Woman?

God did not mandate that man rule over woman. After a detailed explanation about the translation of the phrase, “shall rule over thee,” Bushnell concludes:

Thus we see that the context does not prove that this “shall be” of the sentence translated, “thy desire shall be to thy husband” is imperative. We can assert positively that this sentence is a simple future or present, warning woman of the consequences of her action. So it is rendered in all the ancient versions; never as an imperative. As a prophecy it has been abundantly fulfilled in the manner in which man rules over woman, especially in heathen lands. (Bushnell, para. 127)

So, rather than a command, this phrase was a prediction of what would happen to woman if she made the choice to turn away from God and look to her husband to meet her needs. The belief that this phrase was God’s decree to subdue woman has been used to support the suppressive rule of men over women. This effect of this lemon translation cannot be minimized.



Nell--
(From Chapter 3 with Jane's permission)

[aron]

I wondered if Evangelical was being ironic in quoting Genesis 3:16. It's completely anathematic to the spirit of the NT for believers to rule over one another.

[Cal]

I'm retracting my post. I don't want to hijack this thread.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Jane's commentary on Gen. 3:16.

THE BIG LEMON IN THE OLD TESTAMENT is the translation of Genesis 3:16 as it appears in current Bibles. This mistranslated and, therefore, misunderstood verse exists as a foundational building block in Satan’s strategy against mankind and, in particular, in his strategy against women. It is the Old Testament base upon which the lemon translations in the New Testament rest. In order to comprehend the seriousness of its mistranslation, we first need to take a look at a conflict that began many eons ago between Satan and God. Understanding the fundamentals of this conflict will give us the key to understanding the devil’s reason for the subtle mistranslation of Genesis 3:16 and why it is critical that the translation of Genesis 3:16 be corrected.

…

The Power of One Word

Genesis 3:16 is part of the story of what happened to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. A seemingly small, but very critical, change to the meaning of one word in this verse took place in a sixteenth century translation. This change made it possible to conceal the most likely scenario of what happened during and immediately after man’s fall. It also made way for the enemy to offer a view of God’s character which was false. Another part of Genesis 3:16, which was also poorly translated, afforded the way for interpreters and teachers to say that God had cursed woman. Finally, a third part of Genesis 3:16 came to be understood as an imperative or command when, grammatically, it was not. These three translation problems made it possible for the devil to use this verse to fight against and subdue women, and to do so in the name of God.

Problem 1 in Genesis 3:16: Turning or Lust?

The translation of this verse now stands in the King James Version of the Bible as follows:

Unto the woman he saith, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception3; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16, KJV).
__________________________
3 According to Bushnell, this is a translation error: The word “conception” does not exist in the Hebrew. The word should be “sighing.” A detailed explanation of this error is found in paragraphs 120–121 of God’s Word to Women.
__________________________

After studying this verse in Hebrew and reviewing the historical development of all the translations of this verse over eighteen centuries, Katharine Bushnell found that its translations and resultant interpretations were the basis for a stronghold of wrong beliefs about man ruling over woman. She discovered that the devil had craftily used natural male bias to torque the translation just enough to lay a foundational false belief about woman. After much careful study of the verse in Hebrew, she concluded that an accurate translation of this verse would be:

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.4
__________________________
4 See Bushnell’s God’s Word to Women, paragraphs 117, 119, and 124 for a detailed explanation of her suggested translation.
__________________________

She discovered that the Hebrew word, “teshuqah,” was translated “turning” in the earliest translations. It remained “turning” for sixteen centuries until Pagnino’s Latin version changed it to “lust.” It then read, “Your lust shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you.” In the seventeenth century, the King James Version softened the translation by using the word “desire,” which is a more genteel rendering with a similar meaning as Pagnino’s word “lust”. Now, in the twenty-first century, the word, “desire,” is used in the vast majority of English Bibles.

Of note is the fact that the International Standard Version has in recent years resumed the use of the word “turning” and has translated Genesis 3:16 as follows:

I'll greatly increase the pain of your labor during childbirth. It will be painful for you to bear children, since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you. (Gen. 3:16, ISV)

Although this translation sounds awkward and falls short of clarity, it is an improvement because the meaning given to teshuqah is that of the Hebrew meaning (turning).

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. For more detail on Genesis 3, see paragraphs 66–74 of Bushnell’s book.

In light of the earlier explanation about authority and freedom, it should be no surprise why Satan wanted to remove the word “turning” from Genesis 3:16. It showed Eve exercising her own authority, her God-given freedom, to make a choice. Satan saw to it that this word was replaced with a crude word, “lust,” meaning inappropriate sexual desire. In this way, he brought about a change in the understanding of the first part of the verse that made it possible for the latter part, “he shall rule over you,” to be misinterpreted as an imperative, a command, one that appeared to be given by God for man to rule over woman. The reason for this was, according to subsequent interpreters, so that man could keep his wife and her lust under his control.5 It was a master stroke of the devil to win men fully into his woman-subduing camp by making it not only convenient for them, but a matter of obedience to God. It is strangely ironic that males—the gender that is known for out-of-control male lust—were behind a translation that said they had to dominate women because of their out-of-control female lust!
__________________________
5 See Bushnell’s Lessons 13–22 in God’s Word to Women for her full explanation of Genesis 3:16 translations and her insights on the account in Genesis 3.
__________________________

The discovery of the correct meaning of this one word opens the way for revelation and understanding that has the potential to benefit millions of women and men and their marriages. It can wake up millions of Christian women and empower them to become women of chayil who, in the light of how God really sees them, will be able to do their part in paving the way for the second coming of Christ. Much more will be said about this potential, but first we need to look at two other problems with the modern understanding of Genesis 3:16.

Problem 2 in Genesis 3:16: Is Woman Cursed?

Bushnell also noted that nowhere in the Bible did God curse Eve; rather, God cursed only two things: the ground and the serpent. She also noted that nowhere does the Scripture say that God put Eve out of the garden. It does plainly say, however, that He drove Adam out of the garden and that He gave a consequence that was specifically tailored to fit with what Adam’s job had been in the Garden of Eden—to cultivate and guard it. The truth is that, at the time of the Fall, God blessed woman and her seed in the pronouncement that He made to the devil. After hearing God’s pronouncement to the serpent, Adam called his wife, “Eve,” which means the mother of all living.

Neither did God curse Adam; however, He did place the responsibility for the Fall with him when He said, “Cursed is the ground thanks to you” (Gen. 3:17, NET). Upon examination of corresponding New Testament verses, it can be shown clearly that God’s Word holds Adam, not Eve, responsible for the Fall (Rom. 5:12–19).

Problem 3 in Genesis 3:16: Did God Mandate that Man Rule Over Woman?

God did not mandate that man rule over woman. After a detailed explanation about the translation of the phrase, “shall rule over thee,” Bushnell concludes:

Thus we see that the context does not prove that this “shall be” of the sentence translated, “thy desire shall be to thy husband” is imperative. We can assert positively that this sentence is a simple future or present, warning woman of the consequences of her action. So it is rendered in all the ancient versions; never as an imperative. As a prophecy it has been abundantly fulfilled in the manner in which man rules over woman, especially in heathen lands. (Bushnell, para. 127)

So, rather than a command, this phrase was a prediction of what would happen to woman if she made the choice to turn away from God and look to her husband to meet her needs. The belief that this phrase was God’s decree to subdue woman has been used to support the suppressive rule of men over women. This effect of this lemon translation cannot be minimized.



Nell--
(From Chapter 3 with Jane's permission)

One of the most hard-hitting commentaries on this is this one which says the woman is "doomed as a wife and mother":

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
16. unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow—She was doomed as a wife and mother to suffer pain of body and distress of mind. From being the help meet of man and the partner of his affections [Ge 2:18, 23], her condition would henceforth be that of humble subjection.


This is really a consequence of woman stepping out from her husband's authority to eat of the forbidden fruit.

Regarding this
"So, rather than a command, this phrase was a prediction of what would happen to woman if she made the choice to turn away from God and look to her husband to meet her needs. "

I'm uncertain about this. I think like pain in childbirth, it was not a prediction but something which happened immediately as a consequence of her decision to eat the forbidden fruit. God will provide for the woman by providing her with a husband to take care of her needs. There is the story of Ruth and Boaz, for example. So it is right for a woman to look to her husband to provide her needs. A man who does not provide for his own family is worse than an unbeliever. A woman who does not look to her husband is in danger of being led astray by Satan as Eve was. Pulpit commentary says:

Not merely a prophecy of woman's subjection, but an investiture of man with supremacy over the woman; or rather a confirmation and perpetuation of that authority which had been assigned to the man at the creation. Woman had been given him as an helpmeet (Genesis 2:18), and her relation to the man from the first was constituted one of dependence. It was the reversal of this Divinely-established order that had led to the fall (Genesis 3:17).


Benson commentary:

He shall rule over thee — Seeing for want of thy husband’s rule and guidance thou wast seduced, and didst abuse the power and influence I gave thee, by drawing thy husband into sin, thou shalt now be brought to a lower degree; and whereas thou wast made thy husband’s equal, thou shalt henceforward be his inferior, and he shall rule over thee — As thy lord and governor.

Henry:
He shall rule over thee, is but God's command, Wives, be subject to your own husbands.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible says husbands are to rule over their wives:

Genesis 3:16 Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

Not very astute. In this verse, God is saying that the result of the curse is that a woman will tend to desire for her man and that fact will make her tend to be subservient to keep things "right." I do not see that as a declaration of the right of man to rule over woman.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not very astute. In this verse, God is saying that the result of the curse is that a woman will tend to desire for her man and that fact will make her tend to be subservient to keep things "right." I do not see that as a declaration of the right of man to rule over woman.

Uh oh! That's not what my bible commentaries say! I'm a bible believing Christian who reads and studies the non-Lee/Nee bible commentaries and I'm not even using Lee/Nee at this point.

Sometimes I like to consider Jewish beliefs in this matter, particularly where it concerns translation of the old testament. Who can argue against a solid hebrew interpretation?

In doing so, I have found that the phrase rendered "rule over" in our English translations, means:

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4910.htm

mashal: to rule, have dominion, reign
Original Word: מָשַׁל
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: mashal
Phonetic Spelling: (maw-shal')
Short Definition: rule
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to rule, have dominion, reign
NASB Translation
dominion (1), gain control (1), govern (1), had charge (1), have authority (1), master (1), obtain dominion (1), really going to rule (1), rule (27), ruled (5), ruler (18), ruler's (2), rulers (6), rules (9), ruling (3), wielded (1).


Uh oh, someone's wrong again!

There is "..strong proof that everyman rules over his wife – no matter who she is"
see:

http://daattorah.blogspot.com.au/201...ed-by-her.html


But is it my fault that I believe what the Bible says and most commentaries say? Here's an interesting fact - the KJV Bible inserted the word "shall", so it says "shall rule over". This has turned the meaning of the passage into a decree or command that man must rule over his wife because she cannot be trusted. The author of the book should probably focus on a better bible translation, a KJV for women or something like that. I know! the Queen Jane Version. Very hard to re-write history and long-standing bible translations.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Very hard to re-write history and long-standing bible translations.

Really?!? That's not what the RecV editors thought. "Here a little, there a little. . ." Sometimes,"There a lot."

[Nell]

Originally Posted by aron

Really?!? That's not what the RecV editors thought. "Here a little, there a little. . ." Sometimes,"There a lot."

In addition, I believe that the original Hebrew text is authoritative over any translation or commentaries. The credibility of any translation can only be determined by its faithfulness to the original text, but even at that, Jeremiah told us that in at least one instance, the scribes in Jer. 8 made God's word into a lie:

7 “Even the stork in the sky Knows her seasons;
And the turtledove and the swift and the thrush Observe the time of their [b]migration;
But My people do not know The ordinance of the Lord.]
8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us’?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes. Has made it into a lie.
9 “The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught;
Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord, And what kind of wisdom do they have? NASB

There is no reason today to question the integrity of the translators. If I were a translator of the original Hebrew text of the Bible, God's word, I would rather have someone check my work and find any mistakes I might make. The work is too important to risk not getting it right.

Nell

[Nell]

From chapter 2 of a A Woman of Chayil:


The Bible gives us a glimpse of what happened in the universe before God created man. It also gives us clues to the reason for Satan’s covert warfare against mankind. Long, long, long before man was created, Lucifer, the supreme archangel, rebelled and tried to usurp God’s throne (Ezek. 28). After this, he became known as the devil or Satan. He is also referred to as the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2), the prince of devils (Matt. 9:34, 12:24; Mark 3:22), and the prince of this world (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11).

In the following verse, the Bible alludes to a background problem on earth at the time God created mankind:

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen. 1:28, NKJV).

The word, “subdue,” in this verse tells us that something on the earth was not right. One can deduce from what happened to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden that Satan was at the root of the un-subdued situation on earth. His sneaky entrance into the Garden of Eden and his subtle trickery show us that he was on earth in rebellion against God’s authority, and he was carrying out his own agenda.

Authority and Freedom

The Bible tells us that God, who is love, possesses all authority and power. He reigns over and is in control of all things, in all time and in all places. He also possesses all knowledge and wisdom. At the end of time, He will judge every human being, and His judgment will stand.

No one can take God’s power or authority from Him. They are His to share with others as He sees fit according to His wisdom. Satan’s initial conflict with God was over authority—who would possess it and who would be in control. Satan wasn’t satisfied with what God had given him, so he grasped for more, wanting to be like God. In essence, he wanted to possess all God’s authority and power so he could do whatever he wanted. Satan’s title, “ruler of this world,” indicates two things: (1) at some point before Lucifer fell, God gave him a measure of authority and power, and (2) his realm of authority included the earth. We know that Satan retained this authority over the world after his fall because Jesus referred to him as the “prince of this world.” This title is used in the account of the devil tempting Jesus in the wilderness. At that time, Satan offered to give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory if Jesus would fall down and worship him. Jesus sent him packing with a few choice words of truth; but, what is noteworthy in that scene is that Jesus did not challenge his right to make the offer or his ability to deliver on it. Jesus’ silence concerning this appears to be an acknowledgement that the devil was rightfully in possession of the kingdoms of this world and that they were his to offer.

It is not easy to talk about authority because we have a built-in lexicon with respect to this word that is different from God’s. It is critical for us to recognize that the meanings we naturally give to the word “authority” and to other similar words such as “head,” “rule,” and “lord” do not match God’s meaning. Because of our faulty and inaccurate understanding of what true authority really is, and of how it works, we misunderstand certain Bible passages and misapply them. If we wish to understand such passages correctly, we need to change our definition and understanding of authority so that our built-in lexicon matches God’s.

In this writing, I will call our natural understanding of authority—that which matches the devil’s practice and use of authority—“counterfeit authority.” Until we ask the Lord to renew our minds to properly understand what He means by authority, we will not be able to understand the meaning God intends in Scriptures which use authority words such as “head,” “rule,” “lord,” “dominion,” “kingdom,” “submission,” and “obedience.” Instead, we will think wrongly about such Scriptures, and we will have wrong behavior as a result (Matt. 20:25, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25).

The difference between true authority and counterfeit authority is determined by how it is used, or more precisely, by who is using it. When God uses His authority, because He is love, He exercises it in love. He loves the party on the receiving end of His authority, and He wisely uses His authority for their highest good. His use of authority is governed by His righteousness. He never does anything that is wrong. Whatever He does results in righteousness and peace.

When Satan uses authority (that which God gave him), he exercises it without love because he has no love. He does not love the party on the receiving end; and, what he does, he does for himself with his own benefit in view. He does not care for what is right, and he does what is wrong. Whatever He does produces unrighteousness and takes away peace. This is a condition produced by rebellion from God. Satan’s counterfeit authority is fundamentally self-serving. It is a top-down hierarchical authority that dominates all who are below the topmost party in the hierarchy. Satan uses beings, both spiritual and human, in this kind of hierarchical system to carry out his evil purposes (Eph. 4:14). He is the party who is actually at the top of every hierarchy, but he chooses to stay hidden in the background as much as possible and work by trickery and deceit. His intent is to violate and take away people’s freedom. Through his agents, he exercises either some form of overt, coercive, forceful control or some form of subtle, manipulative control. Counterfeit authority is always for the benefit of the party at the top in his war against God—the prince of this world. It will always have evidence of unrighteousness.

Among Christians, Satan has mastered the art of using word trickery to disguise counterfeit authority to the degree that it can be at work right under believers’ noses in the name of God, bearing the label of the authority of God, and they cannot see it for what it really is. Satan, who wants to be God, has been able, time and again, to trick God’s people into serving him and his agenda. He has been successful in causing believers to think that top-down, ruling, controlling, and freedom-robbing authority is God’s authority and that believers need to submit to their leaders’ directions without question. Examples abound in Christian history of Satan having worked in this way to get Christians to do his anti-God bidding. Well-known examples would be the Inquisition and the Crusades. Any Christian leadership which exercises authoritative control over God’s people and does not respect their freedom and right to make their own decisions before God falls into this category. Such deceitful working is why the Bible tells us that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light and his ministers as ministers of righteousness (2 Cor. 11:13–15). Counterfeit authority is recognizable by its fruit, which may take time to manifest. It will ultimately bear the unrighteous characteristics of the one behind it—Satan. He:

• Operates from a basis of hatred, because he has no love
• Seeks to suppress, oppress, kill, and destroy whatever threatens or opposes him
• Has no regard for the needs or rights of others
• Takes no responsibility for the well-being of others
• Removes peace and brings turmoil and distress to all who are on the receiving end of his control
• Uses lies, trickery, subtlety, and deceit to get what he wants
• Is darkness, works in darkness, and spreads darkness
• Hates God and the Word of God and is in total rebellion against Him and His Word
• Lords it over everyone, including the demons and fallen angels under him in the unseen realm
• Has power over his subjects because of their sins

The strongest characteristic of counterfeit authority is that it imposes itself and doesn’t respect a person’s right to choose.

God’s authority, on the other hand, is bottom-up, supportive authority. His everlasting arms are underneath, taking responsibility, powerfully protecting and accomplishing what is best for all those whom He loves (Deut. 33:27). True authority is rooted in humility and self-sacrifice (Phil. 2:5–11). It allows entreaty and questioning and asks for, not demands, willing cooperation. In Genesis 18:22–23, Abraham questioned God, entreated Him, and even changed His mind. God’s way of exercising His authority is to instruct people and give them freedom to choose to obey Him. If they choose otherwise, He seeks to persuade them by giving them consequences. He waits patiently with great longsuffering after imposing consequences, giving them space to change their way of thinking and submit to Him willingly. God’s authority reveals the character of God, who:

• Loves, because He is love
• Is not coercive or abusive
• Operates in the realm of freedom and respects the rights and freedom of others
• Is truthful and does not lie
• Is righteous and just
• Is love and light and reveals love and brings light with all His actions
• Always does what is best for others, even at great cost to Himself
• Disciplines by measured, purposeful consequences, and chastisement when necessary, to persuade people to do what is in their best interest
• Is willing to suffer wrong graciously for a very long time to give those He loves the opportunity to make right decisions, that is, to repent, turn, and yield to Him
• Brings life, light, joy, peace, and rest to those who choose to submit to Him
• Supplies whatever is needed to help those who choose to follow Him be able to do so

The strongest characteristic of God’s authority is that it allows others to have freedom to choose within the boundaries He has set for them. He warns them not to violate those boundaries; and, if they do, He gives them consequences designed to help them change their minds and their behavior. In order for freedom to work, boundaries are necessary because there are multiple parties involved. God defines where one party’s freedom stops and where another’s starts. He gives the various parties the right to make their own choices—to have authority over their own choices—within the sphere which He has allotted to them.

In the Garden of Eden, God told Adam what he could not do and also told him the consequence that would come if he disobeyed. Adam and Eve had the freedom to choose to believe God or not. When they believed the lie of Satan instead and acted on it, they received the consequence that God had pronounced. God eventually sent His sinless Son to suffer death in mankind’s place.

When Jesus came, He, too, had the freedom to make His own choice about doing His Father’s will. He said, “I have the authority to lay my life down and to take it up again” (John 10:18). This means that He had authority to say “No” to dying on the cross. Whether He went to the cross or not was entirely His decision. He exercised His authority to choose to submit to His Father’s will, which was to lay down His life for us. This exercise of authority by Christ reveals God’s love for us and gives us the clearest and most powerful view of who God is and what true authority looks like. This is why people bow their knees to Jesus as Lord when they see the sacrifice that He made on the cross for them. Jesus Christ, God Himself, bleeding on the cross for our sins, is authority in action for our ultimate benefit. God Himself paid the price necessary to free us from the consequence of our sin and then gave us another choice: Believe the Son and what He has done to save you. That is the gospel. It is the result of God’s exercise of true authority. He has paid the price to give mankind a second chance, but ... each person must choose to take it!

The concept of God’s authority and man’s freedom is not something that fallen man easily grasps or apprehends. It is easier to understand Satan’s counterfeit authority, because that is the kind of authority human beings have experienced and seen exercised on the earth time and again as men rule over other men by coercion or manipulation.

A fundamental truth is that God respects and values all He creates. He also values having a true and loving relationship with His created beings—one like the relationship that exists with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is no possibility for Him to have such a relationship with His created beings if they are not free to choose to be, or not to be, in relationship with Him. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in a perfect, harmonious, and freedom-based relationship. If God did not give his created beings the freedom to choose whether or not they want to participate in that relationship, He would be violating His own character. He knows that it is best for those whom He has created to choose Him, and He is confident that when they see Him as He really is, they will.

So, in this explanation about true and counterfeit authority, we can see what God’s character is like and what Satan’s character is like. Never forget the difference between God’s way and Satan’s way: God lets man choose; Satan’s imposes. The difference between the two is the difference between breath and death. The wonder of wonders is that God has opened a door for us into eternal life. We can choose to enter through it and be saved. His exercise of authority on our behalf has opened the way for us to get back all that we lost—simply by choosing to believe what He has done for us.

Used with Jane's permission. Emphasis added by me.

Nell

[Drake]

The author appears to miss the fundamental characteristic of a counterfeit. That is, it is difficult to distinguish it from the authentic else it could not effectively deceive.

The description given in Chapter 2 of Satanic authority is not convincing as counterfeit. For instance, if you compare Peters actions to prevent the Lord from going to the cross there is a complete mismatch with the authors description of what is counterfeit. Peter exhibited none of those characteristics, yet the Lord characterized Peter as Satan. Peters natural love and real concern for the Lord's well-being are the characteristics of a genuine and effective counterfeit.

Satan is all those things described but that is not the counterfeit we need to concern ourselves with. An indication of a counterfeit is whether it diverts from seeking the things of God as it was with Peter.

Drake

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

The author appears to miss the fundamental characteristic of a counterfeit. That is, it is difficult to distinguish it from the authentic else it could not effectively deceive.

The description given in Chapter 2 of Satanic authority is not convincing as counterfeit. For instance, if you compare Peters actions to prevent the Lord from going to the cross there is a complete mismatch with the authors description of what is counterfeit. Peter exhibited none of those characteristics, yet the Lord characterized Peter as Satan. Peters natural love and real concern for the Lord's well-being are the characteristics of a genuine and effective counterfeit.

Satan is all those things described but that is not the counterfeit we need to concern ourselves with. An indication of a counterfeit is whether it diverts from seeking the things of God as it was with Peter.

Drake

I disagree with you, Drake. Were it not for the counterfeit authority of Satan, we would have no other concerns; we would have no diversions from seeking the things of God. Regardless, the discussion in the quote below is not about "counterfeit". It's about authority and freedom. The quote discusses both the characteristics of God's authority and what Jane describes as Satan's counterfeit authority.

The counterfeit authority of Satan has been used against God's people since Satan rebelled. It was used on Adam and Eve in the garden to effect the fall of man and, to Jane's point, is still being used today by Christian men who have been used by the deceiver to lord it over and rule over, not only Christian women, but other Christian men. I've heard of at least one Christian woman, formerly in the LC, who ruled with counterfeit authority on other saints in the church. Most of us who post on this forum have experience with counterfeit authority as Jane has described. I know I have.

If you don't care for the word "counterfeit", you're free to find another word. This is the one Jane chose and it fits the deeds of the devilish one who exercises self-serving authority over brothers and sisters in Christ and make their lives a living hell.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Counterfeit authority makes sense to me - it is really Satan's twist on God's authority. God has the only authority and he has given man authority to rule (the governing authorities etc). Satan has no authority except that of God's which he twists, abuses and misuses.

I believe what Drake is alluding to is that there are at least two possible ways by which genuine authority is twisted by Satan to become counterfeit:

- to have genuine authority from God and not exercise it in the right way.
- to have no authority from God and exercise it in the right (or wrong) way. This can be a very subtle kind of counterfeit.

We should differentiate between possessing authority and exercising authority. For example, a genuine master has authority over the servant, but the master may abuse the exercise of that authority. Eph 6:5-9 describes how to exercise authority:

Ephesians 6:5 Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
Ephesians 6:9 Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Suppose the Master did not follow Ephesians 6:9 - this does not mean that the Master does not have authority over the servant or that he is not the master. It means he is not exercising the authority in the proper way. This genuine authority then becomes counterfeit.

Alternatively, the master may only be pretending to be a master over the servant. This would be a counterfeit authority as well, even if the master is loving, kind and treats the servant well. It is mistaken to think that genuine authority is simply a matter of loving those under our authority and not Lording it over them. Counterfeit authority is not just genuine authority misused. Counterfeit authority could be exercise of authority that one does not have. We may think that if there is a ruler in the church who is loving, kind and does not abuse others that they are exercising genuine authority. But there is still the possibility that they are exercising their own authority without any direct authority from God. I have touched on this in my thread "Delegated Authority -what many Christians today do not understand".

[Drake]

Nell,

Words describe concepts and concepts form beliefs and beliefs solidify into doctrine and teachings. That is why her use of the word counterfeit is either relevant or not in her presentation. I think she meant exactly what she said about it. I believe Jane is thoughtful about her choice of words. And in describing Satans counterfeit she mischaracterized it. It is not my place to substitute a different word, Yet, she paints a world that is quintessential black and white, good and evil people, righteous and unrighteousness happenings, things that are right and wrong. So in describing Satan's attack she defaults to this same paradigm, that is , if God is loving and good, Satan is the polar opposite when in reality Satan is very adept at mimicking the attributes of God. Peter exhibited that and for our benefit the Lord recorded the incident. That is why Peter is relevant. His thought, opinion, and recommendation were the Satanic counterfeit and if that is not understood then Jane will have missed the real counterfeit and misidentified as counterfeit that which is not.

To my observation in these few samples of her new book, she seems to be searching for new definitions of scripture to validate the wrongs of the past related to authority and it seems she is building a case that it was counterfeit authority. Therefore I believe this book is very much connected with her past experiences. However, I will reserve a definitive point of view as I see how she develops this line of thinking and where she eventually takes it.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nell,

Words describe concepts and concepts form beliefs and beliefs solidify into doctrine and teachings. That is why her use of the word counterfeit is either relevant or not in her presentation. I think she meant exactly what she said about it. I believe Jane is thoughtful about her choice of words. And in describing Satans counterfeit she mischaracterized it. It is not my place to substitute a different word, Yet, she paints a world that is quintessential black and white, good and evil people, righteous and unrighteousness happenings, things that are right and wrong. So in describing Satan's attack she defaults to this same paradigm, that is , if God is loving and good, Satan is the polar opposite when in reality Satan is very adept at mimicking the attributes of God. Peter exhibited that and for our benefit the Lord recorded the incident. That is why Peter is relevant. His thought, opinion, and recommendation were the Satanic counterfeit and if that is not understood then Jane will have missed the real counterfeit and misidentified as counterfeit that which is not.

To my observation in these few samples of her new book, she seems to be searching for new definitions of scripture to validate the wrongs of the past related to authority and it seems she is building a case that it was counterfeit authority. Therefore I believe this book is very much connected with her past experiences. However, I will reserve a definitive point of view as I see how she develops this line of thinking and where she eventually takes it.

Drake

Drake makes some valid points here. No doubt Jane's life experiences will affect her views on scripture. Aren't we all the same? Lee was no different! When it comes to the abuse of spiritual authority, exclusive systems like the LCM are rife with examples. I have personally posted some of my own stories, but some were so painful, that they are better left unsaid.

If we look at the N.T., it is grossly lopsided when addressing spiritual authority. Most of the warnings are given to the leaders, not the followers. Paul became our excellent pattern, not by assuming the divine authority, but by serving in humility, due to his former life killing Christians. Lee and many LC leaders seemed to have missed this completely.

I agree with you that life in the LCM was not "quintessential black and white." There was too much overlap not to admit shades of gray. This is why I have constantly testified that LC leaders have betrayed our trust. Yes, many of these brothers ministered life and shepherded the saints, but some also "played God," crossing normal freedom boundaries into manipulation and control. This forum is filled with such stories. Because we received genuine spiritual fellowship from them, at least initially, we trusted them and we submitted to them, which eventually enabled them to take advantage of us and use us for their own advantage. We got betrayed.

By elevating himself to become some consummate N.T. MOTA, Witness Lee established abusive ministry patterns which other leaders followed. Not all leaders, but far too many. Usually the abusive ones were promoted first. Think about how abusive Phillip Lee was, and by all accounts, not even saved, yet promoted to running "the office." Thus the LCM became a system of abuses, a system which rejected normal Christian boundaries, a system which usurped the Headship of Christ.

With such a background, the church of God often needs a healthy counter-ministry, with the pendulum swinging the other direction, to bring us into balance. The apostle Paul also brought such balance in his ministry, in contrast to the Judaizers coming from headquarters, who attempted to bring the church under subjection, using the same techniques used by Nee and Lee, and the same "spiritual authority" doctrines based on Moses.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nell,

Words describe concepts and concepts form beliefs and beliefs solidify into doctrine and teachings. That is why her use of the word counterfeit is either relevant or not in her presentation. I think she meant exactly what she said about it. I believe Jane is thoughtful about her choice of words. And in describing Satans counterfeit she mischaracterized it. It is not my place to substitute a different word, Yet, she paints a world that is quintessential black and white, good and evil people, righteous and unrighteousness happenings, things that are right and wrong. So in describing Satan's attack she defaults to this same paradigm, that is , if God is loving and good, Satan is the polar opposite when in reality Satan is very adept at mimicking the attributes of God. Peter exhibited that and for our benefit the Lord recorded the incident. That is why Peter is relevant. His thought, opinion, and recommendation were the Satanic counterfeit and if that is not understood then Jane will have missed the real counterfeit and misidentified as counterfeit that which is not.

To my observation in these few samples of her new book, she seems to be searching for new definitions of scripture to validate the wrongs of the past related to authority and it seems she is building a case that it was counterfeit authority. Therefore I believe this book is very much connected with her past experiences. However, I will reserve a definitive point of view as I see how she develops this line of thinking and where she eventually takes it.

Drake

Drake,

Regarding your ending sentences:

"Therefore I believe this book is very much connected with her past experiences. However, I will reserve a definitive point of view as I see how she develops this line of thinking and where she eventually takes it."

As a person reads A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies she/he sees what thorough research it contains regarding how the scriptures depict women and their roles in history and in the Church of the Redeemed.

I strongly encourage you and others to read this book. Jane gives examples of godly families and the blessings society as a whole experiences from them. This truth is inspirational to those of us who perhaps have not had such triumphs in our past in that we see the good plans of our Heavenly Father as He sets us free.

This book is well-balanced and points all believers to stay the course as God faithfully finishes the work He has begun in us.

[JJ]

Today's side bar quote from The Woman of Chayil reminds me of a nagging question I had during my last 5 years with TLR, which is:

Who and how is Paul charging to put on the whole armor of God in Ephesians 6?

Is it individual Christians as soldiers in God's army? Is it the church in Ephesus as a "corporate warrior"? Is it the whole body of Christ as a "corporate warrior"? Is it "the Bride of Christ" as a "corporate warrior?

LSM and TLR repeated "corporate warrior" so many times, the charge to take up the whole armor of God lost its power to motivate me in a way that holds me personally accountable with the "corporate warrior" interpretation. So, I began to think more along the lines of being a soldier in God's army.

I see Jane Carol Anderson's quote falls into the bride of Christ being a "corporate warrior" taking up the charge.

So, which is it? Is it one? Is it both? Does it matter?

FYI, some relevant Word searches below

Warrior, Army, Armor, White horse, Sword, Fight, Helmet, Breastplate, Shield, Girded, Feet Word Searches

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_8

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_2

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_2

https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_2

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/sng/6/4/s_677004

[Nell]

"IN THE BIBLE, THERE ARE A SMALL NUMBER OF FAMILIAR PASSAGES that are at the root of wrong beliefs about women and authority. These few verses exist like one bunch of “lemons” hanging on a grapevine in a Biblical vineyard laden with many “grapes.”

Satan is behind the production of these lemon translations, translations which have adulterated and corrupted the real meanings of God’s words. All of these passages are fundamentally about authority and, in particular, about women and authority. It is time for men and women alike to stand up and speak the truth... ."

Following is another quote from "A Woman of Chayil..." The above quote is a reminder about the use of "lemons" and "grapes".

From this passage we note:

"...A general principle of Bible teaching is to teach what the Bible teaches or prescribes about behavior, and not to teach authoritatively about what can only be observed about behaviors of people in the Bible. I will not argue this point, but will say strongly that whatever is taught prescriptively should produce what is seen descriptively in the Bible. If a teaching produces something different than what the Bible illustrates or describes as proper behavior, it is unhealthy teaching and should be questioned and re-examined."

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Uh oh! That's not what my bible commentaries say! I'm a bible believing Christian who . . .

mashal: to rule, have dominion, reign
Original Word: מָשַׁל
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: mashal
Phonetic Spelling: (maw-shal')
Short Definition: rule
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to rule, have dominion, reign
NASB Translation
dominion (1), gain control (1), govern (1), had charge (1), have authority (1), master (1), obtain dominion (1), really going to rule (1), rule (27), ruled (5), ruler (18), ruler's (2), rulers (6), rules (9), ruling (3), wielded (1).

. . .


There is "..strong proof that everyman rules over his wife – no matter who she is"

Not very careful in parsing the words are you???

The Hebrew words and the definitions do not force an understanding of "because that is the way it is ordained by God" upon it. Having dominion is not necessarily something because of God's ordination. To insist otherwise is to make a claim not in the scripture.

Yes, there is proof that [most] every man rules over his wife. But is that because that the way it should be? Is it because the Bible says it must be? Or is it because that is the way it ends out (as stated would happen there in Genesis)?

None of your "uh ohs" provide a prescription. Just an observation based on a certain viewpoint.

I guess that this kind of Bible scholarship is to be expected from people who follow someone who mishandled the scripture as much as Nee and Lee did. Who never missed the opportunity to turn a description into a prescription. Especially when it benefitted them personally, or their followers generally.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

With such a background, the church of God often needs a healthy counter-ministry, with the pendulum swinging the other direction, to bring us into balance. The apostle Paul also brought such balance in his ministry, in contrast to the Judaizers coming from headquarters, who attempted to bring the church under subjection, using the same techniques used by Nee and Lee, and the same "spiritual authority" doctrines based on Moses.

While I generally agree with what you have said, I am not sure that a pendulum swinging is the way it would be according to scripture. Rather than just going the opposite way, the answer should be to go the right way, even if that is at the bottom of a pendulum's swing. Not saying that there are not true opposites to arrive at in some cases, but not in all cases. When we speak so broadly, it seems that just doing a pendulum swing is an opportunity to miss things to the other extreme and invite the return of the original extreme that we fought against.

In all of this there is something that neither elevates nor diminishes any of God's people. And that is the way of loving God, neighbor, and one another. It changes the gender fights into nothings. It turns authority into the job of a true servant. And so on. Neither of those are on the other side of the pendulum. They are in a different approach to the whole thing. The one that is actually in the Bible.

[OBW]

Nell,

There is a general problem with this discussion. To be of any real value, everyone involved would need to read the entire book (which many will not have the time or will to do). And without that, much of this is missing the support for the positions taken.

For example, you posted (and linked) portions about "lemon translations" yet I have found nothing in either that describes what is wrong with the translations that are there other than a general statement that they are gender biased. Saying it is gender biased does not make it so. There needs to be something supporting that. It may be in the book. But I have not found it in the parts supplied here. So if I was needing to be convinced, I would be finding nothing to help me change my mind about things.

And I assume that this is why the thread is here. It may be contrary to your normal way of approaching things, but if you want to make that leap, try finding the parts that make the reasons clear, not just the positions. There may be a lot of emotion and passion in this. But to make a case, it still needs solid facts so that a reasonable person can have something to consider for purposes of changing their mind.

Don't anyone assume that I am pushing back at the substance of the book or its topic. I am not.

[UntoHim]

I don't think everyone needs to read the whole book for Nell or anyone else to address the various mistranslations in a piecemeal fashion. As a matter of fact, I think this is the best way to address such large issues on a public forum. I don't know if you read the PDF that Nell posted, but it's a real good summation, and there is enough in this one portion to get us off the ground.

I personally have never seriously considered this view:

There were no female members on early Bible translation committees, so it was easy for Satan to use innate male bias to influence the translations of verses that pertained to women’s roles. Historically, females have not been afforded the same access to education as males; so, even if men had desired the presence and input of women on their translation committees, at the time the Bible was being translated, there was no pool of women Bible scholars from which to select. Regardless of the reason why women were absent from translation committees, the simple fact remains: The female voice and perspective were not present in Bible translation efforts. Females would have been able to point out and challenge any translations pertaining to women that displayed male bias, something men would not be able to recognize easily. The absence of female input provides a rational explanation for why seven somewhat difficult to translate and interpret Bible passages in the New Testament stand out as anomalies among the more numerous grape passages.

In due time, I think Nell will get us into the individual "lemon" passages, but I think this might be enough for us to get the discussion going.
-

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Nell,

There is a general problem with this discussion. To be of any real value, everyone involved would need to read the entire book (which many will not have the time or will to do). And without that, much of this is missing the support for the positions taken.

For example, you posted (and linked) portions about "lemon translations" yet I have found nothing in either that describes what is wrong with the translations that are there other than a general statement that they are gender biased. Saying it is gender biased does not make it so. There needs to be something supporting that. It may be in the book. But I have not found it in the parts supplied here. So if I was needing to be convinced, I would be finding nothing to help me change my mind about things.

And I assume that this is why the thread is here. It may be contrary to your normal way of approaching things, but if you want to make that leap, try finding the parts that make the reasons clear, not just the positions. There may be a lot of emotion and passion in this. But to make a case, it still needs solid facts so that a reasonable person can have something to consider for purposes of changing their mind.

Don't anyone assume that I am pushing back at the substance of the book or its topic. I am not.

OBW,

You are correct. The "lemon translations" are covered in the book in detail. My post and Unto's post passed each other in cyber space. I said the same thing he said (great minds) so I edited this one. I am getting Gen. 3:16 ready. Meanwhile, I posted all the lemons.

Thanks---
Nell

[Nell]

Old Testament: (1)
Genesis 3:16 (NIV)
16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

New Testament: (7)
1 Corinthians 11:1–16 (NIV)
1 Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ.
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 14:29–40
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

34 Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[b]

36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.[c]

39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Ephesians 5:22–24
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Colossians 3:18
18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:8–15
8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Titus 2:3–5
3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God

1 Peter 3:1–2
3 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I don't think everyone needs to read the whole book for Nell or anyone else to address the various mistranslations in a piecemeal fashion. As a matter of fact, I think this is the best way to address such large issues on a public forum. I don't know if you read the PDF that Nell posted, but it's a real good summation, and there is enough in this one portion to get us off the ground.

I personally have never seriously considered this view:


In due time, I think Nell will get us into the individual "lemon" passages, but I think this might be enough for us to get the discussion going.
-

What if the Bible had been translated by an all female translation committee? Would we be discussing different "lemon translations" that reflected a female gender bias that men would like to see revisited and corrected when appropriate?

The goal of the translators is to "get it right" without bias. K. Bushnell discusses this in her book "God's Word to Women."

Nell

[Evangelical]

The authors of the original Greek or Hebrew texts were all male. Next will be the LGBT community and Muslims wanting a place on the bible translation committee. These are all part of a liberal and populist agenda like we see on TV i.e. there must be one asian, one black, one hispanic, one muslim, and one LGBT person in every thing otherwise it is considered not "fair" or "equality".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The authors of the original Greek or Hebrew texts were all male. Next will be the LGBT community and Muslims wanting a place on the bible translation committee. These are all part of a liberal and populist agenda like we see on TV i.e. there must be one asian, one black, one hispanic, one muslim, and one LGBT person in every thing otherwise it is considered not "fair" or "equality".

Needless to say, Evangelical is a white male.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The authors of the original Greek or Hebrew texts were all male. Next will be the LGBT community and Muslims wanting a place on the bible translation committee. These are all part of a liberal and populist agenda like we see on TV i.e. there must be one asian, one black, one hispanic, one muslim, and one LGBT person in every thing otherwise it is considered not "fair" or "equality".

This is bait.

[UntoHim]

Evangelical,
When the next widely accepted translation of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures by a committee of LGBT or Muslim folks comes out, I'll be sure to let you do the first review, OK big guy?

In the meantime, I will thank you in advance to not post any more racist or insensitive things on our forum. I'm not sure what the sex, nationality or race was of the translators of Revelation 7:9, but here goes anyway: "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages". This is they way things are going to end for eternity....better get used to it now.

I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet, so don't hold me to any of this.....

First to question God: Adam - Male
First to murder: Cain - Male
First to get drunk: Noah - Male
First to commit sexual sin: Sodom and Gomorrah - Males
First to murder to take another person's spouse: David - Male
(shall I go on?)
--------------------------------------------------------
First to suffer consequence of the Fall: Eve - A Woman
First recorded heroes to save the Jewish people: Women (gave birth before Egyptians could kill Hebrew babies)
First recorded single hero to save the Jewish people: Esther - A Woman
First to the empty tomb of Jesus: Mary - A Woman
First ex-Local Churcher to write a book helping former members: Jane Anderson - A Woman
-

[OBW]

Unto,

I expect that Noah is only the first recorded person to be drunk. I suspect that fermenting was not new at that point in history. Just no reason to record the results of the consumption of too much of the fruit of the vine.

But not really relevant to anything anyway.

[OBW]

Needless to say, Evangelical is a white male.

While the bulk of Evangelical's post was truly pathetic, it is true that the writers were all male (though not many of them "white" in the Anglo-European sense of the word).

So if we are to take the Bible as the word of God, then unless we want to rethink the meaning of inerrancy we are stuck with what those men wrote.

I am willing to entertain a Bible that is fully authoritative in terms of the God it reveals that is written by men who write within the ethos and prejudices of the day. They speak of utterly destroying an enemy when they really mean that they won handily and left the survivors running for the borders. That is not open season for dismissing anything. But it eliminates the notion that there are deep spiritual truths in every phrase of the scripture. Or that anything particular is intended as some kind of permanent rule for all time. That every story is full of metaphorical nuggets to be mined like silver and gold.

Do you read Genesis 1 and conclude that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Or are you impressed that God created the heavens and the earth in some way that could only be described in this limited way?

When a passage says that a day is like 1,000 years to God, is it a statement of actually relative time to apply like a formula, or is it a statement of the irrelevance of time to God?

What are we reading the Bible to find?

If our primary commands are to love God, love our neighbor as ourselves, and to love one another as Christ as loved us. If our edict for leadership is serving others and washing their feet. If . . . so many good examples. If these, then how do we find anyone to have a forced position of subservience? For any purpose?

Are we just proof-texting?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

While the bulk of Evangelical's post was truly pathetic, it is true that the writers were all male (though not many of them "white" in the Anglo-European sense of the word).

So if we are to take the Bible as the word of God, then unless we want to rethink the meaning of inerrancy we are stuck with what those men wrote.

I am willing to entertain a Bible that is fully authoritative in terms of the God it reveals that is written by men who write within the ethos and prejudices of the day. They speak of utterly destroying an enemy when they really mean that they won handily and left the survivors running for the borders. That is not open season for dismissing anything. But it eliminates the notion that there are deep spiritual truths in every phrase of the scripture. Or that anything particular is intended as some kind of permanent rule for all time. That every story is full of metaphorical nuggets to be mined like silver and gold.

Do you read Genesis 1 and conclude that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Or are you impressed that God created the heavens and the earth in some way that could only be described in this limited way?

When a passage says that a day is like 1,000 years to God, is it a statement of actually relative time to apply like a formula, or is it a statement of the irrelevance of time to God?

What are we reading the Bible to find?

If our primary commands are to love God, love our neighbor as ourselves, and to love one another as Christ as loved us. If our edict for leadership is serving others and washing their feet. If . . . so many good examples. If these, then how do we find anyone to have a forced position of subservience? For any purpose?

Are we just proof-texting?

OBW,

The issue isn't the writers of the original text of the Bible, but those men who translated the text from the original Hebrew and/or Greek. There are verses, due to mistranslation, that do not fit the "primary commands" as you have described them. For example, Paul, in several cases, seemingly contradicts himself and his own ministry because of some verses relating to women.

This is noted in UntoHim's Saturday Sidebar: "Whatever is taught prescriptively should produce what is seen descriptively in the Bible.
If a teaching produces something different than what the Bible illustrates or describes as proper behavior, it is unhealthy teaching and should be questioned and re-examined."

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Evangelical,
When the next widely accepted translation of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures by a committee of LGBT or Muslim folks comes out, I'll be sure to let you do the first review, OK big guy?

In the meantime, I will thank you in advance to not post any more racist or insensitive things on our forum. I'm not sure what the sex, nationality or race was of the translators of Revelation 7:9, but here goes anyway: "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages". This is they way things are going to end for eternity....better get used to it now.

I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet, so don't hold me to any of this.....

First to question God: Adam - Male
First to murder: Cain - Male
First to get drunk: Noah - Male
First to commit sexual sin: Sodom and Gomorrah - Males
First to murder to take another person's spouse: David - Male
(shall I go on?)
--------------------------------------------------------
First to suffer consequence of the Fall: Eve - A Woman
First recorded heroes to save the Jewish people: Women (gave birth before Egyptians could kill Hebrew babies)
First recorded single hero to save the Jewish people: Esther - A Woman
First to the empty tomb of Jesus: Mary - A Woman
First ex-Local Churcher to write a book helping former members: Jane Anderson - A Woman
-

There is nothing racist about my post. It is the ones who say "the bible has no women translators, so we must find some" who are the ones who see the divisions. To me this idea of women translators of the bible is coming from the liberal and populist agenda, not the bible itself (which is written by men, including God Himself who is a man). It seems you subscribe to this agenda yourself. In fact, if people truly believed in what the bible says about no male or female in Christ we would not be discussing about this male or female translator nonsense.

Romans 12:2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

...Straw-man's are part and parcel of this sort of discussion - grow up and get over it. I'm not asking for respect...

Just a reminder, in his own words, that "Evangelical" is not interested in a serious discussion of any topic. His penchant for derailing, baiting, strawman arguments and inflammatory rhetoric is his MO since he believes such is "part and parcel of this sort of discussion...". Anyone who disagrees with him needs to "grow up and get over it". Respect is not important to him so he feels under no obligation to show respect to other forum members.

Include now deflecting from the request/s of the Moderator to dial it down.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Just a reminder, in his own words, that "Evangelical" is not interested in a serious discussion of any topic. His penchant for derailing, bait, strawman arguments and inflammatory rhetoric is his MO since he believes such is "part and parcel of this sort of discussion...". Anyone who disagrees with him needs to "grow up and get over it". Respect is not important to him so he feels under no obligation to show respect to other forum members.

Include now deflecting from the request/s of the Moderator to dial it down.

Nell

What I'm trying to "dial down" is what you said about certain bible translations of certain passages being lemons. I don't care if a person is pushing a feminist, LGBT or multi-faith agenda, as soon as the bible translation is called into question it makes me wonder.

In regards to your quote of my post, what I said was in response to what you said about my posts being crap after I questioned why you weren't used theological resources?

Your response was essentially, "if you want respect, you have to give some, I can't take anything you say seriously, most of what you say is crap".

So we can see that my point about respect not being important, is in the context of why aren't you using theological resources? You or I don't need respect to do a Google Search and find out the facts for ourselves.

But on this topic I think you calling certain passages of the bible "lemon translations" is a bit of a stretch. There is a line between writing a book to help former members of the local church and support women, and claiming the bible translations are wrong. To me it's just one piece of the larger pie that seeks to undo history and rewrite everything to suite populist ideals.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

Just a reminder, in his own words, that "Evangelical" is not interested in a serious discussion of any topic. His penchant for derailing, baiting, strawman arguments and inflammatory rhetoric is his MO since he believes such is "part and parcel of this sort of discussion...". Anyone who disagrees with him needs to "grow up and get over it". Respect is not important to him so he feels under no obligation to show respect to other forum members.

Include now deflecting from the request/s of the Moderator to dial it down.

Nell

Evangelical provides very detailed and thoughtful responses, well researched, scriptural based, and patiently clarifies himself. The forum is lucky to have him.

It does not matter whether women or any other demographic group were involved in translating the bible. If there is an objection to the translation of a verse, resources are readily available to present a case.

Yet, there are many translations of the Bible into different languages and the translators are not all white male. Julia Smith translated the Bible from original languages into English. It is too broad of a brush to categorically dismiss verses mentioning women and submission as "lemons" That is not say that every verse is bias free, on the contrary some may be, so, I think visiting the original languages and manuscripts is a good approach and if Jane Anderson has a point of view then let's see it. I'm willing to hear her out on one or more of these "lemon"verses. 1 Timothy 2 is very instructive providing an explanation as to why (v14).

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In fact, if people truly believed in what the bible says about no male or female in Christ we would not be discussing about this male or female.

Hmmm, well maybe. But also one might question that, if there is no male and female, then why aren't there more females in certain roles?

So it can cut both ways.

The Bible certainly sends the message that generally speaking men are to take the lead and women are to follow. But the extreme subjugation of women we see in ancient times was, I believe, just that--an extreme.

Neither Jew nor Gentile, neither male nor female. This doesn't mean there are no differences between these groups, it has nothing to do with their abilities or roles. What it's talking about is their standing before God.

The OT, even some aspects of the Jewish ordinances and culture, was meant to reflect a fallen, Genesis 3 situation. But in Christ many things changed and were brought closer to God's original intent. Gentiles and Jews have completely equal status in the NT, there is no difference before God. Male and female, too, except for the reality of their originally intended roles--that the man was to lead and the woman was to be a "helper."

The extreme second-class status of women we see in the OT was not God's original intent--but neither was a situation where, except for physical aspects, the two are interchangeable. God intended man and women to come back to his original design--that through their cooperation in assuming somewhat different responsibilities God is glorified. If we were all the same things would run more smoothly, but God would get less glory--there is no need for cooperation in that case. So it is with the male-female differences.

But what is the extent of the expectation and limitation on each gender? Because I have see the Lord's blessing on teaching ministries of many women, I have to believe Paul's seeming restriction of women from teaching was situational to the culture of the time. However, I still believe that regarding lines of authority in the Church God prefers men to lead and women to follow (of course, most men follow too!).

That's my take on that subject.


But in general, simply because someone thinks it would be beneficial for women to have a larger role in the intellectual tasks of Biblical analysis does not necessarily mean he or she is motivated by appealing to "populism" or are being "conformed to the age."

This is what generally bugs and bothers me about Evangelical's analysis. He throws out these snarky accusations with no conclusive evidence of their appropriateness. He sees the possibility of a conclusion and then goes from it being possible to being true, not because the evidence is conclusive, but because it fits his mindset. He comes across as a person so convinced he's right that he is above considering he might be wrong.

[Evangelical]

There are no female authors of the Bible likely because of this verse:

1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;

If a female authored any book of the Bible then it would be equivalent to teaching authority over a man. In addition, culturally speaking, a female author of the bible would have been a hindrance to the gospel in ancient times.

There are two books (one biblical, one not but used in Catholicism) named after females - Esther and Judith. These were not written by females but by men.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hmmm, well maybe. But also one might question that, if there is no male and female, then why aren't there more females in certain roles? So it can cut both ways.

Because of what the bible says about female teachers, I would discount any notion of their ministries being blessed by God, on the same basis that I would discount any LGBT, muslim, or buddhist ministry as being "blessed by God". Our assessments of "God's blessing" is flawed when it is based upon external matters such as frequency of answered prayers, outward blessings, church growth, or financial blessing. These same metrics may be used by any ministry even non-Christian one, to conclude it is "under God's blessing". I am sure the hundreds of Muslims that attend the Mosque every week feel blessed by God. If we think like that then we are being like Job's friends.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Because of what the bible says about female teachers, I would discount any notion of their ministries being blessed by God, on the same basis that I would discount any LGBT, muslim, or buddhist ministry as being "blessed by God". Our assessments of "God's blessing" is flawed when it is based upon external matters such as frequency of answered prayers, outward blessings, church growth, or financial blessing. These same metrics may be used by any ministry even non-Christian one, to conclude it is "under God's blessing". I am sure the hundreds of Muslims that attend the Mosque every week feel blessed by God. If we think like that then we are being like Job's friends.

Likewise with such external metrics as one church one city, having copyrights to some God-ordained church name, accepting the so-called minister of the age, claims to be the only true testimony, etc.

[Nell]

The notion that the Bible was penned by "all males" does not take into account, for example, that there is widespread discussion that the book of Hebrews was written by Priscilla (wife of Acquila). The author of Hebrews is not identified in the book itself so to state out of hand that the author of all books in the Bible are "male" is intellectually dishonest and belies the possibility that a woman penned Hebrews and perhaps other books as well. Such statements should be qualified as being "your opinion" and not authoritative.

Drake has remarked: "...if Jane Anderson has a point of view then let's see it. I'm willing to hear her out on one or more of these "lemon" verses."

Uh...Jane wrote a book. The best way to hear her out is to spend $2.99 and download the Kindle version. I will soon, hopefully, be able to post a Readers Digest condensed version of a few major points, but this takes time. It's a good read. You might actually enjoy it.

https://www.amazon.com/Books-Jane-Ca...ole%20Anderson

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

The notion that the Bible was penned by "all males" does not take into account, for example, that there is widespread discussion that the book of Hebrews was written by Priscilla (wife of Acquila). The author of Hebrews is not identified in the book itself so to state out of hand that the author of all books in the Bible are "male" is intellectually dishonest and belies the possibility that a woman penned Hebrews and perhaps other books as well. Such statements should be qualified as being "your opinion" and not authoritative.

Drake has remarked: "...if Jane Anderson has a point of view then let's see it. I'm willing to hear her out on one or more of these "lemon" verses."

Uh...Jane wrote a book. The best way to hear her out is to spend $2.99 and download the Kindle version. I will soon, hopefully, be able to post a Readers Digest condensed version of a few major points, but this takes time. It's a good read. You might actually enjoy it.

https://www.amazon.com/Books-Jane-Ca...ole%20Anderson

If we read into that a bit further we'll find that scholars have suggested it's authorship was hidden by the early church fathers or early Christians out of embarrassment that it was written by a woman or so as not to cause offense.

Let us also ask the question of how many women were involved in defining the Canon of Scripture, the creeds, or the doctrine of the Trinity?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let us also ask the question of how many women were involved in defining the Canon of Scripture, the creeds, or the doctrine of the Trinity?

This is a classic case of begging the question.

In the context of a discussion that is suggesting that men have been domineering because of their (mis)understanding of scripture you want to use the number of men v women as a yardstick to support the position that men did the heavy lifting, not the women? Or otherwise suggest that men are superior? That is a statement that cannot be made since the lack of women was not their inability to be involved or contribute, but the fact that they were excluded. And if there was a lack, that could be because the women were generally not educated the same as men. Not that they were somehow intrinsically inferior.

Please provide relevance so this discussion.

This is like relying on the words of Lee claiming a position to be correct as evidence that he is correct. Not talking about whether what he said aligns properly with scripture, but whether what he said/wrote can support his own assertions without scripture or even though contrary to scripture. It doesn't matter how right or wrong he ultimately is proved to be. Until it is proved from something other than his own claim of correctness, his words are what are being questioned, not what are being consulted to determine their own correctness.

The exclusion of women from things like the creation of the creeds or the determination of the canon of scripture is the issue that needs analysis and therefore cannot be used as proof that women should be excluded. We obviously are not going to rethink the canon of scripture if we determine that the exclusion of women was contrary to a proper understanding of the "place" of women according to scripture. But we cannot use that historical fact as proof that it should have been that way.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Because of what the bible says about female teachers, I would discount any notion of their ministries being blessed by God, on the same basis that I would discount any LGBT, muslim, or buddhist ministry as being "blessed by God". Our assessments of "God's blessing" is flawed when it is based upon external matters such as frequency of answered prayers, outward blessings, church growth, or financial blessing. These same metrics may be used by any ministry even non-Christian one, to conclude it is "under God's blessing". I am sure the hundreds of Muslims that attend the Mosque every week feel blessed by God. If we think like that then we are being like Job's friends.

Well, the fact of the matter is Jesus said "by their fruit you will know them." And I have no doubt of the good fruit of many of these ministries. There is also the witness in my spirit of the anointing of the Spirit on many of these ministries.

Paul also said women should keep silent in churches. But even Nee and Lee realized an extreme interpretation of this did not add up and allowed female speaking. As for teaching and having authority over a man, I believe Paul was talking about the kind of teaching he knew, pre-written-NT, where he and the other apostles taught with the equivalent authority we now reserve only to the Bible. Women did not take part in that. But interpreting the Bible and teaching from it is not the same thing. Just because a women teaches doesn't mean she holds authority in the way Paul meant. We are free to listen as the Spirit leads. The Spirit and the Bible are our final authority now. In Paul's day it was the Spirit and the Apostles. They had a kind of authority that is now reserved to the Bible. (And, no, Lee didn't have it.)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is a classic case of begging the question.

In the context of a discussion that is suggesting that men have been domineering because of their (mis)understanding of scripture you want to use the number of men v women as a yardstick to support the position that men did the heavy lifting, not the women? Or otherwise suggest that men are superior? That is a statement that cannot be made since the lack of women was not their inability to be involved or contribute, but the fact that they were excluded. And if there was a lack, that could be because the women were generally not educated the same as men. Not that they were somehow intrinsically inferior.

Please provide relevance so this discussion.

This is like relying on the words of Lee claiming a position to be correct as evidence that he is correct. Not talking about whether what he said aligns properly with scripture, but whether what he said/wrote can support his own assertions without scripture or even though contrary to scripture. It doesn't matter how right or wrong he ultimately is proved to be. Until it is proved from something other than his own claim of correctness, his words are what are being questioned, not what are being consulted to determine their own correctness.

The exclusion of women from things like the creation of the creeds or the determination of the canon of scripture is the issue that needs analysis and therefore cannot be used as proof that women should be excluded. We obviously are not going to rethink the canon of scripture if we determine that the exclusion of women was contrary to a proper understanding of the "place" of women according to scripture. But we cannot use that historical fact as proof that it should have been that way.

I think facts such as these speak for themselves.

Where were the women when decision were made about which books should be considered part of the Canon?

Likewise, where were the women when the doctrine of the Trinity was defined?

Which Creeds were written by women? The apostles creed? The Nicene creed?

Likewise, in the Reformation, we know about Luther, Calvin etc. Where were the women?

Has there been any major move of God over the past centuries with a female leader? Maybe Kathryn Kuhlman?

I think it is related to Jesus choosing only males as his closest disciples. That tradition continued in the early church - there were no female bishops. We hear a lot about early church fathers, were there early church mothers?

I have read about the matter of why the author of Hebrews is unnamed, and some, have suggested that if it were written by a woman, there is good reason why that fact should be hidden. Yes on the one hand it is positive that at least one woman possibly (hypothesis only) wrote a book of the bible. On the other hand it is a negative if her authorship was hidden because of male domination at the time.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think facts such as these speak for themselves.

They do speak. They say something. But only someone with the view of a patriarchal system where women are property or second-class citizens would presume that what it is saying is that it was ordained to be that way.

It was ordained that Cain would kill Abel. It was ordained that slavery would be commonplace for centuries. It was ordained that women be excluded from any important acts in society other than bearing and raising children and cooking meals.

What you fail to consider is that it may simply be saying that the doors were locked and two big guys named Bruno and Rufus were standing outside with Glocks.

This is how Lee came up with so many of his novel teachings (and Nee too). Read something. Declare that nothing except his version of how it should be understood is valid. Declare a new prescriptive doctrine.

The stupidity of your opening sentence is that it is simply an observation of action by people who are acting in concert with the very problem that we are trying to figure out. The fact of their action cannot be accepted as the reason that their action was correct. That is circular reasoning. It is classic begging the question.

Planes flew into the World Trade Center. What principle does this prove? That it was correct for planes to fly into the World Trade Center.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have read about the matter of why the author of Hebrews is unnamed, and some, have suggested that if it were written by a woman, there is good reason why that fact should be hidden. Yes on the one hand it is positive that at least one woman possibly (hypothesis only) wrote a book of the bible. On the other hand it is a negative if her authorship was hidden because of male domination at the time.

It does not occur to you that in what was still mostly a male dominated society that hiding the fact (if it is a fact) of a woman writer for Hebrews was the way to get it read by the dim-witted men that would otherwise just reject it without as much as a second look? And that men are still doing that to this day? Your mention of Luther and others yet no women is hardly surprising given that Christianity has continued to understand its primary source text as relegating women to the back row, or outside watching video monitors.

The question as to whether that is the right thing to do in light of all of the scripture (not just one or two verses) must be studied from within the scripture, not by reference to how the people who already had an opinion on the subject did things. If your way was the way to go, then slavery would still be the norm because the fact that there was slavery would prove that there should be slavery.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

They do speak. They say something. But only someone with the view of a patriarchal system where women are property or second-class citizens would presume that what it is saying is that it was ordained to be that way.

It was ordained that Cain would kill Abel. It was ordained that slavery would be commonplace for centuries. It was ordained that women be excluded from any important acts in society other than bearing and raising children and cooking meals.

What you fail to consider is that it may simply be saying that the doors were locked and two big guys named Bruno and Rufus were standing outside with Glocks.

This is how Lee came up with so many of his novel teachings (and Nee too). Read something. Declare that nothing except his version of how it should be understood is valid. Declare a new prescriptive doctrine.

The stupidity of your opening sentence is that it is simply an observation of action by people who are acting in concert with the very problem that we are trying to figure out. The fact of their action cannot be accepted as the reason that their action was correct. That is circular reasoning. It is classic begging the question.

Planes flew into the World Trade Center. What principle does this prove? That it was correct for planes to fly into the World Trade Center.

It does not occur to you that in what was still mostly a male dominated society that hiding the fact (if it is a fact) of a woman writer for Hebrews was the way to get it read by the dim-witted men that would otherwise just reject it without as much as a second look? And that men are still doing that to this day? Your mention of Luther and others yet no women is hardly surprising given that Christianity has continued to understand its primary source text as relegating women to the back row, or outside watching video monitors.

The question as to whether that is the right thing to do in light of all of the scripture (not just one or two verses) must be studied from within the scripture, not by reference to how the people who already had an opinion on the subject did things. If your way was the way to go, then slavery would still be the norm because the fact that there was slavery would prove that there should be slavery.

So what is being dealt with here is much more than just a few lemon translations of the bible. The "dim-witted men" have existed since the apostolic times. They defined the Canon, the Trinity, the Creeds, without inclusion of the female bishops (of which there were none).

Perhaps there were books and letters authored by females that never made it into our bibles? Perhaps Hebrews was one book that was lucky enough to make it, but only under an anonymous author.

It has been claimed here that the translators from the original Greek or Hebrew are to blame for not properly translating the bible. But I would suggest that any faulty translations are simply the norm of that period and even the norm of the apostolic period. So I would say that the bible translation is accurate if they correctly represent the apostolic and historical church norms.

So what we are doing is not only questioning the bible translators but also the judgement of those that gave us the Trinity, the Canon, the Creeds etc.
(These historical norms have largely been maintained up until today in the Catholic and Orthodox etc churches.)

This is not about the bible translators making some mistakes in a few "lemon verses". Male domination is largely entrenched in the original manuscripts themselves.

For example - the Bible is so male dominated that it does not even mention the names of Adam and Eve's daughters. God gave the name Adam to the first man, but the woman was just called "the woman". The woman was given a name only after she sinned against God. Eve would forever be known as the woman who deceived the man:

1 Tim 2:14:
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

I think what the history shows is that there was no Utopia of male and female equality before the bible translators got their hands on it. If there was we would find such. A simple example is female bishops, the Bible says a bishop must be a husband of one wife, it is clearly a male role. There are no female bishops in early church history that I am aware of. There were no females involved in deciding the doctrine of the Trinity or what books should go into the Bible. I think this rules out at least, the notion of female bishops in the church and even female church leaders. It is true that by and large, women were "kept silent". I think it is a true statement to say that no woman has made a major contribution to the doctrine and teaching of the church.

[Nell]

Changes to A Woman of Chayil were uploaded to Kindle recently which included spelling, punctuation, wording, and grammar changes throughout.
Significant changes and additions to the following sections:
. The Message of this Book (location 328)
. An Important Topic for Men Also (new section--location 356)
. A Fit with the Redemptive Message of the Old Covenant (location 1560)
. To Which Woman Do You Belong: Bond or Free? (location 4395)

A new topic was added to the Introduction: "An Important Topic for Men Also" which is attached and is in support of OBW's post/s.

If your Kindle version has "An Important Topic for Men", your version is current. If you decide to man up and spring for $2.99 for the book, the new version will be delivered. If you have Kindle for iPad, my 3 iPads updated automatically. Kindle for PC on Windows 10 took longer. I had to delete the old version first before the new update would synch.

If you need $2.99, let me know and I'll float you a loan .

I checked the attachment and it is attempting to "save" rather than "open". Not sure what's up with that.

Nell

[Nell]

1 Tim. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Yes. The woman was deceived. We know this because she confessed it to God. She admitted it. Ever since she confessed and obtained forgiveness, her words have been misused against her implying that Adam was some kind of hero because he “wasn’t deceived.” Does this mean that the woman sinned but the man didn’t? No. If Adam was not deceived, then he sinned willfully. In fact, this is the case. He knew not to eat of the tree and did it anyway. Eve was deceived by the serpent but she confessed and was forgiven. We know she was forgiven because the remainder of the Bible does not hold Eve accountable for the fall, but Adam. Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam (not Eve) to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's (not Eve's) transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Where was Adam?
Gen. 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So Adam was standing right there with Eve when she was deceived by the serpent. Why didn’t he stop her? Why didn't he rebuke the serpent? The disobedience might not have happened if Adam had done his job. Wasn’t he supposed to be her protector? Wasn’t Adam the caretaker of the garden? Instead, he did nothing…except disobey God and blame God and Eve for his own sin. Gen. 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

We know Eve was forgiven, and blessed:
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all …
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In other words, because the serpent deceived the woman, SHE will bring about his END. That is a blessing to womankind including ME.

Regardless, it is widely held that God cursed Eve. As a result, women have been insulted, persecuted, maligned, tortured, etc., especially throughout modern history. Why? Because the woman was “deceived?” Perhaps in the minds of the translators and/or men in general, but no. That's not it. Look at the bigger picture. It’s because of Satanic revenge…the serpent is out to destroy her BEFORE she destroys him! It’s because of the enmity God placed between the woman and the serpent. Why didn't God put enmity between Adam and the serpent instead of Eve? Perhaps because Adam was playing the blame game...unrepentant. God must have felt Eve was up to the task of destroying the Devil.

It would behoove men and women alike to understand that the woman is not the enemy…she was blessed. She is up to the task of destroying the enemy, that old serpent. In fact, at this point, the woman is actually the church. The Body of Christ comprised of all believers, both women and men who will bring about his final demise.

More is coming about the lemon 1 Tim. 2:8-15 in the next PDF.

Nell

[Drake]

Nell,

The Genesis narrative after the fall indicates that Adam did indeed try to throw Eve under the proverbial bus.

However, this statement: "In other words, because the serpent deceived the woman, SHE will bring about his END."

If by it what is meant is that the woman will bring forth THE SEED that will bring about the end of the serpent, the devil, then I agree. That we know was Mary, the virgin, who gave birth to Christ Who has and will ultimately defeat His and our enemy. And we may extend this female picture to the corporate bride who cooperating with her Husband will practically defeat our mutual enemy.

Other than that, if something more is meant by the statement, that is,if something is implied such as that the gender of a woman has unique capability to defeat Satan that the gender of man does not, then that is going a pace too far.

Clearly, the female gender has attributes where some things are done better. The women who followed that Lord were honored by Him and featured prominently in the Scriptures. For instance, a woman was the first to meet Him after His resurrection as a reward for her seeking. A woman was the instrument of His incarnation. Prisca was clearly a leader in the care for several churches. Timothy's mother demonstrates her godly character in infusing her son with godly instruction. There are many such references to the prominent role and contribution of women in the Bible.

Yet, the contribution of women does not negate the role of the men and the strengths they bring. Both male and female are equally important in carrying out God's purpose and will.

As mentioned, as relates to Christ our Head we are all in the female position and we are all constituents of the corporate bride.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

It would behoove men and women alike to understand that the woman is not the enemy…she was blessed. She is up to the task of destroying the enemy, that old serpent. In fact, at this point, the woman is actually the church. The Body of Christ comprised of all believers, both women and men who will bring about his final demise.

The woman was deceived. (I Timothy) The man transgressed. (Romans) There is no mention that Eve actually heard God's command directly. Both failed. Their offspring all suffered because of it. What's worse, disobeying God or being deceived by His enemy? Both became sinners, under God's judgment, needing a Savior.

It troubles me when men and women are pitted against each other, especially when this occurs in the church of God. Neither men nor women are the enemy, but Satan and his powers.

One of the things that so troubled me in the Recovery was that often times Witness Lee did not know who his enemy was. He too often made our brothers and sisters in Christianity the enemy. Hate to repeat that mistake.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of the things that so troubled me in the Recovery was that often times Witness Lee did not know who his enemy was. He too often made our brothers and sisters in Christianity the enemy. Hate to repeat that mistake.

Fully agree.

But the problem in dealing with issues like this one is that the goal of the discussion is to end so much of that kind of thinking, while those that are determined to maintain the status quo are busy making that mistake in spades.

And the discussion looks so acrimonious. But the acrimony is (hopefully) only on one side of the discussion.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The woman was deceived. (I Timothy) The man transgressed. (Romans) There is no mention that Eve actually heard God's command directly. Both failed. Their offspring all suffered because of it. What's worse, disobeying God or being deceived by His enemy? Both became sinners, under God's judgment, needing a Savior.

The problem is that woman was and has been blamed and otherwise punished for the failure of both man and woman. Both are equal failures but one repented, and the other did not.

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

The problem is that woman was and has been blamed and otherwise punished for the failure of both man and woman. Both are equal failures but one repented, and the other did not.

You are correct that both failed. And that there has been a tendency by some to blame the woman. Especially in prior times and in certain sectors of modern Christianity.

But beyond that I cannot agree. The inferences made in post #68 and the one quoted above are a little much when it comes to the characterization of the unstated actions and blessing attributed strictly to the woman (Eve) and that you claim for yourself.

First, you refer to a repentance that woman did but man did not, but I do not see the support for it. She did confess. But confession is not the same as repentance. Ever heard the "I did it and I'd do it again" confession? Confession is not repentance. We actually do not see anything of repentance on the part of either of them. I would suspect that there was repentance by both. But it was not recorded.

Yet that is as far as I can take it — suspect it is so. Just as it is as far as your statement about the repentance of the woman v the man can go.

You can't make doctrine out of suspicions, be they good or bad ones. It could even turn out to be true (when we get through the pearly gates and ask about all those things we couldn't figure out). But it was not given to us to see and know now, therefore not available to comment on. Surely nothing to insist upon or declare as a fact.

Same concerning the seed. "Every promise in the book" is not mine. Yes, God did say that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent. But this was not some blessing to woman. It was a promise to mankind that the serpent would be dealt with. It is part of the blessing to the nations that was promised to come through Abraham. (So is it now a male thing to claim?)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nell

The problem is that woman was and has been blamed and otherwise punished for the failure of both man and woman. Both are equal failures but one repented, and the other did not.

Nell

Hmmm, Adam didn't repent? Does that mean Adam went to hell?

Let's not carry this thing too far, Nell. Men and women each have their respective strengths, weaknesses and roles. Neither is fundamentally superior.

Here's a funny thing you might not know about men: although we often patronize women, we also tend to put them on pedestals. I'm definitely well into middle age, but apparently not too old to learn something.
Recently my wife divorced me. You know what this taught me? That it is a mistake to put women on pedestals. They are just as capable of treachery as men. Although I used to think they were somehow sweeter, purer and more innocent than men, now I know that was misguided idealism on my part. A woman can stab you in the back just as readily and heartlessly as a man can. They might have different reasons for doing it, but the net result is the same.

Men and women are both primarily the one same thing: human. Their virtue and depravity might come out in different ways, but they have the same potential for each.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

You are correct that both failed. And that there has been a tendency by some to blame the woman. Especially in prior times and in certain sectors of modern Christianity.

But beyond that I cannot agree. The inferences made in post #68 and the one quoted above are a little much when it comes to the characterization of the unstated actions and blessing attributed strictly to the woman (Eve) and that you claim for yourself.

First, you refer to a repentance that woman did but man did not, but I do not see the support for it. She did confess. But confession is not the same as repentance. Ever heard the "I did it and I'd do it again" confession? Confession is not repentance. We actually do not see anything of repentance on the part of either of them. I would suspect that there was repentance by both. But it was not recorded.

Yet that is as far as I can take it — suspect it is so. Just as it is as far as your statement about the repentance of the woman v the man can go.

You can't make doctrine out of suspicions, be they good or bad ones. It could even turn out to be true (when we get through the pearly gates and ask about all those things we couldn't figure out). But it was not given to us to see and know now, therefore not available to comment on. Surely nothing to insist upon or declare as a fact.

Same concerning the seed. "Every promise in the book" is not mine. Yes, God did say that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent. But this was not some blessing to woman. It was a promise to mankind that the serpent would be dealt with. It is part of the blessing to the nations that was promised to come through Abraham. (So is it now a male thing to claim?)

OBW,

Her repentance or lack thereof is not a doctrine for me. I believe she did repent because of what followed. I believe he didn't because of what followed. That's it. So we're on the same page. However, eventually I also believe Adam repented.

How do you know that the seed of the woman would crush her head of the serpent was not a blessing to woman? How do we know that the promise to Abraham wasn't a kind of blessing to men? I'm mostly not serious about this last question, just to carry on your point. It is not recorded. So I have no strong opinion either way. In the overall picture of this topic, this is not a major point. it's not an issue to me. It's just what I think.

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hmmm, Adam didn't repent? Does that mean Adam went to hell?

Let's not carry this thing too far, Nell. Men and women each have their respective strengths, weaknesses and roles. Neither is fundamentally superior.

Igzy,

Eventually Adam repented. Jane has an excellent theory of how it happened in the book.

No argument here...neither is superior over the other. I don't believe I said that. I perhaps wasn't clear that Adam was unrepentant during the time frame of Gen. 3:12-16.

Women have been hindered in their/our walk with the Lord and our role in the Body of Christ due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible which firmly place Christian women in these subservient roles to Christian men. Let's see a show of hands of all the males who have been hindered in their roles as Christians because of domineering Christian women.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

The problem is that woman was and has been blamed and otherwise punished for the failure of both man and woman. Both are equal failures but one repented, and the other did not.

Nell

I was not aware of this, in fact, I have known some who have exonerated Eve completely saying she never heard God's command, and put the blame squarely on Adam for not instructing her adequately, and for not stopping her.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was not aware of this, in fact, I have known some who have exonerated Eve completely saying she never heard God's command, and put the blame squarely on Adam for not instructing her adequately, and for not stopping her.

i was summarizing my post #68.

In Gen. 3:2-3 Eve repeated God's command not to eat of the tree, so she heard the command from somewhere. Regardless of how she heard it...she knew the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge (even though a few words were added ... from somewhere ... about touching the tree.) The Sgt. Schultz "I know nothing" argument doesn't float for me. Both sinned. Both eventually repented (sorry I can't seem to clarify this point adequately.)

The main point is that due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible, women have been hindered in their walk with the Lord and their roles in the church, having been relegated to a subservience which God never intended.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

1 Tim. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Yes. The woman was deceived. We know this because she confessed it to God. She admitted it. Ever since she confessed and obtained forgiveness, her words have been misused against her implying that Adam was some kind of hero because he “wasn’t deceived.” Does this mean that the woman sinned but the man didn’t? No. If Adam was not deceived, then he sinned willfully. In fact, this is the case. He knew not to eat of the tree and did it anyway. Eve was deceived by the serpent but she confessed and was forgiven. We know she was forgiven because the remainder of the Bible does not hold Eve accountable for the fall, but Adam. Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam (not Eve) to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's (not Eve's) transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Where was Adam?
Gen. 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So Adam was standing right there with Eve when she was deceived by the serpent. Why didn’t he stop her? Why didn't he rebuke the serpent? The disobedience might not have happened if Adam had done his job. Wasn’t he supposed to be her protector? Wasn’t Adam the caretaker of the garden? Instead, he did nothing…except disobey God and blame God and Eve for his own sin. Gen. 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

We know Eve was forgiven, and blessed:
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all …
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In other words, because the serpent deceived the woman, SHE will bring about his END. That is a blessing to womankind including ME.

Regardless, it is widely held that God cursed Eve. As a result, women have been insulted, persecuted, maligned, tortured, etc., especially throughout modern history. Why? Because the woman was “deceived?” Perhaps in the minds of the translators and/or men in general, but no. That's not it. Look at the bigger picture. It’s because of Satanic revenge…the serpent is out to destroy her BEFORE she destroys him! It’s because of the enmity God placed between the woman and the serpent. Why didn't God put enmity between Adam and the serpent instead of Eve? Perhaps because Adam was playing the blame game...unrepentant. God must have felt Eve was up to the task of destroying the Devil.

It would behoove men and women alike to understand that the woman is not the enemy…she was blessed. She is up to the task of destroying the enemy, that old serpent. In fact, at this point, the woman is actually the church. The Body of Christ comprised of all believers, both women and men who will bring about his final demise.

More is coming about the lemon 1 Tim. 2:8-15 in the next PDF.

Nell

Witness Lee taught that the woman met with Satan of her own decision, she stepped out of her covering (i.e. did not consult the man about Satan's suggestion). i.e. man not at fault, woman at fault. You have stated that man was with the woman. i.e. man at fault due to complicity, not exercising his headship.

Perhaps a bit of both? Woman did not ask her husband, and husband saw Eve talking to the serpent and did not think to intervene to protect her.

I believe the Answers in Genesis group present a good article about this matter:

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-c...o-the-serpent/

They consult a number of bible commentaries which seem to hold to a view that Adam was not with his wife:

e.g. John Calvin:

And gave also unto her husband with her. From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible.


Of course Adam is at fault for taking the fruit at his wife's suggestion, and had ample opportunity to stop it there and then, no question about that.
But Eve is seen to be the one who was deceived in the first place.

Of course it does not help that all the bible commentaries are by men, and the answers in genesis folk are men. Gender bias is everywhere.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

Her repentance or lack thereof is not a doctrine for me. I believe she did repent because of what followed. I believe he didn't because of what followed. That's it. So we're on the same page. However, eventually I also believe Adam repented.

How do you know that the seed of the woman would crush her head of the serpent was not a blessing to woman? How do we know that the promise to Abraham wasn't a kind of blessing to men? I'm mostly not serious about this last question, just to carry on your point. It is not recorded. So I have no strong opinion either way. In the overall picture of this topic, this is not a major point. it's not an issue to me. It's just what I think.

You can think what you want. And even believe that it is true. But when you put it into a discussion like this, you imply that it is fact that can be relied upon.

Even you admit that it is not. So don't say it without qualifier. It says you do have an opinion and that you think it is as strong as if actually written there. You didn't say it. But you didn't soft-sell it either. You just said as if a fact.

Damaging to the impact of the message. And if I keep seeing a lot of it, you need to understand that no matter how strongly I might want to agree, it is just as sour to me when those kinds of things are done as what you are righting against is to you.

You are trying to persuade. Persuasion is not a matter of passion, but of truth and evidence. What you cannot support may not be truth. May be. But may not be.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Witness Lee taught that the woman . . . .

Witness Lee taught a lot of things that were nowhere in the text. The were just his opinions.

And this coming from the man who claimed that everything except his teachings were just opinions. The guy was a shyster of the first degree.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

e.g. John Calvin:

And gave also unto her husband with her. From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible.

Actually, based on the words in the text, it is much more credible that he was there than that he was not. It is all speculation and the only thing we have to go on it "to her husband with her" which puts him roughly there, not somewhere else.

Even John Calvin is subject to fits of opinion not base on actual evidence.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, based on the words in the text, it is much more credible that he was there than that he was not. It is all speculation and the only thing we have to go on it "to her husband with her" which puts him roughly there, not somewhere else.

Even John Calvin is subject to fits of opinion not base on actual evidence.

Of course Adam was likely in the general vicinity, but probably he was not standing beside his wife while she spoke with the serpent.
Probably the likelihood of your opinion being wrong is greater than the likelihood of John Calvin, John Gill, Trapp, and other bible commentaries being wrong. That is, it is likely that you have misread the text or not understood its context. Unless, all of these men are so blinded by gender bias that they cannot correctly interpret the text. Witness Lee included. Witness Lee's view happens to agree with these men. So we could say that Witness Lee's view is the "orthodox" one on this matter.

The Bible teaches that the woman listened to the serpent, and the man listened to his wife. The man did not listen to the serpent, so he was not beside her when it happened.

Adam may or may not have been there, but the bible says clearly that he was not deceived:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:13–14).

Adam was not persuaded by Satan, he was not deceived. Perhaps Adam trustingly and innocently took the fruit from his wife and ate it. Being a good husband to eat "whatever his wife puts on the table", he ate it.

As indicated by verses 12 and 13 -Adam's fall was to take the fruit from his wife and eat it. And woman's fall was to be deceived by Satan:

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

The woman's sin was to follow Satan, and the man's sin was to follow his wife.

To protect against this, God ordained that wife should follow her husband, because Eve was deceived, not Adam. This is the reason why women should not be in authority over men. This is one of the two reasons that Paul gives for not allowing a woman to have authority over a man:

1 Timothy 2:12-4 I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.

I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

The first reason is because Adam was first and Eve was second. Eve was created as a helper and not to replace the role of Adam. This principle of being first also holds in the matter of parents and children. The parents come before the children so the children must be in subjection to the parents.

The second reason is because woman was deceived, not man.

[Evangelical]

This "theory" about Adam repenting or not repenting sounds a lot like OBW recently said about Witness Lee "... taught a lot of things that were nowhere in the text. The were just his opinions.".

Let's consider the facts of what the bible actually says.

It says that instead of repenting, the first thing they did was hide from God and cover themselves up. They tried to hide their sin and cover it, not repent.

God is gracious towards them but this is likely due to His grace and mercy and not dependent upon their repentance. A person could construct an equally plausible theory about Adam and Eve's repentance:
God showed them grace and mercy despite them not having repented. Perhaps their feeling of guilt and regret as evidenced by them hiding from God and covering themselves, was enough for God to show mercy.

God covering them with sheepskin is to show God covering their sin, His grace and mercy, irrespective of whether they repented or not (they were saved by grace, not works).

We should keep in mind that the bible never mentions anything about Adam or Eve's repentance because the point of the story of Adam and Eve's transgression is to show us that all men have sinned, to point to Christ.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Probably the likelihood of your opinion being wrong is greater than the likelihood of John Calvin, John Gill, Trapp, and other bible commentaries being wrong.

The point to be made in either case is that it is an opinion that is not drawn from the text, but read back onto it.

You are correct that 1 Timothy says that the man was not deceived. Rather he knowingly took of it without much concern. His wife had eaten and was still standing, so it must be OK.

Be he was with her. It is very doubtful that he was removed enough that he did not know the source of the fruit. Whether he heard the serpent, or just saw her take the fruit, he knew what he was eating. According to you, he didn't even have "the Devil made me do it" as an excuse. He just ate it without the appearance of a care or worry.

As for this particular text. It is not the only one in which Paul commented on women in the church. And the others do not universally support this particular "be silent" edict. That would tend to indicate that there was a particular reason for this comment that was not present in others.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We should keep in mind that the bible never mentions anything about Adam or Eve's repentance because the point of the story of Adam and Eve's transgression is to show us that all men have sinned, to point to Christ.

Perhaps repentance is not specifically mentioned, but they did bear (bare?) the shame of their sin, and the fear of God's judgment.

Later they did believe God's promise of a Savior yet to come. They saw the shed blood of an animal sacrifice, heard God's word, believed His promise, and were clothed with that sacrificial animal skin.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

The point to be made in either case is that it is an opinion that is not drawn from the text, but read back onto it.

You are correct that 1 Timothy says that the man was not deceived. Rather he knowingly took of it without much concern. His wife had eaten and was still standing, so it must be OK.

Be he was with her. It is very doubtful that he was removed enough that he did not know the source of the fruit. Whether he heard the serpent, or just saw her take the fruit, he knew what he was eating. According to you, he didn't even have "the Devil made me do it" as an excuse. He just ate it without the appearance of a care or worry.

As for this particular text. It is not the only one in which Paul commented on women in the church. And the others do not universally support this particular "be silent" edict. That would tend to indicate that there was a particular reason for this comment that was not present in others.

Probably the strongest proof that this edict was not due to cultural reasons or anything of a localized nature is Paul's appeal to the Creation story in Genesis to support his edict. He could have appealed to good manners, avoiding disturbing others, brotherly love, as reasons for silence. But he didn't. He went back to the creation as reasons why women should keep silent. That means it is a general and universal principle.

If it was because of local reasons then Paul would have appealed to common sense and good manners or brotherly love. Suppose there were some unruly women (or men) in a local church today, we would not say to them "please keep keep quiet because you (through Eve) were created after Adam and you were deceived, not Adam". We would say "please keep quiet because you are disturbing other people".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps repentance is not specifically mentioned, but they did bear (bare?) the shame of their sin, and the fear of God's judgment.

Later they did believe God's promise of a Savior yet to come. They saw the shed blood of an animal sacrifice, heard God's word, believed His promise, and were clothed with that sacrificial animal skin.

I believe as it was a case of deception and not a willful act of sin, God showed mercy and their blessing was not conditional upon their repentance. That is, Eve and Adam did not decide to rebel against God and eat the fruit. Eve was deceived by Satan, and she never takes the blame for that when she says:

"And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.".

[Nell]

Genesis 3:16 - The big lemon

Problem 1: Turning or Lust?
Problem 2: Is Woman Cursed?
Problem 3: Did God Mandate that Man Rule Over Woman?

Genesis 3:16 (KJV)
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Nell

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

Let's see a show of hands of all the males who have been hindered in their roles as Christians because of domineering Christian women.

Let's see. . Aimee Semple McPherson, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Patsy Freeman, Ellen G. White, Jesse Penn-Lewis. The first and the last of those both negatively impinged upon my walk. But really, what of it? Life goes on. Let go.

But what of it? I notice precious little talk here of Jesus Christ, merely Paul's advice in epistolic format. Where are the gospels? Did Jesus get so thoroughly effaced by Paul's word?

Jesus clearly ran the show. If he wanted to allow women into the inner circle of disciples, there they were. And there they were. Jesus was Roberts Rules of Order personified. "Whatever he tells you, do it", his mother told the servants. There were women all around, functioning. Yet not as the twelve. Why? Because of convention.

In this Paul echoed Jesus. The days and years, post-Pentecost, were full of tumult, often with no center. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, who tried to re-create pentecostal ferver with each meeting, shouting each other down. Paul tried to restore order. In this context, his writings on women come forth. Everybody was now free - slaves didn't have to obey the master, children were free from parents, married men could abandon their children and go off to preach the gospel. The last days were at hand. The kingdome of God was poured out, for all to see.

"God has raised this Jesus to life, to which we are all witnesses. Exalted, then, to the right hand of God, He has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear."

This overturned everything, as it should. Yet Paul desperately cautioned not to forget social convention. Slaves, women, children, fathers, all had to remember where they still were in society and not become dangerously unstable. In this he did echo Jesus, who was of all things an observant Jew.

Anyway, I haven't gotten to my point, which was to support Nell that there has been widespread systematized oppression. We should acknowledge this and repent. And secondly, to yet again raise the point that the movement of Nee started with women in the lead, yet 100 years later when women's rights have advanced, the "recovery" has clearly regressed, and become reactionary. It turns out that women were disposable, in the recovery. They served their purpose and then got abandoned when temporal power was amassed. Funny thing what power does to a man. (Or a woman.)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Probably the strongest proof that this edict was not due to cultural reasons or anything of a localized nature is Paul's appeal to the Creation story in Genesis to support his edict. He could have appealed to good manners, avoiding disturbing others, brotherly love, as reasons for silence. But he didn't. He went back to the creation as reasons why women should keep silent. That means it is a general and universal principle.

Or it means it is an example that is being used in this particular case. There is nothing magical about using it in a context that provides it with "general principle" status. Paul did not speak this way concerning women in other contexts. But here in writing to Timothy, who was still in Ephesus, he writes in this manner. There was something in Ephesus that needed this particular warning.

Remember. Paul did not speak the same thing in all places. He spoke to the issues that needed addressing.

And when you read the epistle that was later labeled as to Ephesus, you find that the submission was a two-way street. We were to submit to one another. Wives to husbands, and husbands to wives. No hierarchy of submission except that all submit to Christ.

[Cal]

Evangelical,

If women are to "keep silent" and that is a universal principle, how do you explain the LCM allowing women to testify in meetings? That's hardly keeping silent.

I can tell you the story Witness Lee told us. Nee was torn about this issue and finally decreed that there were too many riches in the sisters that were being denied the church by making them remain silent. He said they'd cut off 50% of the church from sharing. So they decided to allow them to speak.

My point is that there are several lenses to look at this thing through. Jesus himself never seemed to have a problem with women just for being women. I think there are some strengths and weaknesses of the genders we should be aware of, and that generally men should lead and set direction in the church and family. Women generally should support. But there are just too many blessed and helpful women's ministries which testify against your extreme interpretation.

As I said, in Paul's day teaching was not bible interpretation, it was saying you had a direct line from God. Teaching is different today. We don't have apostles. We have the word, and anyone can read it and interpret it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Remember. Paul did not speak the same thing in all places. He spoke to the issues that needed addressing.

And when you read the epistle that was later labeled as to Ephesus, you find that the submission was a two-way street. We were to submit to one another. Wives to husbands, and husbands to wives. No hierarchy of submission except that all submit to Christ.

This speaks to what I was getting at. First, look at context; don't assume a one-size-fits-all directive for all. Second, ask yourself how much the implementation moves away from the clear, repeated examples Jesus gave in both word and deed. As I once put it, it's too easy to use the letter of Paul to quench the Spirit of Jesus.

Slaves obey your masters. Still applicable in our workplace. We voluntarily indenture ourselves for payment, so the hierarchical rules still apply.

Obey the king. Other than the fact that we have a government of laws rather than persons, still applicable.

Obey one another. Obviously relevant, and coherent with Jesus' core message. (the first two Jesus didn't preach on but they can easily be assumed).

Children obey your parents. Still applicable. Shouldn't a two-year-old obey a 22-year-old mother? Or a 12-year-old obey a 35-year-old father? Even the unbelievers would think this still makes sense.

Women obey men ('be silent in church/obey your husbands etc'). This I think deserves very careful scrutiny. The times have changed. Paul was speaking to the time. Don't upset social convention in the name of our newfound freedom in Christ. This goes to the 'king' idea as well. Herod the despised may be on the throne. Oh well. "My kingdom is not of this earth".

This speaks to the Epistle to the Corinthians as well. Also the epistle to Timothy, and Jude's letter: libertines were coming in. Drunkards, sexually promiscuous, etc, saying, "The law is over", and "We are free in Christ" Paul was speaking to this. But guess what? 2,000 years have gone by and the context of freedom in social arrangements has changed.

I've said it several times but it bears about 50 more. Why did women start the Little Flock movement with Watchman Nee, and 100 years later, they can't speak from the podium? Women now can vote and run for president but they can't speak in front of a LC meeting. They have to be "covered by a brother". The letter of Paul has now been used to establish an controlling hierarchy of oppressive, reactionary old men, and those who'll submit to them and their system. Pft. Where is Jesus, here? Nowhere that I can see. Like the RCC. Hierarchy and control. Rigidity. "Order". No life. No freedom of the spirit.

Btw I'm not advocating a new group formation, or the 'emergent church' or ordination of women or any such thing. I'm simply saying let's respect the narrative, here. Let's look at it again, instead of saying, "Paul says 'x' ". Talk about dead letters. Again and again and again; look at Jesus over and over, and you'll see what Paul's spirit is addressing here. Paul didn't leave the Jesus he met on the road. Why should we?

[Nell]

Note that this letter was written by Paul to Timothy...not to a church.

The letter to Timothy was written due to a church situation in Ephesus related to the Ephesian culture, i.e., the church was under the influence of the worship of the Roman goddess Diana (same as Greek goddess Artemis). Jane explains all of these restrictions on women which can be understood in view of temple practices and the Ephesian culture.

1 Timothy 2:8-15 (KJV)
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point is that there are several lenses to look at this thing through. Jesus himself never seemed to have a problem with women just for being women. I think there are some strengths and weaknesses of the genders we should be aware of, and that generally men should lead and set direction in the church and family. Women generally should support. But there are just too many blessed and helpful women's ministries which testify against your extreme interpretation.

Any man, though he be a church official, who would demand that all women be silent in the church is a man who should be removed from his position.

[aron]

A related point: Jesus was very respectful of all persons; everyone got respect (or, love). But note what Jesus told the promiscuous person: "do not sin again". So if you read Paul against this, women in a changed society would likely have changed rights, as would previously oppressed minorities. But behaviours (drunkenness, promiscuity, theft, violence) would still be censored. We're to be a holy people.

My point is that if society becomes more "liberal", or permissive of behaviours, the assembly of Jesus does not. But being a female is not a behaviour. Neither is being African-American or Jewish. All genders are equal, as are races and cultures and classes. In this regard, there is neither male nor female, greek nor Jew, slave nor free. Christ has subsumed all.

But against this new freedom and equality in Christ Jesus, Paul was reminding them, this now doesn't mean that anything goes. If you read his various restrictions this way it matches Jesus very well. The Spirit of Jesus has come, but our new orientation and obedience to the freedom of the Spirit doesn't mean we forget the various laws, social and political.

But to say, "Women should be silent. Why? Paul said so", is to miss Jesus by a country mile. Not saying anyone did this here. But in authoritarian assemblies like the LC one may find the letter of Paul used to discourage conversation.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Evangelical,

If women are to "keep silent" and that is a universal principle, how do you explain the LCM allowing women to testify in meetings? That's hardly keeping silent.

I can tell you the story Witness Lee told us. Nee was torn about this issue and finally decreed that there were too many riches in the sisters that were being denied the church by making them remain silent. He said they'd cut off 50% of the church from sharing. So they decided to allow them to speak.

My point is that there are several lenses to look at this thing through. Jesus himself never seemed to have a problem with women just for being women. I think there are some strengths and weaknesses of the genders we should be aware of, and that generally men should lead and set direction in the church and family. Women generally should support. But there are just too many blessed and helpful women's ministries which testify against your extreme interpretation.

As I said, in Paul's day teaching was not bible interpretation, it was saying you had a direct line from God. Teaching is different today. We don't have apostles. We have the word, and anyone can read it and interpret it.

Igzy, I am talking about women holding authority over men in authoritative teaching or leadership roles - not prophesying, of which there are a number of biblical examples.

I mean it is universal in the sense of applying to all women for all time (i.e. since the creation of woman in Genesis). When Paul says "keep quiet because you were created after the man", that says to me it is a universal principle applied to all women of all cultures and all time, just like pain in childbirth.

There is also another general principle that women should learn from their husbands at home:

1 Cor 14:35 "If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. "

How many husbands today are teaching their wives at home? How many expect the pastor to do it for them?

I disagree that we don't have apostles today. An apostle is simply a messenger or one sent on a mission from God. Today we would call them missionaries. In the Bible there is no one called a "missionary". I believe this word has been invented to satisfy those who get edgy when anyone mentions the word apostle. Because they don't understand that an apostle is not someone who does great miracles or writes books of the bible, they are simple messengers.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Note that this letter was written by Paul to Timothy...not to a church.

The letter to Timothy was written due to a church situation in Ephesus related to the Ephesian culture, i.e., the church was under the influence of the worship of the Roman goddess Diana (same as Greek goddess Artemis). Jane explains all of these restrictions on women which can be understood in view of temple practices and the Ephesian culture.

1 Timothy 2:8-15 (KJV)
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

If we turn to the next chapter 3 it lists the requirements of an overseer and deacons and they include being a male (husband of one wife).

1 Timothy 3:1-7 is about overseers. Vs 8-10 are about deacons. And verse 11 is about women. Overseers and deacons are not women. This matches the verse "12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man".

The instructions to Timothy also match the instructions to the church at Corinth.

1 Cor 14:35 rules out that Paul was simply speaking his opinion:

If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Or it means it is an example that is being used in this particular case. There is nothing magical about using it in a context that provides it with "general principle" status. Paul did not speak this way concerning women in other contexts. But here in writing to Timothy, who was still in Ephesus, he writes in this manner. There was something in Ephesus that needed this particular warning.

Remember. Paul did not speak the same thing in all places. He spoke to the issues that needed addressing.

And when you read the epistle that was later labeled as to Ephesus, you find that the submission was a two-way street. We were to submit to one another. Wives to husbands, and husbands to wives. No hierarchy of submission except that all submit to Christ.

What about Corinth? That was written to a church.

The two-way street idea is false doctrine. There is no verse in the Bible which says "husbands should submit to wives". There is no two-way street between Christ and us, or between the husband and wife.

It says wives should submit to husbands, and both husbands and wives should submit to Christ. The order is Christ -> Husband,wife -> Wife.

There is also no verse which says a man should submit to another man's wife (or any woman).

The instructions to "submit to one another" are concerning love between brothers:

Romans 12:10
Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

BTW the confusion between gender roles in the church started around the same time that confusion around sexuality arose in the church. They are both from the same Jezebel spirit.

[Evangelical]

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is the way God designed the church to function.

The Recovery's view of women's role in prophesying but not teaching is very similar to that of Luther's:

But in the New Testament the Holy Spirit, speaking through St. Paul, ordained that women should be silent in the churches and assemblies (1 Cor 14:34), and said that this is the Lord’s commandment. Yet he knew that previously Joel (2:28,29) had proclaimed that God would pour out his Spirit also on handmaidens. Furthermore, the four daughters of Philip prophesied (Acts 21:9). But in the congregations or churches where there is a ministry women are to be silent and not preach (1 Timothy 2:12). Otherwise they may pray, sing, praise, and say ‘Amen’, and read at home, teach each other, exhort, comfort and interpret the Scriptures as best they can (LW 40:390, 391).

The four daughters of Philip were prophetesses. A woman can do this – not preach in public, but console and teach – a woman can do this just as much as a man. There are certainly women and girls who are able to comfort others and teach true words, that is to say, who can explain Scripture and teach and console other people…this all counts as prophesying, not preaching (Sermon on Joel 2:28 (1531) Weimar Ausgabe [Weimar Edition] XXXIV, p 483).


The role of women in the church being confined to prophesying not preaching has been held since the time the bible was written:

What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman… I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children. –Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354 – 430): De genesi ad litteram, 9, 5-9

In all these discussions we should keep in mind that not all women agree with females taking on male roles in the church. There are many women content with subservient roles.

[Nell]

All--

I've posted 3 attachments from Woman of Chayil but so far I see no indication anyone is posting comments after having read these attachments. Hopefully this will not end up just another topic gone down the bunny trail.

To be fair, please take a look at the attachments and comment.

Thank you--
Nell

[Evangelical]

Jane addresses the verse in Timothy but does not seem to address the same thing being said in Corinth of which bible commentaries say are general principles:

1 Cor 14:34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

Paul's statement "as also saith the Law" is in reference to Genesis 3:16 and Numbers 30:3-12 which also indicates the general nature of his command. These are universal principles that Paul laid down in all the churches.

I note that churches is plural, indicating it applying to more than just the Corinthian church. And this verse cannot be explained away as applying only to Timothy or the Ephesians.

It would seem that Jane's book does not advocate allowing a woman to be a pastor or an elder, only to teach in a local church (of which prophesying is a kind of teaching). She frequency references Wade Burleson who believes that women, although they may teach in a church, cannot be Senior Pastors or elders, as per Southern Baptist conventions.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches] The position of women in Christian assemblies is now decided on the principles laid down in ch. 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 11:7-9.

Pulpit commentary

Verses 34, 35. - Rules about the public teaching by women. Verse 34. - Let your women keep silence in the Churches. St. Paul evidently meant this to be a general rule, and one which ought to be normally observed; for he repeats it in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12. At the same time, it is fair to interpret it as a rule made with special reference to time and circumstances, and obviously admitting of exceptions in both dispensations (Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Nehemiah 6:14; Luke 2:36; Acts 2:17; Acts 21:9), as is perhaps tacitly implied in 1 Corinthians 11:5. But... to be under obedience (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 2:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1). Christianity emancipated women, but did not place them on an equality with men. As also saith the Law (Genesis 3:16; Numbers 30:3-12).

[Drake]

Aron) "All genders are equal, as are races and cultures and classes. In this regard, there is neither male nor female, greek nor Jew, slave nor free. Christ has subsumed all."

Aron, that is true only "In" Christ.

Apart from Christ all those divisions are present and active as is evident in the world in which we live.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

BTW the confusion between gender roles in the church started around the same time that confusion around sexuality arose in the church. They are both from the same Jezebel spirit.

Margaret Barber tutored the young Nee, absent any male covering. She'd been recalled to Europe but refused and worked independently. Nee's "Spiritual Man", his only true written work (the rest being transcriptions of talks) was either a plagiarization of Jesse Penn-Lewis or a "homage" if you want to take an indulgent view. Ruth Lee, Peace Wang, Miss Fishbacher, Dora Yu. . I could go on. None of them would last a week under Lee or the Blendeds. Either the Little Flock was founded by the Jezebel spirit, or maybe the Age of the Functioning Female has passed? The illegitimate dispensationalist break-away sect invents yet another age, complete with proprietary myths and genealogies, to change the rules of engagement yet again. The whole thing seems a farce of expediency, and the base underlying the current power trip.

A conversation in the LC is long overdue, and some fresh air. The narrative has been at best stale, at worst duplicitous and two-faced. How did Witness Lee sell these Just So Stories to so many thousands? Were we all that mesmerized? What spirit was at work here, I wonder.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron) "All genders are equal, as are races and cultures and classes. In this regard, there is neither male nor female, greek nor Jew, slave nor free. Christ has subsumed all."

Aron, that is true only "In" Christ.

Apart from Christ all those divisions are present and active as is evident in the world in which we live.

Drake

"Those things are like this among the gentiles, but it should not be that way with you." ~Matthew 20:25

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Margaret Barber tutored the young Nee, absent any male covering. She'd been recalled to Europe but refused and worked independently. Nee's "Spiritual Man", his only true written work (the rest being transcriptions of talks) was either a plagiarization of Jesse Penn-Lewis or a "homage" if you want to take an indulgent view. Ruth Lee, Peace Wang, Miss Fishbacher, Dora Yu. . I could go on. None of them would last a week under Lee or the Blendeds. Either the Little Flock was founded by the Jezebel spirit, or maybe the Age of the Functioning Female has passed? The illegitimate dispensationalist church invents yet another age, to change the rules yet again. The whole thing seems to be a farce of expediency, and the base underlying the current power trip.

A conversation in the LC is long overdue. We'd welcome some fresh air, here. The narrative has been at best stale, at worst duplicitous and two-faced.

For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly, no matter what she says,
even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little
consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman. –Origen (d. 258): Fragments on First Corinthians, 74

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly, no matter what she says, even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman. –Origen (d. 258): Fragments on First Corinthians, 74

How then do you reckon this with Paul's dictum that there is no male nor female, slave nor free, greek nor jew? The second and third distinctions have been truly effaced, and equalized, but not the first? Why is that? And, what did Origen say about slavery? Would he say the same things today?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly, no matter what she says,
even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little
consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman. –Origen (d. 258): Fragments on First Corinthians, 74

Origen is a study into Christian extremes. Though much good was done (against heresy) he introduced new heresy, like reincarnation and universal reconcilation, that is, each of us pre-existed in another form before our conception and all people including the devil will be saved. Far too New Age for me. Got any better sources to support your chauvinist views?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

"Those things are like this among the gentiles, but it should not be that way with you." ~Matthew 20:25

Yes, of course.

Yet, Paul did not seek to abolish to human institution of slavery.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Got any better sources

What about Jesus? What did he teach on women? Pretty much nothing from what I can see. They got treated same as everyone else. They got healed, forgiven, fed and admonished. They are sinners who need redemption, and who evidently were also disciples.

To me that's the first salient point. They had access to Jesus. Not through their husbands, but directly. In this Jesus seems to have been quite "progressive", as we'd put it today. He was an observant Jew, and dutifully regarded gentiles as 'dogs', but he never told anyone to 'know their place'; in fact it seems people repeatedly by-passed social strictures and he didn't care much. So the current fundamentalist reactionaries seem to miss the point of his ministry.

Now, behavior is a different matter. He wasn't permissive. But that's pretty clear. I don't think we need to confuse the issues.

Secondly, the poor, the despised, the weak, the widows, the sick; they got the grace. So if women are upset with their treatment and we say, "Too bad for you to be born female. Live with it", we miss the point of his ministry. Women had the short stick all along. Unless we see a few verses from Jesus, we shouldn't wave them away with a few verses of Paul.

Lastly, I find the fundamentalist "It's in the Bible" pose to be full of hypocrisy. I already have written repeatedly on the genesis of the movement. Women assumed leadership roles in activity and doctrine. Who (re)discovered the 'three parts of man' in LC folklore? A woman. Who discovered the secret rapture? A woman. See Darby and the genesis of this idea. He was chief promulgator but he didn't originate it. Some woman got it in a feverish dream on her sick-bed.

I knew of a LC couple where the woman's a professional, earns hundreds of thousands. Her husband stays home and raises the kids. They go to meetings, I was there with them for several years. No one, not once intimated Paul's dictum that she stay home and "be saved through child-bearing" or child-rearing. Why not? Because that 'truth' isn't expedient for the coffers. They were paying customers.

Selective application abounds.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, of course.

Yet, Paul did not seek to abolish to human institution of slavery.

Drake

Neither did the church, subsequent to Paul. Nor vis-a-vis woman's suffrage, for that matter. Society moves, then the church adapts, fitfully. Change comes from the market and the political realm, and from culture. Not from religion.

Again, as I said, behaviours are different. Drunkenness, theft and fornication are behavioural choices, with real consequences. Don't conflate the issues.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jane addresses the verse in Timothy but does not seem to address the same thing being said in Corinth of which bible commentaries say are general principles:

Of course Jane discusses the verses in Corinthians. 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 14. I told you this on March 9 in my post #43 below. You also would have known that if you had actually read her book, or, if you had even read the Table of Contents of her book. Just because it's not quoted here, you cannot presume and report to others something that is false and clearly stated on this forum and her book.

Statements like yours illustrate the folly of discussing a book you have not read.

I remind you that the commentaries you seem to rely on so heavily, are opinions of men and not authoritative, as accurate as they may be. The original Hebrew text is authoritative. If the original text is mistranslated into English, the commentaries that "comment" on errant translation verses are also errant. I have tried to make this point over and over, but apparently I have not made myself clear on something that should be obvious. Yet another indication that actually reading the book would help this discussion significantly.

I do appreciate the enlightened remarks of most of the forum members who are participating in this discussion. These members have highlighted the gap between the lemon translations and the message of the entire New Testament, of Paul's ministry, and the nature of God Himself. This is also a point Jane discusses.

So, once again, here are the lemon translations. I've included the Kindle Location numbers.

Lemon 1: 1 Cor. 11:1-16, Kindle Location 2697
Lemon 2: 1 Cor. 14:29-40, Loc. 3012
Lemon 3: Eph. 5:22-24, Loc. 3079
Lemon 4: Col. 3:18, Loc. 3300
Lemon 5: 1 Tim. 2:8-15, Loc. 3328
Lemon 6: Titus 2:3-5, Loc. 3519
Lemon 7: 1 Peter 3:1-6, Loc. 3574

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The two-way street idea is false doctrine. There is no verse in the Bible which says "husbands should submit to wives". There is no two-way street between Christ and us, or between the husband and wife.

Directly, no. But before Paul said for wives to submit to husbands in Ephesians 5, he said to submit to one another. That is the first charge. Everyone is charged to submit to the others.

(And in this one charge, Nee's Authority and Submission is severely crippled.)

Yes, he does continue on to say what he does about husband and wife, but nothing generally about man and woman.

And what follows concerning the husbands is within the overall charge of "submit." To miss this is to treat it like a series of unrelated verses. Like fortune cookies.

I would suggest that, similar to the speaking to Timothy that has already been posted concerning the culture of Ephesus, the more definitive passage to the wives was pointed at that and not intended to create some general status of women as a whole being second-class citizens.

I would agree that there are roles, but that there are examples throughout scripture that demonstrate women in capacities that are beyond what your declaration of universal meaning to this passage would allow. So when there is an uncertainty between what the Bible describes and what you want to extend beyond what it says, I would stand with what the Bible describes every time. It does not definitively say that a woman should never be in a place of authority. That is your extension. But I see examples of women in authority, therefore the presumption of some universal principle must be rejected, or at least suspect.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Neither did the church, subsequent to Paul. Nor vis-a-vis woman's suffrage, for that matter. Society moves, then the church adapts, fitfully. Change comes from the market and the political realm, and from culture. Not from religion.

Again, as I said, behaviours are different. Drunkenness, theft and fornication are behavioural choices, with real consequences. Don't conflate the issues.

You seemed to suggest that there is no male female slave or free since Christ dealt with it. I am saying that only in Christ do we experience the effectiveness of His death. Society, culture, human institutions such as slavery or democracy for that matter are outside of Christ.

Don't confuse the two.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

You seemed to suggest that there is no male female slave or free since Christ dealt with it. I am saying that only in Christ do we experience the effectiveness of His death. Society, culture, human institutions such as slavery or democracy for that matter are outside of Christ.

Don't confuse the two.

And I would say to you that you should not misconstrue what aron is saying.

It is true that the real experience of no male or female, slave or free, is in Christ. But what does that mean to you? Are you in Christ? Then there is no male or female. No slave nor free.

Obviously this means that our interaction is without reference to the realities of our physical and legal status in the human world. Not that we cease to be any of these things. Clearly only the women bear children — whether or not they are in Christ. And depending on the times and laws of the times, slaves are still slaves.

But though human culture is "outside of Christ," if we are alive, we are part of human culture. And how we live and behave among the Christian community should affect the broader human culture around us.

But sometimes we come to the point where we realize that those who are on the inside are not truly living in the "no male or female" or "submit to one another" way. And every time that these kinds of things are identified, the first thing that happens is that the majority close ranks and defend the status quo. It doesn't necessarily relate to whether they benefit from the status quo, though it often does.

Awareness (I think) has pointed out elsewhere that the Southern Baptists at least somewhat began as a stand of solidarity against the move to prohibit slavery in the American South. While I would not be surprised to find bigoted people and positions with that group today (and in most groups for tat matter) I would not find a single person of significance that would support slavery in any form.

But in between there was a lot of reading of the same old verses in the same old way with the goal of keeping things the same. But over time the error in understanding was made manifest. At first they continued to kick and scream. People who would never join the Klan still liked their politics. But that has heavily changed. (Not that the Klan is now gone, but is losing its influence.)

The same may be true here. You like a particular verse. Or a particular position that is based on a general understanding of verses. And you cannot see beyond the knee-jerk reaction that there is no reason to even think about the possibility that the other side might be right on this. Just close ranks and fight. Spew the rhetoric without engaging you brain for more than seeing what you have been told is there to see. Not a chance that you might discover it really doesn't say what you think.

One takes courage to actually think for yourself after reading for yourself. The other takes nothing but turning on the tape machine. Don't confuse playing tapes for thinking.

[Drake]

OBW ,

Fewer lectures and more subject matter please. Thanks.

I do not believe that it is the church's mission to change society. Rather to hasten the One who will establish the kingdom that will reign in righteousness and endure forever. I do not see any substantial evidence in the Bible either. That is not say that we don't participate or engage in worthy goals to change things. Paul did not seek to eliminate slavery yet in Christ Philemon was a brother as was his slave and the human relationship between them was not transferable yet Paul respected it but still tried to arbitrate in the confines of that norm in that day.

There are many injustices in the world and I have and am involved in rectifying those I can influence. Yet, that is not the mission of the church.

Aron's points on behavior are compelling.

Hope that is clearer.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW ,

Fewer lectures and more subject matter please. Thanks.

Thanks
Drake

Drake scolding another poster for "lecturing."

Now that's funny!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW ,

Fewer lectures and more subject matter please. Thanks.

Drake

Drake,

To what "subject matter" are you referring? The subject matter of this topic is a book: A Woman of Chayil. Like Ohio, I think it's hilarious that you would call out anyone for subject matter infraction when you are a primary subject matter offender. I see no indication that you have made a single "on topic" post on this thread. In fact, I seem to be the only member who is "on topic."

Please limit your comments to the book, A Woman of Chayil. You and your buddy.

Nell

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

Drake,

To what "subject matter" are you referring? The subject matter of this topic is a book: A Woman of Chayil. Like Ohio, I think it's hilarious that you would call out anyone for subject matter infraction when you are a primary subject matter offender. I see no indication that you have made a single "on topic" post on this thread. In fact, I seem to be the only member who is "on topic."

Please limit your comments to the book, A Woman of Chayil. You and your buddy.

Nell

Sure Nell. Here you go.

The subject of slavery as a human construct may be as easily applied to woman's issues. They are issues that are not in Christ because in Him there is no male female slave or freeman. Whereas I see some logic to Jane's argument I am not convinced that there isnt some influence with these human issues in her thinking. Outside in. Or, more likely, her negative experience has caused her to view things through the filter of her experience. That would be understandable but not portable. Since the subject of slavery was brought up I responded to it as a similar construct since no one here is or has been a slave it is easier to talk about the logic and remove the emotion. I recommend you head off off topic discussions when you first see them if that is important to you.

Like slavery in the Bible, the women's issue of equality or being in subjection is not a central mission of the church. Paul did not try to end slavery or rebel against the antichrist emperor Nero. Apparently he underscored Gods arrangement concerning woman and man Jane's forceful argument notwithstanding.

Drake

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sure Nell. Here you go.

The subject of slavery as a human construct may be as easily applied to woman's issues. They are issues that are not in Christ because in Him there is no male female slave or freeman. Whereas I see some logic to Jane's argument I am not convinced that there isnt some influence with these human issues in her thinking. Outside in. Or, more likely, her negative experience has caused her to view things through the filter of her experience. That would be understandable but not portable. Since the subject of slavery was brought up I responded to it as a similar construct since no one here is or has been a slave it is easier to talk about the logic and remove the emotion. I recommend you head off off topic discussions when you first see them if that is important to you.

Like slavery in the Bible, the women's issue of equality or being in subjection is not a central mission of the church. Paul did not try to end slavery or rebel against the antichrist emperor Nero. Apparently he underscored Gods arrangement concerning woman and man Jane's forceful argument notwithstanding.

Drake

What argument? What are you referencing in WOC?

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

I do not believe that it is the church's mission to change society. Rather to hasten the One who will establish the kingdom that will reign in righteousness and endure forever.

Just as your sect's view is that it is not the church's mission to do any kind of benevolence to those who are not part of your sect.

But if you note, my concern was not what was wrong with society, but what was wrong with the people of God whether or not that does or does not mirror society. The fight of the 1800s was to maintain slavery as an acceptable practice for Christians. It was also the fight of society at large.

In this case, we are not concerned whether the role and view of women is mirrored in society. In Western society the role and view of women is better than it is within the church (at least certain parts of the church — including the parts that many of us, including those in the LRC, are attached to). And that is despite the continued existence of some level of "glass ceiling" facing many women. And in other parts of the world, the role and view of women is still worse than it was in Jewish society at the time of Christ. Quite a disparity of views/roles. But for us, the first issue should be to carefully study how it should be within the church. Not study the answers that are predicated on the previous generation's answers, which are predicated upon the previous generation's answers (and on and on) back to the time of the writing of the NT. That is how the SBC went about defending slavery in the 1800s. And others used the Bible to segregate (and subjugate without actual slavery) in more recent years.

There is a hierarchy to the Bible, even within the NT. The Jews referred to what we call the OT as the law and prophets, and the commentary. While it is all inspired by God and profitable for teaching, the commentary arises in response to the specifics of the time and situation. Same can be said for the NT. There are the gospels. Then there is the commentary. The commentary is scripture, but it is designed to comment into the specific, not provide the base framework in which everything works. The framework is in the words and deeds of Jesus. When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, he granted her a status higher than a devout Jew would to a proper Jewish woman. Just one example.

What your "church's mission" statement fails to recognize is that the Kingdom is here right now. But as long as we fail to live that kingdom in every aspect of our lives, it is not ready to burst forth in full. And living that kingdom is not about better lexicons, high meetings, better teachings, etc. It is about all aspects of the right-living of its participants. And having the attitude that my sick wife just needs to call on the Lord and continue doing the dishes while I go to my study and do (whatever) is NOT part of right-living.

And having the notion that we should subjugate our wives is NOT part of right-living. I'm not talking about some general understanding of position before God (God over man over woman) but the attitude of what that means to us.

Besides, the Bible didn't tell me that the woman is supposed to submit (no matter what that is to mean) but it tells her to submit. God tells her to submit, not me (or you).

And we think that God is going to hasten his kingdom for people who are getting this so entirely wrong (assuming it is wrong). I know the mantra that the law is abolished. But if you look closely, that is a misunderstanding of what is abolished. The law was not written on our hearts so that we could be free to ignore it. Rather that we would be quick to obey.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

. . . . She also noted that nowhere does the Scripture say that God put Eve out of the garden. It does plainly say, however, that He drove Adam out of the garden and that He gave a consequence that was specifically tailored to fit with what Adam’s job had been in the Garden of Eden—to cultivate and guard it.

While I am not averse to the general notion provided in this short part, I believe that it is potentially presumptuous to suggest that woman was not put out since she was on the same side of the cherubim and the flaming sword as Adam when it was all over.

Besides, no matter how you do or don't like the allegedly sexist wording of the Bible, it does not say that Adam was put out of the Garden, but that "he" was put out. "He" and "man" are often used generically for mankind.

If you want to take the "he" as just meaning Adam, then it should be that only "the man (Adam) has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." And we know better than that because they both had the same revelation from the eating — they were naked. But other than the specific speaking to Eve, God never mentions the woman. Just "the man" and "he." Yet at least part of that is clearly applicable to the woman as well, so there is little room for anyone to be patting themselves on the back for getting a better shake in the deal.

But all of that aside, and my general perception that there is a level of over-analysis in this segment, the bulk of the truly relevant conclusions are correct. Genesis 3:16 is more descriptive, or maybe prophetic than it is prescriptive. The painful childbearing (if that is what it is supposed to be) is simply what it is. Maybe best described as Eve's punishment to go along with Adam's working the land that would now bring forth thorns and thistles. But the rest is a telling of what would be, not what ought to be. Or has to be.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

What argument? What are you referencing in WOC?

Nell

Jane has no argument?

Well then what is her point?

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

I do not believe that it is the church's mission to change society. Rather to hasten the One who will establish the kingdom that will reign in righteousness and endure forever.

The problem with that position is that it is difficult to conceive the latter taking place without the former occurring to some degree. How can a significant segment of society (the Church) be living in such a way as to cause the Lord of All to return to earth and yet their living still have no affect on the world around them?

We are the salt of the earth, our Lord told us. That clearly states we are to have some affect on the world. I believe most of that affect is the indirect result of our right living. But who can say for sure what level of "direct" attempt to change things is inappropriate, so long as it is in the Spirit? We cannot judge for others. So if you would rather read HWMRs and meet only with those you are comfortable with, fine. Just don't look down on others who feel to reach out more.

I don't think it's so simple as to say that the Church is not supposed to change the world. Jesus changed history. The church has too. One example is the missionaries who risked their lives to reach out to the murderous Huaorani tribe of Central America. Dramatized in the movie "The End of the Spear", this was the tribe in which something like 40% of the people were, over time, murdered by the others. They simply thought the way to solve conflicts was to kill each other. Totally demonic. Now, through the faith and sacrifice of missionaries, they are a peaceful Christ-centered society. So not only were some people changed, a whole society was changed. You can't change people without changing society to some extent.

I'm sorry, but sometimes this "our call is not to change society" talk sounds like an excuse for being impotent.

[Drake]

OBW) "And having the notion that we should subjugate our wives is NOT part of right-living"

I don't know anybody like that. I knew a brother once who was very overbearing but I think she divorced him.

Here's the thing OBW. I probably agree with some of your points but it's difficult to know for sure even after reading your posts several times. In general, there are many human constructs that the Bible seems to overlook or tolerate for the time being. Someone challenged the pouring out of expensive ointment citing the poor could have benefitted from it to which the Lord dismissed the complaint saying we always have the poor with us. He was not being indifferent to the poor, but He did state a fact that there can be other priorities (in this case related to His death). Or slavery or forms government. And yes, the arrangement of husband and wives They are all part of the same general category of human things in the fallen cosmos that will be with us till the One who rules in righteousness sets everything in order.

Andersons argument (lemons) overreaches. Whereas I think she makes some valid points, I also think she is goes too far in the application of the "lemons" and in forcing interpretations of scripture to make her point.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem with that position is that it is difficult to conceive the latter taking place without the former occurring to some degree. How can a significant segment of society (the Church) be living in such a way as to cause the Lord of All to return to earth and yet their living still have no affect on the world around them?

We are the salt of the earth, our Lord told us. That clearly states we are to have some affect on the world. I believe most of that affect is the indirect result of our right living. But who can say for sure what level of "direct" attempt to change things is inappropriate, so long as it is in the Spirit? We cannot judge for others. So if you would rather read HWMRs and meet only with those you are comfortable with, fine. Just don't look down on others who feel to reach out more.

I don't think it's so simple as to say that the Church is not supposed to change the world. Jesus changed history. The church has too. One example is the missionaries who risked their lives to reach out to the murderous Huaorani tribe of Central America. Dramatized in the movie "The End of the Spear", this was the tribe in which something like 40% of the people were, over time, murdered by the others. They simply thought the way to solve conflicts was to kill each other. Totally demonic. Now, through the faith and sacrifice of missionaries, they are a peaceful Christ-centered society. So not only were some people changed, a whole society was changed. You can't change people without changing society to some extent.

I'm sorry, but sometimes this "our call is not to change society" talk sounds like an excuse for being impotent.

I agree.

We are called to go into all the world and preach the gospel. That will change a society. They lived a Christ expressing life. They were the salt in that environment.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

I agree.

We are called to go into all the world and preach the gospel. That will change a society. They lived a Christ expressing life. They were the salt in that environment.

Drake

I've wondered if "the third part of the earth" that gets judged in Revelation represents those that simply will not allow the effect of the Church/God's people to influence them to submit to God. Then there is "a third of the angels" which went with Satan.

I think we sometimes assume that God only wins over a minority of the people, that Satan gets most of them. But, really, think about it: Do you really think God would stand for that? Would he let his enemy get most of the humans, when Satan only got a third of the angels?

So maybe, through the influence of the Church, at least two-thirds, roughly, eventually align themselves with God. And the cursed one-third are left to the judgment they earned. But God get most of the spoils. How could he let it be any other way?

Such a thought should embolden us with hope for those who don't know the Lord yet.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Nell

What argument? What are you referencing in WOC?

Nell

Jane has several arguments. Which one are you talking about? Where is it in
WOC?

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I am not averse to the general notion provided in this short part, I believe that it is potentially presumptuous to suggest that woman was not put out since she was on the same side of the cherubim and the flaming sword as Adam when it was all over.

As I said "...She (Jane) also noted that nowhere does the Scripture say that God put Eve out of the garden." If you have a verse stating otherwise, please quote it. It's hardly "potentially presumptuous" to suggest that the woman was not put out when the Bible nowhere says she was... unless you have a verse that says otherwise.

Further, as Jane has theorized, Eve chose to follow Adam out of the Garden. This goes back to the mistranslation of the Hebrew word teshuqua when Eve "turned" to her husband and followed him or accompanied him somehow out of the Garden, just as Gen. 3:16 warned.

It (the Bible) does plainly say, however, that He drove Adam out of the garden and that He gave a consequence that was specifically tailored to fit with what Adam’s job had been in the Garden of Eden—to cultivate and guard it.

Gen. 3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Besides, no matter how you do or don't like the allegedly sexist wording of the Bible, it does not say that Adam was put out of the Garden, but that "he" was put out. "He" and "man" are often used generically for mankind.

I think that's understood...

If you want to take the "he" as just meaning Adam, then it should be that only "the man (Adam) has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." And we know better than that because they both had the same revelation from the eating — they were naked. But other than the specific speaking to Eve, God never mentions the woman. Just "the man" and "he." Yet at least part of that is clearly applicable to the woman as well, so there is little room for anyone to be patting themselves on the back for getting a better shake in the deal.

But all of that aside, and my general perception that there is a level of over-analysis in this segment, ...

I believe you have a level of over analysis going on as well.

...the bulk of the truly relevant conclusions are correct. Genesis 3:16 is more descriptive, or maybe prophetic than it is prescriptive. The painful childbearing (if that is what it is supposed to be) is simply what it is. Maybe best described as Eve's punishment to go along with Adam's working the land that would now bring forth thorns and thistles. But the rest is a telling of what would be, not what ought to be. Or has to be.

Perhaps "what would be" if Eve turned to her husband to meet her needs instead of turning to God. I don't believe there is support for this being a punishment to Eve, since in Romans Paul held Adam accountable for sin entering the world but not Eve.

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come."

Another translation of Gen. 3:16 is from the ISV:
"I'll greatly increase the pain of your labor during childbirth. It will be painful for you to bear children, since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you." Discussed in Kindle Location 1052.

Nell

[Evangelical]

If we take a look at her 7 pages of Lemon Five: 1st Timothy 2:8–15. There are 7 pages of Jane's opinion in which she provides few, if any, citations to support her claims.

She even references online bible commentaries (opinions of men), just as I have when she says:

"The note on 1st Timothy 2:14 in the NET Bible (Internet version) agrees with
Bushnell’s insight"

She starts with the presupposition that 1 Tim 2:8-15 is a lemon translation, and then tries her hardest to prove that it is:

I found this lemon translation to be the most difficult one to resolve. Even though I had studied it, prayed over it, thought about it—every which way—and researched
others’ thoughts about it, I always was left with the feeling that I was missing something important.

If she "researched other's thoughts about it" then she should cite her sources.

Her method for discovering the truth is of is prayer and then to do a Google search to find an online article that supports her view:

"That morning, I found an article by a Christian pastor named Wade Burleson."

When she writes:
"This suggests the possibility that Paul..."

- it sounds very Witness Lee-like "this implies that..., this suggests that...". No real hard evidence from the existing theological literature to support her claims.

If we weigh the balance of opinions, on one side we have the old bible commentaries as well as writings by Luther, Calvin, Origin, the list goes on. To be rejected because of faulty bible translations. On Jane's side, we have herself and her opinions found through prayer and articles which conveniently support her point of view, to be believed because of a claim that the english bible is poorly translated (in some respects I believe it is, but not in this case).

It is remarkable that over hundreds of years no serious bible scholar has picked up the mistranslations of these verses from Hebrew/Greek into English. We know why now, thanks to Jane's book - because they were all men! Perhaps Luther, Calvin, Augustine, had never stopped to take the time to realize that their assumptions of male superiority were based upon faulty translations of the bible.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Directly, no. But before Paul said for wives to submit to husbands in Ephesians 5, he said to submit to one another. That is the first charge. Everyone is charged to submit to the others.

(And in this one charge, Nee's Authority and Submission is severely crippled.)

Yes, he does continue on to say what he does about husband and wife, but nothing generally about man and woman.

And what follows concerning the husbands is within the overall charge of "submit." To miss this is to treat it like a series of unrelated verses. Like fortune cookies.

I would suggest that, similar to the speaking to Timothy that has already been posted concerning the culture of Ephesus, the more definitive passage to the wives was pointed at that and not intended to create some general status of women as a whole being second-class citizens.

I would agree that there are roles, but that there are examples throughout scripture that demonstrate women in capacities that are beyond what your declaration of universal meaning to this passage would allow. So when there is an uncertainty between what the Bible describes and what you want to extend beyond what it says, I would stand with what the Bible describes every time. It does not definitively say that a woman should never be in a place of authority. That is your extension. But I see examples of women in authority, therefore the presumption of some universal principle must be rejected, or at least suspect.

Why does it not say then "wives be subject to your husbands, and husband be subject to your wives". Rather it says "husbands love your wives". There is nothing about subjection to the wife in that.

Since the fall in Creation, man was placed to rule over the woman. "he shall rule over you". It does not say woman will rule over the man, or they will rule over each other.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Origen is a study into Christian extremes. Though much good was done (against heresy) he introduced new heresy, like reincarnation and universal reconcilation, that is, each of us pre-existed in another form before our conception and all people including the devil will be saved. Far too New Age for me. Got any better sources to support your chauvinist views?

No fault of his own. Because of faulty bible translations, of course.

Who do you want?

I got Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Tertullian...

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we take a look at her 7 pages of Lemon Five: 1st Timothy 2:8–15. There are 7 pages of Jane's opinion in which she provides few, if any, citations to support her claims.

She even references online bible commentaries (opinions of men), just as I have when she says:

"The note on 1st Timothy 2:14 in the NET Bible (Internet version) agrees with
Bushnell’s insight"

She starts with the presupposition that 1 Tim 2:8-15 is a lemon translation, and then tries her hardest to prove that it is:

I found this lemon translation to be the most difficult one to resolve. Even though I had studied it, prayed over it, thought about it—every which way—and researched
others’ thoughts about it, I always was left with the feeling that I was missing something important.

If she "researched other's thoughts about it" then she should cite her sources.

Her method for discovering the truth is of is prayer and then to do a Google search to find an online article that supports her view:

"That morning, I found an article by a Christian pastor named Wade Burleson."

When she writes:
"This suggests the possibility that Paul..."

- it sounds very Witness Lee-like "this implies that..., this suggests that...". No real hard evidence from the existing theological literature to support her claims.

If we weigh the balance of opinions, on one side we have the old bible commentaries as well as writings by Luther, Calvin, Origin, the list goes on. To be rejected because of faulty bible translations. On Jane's side, we have herself and her opinions found through prayer and articles which conveniently support her point of view, to be believed because of a claim that the english bible is poorly translated (in some respects I believe it is, but not in this case).

It is remarkable that over hundreds of years no serious bible scholar has picked up the mistranslations of these verses from Hebrew/Greek into English. We know why now, thanks to Jane's book - because they were all men! Perhaps Luther, Calvin, Augustine, had never stopped to take the time to realize that their assumptions of male superiority were based upon faulty translations of the bible.

* So...opinions found through prayer are invalid...so don't pray over...or at least don't admit that you prayed over your work?

* Articles (or commentaries) that conveniently support your point of view ... should be ... avoided? Of course you have never searched out commentaries that conveniently support your point of view...have you?

* I get it. You would never start with a presupposition and "try your hardest to prove that it is..."

*"The note on 1st Timothy 2:14 in the NET Bible (Internet version) agrees with Bushnell’s insight." You quoted this above...does this not count as a citation of source? She cited Wade Burleson...does that count?

* Quoting you above: "When she writes:'This suggests the possibility that Paul...' it sounds very Witness Lee-like 'this implies that..., this suggests that...'. No real hard evidence from the existing theological literature to support her claims. "
Uh...I guess that's the point? Right? I wouldn't say there is "no hard evidence" but when you have "some" evidence, you need to make it clear to the reader that there are evidentiary "possibilities" that support your premise. You get to do that. The alternative is a serious breach of ethics...to state your opinion as fact and not acknowledge it as "your opinion."

* "It is remarkable that over hundreds of years no serious bible scholar has picked up the mistranslations of these verses from Hebrew/Greek into English. We know why now, thanks to Jane's book - because they were all men! Perhaps Luther, Calvin, Augustine, had never stopped to take the time to realize that their assumptions of male superiority were based upon faulty translations of the bible."
Not "male superiority" but male gender bias. But, you may be right. I understand that your statement is dripping with sarcasm, but, it could be more accurate than you know. Not just Jane's book. There are many sources out there now, including members of this forum, who are rethinking the woman topic.

So...what did Wade Burleson have to say? The Lemon5.pdf is about 95% a discussion of Burleson's article...which Jane DID cite. I notice not one word from you about the content of his article. Why is that? What Burleson wrote can be verified as historic fact and makes sense in the context of 1 Tim. Did you ignore 95% of Lemon5.pdf because this article was an answer to Jane's prayer?

You did read the .pdf so that's good. By not mentioning Burleson's commentary...the point of Lemon5.pdf, you seem to have exposed yourself as merely a "naysayer" and not an open minded scholar of what I refer to as the "woman topic". Your mind is made up.

Remember the hymn: "The Lord Has Yet More Light and Truth to Break Forth from His Word"?

Perhaps your next project should be to read the "An Important Topic for Men Also" .pdf.

Here's a parting question for you to consider: What if Jane is right? How bad could it be? How good could it be?

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is remarkable that over hundreds of years no serious bible scholar has picked up the mistranslations of these verses from Hebrew/Greek into English.

Can you hear yourself?

Witness Lee's entire ministry was based on what "serious Bible scholars" had missed since 1945, and how he alone could see what the Bible really says.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No fault of his own. Because of faulty bible translations, of course.

Who do you want?

I got Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Tertullian...

I've had enough bad Bible commentary for one lifetime.

I'll stick to scriptures.

But ... Thanks anyway.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No fault of his own. Because of faulty bible translations, of course.

Who do you want?

I got Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Tertullian...

I want Jesus. Sorry.

What did Jesus teach on the place of women? And if nothing, why not? Not important? Left the mopping-up duties to Paul?

Again, my sense is that Paul addressed the tumult in the church by pointing to conventions and norms of social behavior. Why should the newly freed Christians become libertines, or up-end social convention? Why did Paul have to write, "Those who stole, steal no more"? Or point out, drunken-ness, or fornication, and reprove such behaviours? Because he was dealing with it: it was coming into the assembly. But that wasn't ever the core of the Christian message. So don't base your "normal church life" on ancient social convention.

Yet 2,000 years later this word is used as leverage to keep others in subjection. Like OBW said, the SBC and/or others could play the same game: Ham's race were supposed to be slaves, or were supposed to be in lesser position. It's in the Bible; it's God's ordination - don't rebel against the divine arrangement.

So Tertullian doesn't cut it, unless you can show me Tertullian sourcing Jesus and not Paul. And did he or Augustine ever explain why Jesus didn't teach on women's place in the social order, church or otherwise? Or did Augustine just quote Paul? If you can't trace your teachings back to Jesus then you're a tape recorder, playing Paul and Tertullian and Augustine, trying to re-create by-gone social conventions, because they once were effective. Show us Jesus teaching this, or at least strongly inferring it. Think, don't just play ministry tapes.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Jane Anderson in A Woman of Chayil

I did not write the book, A Woman of Chayil, seeking some kind of restitution for all that women have suffered. Nor did I write it with the hope of extracting some kind of admission and repentance from men who have hurt women.

I wrote it to help both men and women alike turn their eyes upon Jesus and see Him as He really is: See Him on the cross, dying to save us and set us free from sin and death; see Him resurrected in the garden, testifying that God's love for us is stronger than death; see Him interceding for us on the throne, praying that God's will be done in our lives; see Him patiently coming to us by His Spirit, again and again, seeking to draw us back to Himself.

In eternity's brilliant light - where all things will be finished, where everything will be manifest and seen as it really is, where there will be no darkness at all - we will rejoice forever in Him! If I sound a bit too joyful this side of that glorious day, how can I be otherwise? Faithful is He who began a good work in us that He will surely finish!

I think "The Thread Of Gold" should be "required reading" for anyone serious about discussing the matters covered in A Woman Chayil. Why? Because without the background of Jane's intensely personal experience, the fruit of which is so vividly described in the subtitle of TToG: "God's Purpose, the Cross, and Me", it may be hard for people, especially men, to fully grasp and appreciate what our sister is bringing forth in A Woman of Chayil.

For the brothers having a hard time with some of the issues Jane is addressing in this book, I have presented the above quote for your consideration. Many of the issues Jane addresses are actually a continuation of her experience with "God's purpose, the cross and me". In the Local Church we were taught that God's purpose was to "build the church", a seemingly noble and biblical concept. The problem was that many of Witness Lee's teachings led us to believe that the church, or I should say, the building of the church, was something different and/or apart from what he purposes for our individual lives as flesh and blood creatures created in His image and likeness.

Surely "the good work" that God has began in us is not simply to build some race of super Christians, or to gather an association of churches full of people that "understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and have all faith, so as to remove mountains" (1Cor13:2), but lack the most basic respect and compassion for our fellow creatures created by the very same God, and made up of the very same flesh and blood. Brothers, how much more for those to whom we are "co-heirs of the grace of life"?(1Pet3:7)
-

****************************BEEEEEEEEEEEEEP - - - THIS IS A TEST - THIS WAS A TEST OF THE EMERGENCY SYSTEM TO TUG AT THE HEARTSTRINGS OF ANY BROTHER WHO HAS A HEART OF FLESH. THIS WAS ONLY A TEST - YOU CAN NOW RETURN TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED ROUTINE OF MISUNDERSTANDING ON PURPOSE, THINKING ANY SISTER THAT HAS SOMETHING FROM GOD AND HIS WORD IS OUT OF PLACE, AND JUST BEING GENERALLY BULL-HEADED AND HOSTILE TO OUR FELLOW HEIRS OF THE GRACE OF LIFE. - - - BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP - - - -THIS WAS ONLY A TEST*************************************

-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I want Jesus. Sorry.

What did Jesus teach on the place of women? And if nothing, why not? Not important? Left the mopping-up duties to Paul?

Again, my sense is that Paul addressed the tumult in the church by pointing to conventions and norms of social behavior. Why should the newly freed Christians become libertines, or up-end social convention? Why did Paul have to write, "Those who stole, steal no more"? Or point out, drunken-ness, or fornication, and reprove such behaviours? Because he was dealing with it: it was coming into the assembly. But that wasn't ever the core of the Christian message. So don't base your "normal church life" on ancient social convention.

Yet 2,000 years later this word is used as leverage to keep others in subjection. Like OBW said, the SBC and/or others could play the same game: Ham's race were supposed to be slaves, or were supposed to be in lesser position. It's in the Bible; it's God's ordination - don't rebel against the divine arrangement.

So Tertullian doesn't cut it, unless you can show me Tertullian sourcing Jesus and not Paul. And did he or Augustine ever explain why Jesus didn't teach on women's place in the social order, church or otherwise? Or did Augustine just quote Paul? If you can't trace your teachings back to Jesus then you're a tape recorder, playing Paul and Tertullian and Augustine, trying to re-create by-gone social conventions, because they once were effective. Show us Jesus teaching this, or at least strongly inferring it. Think, don't just play ministry tapes.

If you think that Jesus was for gender equality then you would be mistaken. There is nothing in scripture or in early church writings to support that. I could pretend to be a catholic or orthodox at the moment and also highlight that early church fathers who were disciples of the disciples themselves did not share much of a different view to the ones I have already quoted.

Jesus's lack of teaching on the matter more or less proves that he upheld the status quo at the time. He addressed issues of hypocrisy, adultery, money, prostitution, etc ,but never once said that women are now equal to men.

Consider the following examples of how Jesus was not for gender equality:

Jesus only hired males for his 12 disciples, never once giving a woman the chance to rule over the 12 tribes of Israel or sit at his right or left hand side in the kingdom.

Scripture shows that women served Jesus and the disciples while they reclined at tables. The male/female roles are clear - women subservient to men.

He asked a woman to get him a drink in John 4:7. He did not bother to get it himself, he expected to be waited upon by the woman, who had to lift a heavy bucket of water from the well I would imagine. Showing the role of women in servitude and submission to men.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

* So...opinions found through prayer are invalid...so don't pray over...or at least don't admit that you prayed over your work?

* Articles (or commentaries) that conveniently support your point of view ... should be ... avoided? Of course you have never searched out commentaries that conveniently support your point of view...have you?

* I get it. You would never start with a presupposition and "try your hardest to prove that it is..."

*"The note on 1st Timothy 2:14 in the NET Bible (Internet version) agrees with Bushnell’s insight." You quoted this above...does this not count as a citation of source? She cited Wade Burleson...does that count?

* Quoting you above: "When she writes:'This suggests the possibility that Paul...' it sounds very Witness Lee-like 'this implies that..., this suggests that...'. No real hard evidence from the existing theological literature to support her claims. "
Uh...I guess that's the point? Right? I wouldn't say there is "no hard evidence" but when you have "some" evidence, you need to make it clear to the reader that there are evidentiary "possibilities" that support your premise. You get to do that. The alternative is a serious breach of ethics...to state your opinion as fact and not acknowledge it as "your opinion."

* "It is remarkable that over hundreds of years no serious bible scholar has picked up the mistranslations of these verses from Hebrew/Greek into English. We know why now, thanks to Jane's book - because they were all men! Perhaps Luther, Calvin, Augustine, had never stopped to take the time to realize that their assumptions of male superiority were based upon faulty translations of the bible."
Not "male superiority" but male gender bias. But, you may be right. I understand that your statement is dripping with sarcasm, but, it could be more accurate than you know. Not just Jane's book. There are many sources out there now, including members of this forum, who are rethinking the woman topic.

So...what did Wade Burleson have to say? The Lemon5.pdf is about 95% a discussion of Burleson's article...which Jane DID cite. I notice not one word from you about the content of his article. Why is that? What Burleson wrote can be verified as historic fact and makes sense in the context of 1 Tim. Did you ignore 95% of Lemon5.pdf because this article was an answer to Jane's prayer?

You did read the .pdf so that's good. By not mentioning Burleson's commentary...the point of Lemon5.pdf, you seem to have exposed yourself as merely a "naysayer" and not an open minded scholar of what I refer to as the "woman topic". Your mind is made up.

Remember the hymn: "The Lord Has Yet More Light and Truth to Break Forth from His Word"?

Perhaps your next project should be to read the "An Important Topic for Men Also" .pdf.

Here's a parting question for you to consider: What if Jane is right? How bad could it be? How good could it be?

Nell

I'm open but skeptical. If I was not open I would not be participating in this thread. The reason for my skepticism is I have not seen so far any authoritative scholarly source about the question of the translations being wrong. Occam's razor leads me to side with history, plain reading of the English translation - what it says is what it means.

Even so, no doctrine hangs on the interpretation of one word. And that applies equally to Hebrew/Greek as it does to any other language. I highly doubt that even two credible hebrew/greek scholars would agree on everything, as so much is open to interpretation, context etc. It is hard to agree on meaning, in any language.

If Jane is right, the only thing it changes in terms of the recovery is enabling women to preach/teach in a church or conference like the leading brothers currently do, it would enable women to participate in the Lord's table too.
Women can already prophesy and do many things. Burleson does not agree with female elders or pastors and I assume Jane agrees.

When I read Chapter 5 pdf it only says:

" That morning, I found an article by a Christian pastor named Wade Burleson."

"I highly recommend reading this article in its entirety. "

I have to google search to find the article in question.

I assume this is the article in question (no citation was provided in the chapter 5 excerpt you posted, but anyway):

http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/...angelical.html

As far as I know Burleson is no expert in Greek/Hebrew and that is what is important here. Can he confirm or deny, with some scholarly authority, that the Hebrew translation is wrong? Burleson does not cite any scholarly sources in his online articles.

So Jane quotes Burleson...
and Burleson quotes... no one! He merely says "could have, should have, would have":

"Paul could have chosen nearly fifty Greek words to speak of the ordinary exercise of authority, but he chose a word that more represents someone "dominating, controlling, or subjecting one to harm."

So an "open scholar" is at a dead end once they reach Burleson's articles.

Jane's book gives a skeptic like me three choices:

1) trust her judgement and that God answered her prayers in revealing the truth
2) Trust Burleson's internet article
3) Trust the NET Bible (Internet version)

To me his argument is based more upon the fact that women are gifted by the Spirit and some bible verses which are open to his interpretation. There is a common argument which goes "God gave the Spirit to women so there's no reason why he wouldn't give her church leadership as well". However God and Jesus were in the habit of choosing males as leaders.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jesus's lack of teaching on the matter more or less proves that he upheld the status quo at the time..

Then society changes, and gives equal rights to women, and the church suddenly doesn't uphold the status quo? Why? Because the church has been usurped and given institutional fetters by those wanting temporal power. It's not about the status quo but about the opportunity to hide one's lack of self-control by dominating others. I've seen women fall prey to this as well, though they're not given as much opportunity as men. It's an equal-opportunity destroyer; that's the usurping and defiant Jezebel spirit.

The Little Flock came into existence heavily indebted to leadership by women. Then their services were discarded when no longer expedient. Like Watchman Nee did with Leland Wang, and Witness Lee with John Ingalls and Max Rappaport. The former colleagues had served their purpose and then were let go. The constant theme throughout is the acquisition and maintenance of temporal power.

I knew a couple in the LC - the woman was a successful professional, made lots of money. The husband stayed home and raised the children. Nobody quoted Tertullian or Paul to them. Why? Because times had changed, and the couple was putting money in LSM coffers. Ministry loyalty is the constant. Everything else, including scripture, is expedient.

Jesus didn't spend time on women's rights, or civil rights, or Herod and the Romans. He was about the Father's business, caring for actual people. He didn't have much truck with sanctimonious religious hypocrisy. I'm not saying that is what anyone is doiing here, but that we all have to guard ourselves. Don't just quote "Paul says" because you may notice that you ignore what Paul says elsewhere. For example, women in the LC no longer must cover themselves for the sake of the angels. Why not? Have the angels changed? Or have we? And should we? Paul's advice is optional?

And I'm not being a back door for "times have changed" permissiveness. "I'm okay, you're okay; God loves us all." Paul rightly argued against being lax against worldly and fleshly behaviours, as did Peter, Jude, and James. Freedom didn't mean freedom to sin. God is still holy.

[Evangelical]

This is not about the Recovery, Nee, or Lee, though it must be a convenient crutch for you to lean on to avoid the real heart of the matter. The discussion has moved past that. This is about whether our English bible translations are correct or not. That's the real issue here. And if they are incorrect, as Jane, Nell et al are implying, if it really is a "lemon tree" producing so many lemons, then it casts doubt on God's ability to preserve His Word and the integrity of those who are pillars in the protestant faith -Calvin, Luther etc. Then how many other matters are incorrect translations?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is not about the Recovery, Nee, or Lee, though it must be a convenient crutch for you to lean on to avoid the real heart of the matter. The discussion has moved past that. This is about whether our English bible translations are correct or not. That's the real issue here. And if they are incorrect, as Jane, Nell et al are implying, if it really is a "lemon tree" producing so many lemons, then it casts doubt on God's ability to preserve His Word and the integrity of those who are pillars in the protestant faith -Calvin, Luther etc. Then how many other matters are incorrect translations?

Evangelical,

You should consider the possibility that Jane's book IS God moving to preserve His Word. You should also consider that the "pillars" you speak so highly of, were they alive today, might have no problem with Jane's book and might even appreciate her efforts to insure the accuracy of the translations, and join her in her efforts.

You should consider that Calvin and Luther, et al, may care more for the accuracy of the translations of God's Word than for their own centuries old "commentaries." The integrity of these men, given their stature, would likely cause them to rejoice to see the recorded translation of God's Holy Word be reviewed by men and women Hebrew scholars, and corrected if/when appropriate.

Did you know, according to Katharine Bushnell, that when the Hebrew scribes would make a copy (in Hebrew) of the original transcripts, if they came across a word that was crossed out and rewritten (for whatever reason) since they couldn't backspace/correct, they would write the stricken word, cross it out, and write the corrected word, exactly as they found the original? They were diligent to be faithful to the original and not make an assumption on their own. I would imagine Calvin and Luther have this same desire to be faithful to God's word and accuracy is more important than ego...either theirs or yours.

Getting it right is important...more important than the possibility of male gender bias prevailing in misrepresenting God, God's Word and His Nature, the ministry of Paul, and most of all, subjugation of half of the Body of Christ.

You're applying your own prejudices to Calvin and Luther, et al, and assuming that they think the way you do. I doubt that. Taking another look is not such a bad thing, is it?

Nell

BTW, it's 8 verses. Eight. E*I*G*H*T. Not a whole tree full of lemons.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Evangelical,
You should consider the possibility that Jane's book IS God moving to preserve His Word. You should also consider that the "pillars" you speak so highly of, were they alive today, might have no problem with Jane's book and might even appreciate her efforts to insure the accuracy of the translations, and join her in her efforts.

What you are saying is that if they knew what Jane knew, that the translations are inaccurate, then they would support her endeavors.

I find it hard to believe that Luther, for example, who was careful about translating the bible into German, would have made this error and oversight.

So either this translation error is not an error at all, or Luther was a misogynist like the rest, and deliberately mistranslated it.

And the problem with translation is context and meaning, so accuracy of individual translated words is no guarantee. Anyone who has tried Google translate knows this - the words may be translated 100% accurate but the meaning is all wrong.

If we read into what Calvin and Luther say on this, they seem not to be the ones who would be supporting Jane's book if alive today. A few quotes:

No gown worse becomes a woman than the desire to be wise. –Martin Luther, Reformer (1483-1546)

Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children. –Martin Luther, Reformer (1483-1546)

She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude.–John Calvin, Reformer (1509-1564)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As far as I know Burleson is no expert in Greek/Hebrew and that is what is important here.

And this coming from someone who follows a man who claimed to be the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle since 1945? The same man who is the chief theologian for an entire Christian movement, but has absolutely ZERO formal theological training and ZERO formal training any any biblical language. And this guy is worried about someone Jane quoted as being "no expert in Greek/Hebrew? Really dude?

I know Witness Lee didn't teach you this...because he either didn't know or didn't care...but EVERY translation from the original languages is actually an interpretation - A FALLIBLE, HUMAN interpretation of the infallible Word of God. I know your used to hearing that "the interpreted word" of Lee is as good as the Word of God, but I'm here to tell you that it just ain't so.

Jane has done some digging, and lo and behold, guess what? She has found that it is possible, and maybe likely, that the fallible human translators of these verses have made some mistakes. Fallible men have made some mistakes translating the infallible Word of God.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

And this coming from someone who follows a man who claimed to be the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle since 1945? The same man who is the chief theologian for an entire Christian movement, but has absolutely ZERO formal theological training and ZERO formal training any any biblical language. And this guy is worried about someone Jane quoted as being "no expert in Greek/Hebrew? Really dude?

I know Witness Lee didn't teach you this...because he either didn't know or didn't care...but EVERY translation from the original languages is actually an interpretation - A FALLIBLE, HUMAN interpretation of the infallible Word of God. I know your used to hearing that "the interpreted word" of Lee is as good as the Word of God, but I'm here to tell you that it just ain't so.

Jane has done some digging, and lo and behold, guess what? She has found that it is possible, and maybe likely, that the fallible human translators of these verses have made some mistakes. Fallible men have made some mistakes translating the infallible Word of God.
-

The difference between Witness Lee and Jane, is that on this issue he is agreeing with the majority interpretation. He is not claiming that every bible commentary based upon certain translations is wrong, or that Luther or Calvin are wrong. For the most part he builds upon their beliefs and extends them. He does not claim their views are based upon faulty translation. You know that I could quote almost any bible commentary from biblehub that disproves Jane. I don't even need to quote Witness Lee. So the onus is on Jane, and she has not done her research it would seem and neither have you or Nell because you cannot point me towards one Hebrew or Greek scholar that proves she is right. Most of her book it seems are just claims based upon a prayer and a hunch and a few internet searches.

I think many would take issue with the idea that our English bibles are fallible. Most protestant evangelicals believe that God preserved the translations of the bible also, and that the English translations are just as much God's Word as the original Greek or Hebrew.

Myself I am not as strict - I am open to some errors in the translation, but these are more to do with sentence structure, punctuation, etc, than whole "lemon passages" being wrong. Even on this point, some would accuse me of heresy, for even suggesting that one dot or line in the bible is in error.

Being pragmatic, I think some errors are possible, but what are the chances that translators made a mistake in every single verse that disproves Jane's point of view ? Pretty slim I would say.

What are the chances that Luther did not pick up on it? Also pretty slim. He did translate the bible into German, afterall.

You know that books are not peer reviewed, right? Anyone can write a book and say anything they like. Neither are internet articles (the ones Jane quotes). Books are not scholarly sources, neither are internet articles.. I for one would like to see some solid evidence about this Hebrew/Greek translation issue.

That is, I don't care what Burleson or Jane or the feminist Katherine Bushnell has to say about this, if they are claiming that the translations are wrong, this is something serious, so then what do the Greek/Hebrew experts say? Why is she not citing these people in her book, so we can read their conference or journal article ?

[Evangelical]

By the way I hope everyone understands that Burleson who Jane quotes is against female pastors and elders, as southern baptists are also.

So don't think that Jane's book means it's okay to have female pastors and elders.

However he believes that females can teach the bible to men.

This is a strange position to hold, because I thought the function of a pastor or elder was to teach the bible?

Anyway the Local churches allows women to teach men the bible - it's called the prophesying meeting. Also, women teach men the bible in the home meetings. And women cannot be elders - so we more or less agree about the place of women in church.

I believe this CARM article addresses the topic nicely:

https://carm.org/there-were-deacones...rs-and-pastors

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

And this coming from someone who follows a man who claimed to be the only person on earth speaking as God's oracle since 1945? The same man who is the chief theologian for an entire Christian movement, but has absolutely ZERO formal theological training and ZERO formal training any any biblical language. And this guy is worried about someone Jane quoted as being "no expert in Greek/Hebrew? Really dude?

I know Witness Lee didn't teach you this...because he either didn't know or didn't care...but EVERY translation from the original languages is actually an interpretation - A FALLIBLE, HUMAN interpretation of the infallible Word of God. I know your used to hearing that "the interpreted word" of Lee is as good as the Word of God, but I'm here to tell you that it just ain't so.

Jane has done some digging, and lo and behold, guess what? She has found that it is possible, and maybe likely, that the fallible human translators of these verses have made some mistakes. Fallible men have made some mistakes translating the infallible Word of God.
-

Untohim,

Rewriting the Bible as Jane attempts to do in her book requires a higher standard than just some personal inspiration and an Internet article. Even if what she has found is possible there is not a compelling argument for rewriting "lemon"passages. Every person is fallible so that does not shore up her argument either.

Drake

[Evangelical]

What I have been searching for is some articles by real bible scholars who can hopefully shed some light on these matters.

One I found is:

Daniel B. Wallace
https://bible.org/users/daniel-b-wallace
https://danielbwallace.com/cv/

He is an internationally known Greek New Testament scholar. Not only is he an expert in Greek, but he is the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible (didn't Jane use the NET bible notes in her book?). From his website - Wallace has been a consultant for four Bible translations—ESV, TNIV, New King James Bible, and New English Translation. He has also contributed articles to the ESV Study Bible and the Holman Christian Standard Study Bible.

Firstly, an article that presents the difficulties of interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12, without taking sides.
https://bible.org/article/interpreti...-1-timothy-212

His view on 1 Tim 2:12 is found here:

https://bible.org/question/light-1-t...-over-men-do-y

Interestingly he says:

He bases his viewpoint on creation. In v. 13 he says, "For Adam was first created, then Eve." In the least, this argument shows that Paul is not restricting his treatment to the church; it's a matter that is grounded in the constitutional differences between men and women, or at least in the order of authority that God had ordained. In Gen 2-3, we see an interesting phenomenon relevant to 1 Tim 2. God teaches man, man teaches woman, the devil is out of the picture. That's Gen 2. But in Gen 3, we see the devil teaching woman, woman teaching man, and God is out of the picture. And this is Paul's argument: there is a divinely ordained order to things that, if disturbed, could bring ruin.


Note that I said similar in my previous post #102

Paul's statement "as also saith the Law" is in reference to Genesis 3:16 and Numbers 30:3-12 which also indicates the general nature of his command. These are universal principles that Paul laid down in all the churches.

Finally, an article about the use of Galatians 3:28, which I thought was interesting:

https://bible.org/series/women-leadership

[UntoHim]

I see our Local Church of Witness Lee brothers have returned quickly to their "REGULARLY SCHEDULED ROUTINE OF MISUNDERSTANDING ON PURPOSE, THINKING ANY SISTER THAT HAS SOMETHING FROM GOD AND HIS WORD IS OUT OF PLACE, AND JUST BEING GENERALLY BULL-HEADED AND HOSTILE TO OUR FELLOW HEIRS OF THE GRACE OF LIFE".

Keep in mind these guys follow the teachings of a man who has ZERO formal Christian education and ZERO formal education in the biblical languages. The same man who had a major influence on the sect's translation of the Bible, when he had no business being in the same room of people translating the most important manuscripts mankind has ever held.

So it should be no surprise when we hear such drivel as claiming that Jane considers the English translation as a "lemon tree producing so many lemons" and "Rewriting the Bible as Jane attempts to do". Really guys? Is this the best you can do? You follow a man who claimed to be the only one speaking as God's oracle since World War 2 and you can't come up with anything the man said about these matters? Your leaders claim that Lee was "THE ONE Master Builder" and "An apostle of the FIRST KIND", just like the apostle Paul, and you can't find anything worth posting here in this thread? Instead you have to go to outside sources...something strongly discouraged (actually strictly forbidden) by Witness Lee himself, and now the Blended Brothers.

Sorry fellows, we are not in early 20th century China, or even at a Local Church meeting where everyone shouts out "AMEN!" to anything you have to say just because you say it. This is 2017 America where women are allowed to express their views, and their views are just as important as their male counterparts. They can even have an opinion that's different than their father, brother or husband...can you imagine that? They can even vote and drive a car all by themselves...can you imagine that?
-

[Drake]

Untohim,

You are appealing to popular sentiment in this forum yet it does not address the subject nor does it add anything to Jane's argument.

Your argument that someone "who has ZERO formal Christian education and ZERO formal education in the biblical languages." works against Jane as forcefully as it does other posters in this forum. Are you a trained theologian in biblical languages?

Your argument "you have to go to outside sources...something strongly discouraged (actually strictly forbidden) by Witness Lee himself, and now the Blended Brothers. " is self defeating because apparently there is no control or forbidden practice or rule by Witness Lee or the serving brothers.

The Orwellian group you describe does not exist in the Lord's Recovery. Actually, your note below is 100 times more Orwellian in tone and attempt at beat down than I have ever witnessed in the Lord's Recovery.

I thought Jane had some interesting points. However, rather than discuss them thoroughly Nell and you preferred to polarize the conversation . That and the lack of any compelling evidence has lead you to ad hominem and irrelevant arguments demonstrating that Jane's arguments cannot stand on their own merits.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I see our Local Church of Witness Lee brothers have returned quickly to their "REGULARLY SCHEDULED ROUTINE OF MISUNDERSTANDING ON PURPOSE, THINKING ANY SISTER THAT HAS SOMETHING FROM GOD AND HIS WORD IS OUT OF PLACE, AND JUST BEING GENERALLY BULL-HEADED AND HOSTILE TO OUR FELLOW HEIRS OF THE GRACE OF LIFE".

UntoHim, we may need to hold a Whistler-style Kangaroo Court for these rebellious opposers who cling to their opinions and reject the oneness of the body of Christ.

First, we need to write two warning posts in order to put them on official notice, so that we can officially announce to the body of Christ, "heretics after the first and second admonition refuse."

Second, we need to line up all the forum witnesses to testify against Evangelical and Drake for violating the One Publication Decree of the LCD forum, holding various dissenting opinions, playing electric guitars and drums while posting, and adamantly demanding clean sheets at home.

Third, we need to have training sessions here on the forum to help participating members file official Writs of Complaint, with the goal of stealing their assets, which shall be used for the Defense and Confirmation of the gospel.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

You are appealing to popular sentiment in this forum yet it does not address the subject nor does it add anything to Jane's argument.

And you, my friend, are appealing to the popular sentiment of those who blindly follow a man and his ministry, and have yet to address Jane's argument. How does accusing Jane of "rewriting the Bible" address her argument, Drake?

Your argument that someone "who has ZERO formal Christian education and ZERO formal education in the biblical languages." works against Jane as forcefully as it does other posters in this forum. Are you a trained theologian in biblical languages?

Facts are a funny thing sometimes, especially when they disturb your archaic and draconian worldview regarding the role of women in the church. Just because you are entrenched in a religious movement that is stuck in early to mid 20th century China, doesn't mean you have to be so archaic and draconian yourself. Come on man, you have said that you are some sort of world traveler...been all over...yet you speak as one who's lived in a cave all your life.

Your argument "you have to go to outside sources...something strongly discouraged (actually strictly forbidden) by Witness Lee himself, and now the Blended Brothers. " is self defeating because apparently there is no control or forbidden practice or rule by Witness Lee or the serving brothers.

Two Words: ONE PUBLICATION.
Do you have a problem with this edict, Drake? If so, state it right here, right now. I double duck dare ya.

The Orwellian group you describe does not exist in the Lord's Recovery.

You know what's Orwellian, Drake? What those brothers did to Jane back in the day as described in The Thread of Gold, now THAT was Orwellian. She was spiritually and psychologically tortured by those men. And she wasn't the only one. Thankfully, to my knowledge, things have gotten a lot better in the Local Church. Unfortunately the change has come too little and too late for hundreds, maybe thousands who were spiritually and psychologically damaged. I trust that many have found some answers and healing in the books Jane has published to date.
-

[Drake]

Untohim) "And you, my friend, are appealing to the popular sentiment of those who blindly follow a man and his ministry, "

If there is such a sentiment it is not found in this forum and therefore it would be anything but popular for me to bring up. Your charge that I am appealing to some popular sentiment to add force to my argument makes no sense. On the otherhand, it is convenient for you to introduce crowd pleaser rhetoric when you have no substance contribution to Jane's argument.

Untohim) "your archaic and draconian worldview regarding the role of women in the church. "

I don't hold the views you apparently think I do. I just dont think Jane has made a compelling case for her lemons argument and you haven't added support to it.

Untohim)"Two Words: ONE PUBLICATION. Do you have a problem with this edict, Drake? If so, state it right here, right now. I double duck dare ya. "

A double duck dare will always get a top billing with me.

So that is your misunderstanding. You think the so called "one publication edict" means I, or Evangelical can only read and write from what is published by LSM. What a peculiar concept! It has never meant that. Your Orwellian concept of the Lords Recovery may exist in an alternate universe but it is missing in this one.

Jane's past experience however difficult does not give her current atgument any more credibilty.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I see our Local Church of Witness Lee brothers have returned quickly to their "REGULARLY SCHEDULED ROUTINE OF MISUNDERSTANDING ON PURPOSE, THINKING ANY SISTER THAT HAS SOMETHING FROM GOD AND HIS WORD IS OUT OF PLACE, AND JUST BEING GENERALLY BULL-HEADED AND HOSTILE TO OUR FELLOW HEIRS OF THE GRACE OF LIFE".

The thing is, that you (as non local church members) have the freedom to use, quote and reference all of the masses of theological literature out there to support your view, and yet you don't, too busy quacking about Lee/Nee and ducking for cover when I post articles from a real expert like Wallace.

I believe we local church members were encouraged to go to "outside sources" in previous threads. Do you want us to quote Nee/Lee? I can certainly do that, and would much prefer to. But as that seems to be discouraged (people usually respond along the lines of "this is not about Lee or Nee", "I don't care what Lee/Nee says"), I have made it a habit to quote things from mainstream where necessary.

And now when the things we post from mainstream theology disagree with your views, you say we should not go to outside sources? I would think it is rather embarrassing for you when local church members quote from reputable theology and you and your members do not. Too busy promoting a book by an ex-member with a sorry tale. This is not really about Jane and her book anyway, but more about the one she quotes from - God's Word to Women by the feminist Katharine C. Bushnell who presents nonsense such as the devil using "natural male bias":

She discovered that the devil had craftily used natural male bias to torque the translation just enough to lay a foundational false belief about woman.
So all of our translations and male Greek experts, Luther, Calvin etc are wrong because of the devil subtlety using their "natural male bias".

So the devil has never used the "natural female bias", ever? The natural female bias to be deceived was used by Satan in the garden of Eden. Man has been suffering the consequence ever since.

Much of what I have posted from outside sources agrees or closely matches with the local churches view, and disagrees with your view. This is a pattern I am seeing regularly on this forum - many arguments here are not supported by mainstream evangelical Christianity (neither are mine, granted, but aren't you the ones who have left Lee and returned to mainstream?). Your views and arguments can often be defeated by quoting Christian apologetic ministries like CARM, perhaps because they are tending towards liberalism more than you think.

People on this forum are not restricted as Drake and I are (as you say). So I'm wondering what is stopping you or others from posting articles from reputable experts for everyone's benefit, such as I did with Daniel B. Wallace? If you are serious about learning some scholarly things then please see the articles I posted by the New Testament expert Daniel B. Wallace.

In Gen 2-3, we see an interesting phenomenon relevant to 1 Tim 2. God teaches man, man teaches woman, the devil is out of the picture. That's Gen 2. But in Gen 3, we see the devil teaching woman, woman teaching man, and God is out of the picture. And this is Paul's argument: there is a divinely ordained order to things that, if disturbed, could bring ruin. ~Daniel B. Wallace

"women who wish to teach men are actually restricting their ministries." ~ Daniel B. Wallace.

The "divinely ordained order to things" is what the local churches believe and practice. This is in contrast to the "anything goes, do what you want" of liberal churches. The local churches allow women to fulfill their ministries and callings because they do not restrict women to teaching men, as Wallace wrote. Like Wallace, it is also my observation that women who wish to teach men are so focused on this goal that they forget their true calling and ministry. Some women start acting and sounding like men as well. I believe a woman respecting God's divine order in the church and fulfilling her true calling is more important than a successful ministry or doing many good works in a ministry she has no business to be doing.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Untohim) "[I]You think the so called "one publication edict" means I, or Evangelical can only read and write from what is published by LSM.

No, we know what it means. It means you cannot publish anything of your own. If you feel led to write a book you have to squelch that leading for the sake of the "one trumpet."

Again, it's all about hoisting up Lee so that people continue to think of him as something in a class by himself and impossible to improve upon. What should naturally happen is that other teachers come along and improve on what Lee taught (and trust me there is a lot of room for improvement). That's the way God does things. But because of the artificial restrictions of the one publication edict, that can't happen. So ironically God's truth is not aided, but hindered.

Unless you truly think Lee cannot be improved upon, which is just plain silly.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, we know what it means. It means you cannot publish anything of your own. If you feel led to write a book you have to squelch that leading for the sake of the "one trumpet."

Again, it's all about hoisting up Lee so that people continue to think of him as something in a class by himself and impossible to improve upon. What should naturally happen is that other teachers come along and improve on what Lee taught (and trust me there is a lot of room for improvement). That's the way God does things. But because of the artificial restrictions of the one publication edict, that can't happen. So ironically God's truth is not aided, but hindered.

Unless you truly think Lee cannot be improved upon, which is just plain silly.

Igzy,

That was not what Untohim said.

However LSM is a publishing company and they can choose to publish whomever they wish to. I can read whomever I wish to read. Obviously, Evangelical does too. Those two data points alone disprove Untohim's charge.

Yet, you are wrong that LSM only publishes Brother Lee.. They publish the speaking of half dozen brothers in the Ministry Magazine. Though they reference Brother Lee and Nee they also add their own experiences and fresh insights.

Furthermore, dozens of brothers have written and published articles in A&C. Kerry Robichaux has a book on Amazon.

So this forum continues to push a false narrative about this so called "edict" and" strictly forbidden" one publication that prevents anyone from reading and writing anything other than Brother Lee. Evangelical's non-LSM entries disproves that theory. Unless when you say "strictly forbidden" you don't mean strictly or forbidden.

As relates to this topic I am absolutely certain that LSM would not have published Jane's book. That is their right too.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

That was not what Untohim said.

However LSM is a publishing company and they can choose to publish whomever they wish to. I can read whomever I wish to read. Obviously, Evangelical does too. Those two data points alone disprove Untohim's charge.

Yet, you are wrong that LSM only publishes Brother Lee.. They publish the speaking of half dozen brothers in the Ministry Magazine. Though they reference Brother Lee and Nee they also add their own experiences and fresh insights.

Furthermore, dozens of brothers have written and published articles in A&C. Kerry Robichaux has a book on Amazon.

So this forum continues to push a false narrative about this so called "edict" and" strictly forbidden" one publication that prevents anyone from reading and writing anything other than Brother Lee. Evangelical's non-LSM entries disproves that theory. Unless when you say "strictly forbidden" you don't mean strictly or forbidden.

As relates to this topic I am absolutely certain that LSM would not have published Jane's book. That is their right too.

Drake

Having lived through the GLA quarantines, Drake's post here is filled with deceptive spin.

For example, few know they the GLA quarantine could never have happened unless LSM was firstly able to sweet talk James Reetzke of Chicago to agree to throw Titus Chu under the bus, and promise to publish Reetzke's own collection of writings.

If Drake were sincerely honest here, then LSM would be publishing the writings of long time members Titus Chu, Nigel Tomes, and John Myer, not to mention a host of others like Dong in Brazil.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

As I said "...She (Jane) also noted that nowhere does the Scripture say that God put Eve out of the garden." If you have a verse stating otherwise, please quote it. It's hardly "potentially presumptuous" to suggest that the woman was not put out when the Bible nowhere says she was... unless you have a verse that says otherwise.

Further, as Jane has theorized, Eve chose to follow Adam out of the Garden.

This is where the whole premise looks like an attempt to swing the pendulum rather than find truth.

The very idea that the garden was open to Eve but not Adam is patently ridiculous. Under this premise, there would be no more human race. Under the standard reading of Genesis, at that point there was only Adam and Eve. Separating them would be tantamount to the extermination of the human race.

I'm sorry, but there is a reason that getting too embroiled emotionally in trying to get a result is a dangerous place to be. It leads to absurd conjecturing (theorizing).

I will agree that there is nothing stating either way is true. But the outcome of your way to look at it v the outcome of the other is rather implausible. The difference between plausible and implausible is a valid reason to reject one in favor of the other when there is no direct evidence for either.

You would do well to stick with the problem of translations resulting in the erroneous mistreatment of women. Keep away from fantasizing about a world in which women get things right and men get it all wrong. As it is, you are showing how it is that women are just as prone to reading favor to themselves into the Bible. Looks more like a mea culpa than some important revelation or substantive theory.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why does it not say then "wives be subject to your husbands, and husband be subject to your wives". Rather it says "husbands love your wives".

I suppose that your version of love is "tough love." If you love your wife, you will be subject to her just as you are to Christ and the other Christians because of your love for them. The premise of a right to lead implies something that rises above your love. That will demand its place despite the love.

The rest of your comments are simply too canned to be taken seriously. It is like reading Lee to prove Lee is right.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

I suppose that your version of love is "tough love." If you love your wife, you will be subject to her just as you are to Christ and the other Christians because of your love for them. The premise of a right to lead implies something that rises above your love. That will demand its place despite the love.

The rest of your comments are simply too canned to be taken seriously. It is like reading Lee to prove Lee is right.

It's not loving to submit to one's wife, but foolish. Adam submitted to his wife Eve, and look what happened. When Eve offered Adam the fruit, the most loving thing Adam could have done is reject the offer and correct her. Adam taking the fruit and saying submissively "thankyou dear for the forbidden fruit" is not love at all, but something else.

The command to obey and respect is given to the one in subjection i.e. the wife (1 Peter 3:1, Eph 5:22). Their greatest temptation is to disobey, disrespect etc, because they are in a position of weakness and subjection.

The command to love is given to the one who is to rule over the other, the husband. Their greatest temptation is to abuse, because of their position of power.

The concept of husbands obeying and submitting to wives is just not in the bible in a descriptive or prescriptive sense. Greek scholars (e.g. Wallace) and Christian history agrees.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

You would do well to stick with the problem of translations resulting in the erroneous mistreatment of women. Keep away from fantasizing about a world in which women get things right and men get it all wrong.

OBW,

The difference between the two statements above is just a matter of degree.

Perhaps a belief in the first instance led to conviction of the second.

Drake

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is where the whole premise looks like an attempt to swing the pendulum rather than find truth.

Really. This statement sounds like you assume that "finding the truth" is VS. "swinging the pendulum." Often, the results of arriving at truth will spontaneously swing the pendulum with little or no effort on anyone's part. Regardless, you have missed the point.

The very idea that the garden was open to Eve but not Adam is patently ridiculous. Under this premise, there would be no more human race. Under the standard reading of Genesis, at that point there was only Adam and Eve. Separating them would be tantamount to the extermination of the human race.

Absolutely. It's SO ridiculous that I'm surprised that you would seriously float it as a response. You misunderstood what I was saying. Why not ask for clarification rather than make yourself look silly.

I'm sorry, but there is a reason that getting too embroiled emotionally in trying to get a result is a dangerous place to be. It leads to absurd conjecturing (theorizing).

Ah! The "emotion card." I really didn't think anyone on this forum would dare to play it, but there it is.

Another dangerous place to be is making your own absurd conjectures based on a book you have not read.

I will agree that there is nothing stating either way is true. But the outcome of your way to look at it v the outcome of the other is rather implausible. The difference between plausible and implausible is a valid reason to reject one in favor of the other when there is no direct evidence for either.

This makes no sense.

You would do well to stick with the problem of translations resulting in the erroneous mistreatment of women. Keep away from fantasizing about a world in which women get things right and men get it all wrong. As it is, you are showing how it is that women are just as prone to reading favor to themselves into the Bible. Looks more like a mea culpa than some important revelation or substantive theory.

This is a discussion about A Woman of Chayil. You would do well to read it. Your remarks hardly do it justice. You seem more interested in misunderstanding than understanding, along with a touch of patronizing advice to me.

One point of the book is that women and men alike have perpetuated the mistreatment of...mostly women. Women believe the 8 mistranslated verses just like men do. Maybe you haven't come to the place in the book that explains this, but it's an important point. Another point is that it's important to get the translation of the Bible right. Men and women Bible translators should come together to review these verses for accuracy.

Nell

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's not loving to submit to one's wife, but foolish. Adam submitted to his wife Eve, and look what happened. When Eve offered Adam the fruit, the most loving thing Adam could have done is reject the offer and correct her. Adam taking the fruit and saying submissively "thankyou dear for the forbidden fruit" is not love at all, but something else.

The command to obey and respect is given to the one in subjection i.e. the wife (1 Peter 3:1, Eph 5:22). Their greatest temptation is to disobey, disrespect etc, because they are in a position of weakness and subjection.

The command to love is given to the one who is to rule over the other, the husband. Their greatest temptation is to abuse, because of their position of power.

The concept of husbands obeying and submitting to wives is just not in the bible in a descriptive or prescriptive sense. Greek scholars (e.g. Wallace) and Christian history agrees.

The foolish is the one who does not understand the command to submit to one another. There was no exception provided. The specific statements made were not stated as reasons that it does not also go the other way.

Besides, it is only the fool who thinks that an environment in which all are commanded to submit to all that there is any one of them who is not required to submit to every one of the others in some aspects. And the way in which we submit to each other is not precisely the same or it would be like the two people standing on opposite sides of a doorway insisting that the other go through first with neither yielding to the other's request, but instead insisting upon being second.

Outside of the extreme situation of servitude and of our submission to God, we all do (or should) submit to the others around us in some things, and find that they submit to us in others. There is no place in which anyone has absolute position above any other in all things.

And that is exactly what you are suggesting (even insisting) when you say that it is foolish for a man to submit to a woman, and especially not his wife. You make it a statement of absolutes and therefore allow for nothing in which the husband should be in submission to his wife.

Now, "lemon" passages notwithstanding, it may be that the Bible actually provides certain ways in which a woman should always be in submission to a man, and more specifically to her husband. But it is not in all ways and in all times. And you will find that you cannot demand submission while simultaneously claiming to love and cherish. To give yourself for her is to submit your life to her. I suspect that those who fight the good fight of "never ever submit to a woman in anything" will not be found stepping in front of the bullet aimed at his wife's heart. That might seem extreme since few of us would quickly make that sacrifice for anyone without a moment of consideration. Or maybe the real evidence is what we do before we think.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

Really. This statement sounds like you assume that "finding the truth" is VS. "swinging the pendulum."

Actually, it is. Finding truth should bring thinking to a common place.

But the pendulum just keeps moving against competing forces. When it gets far enough in one direction, it moves to the other. While it is true that given enough time it will stop where the forces are all in agreement (literally in the middle, at the bottom of its period in the case of an actual pendulum) the goal of seeking the truth is to shortcut the constant swings of simply fighting for getting one way over the other and instead try to find where there is no more movement because it is the right place in which all the forces are satisfied. (Still not a perfect metaphor. The never are.)

Finding the truth has a different goal from just getting the pendulum swinging. And when you begin to conjecture beyond what your evidence supports, you are moving beyond what you can call truth. Therefore it is something other than the search for truth. And more like another attempt to just swing the pendulum in the way you want it to go.

You are correct that the pendulum moves when truth dictates it. But if the movement is because of truth, the metaphor of the pendulum ceases to apply. Instead it will be more like the willful setting of a column on a foundation for the purpose of holding up a building. I realize that the fact that we are unlikely to get any truth absolutely correct means that it may eventually be revisited. But the process of getting it set, and then the eventual start of a new inquiry on the topic will not look like a pendulum, but a rational attempt to right a foundation. (For us Texans, like calling Olshan to repair a foundation.)

We have something that has been (legitimately) sticking in the craw of a lot of women for a long time. And as women have been getting a lot of pull in secular society for some time now, they are also starting to get some pull in Christian society. If the objective is to find the truth, then we are not talking about a pendulum. But if the objective is to turn the tables and put those men in line, even making it evident that women were righteous from the beginning, even not driven from the garden, and not in any way responsible for the fall of mankind, then you are talking about something that I do not see the truth supporting and instead taking on the appearance of an attempt to just swing a pendulum of thinking.

"This side has gone to far, so let's move it to the other side."

I hope that the book is not actually doing that. And that the portions you are bringing out are too void of context to read them correctly.

You need to understand that delving into speculation with no support does your cause no good. It removes you at least somewhat from the realm of someone who is seeking the truth and places you in the realm of someone ready to spin fantasy and shove on the pendulum.

This is how Lee got us. Found people who wanted something different. So he gave us different. And he gave us excitement. And a lot of emotion . . . . Along with a lot of nonsense.

I don't care how correct your underlying premise about the whole thing is. You are tanking your credibility with this kind of argument. It won't be given the time of day by even those who already agree with that for which you do have support.

And if your statements about taking any kind of serious stand that woman was not required to leave the garden needs clarification, then you don't get it. Those statements should not have been made in which case they would not need clarification. It is something that could start as a line of thinking and shortly thereafter die as clearly implausible. And therefore not get recorded in the book (if it is) or stated here on the forum.

Why do I say this? Because it could only be supported by declaring that:

1. Every detail has to be stated or it does not exist (without caring that the positions argued for are equally unstated)
2. "Man" cannot mean both the man and the woman (all of mankind)
3. Neither Adam nor Eve needed the other to "multiply"
4. The flaming sword blocking the entrance to the garden would not apply to the woman (not stated)
5. Assuming the man and the woman had to be in the same place, the driving of one out was not effectively driving them both out

And based on discussions on some serious topics in the past, it was the persistence of some to insist upon more than they could support that caused the topics to explode.

You set a good topic. But you keep peppering it with statements undermining the credibility. And the need to characterize verses in terms of "lemons" and "grapes" is often viewed as an indicator that the arguments do not stand on their own. That the truth needs to help from name calling.

That should concern you. And it should cause you to take note instead of digging in your heels.

Before you just go after me again, remember that I am on your side. I may not have the particular insight that Jane thinks (and probably rightly so) she has found in the Bible. I agree with the overall premises. If you are getting pushback from the inside, don't just fight. Consider it. Since there are 2,000 years (more like 5,000+ years) of misunderstanding, you are fighting an uphill battle with so many. Don't make your fight harder by even distancing those who should be your biggest supporters.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

The foolish is the one who does not understand the command to submit to one another. There was no exception provided. The specific statements made were not stated as reasons that it does not also go the other way.

Besides, it is only the fool who thinks that an environment in which all are commanded to submit to all that there is any one of them who is not required to submit to every one of the others in some aspects. And the way in which we submit to each other is not precisely the same or it would be like the two people standing on opposite sides of a doorway insisting that the other go through first with neither yielding to the other's request, but instead insisting upon being second.

Outside of the extreme situation of servitude and of our submission to God, we all do (or should) submit to the others around us in some things, and find that they submit to us in others. There is no place in which anyone has absolute position above any other in all things.

And that is exactly what you are suggesting (even insisting) when you say that it is foolish for a man to submit to a woman, and especially not his wife. You make it a statement of absolutes and therefore allow for nothing in which the husband should be in submission to his wife.

Now, "lemon" passages notwithstanding, it may be that the Bible actually provides certain ways in which a woman should always be in submission to a man, and more specifically to her husband. But it is not in all ways and in all times. And you will find that you cannot demand submission while simultaneously claiming to love and cherish. To give yourself for her is to submit your life to her. I suspect that those who fight the good fight of "never ever submit to a woman in anything" will not be found stepping in front of the bullet aimed at his wife's heart. That might seem extreme since few of us would quickly make that sacrifice for anyone without a moment of consideration. Or maybe the real evidence is what we do before we think.

Would you care to submit to what the experts say? .

Daniel B. Wallace (professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary) says this in Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, page 659:
"...v 21 is a programmatic statement ("being submissive to one another in the fear of Christ"), applicable to all in the church in a general sense. Only by exegetical gymnastics can it be made directly applicable to both halves of the three groups in 5:22-6:9 (should parents be submissive to children?).... If Jew and Gentile are on equal footing in the body of Christ, does this mean that all social hierarchies are abolished? The answer seems to be a resounding 'No.'"

As Wallace says, your view is one of "exegetical gymnastics". If the command to submit applies to both groups, then it also means that parents submit to children, and masters should submit to slaves, which is just silly.

In regards to whether the husband sometimes submits to the wife, consider carefully what versus 24 says (emphasis mine):
Ephesians 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

It does not say "submit to their husbands in most things, some things, or sometimes". If the wife is in submission to the husband in everything, then logically there is never an occasion where the wife is not in submission to her husband, nor a time when the man is in submission to his wife.


Your interpretation of submission being a two-way street is untenable when considering all of the evidence. Your view has no divine order, and the divine order is clear for New Testament experts such as D. Wallace.

As D. Wallace writes "there is a divinely ordained order to things that, if disturbed, could bring ruin."

https://bible.org/question/light-1-t...-over-men-do-y

The divine order is God>man>woman>Satan. This was inverted in the fall to Satan>woman>man>God. Your view is God > (man or woman) > (man or woman) > Satan. Whenever a man submits to the woman he could be unconsciously submitting to the serpent that whispered in her ear. So I fear that an order relation of God>woman>man>Satan is in reality Satan>woman>man>God.

Your view is not one of order but of disorder because you do not specify an order between the man and the woman. When Paul says "submit to your husbands in everything", he is specifying the order of God>man>woman that is supposed to apply 24/7.

There just simply isn't any specific instruction in the bible for the man to submit to the woman.
Consider, that only women were asked to wear head coverings (a symbol of submission), never the man. In other words, the bible specifies a symbol of submission for the woman, but never one for the man.

A very good analysis of head coverings is given here:
https://bible.org/article/what-head-...apply-us-today


This is a good article (written by a woman) about the importance of submission to husbands:

http://equippinggodlywomen.com/marri...ant-heres-why/

The Bible tells us in Ephesians 5:22 to “Submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord.”

It then says again in Colossians 3:18, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fitting in the Lord.”

So, I ask you now, if we can’t submit to our husbands how can we submit to God?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There just simply isn't any specific instruction in the bible for the man to submit to the woman.

Consider, that only women were asked to wear head coverings (a symbol of submission), never the man. In other words, the bible specifies a symbol of submission for the woman, but never one for the man.

Bringing up head covering as an example is like grasping at straws. It was a matter of custom of the times. And the whole thing to Ephesus has a context of a pagan cult in which the women are the top and are on display rather than covered. Note that Paul did not give these kinds of commands to all the others.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There just simply isn't any specific instruction in the bible for the man to submit to the woman.

But there is a specific instruction in the Bible for all to submit to one another. Once you exclude anyone from having to submit to anyone for any reason, it is not longer one another, but more like "some of you should submit to others."

As for quoting DTS professors, I have been a member of a Bible church that stands somewhat in opposition so some of the DTS positions on women. A church lead by DTS graduates (among others) who spent 18 months concluding that women were going to be allowed to preach to the general congregation. Without pre-vetting of what would be said.

You are throwing the standard "everyone reads it this way" argument in the face of serious questions as to whether it has been read right in the first place. Just finding yet another significant theologian that learned from theologians that learned from theologians that . . . on and on . . . does not prove your point. You dismiss the suggestion as if to say "no one ever asked that question before, so I won't give it the time of day. Case closed." That is too often how well-entrenched positions become well-entrenched. Not by careful consideration of what has been questioned.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Bringing up head covering as an example is like grasping at straws. It was a matter of custom of the times. And the whole thing to Ephesus has a context of a pagan cult in which the women are the top and are on display rather than covered. Note that Paul did not give these kinds of commands to all the others.

Wallace says that it is not a one-off command, but was followed by all the churches:
https://bible.org/article/what-head-...apply-us-today

If we read verse 2 in isolation, it may seem like a local instruction only. However verse 16 says 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Wallace says:

The noun παραδόσις is no less rich in its theological implications. It is used but five times in Paul, but when it has to do with the traditions that he embraces as a Christian, such are intended to be binding on all. In 2 Thess 2:15 Paul instructs the believers to stand firm and hold on to the traditions that he had passed down to them. In 2 Thess 3:6, believers are commanded to stay away from any believers who do not abide by Paul’s traditions. Thus, the verb παραδίδωμι and its nominal cognate, παραδόσις cannot be treated lightly. They do not mean ‘tradition’ in the modern English sense of the word of a nice custom that one can dispense with if desired.

How do we reconcile 1 Cor 11:2 with 1 Cor 11:16? Verse 2 governs v 16. That is to say, because the practice was a παραδόσις, it was put on the level of orthopraxy. It was a doctrine that the early church followed. Since it was on this level, most of the churches followed it religiously. Hence, Paul could appeal to what other churches were doing (v 16) as an appeal to the reasonableness and pragmatic outworking of this ‘tradition.’ This would be like saying, “Christ died for you; therefore, you should observe the Lord’s Supper. Besides, other Christians are already doing this and none have a different practice.” The practice puts flesh to the doctrine.

In sum, the view that 1 Cor 11:2-16 has no relevance today is based squarely on the English text, but not the Greek. It assumes that such traditions are optional, while Paul used words to describe them that he had reserved for the tradition of the death and resurrection of Christ. Surely, such ‘traditions’ are not optional with Paul!

Originally Posted by OBW

But there is a specific instruction in the Bible for all to submit to one another. Once you exclude anyone from having to submit to anyone for any reason, it is not longer one another, but more like "some of you should submit to others."

You are reading too much into this verse without considering the many other verses that clearly lay out the social order. Sort of like how some read too much into the verse which Adam left the garden of Eden so Eve must have been left behind. We need to read the bible with a degree of common sense.

You are confusing the general sense of the verse with specific meaning. It does not mean that the social order of parents over children, masters over slaves, and husbands over wives, or rulers over the people, is inverted. When Paul says submit to one another in the fear of Christ, it is implied that he is not upsetting the whole social order that is declared elsewhere. It would not make sense for Paul to be teaching that children submit to parents and masters submit to slaves, or that ruling authorities must submit to the people. There is no common sense with that view, so it is unlikely that it is the correct view.

Originally Posted by OBW

As for quoting DTS professors, I have been a member of a Bible church that stands somewhat in opposition so some of the DTS positions on women. A church lead by DTS graduates (among others) who spent 18 months concluding that women were going to be allowed to preach to the general congregation. Without pre-vetting of what would be said.

You are throwing the standard "everyone reads it this way" argument in the face of serious questions as to whether it has been read right in the first place. Just finding yet another significant theologian that learned from theologians that learned from theologians that . . . on and on . . . does not prove your point. You dismiss the suggestion as if to say "no one ever asked that question before, so I won't give it the time of day. Case closed." That is too often how well-entrenched positions become well-entrenched. Not by careful consideration of what has been questioned.

Wallace is not merely "learning from theologians that learned from theologians" etc. He is an internationally known Greek New Testament scholar who has studied all over the world, and done his research in his own right. By "whether it has been read right in the first place" you seem to be suggesting that even the Greek NT experts like Wallace may be wrong. You are questioning decades of research and their expertise.

The irony is, that those who reject Lee for not being a trained theologian, are themselves rejecting what the trained theologians have to say. Your discussion with Nell has already revealed a few kooky things he or Jane believes in -beyond what they claim about the "lemon translations". They sound just like those who are skeptical of medicine, and refuse to take their children to the doctor or take modern medicine. Their view that there are lemon translations of the bible is bordering on a conspiracy theory.

I knew something was up when I realized that no one on this thread apart from myself was willing to consult the Greek new testament experts on this matter. At first I thought I might find that the Greek NT experts agree with Jane's view. Instead, what I found by reading Wallace and others, was that the original Greek means almost exactly what the supposedly incorrectly translated English verses mean. That is, there is no conspiracy and no mistranslations - the lemon verses are not lemons at all.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are reading too much into this verse without considering the many other verses that clearly lay out the social order. . . . We need to read the bible with a degree of common sense.

I would say that it clearly does not mean that the sense in which a child is to obey parents can be the sense in which a parent could be subject to a child. Yet that is not the whole of submission.

And a slave cannot claim authority over a master. But a master can be subject to the slave in some ways that do not undermine authority.

I think that the problem you have is that "be subject to" is being understood as entirely about authority and hierarchy. There is much to being subject. A parent is subject to the needs of the child. The child even demands of the parent in many ways in which the parent obeys and does as requested. Neither is in all ways omnidirectional.

But in a writing to a culture in which there was a tendency for lording it over in the reverse, there was an extreme response. Your DTS professor may like for it to somehow be a more permanent version of tradition or practice, but it is the preference that makes it so, not the reading of the words without a desire for outcome.

And while I live in a world full of DTS grads and professors, know many of them, and think very highly of every one of them, there are certain ways that they are influenced by the thinking of others beyond what is clearly there. This is most commonly seen when they insist on special theological uses of words that had no such special theological use other than as has been overlaid by commentators of later times.

But let's look at one Lee did the same thing on since you will be familiar with it. It is like saying that "zoe" is simply God's life. That is a patently incorrect reading of the word. It might be argued that the best way to have zoe is to have God's life, but the world is full of people living "zoe." Zoe is simply all that makes up life, including the enjoyment of it. Therefore, those people going for all the gusto they can get as they open that can of Bud (I think that is who had that commercial), they are experiencing zoe. And from a careful study of the use of the term in the Bible (couldn't resist that given Lee's propensity to do the same) you will find that while there may be some uses that could be intending to imply an "only through God" kind of zoe, most do not.

So here we are relying on theologians schooled in an overarching view of eschatology that did not exist until the early-mid 1800s. And heavily influenced by the people who brought you the exclusive Brethren. And you want me to simply take it because one of them is sure that this word is "rich in its theological implications."

Remember. They are implications, not obvious and certain facts. And what they imply may not be agreed to by all.

And when I read what you posted from Wallace, I say to myself, "interesting." But I do not see that he has overcome the objection that he is creating a theological "implication," insisting that it is simply so (sort of like Lee would have), and making a bold declaration of fact that a straight reading of the "facts" that he gives cannot support as "simply so."

[Drake]

OBW,

I'm pretty sure that the life that the Spirit gives is not that which may be found in a Bud.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'm pretty sure that the life that the Spirit gives is not that which may be found in a Bud.

And like so many lately, you miss the point.

I would agree with your statement. But it does not cause there to be a definition of "zoe" that is exclusive and peculiar to scripture. Both potentially fall within what was called "zoe" back in turn of the era Greece and beyond.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

And like so many lately, you miss the point.

I would agree with your statement. But it does not cause there to be a definition of "zoe" that is exclusive and peculiar to scripture. Both potentially fall within what was called "zoe" back in turn of the era Greece and beyond.

Is the life that the Spirit gives zoe?

That is the point. You drew a false equivalence with a beer.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

Is the life that the Spirit gives zoe?

That is the point. You drew a false equivalence with a beer.

Drake

Actually, you do not properly understand what I said. I said that the process of "going for all the gusto you can get," which was used in a beer commercial, was describing going for zoe. A full life. More than just breathing and filling space. More than just working and getting a paycheck.

I did not equate them. Lee did by insisting that zoe is simply God's life.

But the life that the Spirit gives is not simply zoe. Neither is zoe simply God's life.

The life that the Spirit gives is God's life. In terms of ability to achieve or experience zoe, having God's life is a definite plus. But it is arguable that there are a whole lot of people with God's life that are not currently experiencing zoe, though they could. But having God's life is a plus because it can help us to look past the "momentary affliction" or other hindrance to what would be called zoe and thereby do more than just live biologically and psychologically.

But zoe is not simply God's life. That is just not so. It is something else. But it is able to help us in achieving zoe. And to experience zoe when others would not. And to bear up under hardship when no one would pretend that things are very "zoe."

The false equivalence here your simplication that the life that God gives is zoe. The problem with the statement is that zoe is a very human life. It is very achievable without God, otherwise the word would not have existed before the Bible for use in the Bible.

Zoe is the fullness of life (human life). God's life is not the fullness of human life. It is God's life. But having God's life is clearly a plus in getting to the fullness of human life.

And if you want to remain stuck with Lee's "zoe is just God's life" mantra, don't bother responding. I'm not impressed with purely "theological" definitions that most likely did not exist at the time of writing.

[Drake]

OBW"The life that the Spirit gives is God's life."

Right. And what is the Greek word used for life that the Spirit gives?

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW"The life that the Spirit gives is God's life."

Right. And what is the Greek word used for life that the Spirit gives?

Drake

Provide the verse. I did a quick search and the use of the word "life," even when coupled with God does not make reference to the life of God, but rather to the life that we obtain. You can make an argument that this means that it is the adding of the life of God that is actually being talked about. But in the examples I came up with, I do not find any such reference. Rather, it is clear that we are given life, eternal life, etc., but I don't find "God's life" defined.

And while I would expect that the word used for it would be zoe, that would not be because it is God's life and that is the definition, but because the life that God has could hardly be described as other than the fullest of lives.

But despite that, even if all the other verses make reference to man having or experiencing zoe, it does not say that they are experiencing God's life, but life (my living) that is zoe.

That still does not define zoe as exclusively God's life.

You need to ask yourself why it is that you are stuck on the idea that if it is zoe it is God's life. There is nothing found in the Bible that makes any such claim. The world was not missing the word "zoe" until it started being used for the purpose of describing God's life.

No. Zoe was fullness of life. Or all that life is. Not just the biology or psychology. You are stuck on an A is B therefore B is A logic error. Just as the Rangers are a baseball team (not talking hockey today), but "baseball team" is not simply the Rangers. In the same way, God's life is clearly zoe, but zoe is not simply God's life. Therefore, even in the Bible, unless it is clearly talking about God's life, and not our life (as it was, is, or could be) zoe does not mean God's life. It just means fullness of life.

Now is when you ignore me and ask another "zoe simply means God's life" question.

[OBW]

Drake,

One more thing to consider. Even if you successfully argue that some of the verses are talking about our life when the life of God is added, it is still talking about the life that we live as a result of that, not the life that God lives. In gospel terms, it is a sales pitch. It is telling you how much better YOUR life could be. God gives excellent life.

BTW. All of the life that we have came from God. So why don't we have zoe all the time?

The answer is because zoe is not an ingredient. It is a state of being. Bios is something that is. It is tangible. While psuche is not so tangible, it is still the working of our being in the way that we operate as living humans. But zoe is how you live as a biologically and psychologically alive person. Is your whole living mundane or is it zoe. Is it full.

God's life is surely full. But it is not the definition of zoe. Or full. A very good example. But not the definition.

[Evangelical]

Before we get into Lee and zoe life, which I see Drake has picked upon on, let's consider the likelihood of one view over the other.

It has been argued that God's Word is the original Greek manuscripts, and that there were mistranslations from Greek to English. The second argument is that these mistranslations are in favor of men over women, resulting in the "lemon verses".

If that is the case, then by studying the original Greek we should be able to arrive at the "correct" conclusion. I should say a more plausible or likely conclusion, considering there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the conclusion. Whichever view has the more plausible interpretation from the original Greek is more likely to be correct.

Since Jane herself seems to have no theological credibility, but draws heavily upon Bushnell, we may as well reduce this question to the following -

Is Bushnell more likely to be correct, or Wallace?

My research of Bushnell and her credentials shows someone driven more by her experiences and thoughts than what the Greek text actually says to a neutral observer. A person with a degree of feminist bias, who even concluded that Eve was not to blame for the fall but Adam. She seems to be interpreting the original Greek driven by her desire to defend her ministry as a woman. She felt called by God, and she reads the original Greek in a way to justify her calling. In doing so, she then compares her interpretation of the Greek with the clear message of the English versions, and declares the English versions to be mistranslated and wrong.

The interesting thing is that Wallace also acknowledges mistranslated words - however some mistranslated words he is talking about are those which justify the cause of the egalitarians. For example, the difference between the English meaning of the word "tradition", as being something that can be done away with, and the richer meaning of the Greek word for "tradition", which means something more permanent.

The fact that certain words may be mistranslated from Greek to English, does not mean that the interpretation of the Greek is correct. So we can ignore that English words may be mistranslated, and consider who has the most likely correct interpretation of the Greek? Wallace knows a lot about the New Testament Greek language, so I would put more credibility in his interpretation than Bushnell's. I would say that a "theological implication" from Wallace is more credible than the alternative. Or put it this way - the argument for women, in the original Greek, must be so subtle, that it is just not seen by those who study the Greek, like Wallace - one must be a feminist with an agenda to draw it out and make it obvious, like Bushnell. If that was not the case, then theologians everywhere, like Wallace, should have picked up on this. Wallace's view is much more rational and logical in my opinion, because it does not have to engage in "exegetical gymnastics" or base its arguments upon a view that the English translations are wrong. The principle of Occam's razor suggests Wallace's view is the correct one. In other words, the number of assumptions one has to make to reach a conclusion in Jane or Bushnell's view, is much more than the number of assumptions that Wallace's view has to make. The view with the least number of assumptions is more likely to the the correct one.

[OBW]

Drake,

One more point on "zoe" which probably should put it to bed as an irrelevancy in this whole discussion.

Zoe is not a description of an aspect of the life we have. Not like bios which speaks of the physical life. Or psuche which speaks of the psychological life. Some might think that zoe is kind of like an alternative to bios which is superior. Maybe like saying that being a spirit rather than being a normal, physical being, is superior.

But that is not it either. If you look at the definitions — all of them — you should begin to see that zoe is more like a comment on quality of the whole of life. While it is patently true that in a world that is created by God, his life would be the most in whatever way it is that zoe is intended to describe. But that does not make his life "more zoe," but rather the best example of the life that we would like to have as reflecting our zoe.

So zoe, in reference to you or me, is about the life that we live. It is the qualitative overview of the whole of our living. It is not about whether we have God's life. It is not definitionally changed just because we have God's life, though that would be an expected outcome. And the things that make it something that in modern vernacular would be described as "getting all the gusto you can get," does not make it "more zoe." Zoe is the "container" of what we describe as the entirety of our life. And the entirety of a pagan's life is not God's life. So Zoe is not simply God's life. That would be like saying "the description of the quality of your life is simply God."

[Drake]

OBW,

I'm not exactly sure what you meant to say in your last post. However it appears as if you are overgeneralizing this matter of Zoe.

John 1:4 says in Him was Zoe.
John 1010 says He came that we might have Zoe abundantly.
First Corinthian's 15;45 says that He became a life giving spirit.

Helps elaborates on that last reference in this way:

2227 /zōopoiéō ("make alive, enliven") is particularly used of God infusing His life in the believer. The Lord infuses eternal life (zōē) into us each time we receive (obey) faith from Him. This enables living with God – not just for Him (cf. Gal 2:20; Ro 8:28-30; 1 Jn 5:4). His self-existent, all-powerful life overcomes all the deadly effects of sin.

http://biblehub.com/greek/2227.htm

Drake

[testallthings]

PAGNINUS AND A WORD OF CAUTION ABOUT BUSHNELL'S QUOTATIONS

Originally Posted by JaneAnderson

Problem 1 in Genesis 3:16: Turning or Lust?...She discovered that the Hebrew word, “teshuqah,” was translated “turning” in the earliest translations. It remained “turning” for sixteen centuries until Pagnino’s Latin version changed it to “lust.” It then read, “Your lust shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you.” In the seventeenth century, the King James Version softened the translation by using the word “desire,” which is a more genteel rendering with a similar meaning as Pagnino’s word “lust”. Now, in the twenty-first century, the word, “desire,” is used in the vast majority of English Bibles.

After Wycliffe's version, and before any other English Bible appeared, an Italian Dominican monk, named Pagnino, translated the Hebrew Bible. The Biographie Universelle, quotes the following criticism of his work, in the language of Richard Simon: "Pagnino has too much neglected the ancient versions of Scripture to attach himself to the teachings of the rabbis." What would we naturally expect, therefore? That he would render this word "lust,"—and that is precisely what he does in the first and the third place; in the second, he translates, "appetite."
(GOD’S WORD TO WOMEN, Katharine Bushnell)

Pagniuo has neglected the old interpreters of Scripture, to attach themselves To the feelings of the rabbis .... He imagined that to make a Faithful translation, it was necessary to To follow the letter exactly and According to the rigor of grammar; this which is wholly opposed to this Alleged accuracy, because it is Rare that two languages ​​meet In their locutions; and so, Far from expressing its originality In the same purity as it is written
(Google translation; though not accurate I have posted it to give a broader context for Richard Simon's critique.)

[Nell]

“The Message of this Book
This book contains some of what I have learned sitting at the feet of Jesus over the years. Foundational to its message is a biblical truth that He has fine tuned for me through many experiences, so I am bringing that truth to the forefront before continuing. God requires us to do our part in having and maintaining right relationships with others, especially with fellow members in the body of Christ. His Word requires that believers—whether victims, perpetrators, or witnesses—take biblical steps to remove sins in our relationships (Matt. 5: 21– 26, 18: 15– 17). If through disobedience, we allow them to remain, they will hinder God’s blessing on the church and also hinder His answers to our prayers (Isa. 59, 1 Pet. 3: 7, 12). Such unaddressed sins silently grow and spread like a cancer, interfering with the normal function of the body of Christ and producing spiritual death. A Woman of Chayil [khah’-yil] takes an in-depth look at a huge, long-term sin in the body of Christ. This hidden spiritual cancer in the church has been growing for almost two millennia in the wrong relationships that exist between Christian women and Christian men. From the early beginnings of the church to the present, the devil has used deceived Christian men to carry out his ancient hatred against women. Christian women have perpetuated their own mistreatment by silently enabling it. Thus, both genders are responsible for grieving the Holy Spirit and frustrating His work on the earth.”

Anderson, Jane Carole. A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies (Kindle Locations 339-348).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW,

I'm not exactly sure what you meant to say in your last post. However it appears as if you are overgeneralizing this matter of Zoe.

John 1:4 says in Him was Zoe.
John 1010 says He came that we might have Zoe abundantly.
First Corinthian's 15;45 says that He became a life giving spirit.

Helps elaborates on that last reference in this way:

2227 /zōopoiéō ("make alive, enliven") is particularly used of God infusing His life in the believer. The Lord infuses eternal life (zōē) into us each time we receive (obey) faith from Him. This enables living with God – not just for Him (cf. Gal 2:20; Ro 8:28-30; 1 Jn 5:4). His self-existent, all-powerful life overcomes all the deadly effects of sin.

http://biblehub.com/greek/2227.htm

Drake

What I am saying is that there is not some exclusive lock on the use of the term zoe with respect to God's life only. And none of the verses that you mention refer to what is the zoe discussed as being "God's life." That God provided it to us does not simply make it God's life or make God's life = zoe.

I am not disputing all that God provides to us. It is the erroneous use of the term as if it somehow is defined as being God's life. And that it does not exist outside of what God gives according to these verses. God's life is zoe. Just as Chevrolet is an automobile. (A is B) But Zoe is not God's life. Just as an automobile is not simply a Chevrolet (except in the particular instance in which it is).

You have ignored that part of the discussion, which is all that I have been saying. In many different ways since you just keep coming back to the fact that verses are used that have the word "zoe" in them and you default to "zoe = God's life."

And you keep being all incensed that I could use the word zoe in such a way that it is in any way associated with a beer (even indirectly). As if I am comparing God to beer (which I never did and would never do). However, when it comes to the understanding of what is zoe, both beer and God can come into the conversation. They do not result in the same content of life that would be described within zoe, but they are both something that could affect the recognition of zoe.

It changes the discussion from "God gives zoe and nothing else does" to "God provides the means to the life that would really be termed as zoe." This does not demean or lower God. It just recognizes that the references to zoe are to something that ordinary people understood in contexts in which God was not part of the equation. So the statements recorded in the Bible are saying that our life, when analyzed under the thought of "zoe," should be something that we really see as high quality of life. It is quality that is really quality (to replace the word "zoe" in that one verse).

[Drake]

OBW " you default to "zoe = God's life."

No. I default to Gods life is Zoe.

The helps quote states it succinctly. I can't help it if you don't believe it.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Brothers,
Let's try to keep this tied into "Chayil".
-

[OBW]

Testallthings recently put a couple of things into one place for our consideration.

First, from Jane's book:

Problem 1 in Genesis 3:16: Turning or Lust?...She discovered that the Hebrew word, “teshuqah,” was translated “turning” in the earliest translations. It remained “turning” for sixteen centuries until Pagnino’s Latin version changed it to “lust.” It then read, “Your lust shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you.” In the seventeenth century, the King James Version softened the translation by using the word “desire,” which is a more genteel rendering with a similar meaning as Pagnino’s word “lust”. Now, in the twenty-first century, the word, “desire,” is used in the vast majority of English Bibles.

Then something that attributed to Katharine Bushnell's book:

After Wycliffe's version, and before any other English Bible appeared, an Italian Dominican monk, named Pagnino, translated the Hebrew Bible. The Biographie Universelle, quotes the following criticism of his work, in the language of Richard Simon: "Pagnino has too much neglected the ancient versions of Scripture to attach himself to the teachings of the rabbis." What would we naturally expect, therefore? That he would render this word "lust,"—and that is precisely what he does in the first and the third place; in the second, he translates, "appetite."

What I find missing in all of this, and in the whole of the section from Jane's book from which the above quote is taken, is a discussion of the meaning of the Hebrew word that is the root of this whole thing. As with most words, I suspect that it could have more than one singular definition. Even where the definition appears to be somewhat singular, it often has nuances based on the context in which it is found.

For example, somewhere there was a reference to Genesis 3:16 in which it seemed to be suggested that the term (in English) "childbearing" should have been "sighing." Yet an online interlinear Hebrew text provides a rather convoluted phrase that has as its primary component the word "pregnant" or "pregnancy." It is difficult to try to take these words to Hebrew-English dictionaries because the Hebrew provided is typically a set of special characters that do not copy-paste well into a translator. But that means that there needs to be more than some bare statement that the word means "sighing" to change it. There is too much available that says otherwise.

What is needed is a real analysis of the definition(s) for the particular Hebrew word. Not the Greek or Latin term used in those updated texts. Or the various English words used. Without the study of the Hebrew word, there is no basis to accept or reject anything else said about it.

Jane's book (it is getting difficult to tell within what is in front of me at the moment whether it is a quote from Bushnell or Jane's words, though I think it is Bushnell's) makes a reference to the word "turning" being used for 16 centuries before the Italian Monk changed it to "lust." First, the Italian Monk did not change it to "lust." Neither had the word "turning" been used for any material length of time. I realize that it should be patently obvious that we are talking about either the Greek or Latin word used in non-Hebrew manuscripts/sources. But that only muddies the discussion because that means that the English word we are using in place of the Greek/Latin word is itself a translation, so we are two languages removed from what was recorded.

But what I find most annoying about the whole discussion is that I cannot see that my understanding of the verse as found right now in almost any version is being altered. I see a statement of a sort of curse put upon the woman that is different, but not necessarily less onerous than what is put on the man. And I also see a prophetic statement that things would tend to go in a certain direction.

It is going to take more than a passionately written book to change that. It needs a real analysis of the words. And without that, I only have what is available to see. And a simple statement that the word means "sighing" without any reference to or analysis of what is provided in other sources is not a study in reality. Whether it ultimately is true or false, it is nothing in the form in which it has been presented at this point. There is no basis for me to accept it or give it serous consideration. And a lot more than the notion that Genesis 3:16 does not make a proscriptive statement that woman should be ruled over by man is based on this unsupported statement. I can get to "not proscriptive" quite easily without any change in words. And that is actually what I believe about it. But the rest needs the changed word (and a fair bit more to be realistic) to even make it worth considering.

[Evangelical]

I think the facts of mistranslation should be separated from the conspiracy.

For example, it is a fact that the word teshuqa was mistranslated. It is a conspiracy that this means that Paul is wrong when he says that a woman should not hold authority over a man because "Adam was created first".

There are a few questions here.

One is, was the word teshuqa mistranslated? I believe the answer is yes.

It was because of Jerome who was heavily influenced by Jewish scholars and the "ten curses of Eve" and their negative opinions towards women ("thank God he did not make me a woman"):
http://www.notredamedesion.org/en/di...p?a=3b&id=1120


https://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2016.htm says:
"The sense "desire" has come to us from the Talmud, in the "Ten Curses of Eve.""



The second question is, what is the correct meaning of teshuqa?

The word is used three times in different contexts:

Genesis 3:16, "-and-to-Adam, Eve's teshuqa."

Genesis 4:7,11 "-and-to-Cain, Abel's teshuqa"
(or perhaps sin's teshuqa,)

Sol. Song 7:10, "-and-to-the-Church Christ's teshuqa"
(as usually interpreted).

https://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2016.htm

I think it is clear that the word does not mean lust (as in sensual), or desire (as in sensual). It does not mean "desire to control or destroy" (the husband) either as a number of modern translations have put it.

I believe the word "turning" means that the woman turned from God and as a consequence, Adam would rule over her:

https://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2017.htm
The Pentateuch of the Septuagint is especially esteemed for its accuracy. This version renders teshuqa into the Greek word apostrophe in both passages in Genesis: and epistrophe in Canticles. The former word, apostrophe, is familiar to us all: it means "turning away," and the latter, "turning to." The teaching is, that Eve is turning away from God to her husband, and, as a consequence of that deflection, Adam will rule over her.

136. Likewise, the sense "turning" reconciles the three passages one with another, whereas the sense "desire" puts them in utter conflict. Eve is "turning" from God, and He warns her that if she does this, she will fall under the dominion of Adam. Abel is "turning" toward Cain, in all the confidence of a younger and unsuspecting brother. God warns Cain prophetically that this confiding approach of his brother will be a temptation to slay him in his defenselessness. The third passage is a joyful boast of the bridegroom's favor and attention, "He is turning to me."


I believe the proper understanding of this verse is not:
"Your husband will rule over you if you don't submit to Me", as a kind of a threat.

But this:

"because you turned away from Me, your husband will rule over you, for your protection"

I added "for your protection" because that is Witness Lee's understanding.

In other words, the husband ruling over the wife is for her benefit, not to do her harm. The bible's instruction for the man to the woman is to be her provider and protector.

Does it mean that if Eve turned back to God her husband would not rule over her? No. There is nothing about the fall's curses that can be undone in this life. A man who obeys God today does not find "tilling the ground" much easier. Women who obey God today do not find themselves free of pain in childbirth, for example.


Some women may say "as long as I am obeying God, I don't have to obey my husband". This is wrong. This view is like saying that as long as Christians obey God, they don't have to obey the governing authorities.
A Christian obeying the governing authorities is them obeying God.
Rom 13:1

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

A woman obeying her husband is her obeying God.

Let us not think that a woman obeying God does not mean she does not have to obey her husband.

This sort of wrong thinking is also manifested in other ways e.g.

"Because God provides for my needs I don't have to get a job. "

[testallthings]

PAGNINUS AND A WORD OF CAUTION ABOUT BUSHNELL'S QUOTATIONS
(I just realized that in my previous post, due to some problems, part of my post was omitted. This is the complete one. Sorry for the confusion.)



Problem 1 in Genesis 3:16: Turning or Lust?

...
She discovered that the Hebrew word, “teshuqah,” was translated “turning” in the earliest translations. It remained “turning” for sixteen centuries until Pagnino’s Latin version changed it to “lust.” It then read, “Your lust shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you.” In the seventeenth century, the King James Version softened the translation by using the word “desire,” which is a more genteel rendering with a similar meaning as Pagnino’s word “lust”. Now, in the twenty-first century, the word, “desire,” is used in the vast majority of English Bibles. (POST#21)





142. After Wycliffe's version, and before any other English Bible appeared, an Italian Dominican monk, named Pagnino, translated the Hebrew Bible. The Biographie Universelle, quotes the following criticism of his work, in the language of Richard Simon: "Pagnino has too much neglected the ancient versions of Scripture to attach himself to the teachings of the rabbis." What would we naturally expect, therefore? That he would render this word "lust,"—and that is precisely what he does in the first and the third place; in the second, he translates, "appetite." (GOD’S WORD TO WOMEN, Katharine Bushnell)




Pagniuo a trop négligé les anciens
interprètes de l'Écriture , pour s'attacher
aux sentiments des rabbins....
Il s'est imaginé que pour faire une
traduction fidèle , il était nécessaire
de suivre la lettre exactement et
selon la rigueur de la grammaire; ce
qui est tout-à-fait opposé à celte
exactitude prétendue , parce qu'il est
rare que deux langues se rencontrent
dans leurs locutions ; et ainsi ,
bien loin d'exprimer son original
dans la même pureté qu'il est écrit (Biographie Universelle page 373)
,



Pagniuo has neglected the old
Interpreters of Scripture, to attach themselves To the feelings of the rabbis .... He imagined that to make a Faithful translation, it was necessary to
To follow the letter exactly and According to the rigor of grammar; this
Which is wholly opposed to this Alleged accuracy, because it is Rare that two languages ​​meet In their locutions; and so, Far from expressing its originality In the same purity as it is written (Google translation; though not accurate I have posted it to give a broader context for Richard Simon's critique.)


Richard Simon likewise accuses Pagninus of “neglecting the ancient interpreters of Scripture, to rely upon the opinion of the Rabbis.” The Discovery of Hebrew in Tudor England: A Third Language, By G. Lloyd Jones, page 42


Pagninus ( a disciple of Savonarola) spent 25 years working on his translation. At that time it was highly appreciated by both Jews and Christians. Richard Simon (13 May 1638 – 11 April 1712, french priest) criticized Pagninus for relying upon the opinion of the Rabbis while neglecting the ancient interpreters of Scriptures (maybe the Church Fathers?).
Bushnell's quote appears to be a mistake.

Checking if Pagninus used the word lust in Gen. 3:16, I found that the word he used was “desiderium”. (https://play.google.com/books/reader...en&pg=GBS.PP66)

dēsīdĕrĭum , ii, n. desidero,
I.a longing, ardent desire or wish, properly for something once possessed; grief, regret for the absence or loss of any thing (for syn. cf.: optio, optatio, cupido, cupiditas, studium, appetitio, voluntas—freq. and class.). ( http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...=latin#lexicon)

desiderium: an ardent desire or longing; especially :* a feeling of loss or grief for something lost (Merriam-Webster)

The Vulgate used this word in various passages like:


Psa 38:10 *Domine ante te omne desiderium meum et gemitus meus a te non est absconditus
Psa 38:9 Lord, all my desire is before thee; and my groaning is not hid from thee.




Proverbs 11: 23 *desiderium iustorum omne bonum est praestolatio impiorum furor
Pro 11:23 The desire of the righteous is only good: but the expectation of the wicked is wrath.



Philippians 1:23 coartor autem e duobus desiderium habens dissolvi et cum Christo esse multo magis melius

Php 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: (KJV)


Philippians 4:19
Deus autem meus impleat omne desiderium vestrum secundum divitias suas in gloria in Christo Iesu
Php 4:19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (KJV)



Desiderius (given name)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Desiderius is a Latin given name, related to desiderium - which can be translated as "ardent desire" or "the longed-for". Various other forms include Desiderio in Italian, Desiderio or Desi in Spanish, Desidério in Portuguese, Didier in French and Dezső in Hungarian.
Desiderius may refer to:
Desiderius (died c. 786), the last king of the Lombard Kingdom of northern Italy
Desiderius, Abbot of Monte Cassino (c. 1026-1087), successor of Pope Gregory VII
Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536), Dutch humanist and theologian
Desiderius Hampel (1895-1981), Waffen-SS general
Desiderius of Aquitaine (died 587), Gallo-Roman dux in the Kingdom of the Franks
Desiderius Wein (1873-1944), Hungarian doctor and gymnast
Saints
Desiderius (lector), (died c. 303)
Desiderius of Auxerre, (died 621), bishop of Auxerre
Desiderius of Cahors (c. 580–655), Merovingian royal official
Desiderius of Fontenelle (died c. 700), Frankish saint
Desiderius of Vienne (died 607), archbishop of Vienne and chronicler
Desiderius of Pistoia, (died 725); See Barontius and Desiderius

It would really sound strange if we read Lust Erasmus from Rotterdam instead of Desiderius Erasmus. (emphasis added)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by testallthings

It would really sound strange if we read Lust Erasmus from Rotterdam instead of Desiderius Erasmus. (emphasis added)

Same kind of question concerning Nicolas. Is that a conquering hero (conqueror for the people) or conquering bully (conqueror of the people). Or are names not always intended to bear the apparent meaning of the words or snippets of words that we find in them?

But on the other hand, if we presume that names are intended to mean what the words mean, then even if Desiderius Erasmus was intended to refer to desire, that does not deny that lust is an extreme form of desire and therefore not entirely ridiculous. My point is not to say that the word should be translated "lust." But neither does the fact that a guy's name wouldn't be "lust" but rather a softer form of the word deny that it could mean "lust."

But whether it is desire or lust, in terms of Gen 3:16, the intent is essentially the same. There would be something within the woman that would cause her to put herself under the man and therefore be ruled by him.

Still doesn't create a mandate as some are arguing.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

But whether it is desire or lust, in terms of Gen 3:16, the intent is essentially the same. There would be something within the woman that would cause her to put herself under the man and therefore be ruled by him.

Still doesn't create a mandate as some are arguing.

What you are basically saying is that the criminal is the innocent and the innocent is the criminal, like this:

The sin - woman putting herself under man.
The result - women being suppressed by men.


The traditional and orthodox (or mandated) view is this:
The sin - woman deceiving man
The result - man ruling over women

The criminal, the woman, received the result of her crime.

In your view, the underlying, even sinister theme that is plainly obvious to me and anyone else who holds to the traditional, orthodox view, is that women are innocent and men are the criminals.

What much of the lemon verses actually are is Satan's inquisitive questions causing people to doubt the truth of God's Word.

Consider all of the questions posed, like this one
"did God really say that man should rule over woman"?

Sounds very much like the original question Satan posed to Eve:
"Did God really say that you would die if you eat the forbidden fruit"?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

That was not what Untohim said.

However LSM is a publishing company and they can choose to publish whomever they wish to. I can read whomever I wish to read. Obviously, Evangelical does too. Those two data points alone disprove Untohim's charge.

Yet, you are wrong that LSM only publishes Brother Lee.. They publish the speaking of half dozen brothers in the Ministry Magazine. Though they reference Brother Lee and Nee they also add their own experiences and fresh insights.

Furthermore, dozens of brothers have written and published articles in A&C. Kerry Robichaux has a book on Amazon.

So this forum continues to push a false narrative about this so called "edict" and" strictly forbidden" one publication that prevents anyone from reading and writing anything other than Brother Lee. Evangelical's non-LSM entries disproves that theory. Unless when you say "strictly forbidden" you don't mean strictly or forbidden.

As relates to this topic I am absolutely certain that LSM would not have published Jane's book. That is their right too.

Drake

You've totally missed my point.

My point was not that LSM doesn't have the right to publish whatever they want to. Of course they have that right.

The point is that LCM members have been instructed by their leaders through publications by LSM to have nothing published by ANY publisher. One of the beefs against Titus Chu was that he published his own books.

Of course, such edicts are wrong, backward, restrictive of the Lord's speaking and lend to suspicions that the LCM is a cult.

It is also a moral hazard for LSM to publish those edicts. What does it say about a publishing company when it publishes commands from church leaders instructing church members to not compete with the publications of that company?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

What I am saying is that there is not some exclusive lock on the use of the term zoe with respect to God's life only. And none of the verses that you mention refer to what is the zoe discussed as being "God's life." That God provided it to us does not simply make it God's life or make God's life = zoe.

Zoe to the Greeks meant life in its idealized state. OBW is correct when he says it's more that just the life-energy that makes God living. It also includes all the behavioral and social results that spring from being related to God.

Lee got hung up on "life" as some kind of energy force emanating from God to us. It is that, but it's more than that. My observation is that focusing on "life" the way Lee did has advantages and disadvantages.

One advantage is that it suggests that the virtues of God are conveyed to us naturally through grace.

One disadvantage is that it tends to depersonalize God and even separate God's Person from his life, making "life" a kind of unconscious force, a way of accessing God's power while avoiding his personality.

[Drake]

Igzy)"What does it say about a publishing company when it publishes commands from church leaders instructing church members to not compete with the publications of that company"

That's easy. It says if you are a leader in a particular group you must fellowship and coordinate with the other leaders and not do your own thing. But if you choose to do your own thing then you are on your own.

Igzy, you seem to favor some kind of free for all among the leadership... like anyone can say, do, or publish anything they like even if it is not aligned with the rest of the leadership. I don't see any compelling evidence for that in the Bible. Look at this way, if one of the leaders in the Lord's Recovery in good standing wrote Chayil and wanted to publish it why would anybody be obligated to tolerate it being taught in the churches or obligated to publish it?

They wouldn't. So what does that say about people who find fault with them because they won't?

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you are basically saying is that the criminal is the innocent and the innocent is the criminal, like this:

The sin - woman putting herself under man.
The result - women being suppressed by men.

First, I am not reading beyond Genesis 3:16. Neither before nor beyond. So however we should cast the act of being deceived is not part of the discussion I am having. You are too quick to find a thing you want to attack and subsume everything else into it without so much as acknowledgement of anything else needs separate analysis.

But I did not say that there was sin and result. I said there was a stated cost (pain in childbearing) and that there was also a prophetic statement concerning woman's relationship with man. In a way it made both responsible for the outcome. (Don't anyone say that I must say that I would say that a woman has it coming when abused in any way by any man> I am merely noting that the way it was stated indicated she would bind herself to a man (her husband) and that he would rule over her. (Not a lot of details in what that might entail.)

As for who received what for the "crimes," there appears to be plenty to go around. Man (generically, though more generally at the male) now had to work the ground to eat. And it was not going to be simple as it was in the garden. Thorns and thistles. Unresponsive soil. Less ideal growing conditions. And the woman was somewhat cursed with respect to two things. One, a tough time of bearing children. Two, a tendency to desire for (whether or not at the extreme of "lust") for her husband in a way that would not always be to her benefit.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Consider all of the questions posed, like this one
"did God really say that man should rule over woman"?

Sounds very much like the original question Satan posed to Eve:
"Did God really say that you would die if you eat the forbidden fruit"?

Sounds can be deceiving.

Just because you can cast the question in the same kinds of words does not make them even remotely similar. What would make them similar would be if there has been a statement that was then being questioned. In this case there is no question what words we are talking about. We are talking about words that were said to the woman. (Not the words said to the man.) In those words God clearly (it would appear) said there would be a painful consequence. But he also said that there would be a desire on the part of the woman that would lead to another consequence.

But he never said to the man that he was granted the right . . . no . . . given the command to rule over the woman.

"You aren't to eat from it, or even touch it . . . you will surely die"

Not at all the same as . . .

"your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

The first is a clear command as to what was to be done and not done and what would be the consequence for disobedience.

The second is the immediate consequence of disobedience with respect to the first. And it comes in two parts. A sort of specific curse. And a prophecy of where the whole thing (being self determined with respect to good and evil) would lead.

I realize that it is so tempting to say that since the first part — pain in childbearing — is stated as a fact (and in effect a decree from God) to assume that the second must be the same. But it is not stated in that way. It is not given in a soft way. But it is not stated in a prescriptive manner as the first part is. It is stated matter-of-factly as if it is inevitable. Man is not commanded to rule over the woman. Woman was told that it would happen that way.

It is clear that you want it to be true oh so badly. It would almost seem as if your very understanding of the Bible will be shaken if you can't get this one to be the way you have been taught and believed all your life.

But it would appear that you have never really read it. Oh, you've read the words . . . with the pre-programmed understanding blocking your ability to see what words that are actually there are saying.

And your little sect is littered with proud testimonies about how its men stand as rulers over their wives. They are proud to go to a meeting, leaving their sick wife at home to do the dishes, then return home, see her still working in a pitiful state, and just go off to their study to do "God's work."

And they are proud of how they are obedient to God.

Obedience to God is the man who quick working at the LSM and started meeting along with his wife at a little Baptist church. This was done to remain one with her and united properly as husband and wife.

You would probably mock this as an improper submission of a man to a woman.

Stop reading the epistles for alleged exemption from the gospels. Jesus said. Paul can only interpret. If you think he is altering or overriding what Jesus said, then you don't know Paul.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy)"What does it say about a publishing company when it publishes commands from church leaders instructing church members to not compete with the publications of that company"

That's easy. It says if you are a leader in a particular group you must fellowship and coordinate with the other leaders and not do your own thing. But if you choose to do your own thing then you are on your own.

Igzy, you seem to favor some kind of free for all among the leadership... like anyone can say, do, or publish anything they like even if it is not aligned with the rest of the leadership. I don't see any compelling evidence for that in the Bible. Look at this way, if one of the leaders in the Lord's Recovery in good standing wrote Chayil and wanted to publish it why would anybody be obligated to tolerate it being taught in the churches or obligated to publish it?

They wouldn't. So what does that say about people who find fault with them because they won't?

Drake

I would agree that any church has the right to limit what can be taught under its umbrella. But that does not make its declared limitation correct in the ultimate sense, just in the "local" sense.

When the limitation is so severe that there is nothing considered worthy of publishing or teaching other than what has already been published and taught, then despite their right to make that limitation, they are in effect a cancer to their people. They have closed off the ability to question and debate and have therefore denied any sort of redress through a modern "Acts 15 council" because there is no ability to consider anything. The mind is closed. It has hardened to learning and cannot take anything in. The Lord is at the door knocking, but no one even hears the sound. They are too proud of all their riches.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would agree that any church has the right to limit what can be taught under its umbrella. But that does not make its declared limitation correct in the ultimate sense, just in the "local" sense.

When the limitation is so severe that there is nothing considered worthy of publishing or teaching other than what has already been published and taught, then despite their right to make that limitation, they are in effect a cancer to their people. They have closed off the ability to question and debate and have therefore denied any sort of redress through a modern "Acts 15 council" because there is no ability to consider anything. The mind is closed. It has hardened to learning and cannot take anything in. The Lord is at the door knocking, but no one even hears the sound. They are too proud of all their riches.

OBW,

What does that have to do with Chayil?

Drake "the Mod"

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, I am not reading beyond Genesis 3:16. Neither before nor beyond. So however we should cast the act of being deceived is not part of the discussion I am having. You are too quick to find a thing you want to attack and subsume everything else into it without so much as acknowledgement of anything else needs separate analysis.

But I did not say that there was sin and result. I said there was a stated cost (pain in childbearing) and that there was also a prophetic statement concerning woman's relationship with man. In a way it made both responsible for the outcome. (Don't anyone say that I must say that I would say that a woman has it coming when abused in any way by any man> I am merely noting that the way it was stated indicated she would bind herself to a man (her husband) and that he would rule over her. (Not a lot of details in what that might entail.)

As for who received what for the "crimes," there appears to be plenty to go around. Man (generically, though more generally at the male) now had to work the ground to eat. And it was not going to be simple as it was in the garden. Thorns and thistles. Unresponsive soil. Less ideal growing conditions. And the woman was somewhat cursed with respect to two things. One, a tough time of bearing children. Two, a tendency to desire for (whether or not at the extreme of "lust") for her husband in a way that would not always be to her benefit.

Sounds can be deceiving.

Just because you can cast the question in the same kinds of words does not make them even remotely similar. What would make them similar would be if there has been a statement that was then being questioned. In this case there is no question what words we are talking about. We are talking about words that were said to the woman. (Not the words said to the man.) In those words God clearly (it would appear) said there would be a painful consequence. But he also said that there would be a desire on the part of the woman that would lead to another consequence.

But he never said to the man that he was granted the right . . . no . . . given the command to rule over the woman.

"You aren't to eat from it, or even touch it . . . you will surely die"

Not at all the same as . . .

"your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

The first is a clear command as to what was to be done and not done and what would be the consequence for disobedience.

The second is the immediate consequence of disobedience with respect to the first. And it comes in two parts. A sort of specific curse. And a prophecy of where the whole thing (being self determined with respect to good and evil) would lead.

I realize that it is so tempting to say that since the first part — pain in childbearing — is stated as a fact (and in effect a decree from God) to assume that the second must be the same. But it is not stated in that way. It is not given in a soft way. But it is not stated in a prescriptive manner as the first part is. It is stated matter-of-factly as if it is inevitable. Man is not commanded to rule over the woman. Woman was told that it would happen that way.

It is clear that you want it to be true oh so badly. It would almost seem as if your very understanding of the Bible will be shaken if you can't get this one to be the way you have been taught and believed all your life.

But it would appear that you have never really read it. Oh, you've read the words . . . with the pre-programmed understanding blocking your ability to see what words that are actually there are saying.

And your little sect is littered with proud testimonies about how its men stand as rulers over their wives. They are proud to go to a meeting, leaving their sick wife at home to do the dishes, then return home, see her still working in a pitiful state, and just go off to their study to do "God's work."

And they are proud of how they are obedient to God.

Obedience to God is the man who quick working at the LSM and started meeting along with his wife at a little Baptist church. This was done to remain one with her and united properly as husband and wife.

You would probably mock this as an improper submission of a man to a woman.

Stop reading the epistles for alleged exemption from the gospels. Jesus said. Paul can only interpret. If you think he is altering or overriding what Jesus said, then you don't know Paul.

I suppose you interpret this verse:

Genesis 1:28 .... Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

To mean that man is not commanded to rule over the fish and the birds and the creatures that is just how God said it would happen.


Also, the interpretation of Gen 3:16 does not change Paul's appeal to the order of creation (man first, then woman) in 1 Timothy 2:13. This indicates that God's divine arrangement was there from the beginning, having nothing to do with the forbidden fruit.

The fact remains that the man rules over the woman - that is the divine arrangement, regardless of whether "he shall rule over you" is because of her submission, or a mandated rule. It is a strange sort of "exegetical gymnastics" and twisting of God's Words to say otherwise.

Ligon Duncan said

The gymnastics required to get from “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,” in the Bible, to “I do allow a woman to teach and to exercise authority over a man” in the actual practice of the local church, are devastating to the functional authority of the Scripture in the life of the people of God.”

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy)"What does it say about a publishing company when it publishes commands from church leaders instructing church members to not compete with the publications of that company"

That's easy. It says if you are a leader in a particular group you must fellowship and coordinate with the other leaders and not do your own thing. But if you choose to do your own thing then you are on your own.

I wouldn't expect leadership to endorse my writing. I would just expect them to allow me the freedom to publish if I feel led.

I just don't see the LCM kind of control endorsed in the NT. Paul told us to use our gifts according to the measure of grace given to us. I don't seen anything about checking with "the brothers" about every little thing you do.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

That's easy. It says if you are a leader in a particular group you must fellowship and coordinate with the other leaders and not do your own thing. But if you choose to do your own thing then you are on your own.

That is supportive of the notion local churches are really ministry churches. You must receive LSM publications or you're on your own. In LC history that's happened. It's not even an issue publishing on your own.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW,

What does that have to do with Chayil?

Drake "the Mod"

Duplicitous question. It was in response to your post. Therefore, if there is a problem of linkage to Chayil, it began with the post I responded to — yours.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I suppose you interpret this verse:

Genesis 1:28 .... Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

To mean that man is not commanded to rule over the fish and the birds and the creatures that is just how God said it would happen.

Your complete lack of ability to see the difference in the two verses is evidence why your understanding is so flawed. They are not so similar as you would claim, but rather quite different.

The biggest part to all of this, even the quoting of various theologians on the subject, is that the premise is that there is something fundamentally wrong with how the verse has been treated. This gives us reason to question whether anyone that is not, in the present, engaged in this discussion is not simply caught-up in the perpetuation of the problem that dates back centuries. So the fact that a recent (and currently living) scholar would insist that certain things are intended to mean what has always been stated without addressing anything that gives reason to think they have considered the questions currently raised is to dismiss the question because it does not agree with the past.

That sort of works for court cases under that "stare decisis" rule (might not have the Latin spelling correct there). But even that rule is understood as insisting that until there is something substantial as a basis for changing a decision, it is not to be changed just on preference. But if it meant that there can never be a change in a ruling, then the very process of appeal should be questioned.

And there would never be reason to appear together in Acts 15 and question what had been going out across the Roman Empire under the name of the church in Jerusalem. They should have simply said, "That is just the way it is and we are closed to consider."

Your approach is not to actually consider, but rather to just not consider it and instead flood us with repeats of what has been presented in the past. You don't present anything that actually addresses the issues raised and carefully considers them (even if ultimately dismissing them). They just dismiss anything not in line with their thinking.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Also, the interpretation of Gen 3:16 does not change Paul's appeal to the order of creation (man first, then woman) in 1 Timothy 2:13. This indicates that God's divine arrangement was there from the beginning, having nothing to do with the forbidden fruit.

The fact remains that the man rules over the woman - that is the divine arrangement, regardless of whether "he shall rule over you" is because of her submission, or a mandated rule. It is a strange sort of "exegetical gymnastics" and twisting of God's Words to say otherwise.

So your consideration is that if she asks for it, then it is OK.

Sort of like "she dressed in a 'come on' style, so I did" and then expect that a jury will agree with you.

I will not give your quote concerning "I do not allow . . ." more visual space because even that is written with complete disregard for the context in which the statement in question is written.

And context is very important.

We are told not to judge, yet we are told to judge. So which is it? CONTEXT. There is too clearly a context in every one of Paul's statements to just ignore it. So rather than looking to Paul to answer the question about what is the underlying rule, look to the gospels because that is where the rules are. Paul is just interpreting them for use by Gentile and mixed Gentile/Jewish congregations. And each of those congregations has additional issues that are contextually different from each other. And are the reasons for the letters and the comments.

So a woman took an action that did not have the approval of any man in advance, got immediate statements of disagreement from any man (other than Jesus) who spoke at all, yet the statements of those men did not stand to stop her. She was approved — after the fact — by Jesus. Put that into your "under a man" theory and make it work. No one told her to do anything. What she did was of her own volition. Men immediately began to complain, declaring what should have been done. But God silenced them and left her following her heart. So the men who were not God were disapproved for even suggesting to stop her. Therefore no man between her and God.

No she did not instruct a man. But neither was she under the instruction of a man (other than God himself). The God to man to woman edict did not exist.

So rather than insisting on a one-size-fits-all use of that particular verse, maybe the thing to do is to see what might have prompted Paul's comments. Something was out of whack and it wasn't just that a woman was teaching. Something else was going on and this one edict given to one church was designed to nip it in the bud.

Besides, no matter what you think about the NT as scripture that is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, that does not turn every statement of Paul's into an absolute, for all times and in all places permanent edict of God. Paul did not say "thus saith the Lord." Rather "I say." And he spoke it into a context that you refuse to even consider.

[OBW]

Further, Within Paul's writings are at least two examples of the diligent work of two women in the teaching of a man.

Timothy's mother who instructed him in the word for many years.

Priscilla and Aquilla who together took Apollos aside and instructed him.

No chastisement on either of these for teaching a man.

Beginning to look more and more contextual rather than absolute and permanent.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Terry

That is supportive of the notion local churches are really ministry churches. You must receive LSM publications or you're on your own. In LC history that's happened. It's not even an issue publishing on your own.

It's supportive of the notion that the local churches are not anything goes,.. that is.. anyone can teach whatever they like and no one should stop them. Applied here, that means no local church should be forced to allow the doctrine and teachings of Chayil to be taught in them.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

Duplicitous question. It was in response to your post. Therefore, if there is a problem of linkage to Chayil, it began with the post I responded to — yours.

Nevertheless you should show how it is relevant to the subject.

Assuming it is.

I just don't think any Christian group should have to allow Chayil to be taught.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy)"What does it say about a publishing company when it publishes commands from church leaders instructing church members to not compete with the publications of that company"

That's easy. It says if you are a leader in a particular group you must fellowship and coordinate with the other leaders and not do your own thing. But if you choose to do your own thing then you are on your own.

Drake, does that sound to you like the smear campaign waged by LSM against numerous GLA brothers? LSM orchestrated a Kangaroo Court in Whistler Canada with Titus Chu in absentia. Doesn't sound like they were just letting him be "on his own."

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy, you seem to favor some kind of free for all among the leadership... like anyone can say, do, or publish anything they like even if it is not aligned with the rest of the leadership. I don't see any compelling evidence for that in the Bible. Look at this way, if one of the leaders in the Lord's Recovery in good standing wrote Chayil and wanted to publish it why would anybody be obligated to tolerate it being taught in the churches or obligated to publish it?

Where in scripture do we find book publishers demanding that all their readers forego their rights to also write and publish books? Does not the liberty of the Spirit allow the readers to decide what they will read and not read?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, does that sound to you like the smear campaign waged by LSM against numerous GLA brothers? LSM orchestrated a Kangaroo Court in Whistler Canada with Titus Chu in absentia. Doesn't sound like they were just letting him be "on his own."


Where in scripture do we find book publishers demanding that all their readers forego their rights to also write and publish books? Does not the liberty of the Spirit allow the readers to decide what they will read and not read?

James wrote. Paul wrote. Peter wrote. John wrote. Matthew, Luke and Jude wrote. The writer of Hebrews wrote. I don't see any evidence any of them had to check with the others for permission to write.

You know why? Because they were in the true movement of the Lord.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Besides, no matter what you think about the NT as scripture that is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, that does not turn every statement of Paul's into an absolute, for all times and in all places permanent edict of God. Paul did not say "thus saith the Lord." Rather "I say." And he spoke it into a context that you refuse to even consider.

Re: "Paul did not say "thus saith the Lord." Rather "I say.""

You are interpreting it as a modern day English speaking person would understand it, from the English bible. But the Greek experts are trying to interpret it as Paul would have meant it based upon their knowledge of the Greek and the way Paul wrote.

If we go to the Greek experts, they tell us that the grammar of 1 Tim 2:12 indicates it is a general timeless fact. In other words, Paul is not speaking from his own opinion, but a general timeless truth, which comes from the divine arrangement and order God gave us in Genesis. When you or anyone interpret it based upon its immediate context as per the English translation, then you miss a crucial aspect - the grammar and style of Paul's writing.

The present tense in Greek is often used in what is known as a timeless or gnomic sense. For example, Paul's "I appeal" in Romans 12:1 does not say "The Lord says.." yet we can understand this verse to be a general and timeless command because of the way it was commonly used. Paul uses this same sort of present tense writing in 1 Tim 2:12, and on that basis we can know that 1 Tim 2:12 is meant to be a general, timeless command. 1 Cor 4:16, Titus 3:8, Eph 4:1 are other examples.

This generality is indicated when we read the next verse, where Paul uses the Creation account of Genesis as the basis for his instruction: 1 Tim 2:13
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

It's got nothing to do with the fall of man, or the cultural specifics at the time. It is because God established a divine order of things, that applies in a general and timeless way.

This is found from here (emphasis mine)
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/n...thread&order=0
(a) Wallace points out that the generic γυνή, “woman,” indicates that ἐπιτρέπω, “I permit,” is gnomic and concludes that “the normal use of the present tense in didactic literature, especially when introducing an exhortation, is not descriptive, but a general precept that has gnomic implications” (Greek Grammar, 525, citing forty-one passages). To argue that Paul would have had to use a different verbal form if he were to indicate a timeless truth is simply not correct; this is the force of the gnomic use—to describe an action that always occurs (cf. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 208–17). (b) If use of the present tense automatically necessitated that the statement be relegated to the author’s present, then this would raise serious problems with much of Paul’s writing. In his thirteen epistles, Paul uses 1,429 present-tense active indicative verbs (out of a total of 2,835 indicative verbs). If this objection is true, then almost nothing Paul says can have any significance beyond the narrow confines of its immediate context. To be sure, many of these present-tense verbs refer to a specific historical situation (e.g., 1 Cor 8:13); but the reference is indicated not by the tense of the verb but by the context of the verse (cf. Wallace’s comments on Eph 5:18; Greek Grammar, 525). (c) When one looks at the use of the present tense in the PE, the general, universal scope of the tense is continually illustrated. In the PE there are 111 present-tense indicative verbs. If all of these were relegated also to the author’s present situation, then the PE would no longer teach that the law is not for the just (1 Tim 1:9), that God wishes that all could be saved (1 Tim 2:4; 4:10), that it is a good thing to pursue the office of elder (1 Tim 3:1), that the mystery of the Christian religion is great (1 Tim 3:16), that physical exercise is of some value but godliness is infinitely more valuable (1 Ti[/I]m 4:8), that children should take care of their parents and grandparents (1 Tim 5:4), that there is great gain in godliness (1 Tim 6:6), that those desiring to be rich fall into temptation (1 Tim 6:9), that the love of money is a root of all evils (1 Tim 6:10); and the list goes on (cf., e.g., 1 Tim 3:2–13; 4:5; 5:4–18; 24–25; 6:7). While the use of the present tense does not require that a statement be true in the future, neither is there anything in the tense that [Page 123] requires it to be true only in the present but not later. Spencer’s translation, “I am not presently allowing a woman to teach” (Beyond the Curse, 85), implies to many ears that the statement would not be true later, something the present tense cannot by itself connote. (d) The previous counterargument also holds for first-person (see above) present-tense verbs. Moo finds twelve uses of the first-person-singular indicative in Paul that make a universal statement (Rom 12:1, 3; 1 Cor 4:16; 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 5:2, 3; Eph 4:1; 1 Thess 4:1; 5:14; 2 Thess 3:6), two of which (1 Tim 2:1, 8) specifically indicate that the statement is universal, which would imply by default that Paul uses the construction to make a universal statement (Trinity Journal 2 [1981] 200). Wallace argues that there is no instance in Paul that the combination “first person singular present tense with an infinitive ever means ‘right now, but not later’” (Greek Grammar, 526 n. 30; see Comment on 1 Tim 2:1 regarding the same construction). The present tense views an action from inside the action “without beginning or end in view” (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 103). It says nothing about the completion of the event but only that from the speaker’s point of view it is an ongoing process. οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, “I do not permit,” therefore, represents the apostle’s binding command for all churches.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

James wrote. Paul wrote. Peter wrote. John wrote. Matthew, Luke and Jude wrote. The writer of Hebrews wrote. I don't see any evidence any of them had to check with the others for permission to write.

You know why? Because they were in the true movement of the Lord.

If LSM was the first century publisher of Paul's epistles, they would have quarantined Peter, John, Jude, and James.

The coerced lack of diversity of writers proves that the Recovery is the movement of man and not the move of God.

I grew up in Catholicism. We had specific literature for every service in our Missal. No different than LC headquarters providing HWFMR for every service.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Wallace argues that there is no instance in Paul that the combination “first person singular present tense with an infinitive ever means ‘right now, but not later’” (Greek Grammar, 526 n. 30; see Comment on 1 Tim 2:1 regarding the same construction). The present tense views an action from inside the action “without beginning or end in view” (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 103). It says nothing about the completion of the event but only that from the speaker’s point of view it is an ongoing process. οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, “I do not permit,” therefore, represents the apostle’s binding command for all churches.

The strict constructionist view is fine except in the implementation. Where then does a Dora Yu fit into LC lore?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

"Yu was trained in western medicine in Suzhou, and practiced briefly, doing work in Korea. She then turned to evangelism. In one of her revival meeting in Church of Heavenly Peace, Fuzhou, in 1920, a young man later called Watchman Nee, at the age of seventeen, experienced a powerful salvation and immediately consecrated himself to serve God full-time. Besides being Watchman Nee’s “spiritual mother”, Yu was also his mentor through whom he was introduced to fundamental biblical truths and to inner life experiences and apparently also converted several of the women who were important in his subsequent successes."

Or for that matter, Peace Wang? Or ME Barber? Or Ruth Lee? Or Jessie Penn-Lewis (the inspiration for Nee's "The Spiritual Man")? Or Madame Guyon (teacher of inner life experiences)? Or Mary MacDonough (who supposedly 'recovered the three parts of man')? Or Margaret MacDonald (discovered the 'secret rapture' teaching which Darby then promoted)? Or Miss Emily Fishbacher (who taught Nee 'charismania'; though he didn't promote it he accepted it - see e.g., the 'Shouters' today)?

And this doesn't even count things like head covering, which Paul also straitly enjoined, but are widely ignored today.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nevertheless you should show how it is relevant to the subject.

Assuming it is.

I just don't think any Christian group should have to allow Chayil to be taught.

Drake

First, I do not answer to you, and I seriously doubt that Jane or Nell will think very highly of you as their spokesman.

And no one is saying that the book should be taught by any Christian group (which is also not relevant to the subject). But if it leads to a significant review of the historical thinking on the topics at issue — even if not entirely in the manner that Jane has suggested — then the meat of it will be taught even if the book itself is not.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we go to the Greek experts, they tell us that the grammar of 1 Tim 2:12 indicates it is a general timeless fact. In other words, Paul is not speaking from his own opinion, but a general timeless truth, which comes from the divine arrangement and order God gave us in Genesis. When you or anyone interpret it based upon its immediate context as per the English translation, then you miss a crucial aspect - the grammar and style of Paul's writing.

It would be so much more clear if you could somehow make those contrary situations go away. The ones where a woman taught a man, or where a woman dared to act on her own and didn't even stop when the men started griping.

“the normal use of the present tense . . . ."

"The present tense in Greek is often used . . . . For example, Paul's 'I appeal' . . . yet we can understand this verse to be a general and timeless command because of the way it was commonly used."

Even Wallace's quote admits that it is not clear. But he worries that not always using an otherwise common form as absolutely always of that form would gut certain general truths. Fundamentals of the nature of God and of the church. He worries that we might not always say that pursuing the office of elder is a good thing. Yet for some people it probably is not a good thing. Especially for those that Paul would not exclude from the household of faith, but would exclude from the ranks of potential elder.

I am too often amazed that man has such a propensity to create as many absolutes as he can find and justify by any means rather than sticking to the ones that are clearly stated as so and letting the rest be less certain. After all, we are not called to defend Calvinism or Arminianism. And if either is simply right and the other wrong, then there is a serious problem for some of the so-called Christians.

Or is there?

I am too often impressed with the need for the people that push the doctrines (even the ones that I tend to think are likely correct) as if they are the key to salvation, sanctification, and a better "mansion" in the afterlife. But Jesus really didn't talk about any of the nonsense that is being argued in threads like this one. It should tell you something about the importance of it being "just so." (And I am not saying that Jane should back off. On the contrary, no matter how many gripes I have about some parts of it, the base issues are very real and solid and I see no reason that we should not come to a place where men treat women (their wives, girlfriends, other women in the church, and even women of the world) with respect and honor rather than as humans to be chastised for daring to say something to a man that would hint that his "authority" was being impugned or that he was being taught by (gasp) a woman. Sometimes women have to rise up to do what a man won't do.

And men who are so enthralled with their God-given right to be in authority over women will never rise up to suggest that it might not actually be so. It will take a Deborah to rise up. It will take a Mary to show the business heads of the men that there is something greater than what they think is important. It will take a Priscilla to teach an Apollos beyond a "Jesus only" mindset.

And consistent with that kind of thinking, I can't get excited about a man who is looking to make everything an absolute rule rather than take the effort to parse through what really should be absolute, what should not, and what maybe really doesn't matter which because it just isn't that clear. It won't get you into "heaven."

But when deciding what should be absolute, in light of much of the rest of this discussion, I would say that a claim that it should be absolute is suspect unless there is clear evidence that it really should be. Just saying it is in a form that often is does not decide the matter. It is clear that there is a tendency of the male of the species to want that to be the answer, so there is a confirmation bias at work.

And you would be correct if you suggest that there is a tendency toward a confirmation bias on the other side. But neither makes any particular position wrong. It just provides a warning not to just see what you want to see.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nevertheless you should show how it is relevant to the subject.
Assuming it is.
I just don't think any Christian group should have to allow Chayil to be taught.
Drake

Most Christian groups would never allow Witness Lee's books to be taught.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am too often impressed with the need for the people that push the doctrines (even the ones that I tend to think are likely correct) as if they are the key to salvation, sanctification, and a better "mansion" in the afterlife. But Jesus really didn't talk about any of the nonsense that is being argued in threads like this one..

A problem with creating absolutes out of contingencies is that contingencies change, and in out frailties we can't always keep them ourselves, and our faith diminishes as a result. We become hypocrites, in a word. Jesus pointed out this tendency.

So we compartmentalize our absolutes. In one box we might say that Watchman Nee was instructed by Dora Yu or Margaret Barber. In another we aver that women can't teach, because, well, Paul said so!

The key to survival becomes to never open both boxes at the same time. But the cost is great.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, I do not answer to you, and I seriously doubt that Jane or Nell will think very highly of you as their spokesman.

And no one is saying that the book should be taught by any Christian group (which is also not relevant to the subject)..

OBW,

In post #193 you said:

"When the limitation is so severe that there is nothing considered worthy of publishing or teaching other than what has already been published and taught, then despite their right to make that limitation, they are in effect a cancer to their people. They have closed off the ability to question and debate and have therefore denied any sort of redress through a modern "Acts 15 council" because there is no ability to consider anything. The mind is closed. It has hardened to learning and cannot take anything in. The Lord is at the door knocking, but no one even hears the sound. They are too proud of all their riches. "

Given the context of this topic I thought you were suggesting that Chayil was an example.

So then clarify, why wouldn't Chayil be an example of what you meant in the above soapbox speech of "cancer on the people", "redress of a modern "Acts 15 council", and "the Lord is at the door knocking"?

And just so there is no misunderstanding on your part, Jane and Nell are quite capable of speaking for themselves so they need no spokesperson. I just happen to disagree with them on this topic.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

James wrote. Paul wrote. Peter wrote. John wrote. Matthew, Luke and Jude wrote. The writer of Hebrews wrote. I don't see any evidence any of them had to check with the others for permission to write.

You know why? Because they were in the true movement of the Lord.

Igzy,

In making your point you are ignoring history and the clear instruction and examples from the Scriptures.

First, many people wrote, not just those eventually included in the Bible. Using your logic why exclude any of them? The Catholic Bible includes some other books. Should we include those too? They and others who wrote are not included in the canon of scripture but why not?

That alone validates that not every book or letter written was included in the canon of Scripture and therefore, not everyone who writes something should be given a fair and equal shot of inclusion. If you agree and say that not everyone should be allowed then whose criteria do we use to decide? Who decides who is "in the true movement of the Lord"?

LSM and the local churches will decide for themselves. As do Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics, and every other group that stands for a certain set of beliefs. Any group that does not filter out teachings that do not align with their calling or mission has no purpose for existing.

The Bible also reveals limitations and filtering on what may be taught as Paul instructed Timothy

"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

It is very clear that Timothy was to tell those in Ephesus what to teach and what not to teach. So in this case they did not need to check with anyone because they were told what was allowed and what was not. The publishing arm of Paul had its bounds and limits. There is our NT model to follow.

I don't think Paul would have allowed the doctrine and teaching of Chayil to be taught for those reasons.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't think Paul would have allowed the doctrine and teaching of Chayil to be taught for those reasons.

I don't think Paul would have allowed the doctrine and teaching of Witness Lee to be taught...in fact I KNOW he would not have allowed such an uneducated, unqualified pretender to teach a Sunday school class if he had anything to say about it. There were plenty of other genuine apostles around, just as there are plenty of genuine, godly men of God around today to relate the healthy teachings of the REAL One Publication - the living and abiding Word of God.

Now thankfully God has raised up a number of genuine, godly women who have shown the fortitude and courage to speak some desperately needed truth to the Body of Christ. Of course they have been met with great resistance from some of their brothers in Christ, who seem to be stuck in the centuries old prejudices and draconian mindset that have held both women and men back from taking their rightful place in serving our Lord, his people and his Kingdom.

And this is one of the reasons that the Local Church of Witness Lee has remained the insolent, insignificant little sect that it has in the West - Their attitude and treatment of our sisters in Christ is nothing short of deplorable. They are treated as second class citizens, and this is one of Jane's touchstones in Chayil - that women were not created as second class citizens in the Kingdom of God. Eve was created second, NOT second class.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]I don't think Paul would have allowed the doctrine and teaching of Witness Lee to be taught...in fact I KNOW he would not have allowed such an uneducated, unqualified pretender to teach a Sunday school class if he had anything to say about it. There were plenty of other genuine apostles around, just as there are plenty of genuine, godly men of God around today to relate the healthy teachings of the REAL One Publication - the living and abiding Word of God.
-

Not only would Paul have stopped the teachings of Super-Apostles like WL, but he would have exposed his money-making schemes driven by filthy lucre to peddle God's word.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Nell

A new book by Thankful Jane (Jane Carole Anderson) is available today (Nov. 24, 2016) on Amazon.


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MXQ62M2...arole+anderson

Nell

Originally Posted by Nell

All--

I've posted 3 attachments from Woman of Chayil but so far I see no indication anyone is posting comments after having read these attachments. Hopefully this will not end up just another topic gone down the bunny trail.

To be fair, please take a look at the attachments and comment.

Thank you--
Nell

...........................

[Drake]

Untohim"I don't think Paul would have allowed the doctrine and teaching of Witness Lee to be taught...in fact I KNOW he would not have allowed such an uneducated, unqualified pretender to teach a Sunday school class if he had anything to say about it."

Ah, the old dumb fisherman argument. Fortunately that was flipped on its head when the Lord Jesus put the elitist Sanhedrin, scribes and teachers of His day in their proper place and opted for some of the uneducated to do His speaking for Him. Nevertheless, the elitist religious spirit lives on even today.Though I still fail to understand how simply posting on a website makes anyone here biblical geniuses. I mean we are all pretty much in the same boat on the educated front aren't we?

Brother Lee ministered Christ, taught God's economy, God's purpose, the Church, the churches, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, and all the basics of the Christian faith, salvation, redemption, the precious blood of Christ, the Spirit of Life, growth in life, consecration, transformation, glorification, the judgements, and the consumation of God in man and man in God as the New Jerusalem the universal divine human expression for eternity.

Thetefore, I'll take an uneducated man's bible based teaching like that any day... and with a high degree of certainty,, seeing how those teachings are taken directly fron the Old and New Testaments and Pauls teaching, that Paul would also welcome them.

The doctrines and teachings in Chayil, on the other hand, do not meet that standard in spite of several attempts here to prop them up and cast them that way.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

In post #193 you said:

"When the limitation is so severe that there is nothing considered worthy of publishing or teaching other than what has already been published and taught, then despite their right to make that limitation, they are in effect a cancer to their people. They have closed off the ability to question and debate and have therefore denied any sort of redress through a modern "Acts 15 council" because there is no ability to consider anything. The mind is closed. It has hardened to learning and cannot take anything in. The Lord is at the door knocking, but no one even hears the sound. They are too proud of all their riches. "

Given the context of this topic I thought you were suggesting that Chayil was an example.

So then clarify, why wouldn't Chayil be an example of what you meant in the above soapbox speech of "cancer on the people", "redress of a modern "Acts 15 council", and "the Lord is at the door knocking"?

And just so there is no misunderstanding on your part, Jane and Nell are quite capable of speaking for themselves so they need no spokesperson. I just happen to disagree with them on this topic.

You are quite the builder of strawmen. You (or maybe Evangelical) had been suggesting that Chayil should not be taught in any church. And in terms of what gets taught in the church, you may be right.

In fact, most discussions that ultimately result in changes in the thinking of the church tend not to be taught in the church, but discussed and analyzed. In a manner worthy of the discussion and determination that occurred in Acts 15. Of course, given the broader spectrum of persons who will be part of the discussion, and the tendency to be stuck in our reading, it may take longer than a few soliloquies followed by some prayer and an announcement. The problem would appear, based on the manner in which both you and Evangelical simply dismiss the issue and look only at writers that support your position, that there is no desire on the part of too many to even entertain that they could have been wrong. To take the effort to set aside the preconceived ideas and start looking at it with fresh eyes and an open spirit.

NO. The teaching comes after the issue has been hashed through and there is an "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us" kind of conclusion.

Except for those who want to stop the discussion by swaying public opinion (the public that is generally not able to make the decision for themselves, but instead rely on the honest, careful consideration of their spiritual leaders). And thwart the discussion by calling names and setting up strawmen to beat on. So those kinds will preach on the issue before the discussion even starts. They will warn everyone of the "serious danger" of even entertaining the discussion. Paint those that don't heed the warning as lepers.

This all brought to mind the very serious restrictions on teaching (or even writing and publishing) that is placed upon your little sect. One in which the very act of publishing something for the benefit of the people that is not approved by the denomination's headquarters is grounds for excommunication. (Don't bother quibbling over excommunication v quarantine. TC and others are simply cast out. Not a single word spoken about whether what was published was actually "OK." Just cast out.) The Baptists generally do not do such things. Nor the Methodists, Presbyterians, Bible churches, and so many others.

But you don't even want anyone to hear that there is a question being entertained.

It seems that it is only the most seriously sectarian groups within Christianity that so carefully guard their doctrinal positions. Or guard their publishing empires.

And rather than actually engaging in a search for truth, they will close their eyes and send out their minions to try to shut everyone else's. Or bruise them so badly that they can't see through them.

[Nell]

Please take this discussion to another thread.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

Please take this discussion to another thread.

Ok Nell.

Igzy, be happy to continue in another place.

Thanks
Drake

[Cal]

Moderator, please move relevant posts to new thread. Drake and I would like to discuss the issue of the LCM claiming to be the One True Whatever They Are.

Thanks!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Moderator, please move relevant posts to new thread. Drake and I would like to discuss the issue of the LCM claiming to be the One True Whatever They Are.

Thanks!

Perhaps you could provide UntoHim with the post # of those you consider to be relevant to your discussion.

Nell

[Nell]

Correction/s to my previous posts

I misquoted Jane previously and would like to apologize for my mistake and make the necessary corrections.

Nell: As I said "...She (Jane) also noted that nowhere does the Scripture say that God put Eve out of the garden."

Correction: This should be credited to Bushnell (Kindle loc 1102). Jane was careful not to state this speculation as her own in the book. It’s only a possibility and food for thought, and because it was not necessary to make the main argument.

Nell: Further, as Jane has theorized, Eve chose to follow Adam out of the Garden.

Correction: Again, this was Bushnell’s theory, not Jane’s.

Two quotes from the book:
In Chayil: "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 maymean 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.” (bold added)

and

"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.”

I apologize to everyone for my mistake/s.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Correction/s to my previous posts

I misquoted Jane previously and would like to apologize for my mistake and make the necessary corrections.

Nell: As I said "...She (Jane) also noted that nowhere does the Scripture say that God put Eve out of the garden."

Correction: This should be credited to Bushnell (Kindle loc 1102). Jane was careful not to state this speculation as her own in the book. It’s only a possibility and food for thought, and because it was not necessary to make the main argument.

Nell: Further, as Jane has theorized, Eve chose to follow Adam out of the Garden.

Correction: Again, this was Bushnell’s theory, not Jane’s.

Two quotes from the book:
In Chayil: "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 maymean 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.” (bold added)

and

"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.”

I apologize to everyone for my mistake/s.

Nell

Bushnell subscribed to a feminist theology prevalent at the time, and this has come through in her speculations. If I was Jane and writing the book, I would probably stick to the main argument and omit such speculations by Bushnell. If the translation errors are in fact genuine translation errors and not slanted because of feminist bias, these should be able to stand alone and be accepted as such also by male Greek NT experts such as Wallace whom I quoted previously. I tried to find male scholars who agreed with Bushnell but is difficult to find them.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

...If I was Jane and writing the book, ...

But you're not Jane...

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

But you're not Jane...

Nell

As far as you know hahaha

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As far as you know hahaha

No.

I know Jane Anderson. You're no Jane Anderson.