Feed on
Posts
Comments
Print This Post Print This Post

Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz has moved

I am pleased to announce the my blog has moved to a new home on our ministry web site.   You can find the new blog home here:

https://www.mmoutreach.org/wim/

I have moved over all the posts as well as all of the comments.  I will leave my blog at strivetoenter.com/wim as an archive, but all new posts will go onto the new blog site so please change your book marks.  I plan to post again in the New Year at the new site, so see you there!

 

Print This Post Print This Post

WIM digital on WIM by Cheryl Schatz

Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? will soon by available online!

I am working on a new video project at the moment, but I am also working to convert each of the 4 DVDs of Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? to a lower quality online downloadable product. We are working hard so that those with computers around the world may also have access to the DVDs.  The entire set will be available for purchase online or each DVD in the 4 DVD set will be available individually as a video download.  We have upgraded the security on our web site and are presently working through all of the logistics to make this all possible.  it is a huge step forward for our ministry.  If all goes well, we will start offering the downloadable version this fall (2012).  Please watch this blog for further information for the launch of the downloadable version.

The DVDs also include audio bytes from those who disagree with women in ministry and we break down the arguments and compare the arguments to the Scriptures.

The 4 DVDs are broken up into scriptural passages as follows:

#1 DVD

Introduction, Part 1: Genesis 1-3 The Designer Knows Best (Deals with the creation account)  Part 2: Genesis 3 Who is to Blame? (Deals with the fall of man and the implications on God’s original creation)  Total length 46 minutes

#2 DVD

Part 3: 1 Corinthians 11 Head Coverings and Authority (Deals with the issue of “head”, authority and all the difficult part of 1 Corinthians 11 including the length of one’s hair, the phrase “because of the angels” and the spiritual meaning of the head covering during prayer and spiritual service)  Total length 43 minutes

#3 DVD

Part 4: 1 Timothy 2 Women, Deception and the first Created (deals with Paul’s prohibition, the reasons given by Paul for his restriction and the expected outcome from 1 Timothy 2:15 that sums up Paul’s complete argument.) Total length 58 minutes broken up into 2 parts of approx 30 min each

#4 DVD

Part 5: 1 Corinthians 14, The Elusive Law (deals with the “law” that is appealed to in 1 Corinthians 14 and the connection with this restrictive “law” to the context of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.) Part 6: 1 Timothy 3 Follow the Leader (This part deals with the issue of trustworthy servants of God and their qualifications); Part 7: Galatians 3:28 Equal to Serve (this part deals with Galatians 3 & 4 where Paul lays down his argument on equality and full sonship.)  The DVD concludes with an appeal to the church to allow women to minister in the gifts that the Holy Spirit has given them.

To purchase the high quality  4 DVD set, it is available now from Amazon.com here or from our web site here.

For those who have seen the DVDs and would like to recommend them to others or if you would like to comment about the impact the DVDs had on you or others you know, please feel free to comment.

Print This Post Print This Post

Diane Sellner Matt Slick on WIM

In 2006 my DVD Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free came out and since that time I have seen my share of scarecrows who are intent on destroying the message of women in ministry. One such scarecrow refuses to go away and it is time to create a blog post where others who have been hurt by the issue of women in ministry can share their pain.  If you are a woman in ministry or a woman teacher and you have been hurt, abused or silenced and you would like to share a short story, this is the post for you to share with us. I will moderate the comments so that any scarecrow/troll who would like to sound off against women in ministry will either have their comments moderated or removed.  This is a safe place where others who are like minded can encourage you as there are many who come to this community of loving Christians who value the worth and ministry of women.

The reason I named this post Stubble, Straw and Scarecrows is because those who are vehemently opposed to women’s gifts used for the common good are planting chaff and their words are nothing more than stubble and straw. Stubble, straw and scarecrows are not God’s tools nor are they things to be afraid of. We are to fear God and allow Him to decide what gifts we receive for the fact is that the gift we receive from God comes with His permission to use His gift for God’s glory and the common good (1 Peter 4:11). No man can give us spiritual gifts and no man may kill God’s gifts within us. We are accountable to God and we must be faithful with what God has given us rather than holding back because of the fear of man.

I will start with my story. In 2008, I had the opportunity to respond to accusations against women in ministry made by CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry).  Through this contact, I was eventually subjected to months of name calling by Diane Sellner who is the vice president of CARM and she is CARM’s head discussion board moderator who is a strong opponent against women in ministry. In 2008 Diane launched a concerted attack against me personally saying that God would shut down my ministry. What was my crime? My crime was my support of women’s rights to use God’s gifts for the common good, and for creating  a DVD on this subject which was seen as persuasive and having influenced people on the CARM discussion boards. Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

Masculine Christianity by Cheryl Schatz

This is part 2 of What God intended at creation and it is inspired by a recent lecture given by John Piper where he states that God’s intention for Christianity is for it to have a “masculine feel“.  After discussing John Piper’s Masculine Christianity, I will give my critique of his masculine arguments. Part 1 is here.

Here is John Piper’s summary of his belief in God’s intention of a masculine Christianity:

God has revealed himself to us in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen, and as Father, not Mother. The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son. The Father and the Son created man and woman in his image, and gave them together the name of the man, Adam (Genesis 5:2). God appoints all the priests in Israel to be men. The Son of God comes into the world as a man, not a woman. He chooses twelve men to be his apostles. The apostles tell the churches that all the overseers—the pastor/elders who teach and have authority (1 Timothy 2:12)—should be men; and that in the home, the head who bears special responsibility to lead, protect, and provide should be the husband (Ephesians 5:22–33).

John Piper Masculine Christianity on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

God has revealed himself to us in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen, and as Father, not Mother. (JP)

Is God male?  Absolutely not, but God can refer to Himself in male terms if He wants to and He can refer to Himself in female terms too:

Isaiah 46:3 (NASB95)

3“Listen to Me, O house of Jacob, And all the remnant of the house of Israel, You who have been borne by Me from birth And have been carried from the womb;

God has no problem in using female terminology and comparing Himself to a mother. God also had no problem making an analogy to feathers (when He covers us) or a womb (when He carries us) so why should we use the male terms He uses to say that God prefers men?

 

The Father and the Son created man and woman in his image, and gave them together the name of the man, Adam (Genesis 5:2). (JP)

The first term for man was not male.  It was a united term that was given to both male and female. (Genesis 5:2) Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

Ruler or ruled? Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

What did God intend at creation?

It seems that everywhere we look these days, complementarian men are quoting the act of creation as God’s intention to put the women underneath the rule of the man.  They are also quick to note that there are two different kinds of rulership of the male. The first kind of male rule is that of an autocrat, tyrant or despot who rules in spite of the woman’s own will or intention.  This kind of rule, they say, is not what is taught by Christian men. The second kind of rulership is described by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as headship and this is defined as “two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.” (pg 95 Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood a Response to Evangelical Feminism edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem).  The difference between the two rulerships is that one allows the man to rule the woman for his own benefit and the other rulership has the man ruling the woman for the benefit of God as a God-ordained spiritual leader.

Let’s unpack this down to the presuppositions that are required to form the foundation of the God-ordained male rule. This post will consider the first two claims of male-only rule:

1. The male rules for the benefit of God because the male is somehow more like God than the female is.

The claim is that God is male and that only the male was made directly in God’s image. The implication is that because God is a “male” and because He rules the universe, males are more like God and have been given a God-ordained rule within their male nature. At the same time, these God-ordained male rulers believe that God withholds from women the ability to be “like” Him in rulership, because of their God-ordained nature as a “helper”, thus the male alone rules for God and the female alone submits.

Response:  Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

Worldly infection on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

In my last post I presented one of the best sermons that I have ever heard on Ephesians 5, regarding the evidence of Spirit-filled lives for both men and women.  This post is on the opposite of the Spirit-filled life which is an influx of worldly infection through male-centered pride. The outgrowth of this infection is the teaching that encourages men to focus their efforts on taking the “lead” over women, putting them under their authority and control. They are taught that women were made to be led and when men don’t take leadership over women’s lives, women will not be able to fulfill their “role” in Christ.  Recently I heard a teaching where young Christian men were rebuked for taking the authority over their girlfriend’s by deciding for them what university courses they would register for. The speaker chastised the young men and told them that they were “not yet” responsible for making their girlfriend’s decisions. They needed to wait until they actually became their husbands and then they had this authority. It is no wonder that many women are surprised with an entirely different man on their wedding day than who they thought they were marrying. The teaching that men are responsible for the entire home including their wife and her spirituality has caused many young men to subjugate their women in order to fulfill their calling and for the wife’s “own good”. The spiritual harm that has resulted from the teaching that the man has the mandate to rule his wife for God, has caused untold pain and suffering and a stifling of the woman’s ability to seek after God for her own life. She is no longer in control of the exercise of her own gifts and calling – he is.

This alternate “Christian” worldview results in man-centered pride and arrogance which breeds dominance and spiritual abuse rather than Christ-centered living through the filling of the Holy Spirit. Wade Burleson has written an excellent article where he identifies several organizations that are guilty of promoting unethical, unbiblical, and godless treatment of women. I have listed three movements below and made my own comments on their historical push for male rule.

CBMW on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

1. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

No organization has worked harder to spread the message of male only leadership in the home and church than CBMW has.  Be Strong and Show Yourself a Man was the theme for their 2005 Conference at Denton Bible Church.  To CBMW, manhood is connected to the Kingdom of God and the Bible gives us a mandate to raise “masculine” sons and “feminine” daughters.  Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

Christian Freedom on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

This post is the essence of the sermon Spirit-Filled Living part 1 by Pastor Darrell Johnson of First Baptist Church, Vancouver, BC, Canada.  If you would like to listen to the entire sermon, you can listen to the sermon here.

Spirit-Filled Living Part 1

The revolutionary and alternate understanding of human relationships in Ephesians 5 & 6 is contrary to deeply engrained patterns of behavior. Even after 2,000 years the Church has yet to work out the implications.

In Ephesians 5:18 we find the imperative (command) to “be filled with the Spirit”. We are to be filled with the very life of God and everything else flows out of that filling. Following that filling is a series of consequences or results. Notice that these results are all participles. They are not commands as some translation have made them out to be. They are participles – the result of the one command – “be filled”.

Ephesians 5:21 “be subject” is also not a command (imperative), but a participle in a series of participles. Ephesians 5:21 is also not a new sentence as many translations have it, nor is it a new paragraph, for “being subject” is a result of being filled.

There are a serious of relationships in which this “being subject” is worked out. Wives and husbands, fathers and children, masters and servants.

Verse 21 sets up the subjection as reciprocal, “one to another”, so that all of the subjection in Ephesians 5 & 6 is governed by the reciprocal nature that flows from “being filled”. Wives are being subject to husbands and husbands being subject to wives; children being subject to fathers and fathers  (or parents) being subject to children; servants being subject to masters and masters being subject to servants.

Radical and revolutionary

“Being filled” goes to the root of relational dynamics and turns things upside down so that things can be right side up again. Because of sin, human relationships are twisted and distorted.  Jesus Christ comes into the world and through His Spirit, things become untwisted and untangled and He restores those relationships to God’s original intention. Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

MM Outreach News & Views #98 on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

MM Outreach News & Views #98 features our story of adversity through God’s grace.  This will help many of you to understand why I am not always fast in answering or posting here on the Women in Ministry blog.  I do want to go back to regular posting articles here through 2012, the Lord willing.

Interested in reading more about our story?  The current magazine is now available online or through the printed version and snail mail.  Listed below are ordering information for US, Canada and Overseas for both the print and online editions. Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz Merry Christmas to all

A very Merry Christmas to all who visit my blog!

Cheryl Schatz -christmas

Print This Post Print This Post

discernment-divas on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs has struck up some heat on a post that he titles “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of the Discernment Divas”.  In this post and in his subsequent comments he makes his position plain that women are not allowed to publicly point out error of a “duly ordained pastor”.  Phil classifies many “housewives and homeschool moms” as bad discerners who are discernment divas.   These “divas” believe that God has called them into a ministry of discernment but their abilities are not in rational understanding of doctrinal truth but an ability “to use a really sharp tongue” which Phil says is counter productive and embarrassing.  Phil doesn’t seem to mind that this may offend a lot of women as he tells Friel that he is a descendent of the John Knox clan. It was John Knox who offended more than a few when he wrote the book The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women in 1558.  In this book, Knox wrote that women compared to men were blind, weak, sick, impotent, mad, frenetic and their counsel is foolish. Knox also quotes Augustine favorably as saying: “How can woman be the image of God, seeing (says he) she is subject to man, and has none authority, neither to teach, neither to be witness, neither to judge, much less to rule or bear empire?”  When such harsh things are said about women even questioning whether women can be the image of God, would it be wrong for me to say that looking back on this kind of classification of women that Phil Johnson has associated himself with by aligning with John Knox’s Monstrous Regiment book, sounds sharp, counter productive and embarrassing and may have been a bad discernment decision for Phil?

In the audio file that accompanies Phil Johnson’s blog post, we can hear Todd Friel saying “There are two kinds of discernments that are a kind of discerner that are on the table right now. You have the monstrous regiment, and you have valid legitimate people who are concerned about theology.  That’s us.”

Who are the “valid legitimate people who are concerned about theology” who are allowed to present public criticism of Christian leaders and their bad doctrine?  They are males.  In his blog post Phil gives an answer to Denise who had written “Certainly God didn’t gift believers with the Holy Spirit and with spiritual gifts according to their gender.”  Phil responds: Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

Eve is the outline on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

This post is the second part of an expansion on the reasons why I believe that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is about one specific woman and why a general reference to women does not line up with the grammar within the surrounding context.  The first points 1 – 4 are discussed here. This post will deal with points 5 – 8 and an additional question about why the particular woman might not have been lumped together with the other false teachers in chapter 1.

5.  Paul creates an outline or pattern of Eve  in verse in 1 Timothy 2: 13 that fits the situation of a one specific deceived woman referred to in 1 Timothy 2:14 as the woman.

When Paul named Eve as the reason for the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, Eve’s deception became the pattern that could be traced onto a specific situation at Ephesus.  Paul had already set up the usage  of a pattern in 1 Timothy 1:13 – 16 as he documented his own sin done in ignorance and unbelief as a prototype for God’s work in others.

1 Timothy 1:13–16 (NASB)
13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;
14 and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.
15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

The Greek word translated as example in the NASB is hypotyposin and it means: Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

WIM recommendation on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

In July 2011, I was privileged to be a special speaker at the IMF MORE conference in Lakeville, MN.  It has been an extremely busy time for me as we are still in construction of our new office and video studio, but God blessed the time we took away from our project to serve at the conference.  The General Secretary of IMF saw that my work in the DVDs was unique and he had the DVD set critiqued by two seminary professors.  Below is the recommendation sent to me from Pastor Frank Masserano:

It was a blessing to have you present “Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?” at IMF’s recent MORE Conference. I reviewed the four DVDs carefully prior to the conference and had two New Testament and Biblical Language professors at two separate ATS accredited seminaries review your research.

While both differed a bit on some textual issues, they both overwhelmingly recognize the excellence of your research and the general conclusions you reached.

Many of our people (men and women) were greatly blessed by your presentations and the humble and Christ-like spirit you and Richard exhibited in our midst.

Thank you again and congratulations on your excellent research and well prepared presentation on DVDs. I would recommend the set to any pastor for presentation to his or her church leadership, congregation or women’s groups.

In Christ,
Pastor Frank Masserano
General Secretary IMF

Print This Post Print This Post

Specific or general woman on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

This post will be an expansion on the reasons why I believe that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is about one specific woman and why a general reference to women does not line up with the grammar within the surrounding context.  I will also consider the challenge to my view from the new verbal aspect theory.  To start I will summarize my reasons from the text for believing that Paul had a specific woman in mind.  After that I will expand on each point trying hard to bring it down to a general level of understanding.

1.  There is a grammar change along with a topic change starting with 1 Timothy 2 verses 11 and 12 that points to a single woman rather than a group.

2.  There is an anaphoric reference in verse 12 (the anarthrous noun “woman”) that has as its referent the definite noun (the woman) in verse 14 as an antecedent.  This clarifies the non-specific noun (woman) in verse 12 as a specific woman rather than generic woman.

3.  The woman in verse 14 is in the perfect tense as she is existing in a present state and therefore the woman cannot be made to fit a dead person such as Eve.  The challenge of the new verbal aspect theory will also be dealt with under this point.

4.  The she in verse 15 is in the future tense and cannot be made to fit a dead person such as Eve who cannot do anything in the future concerning her salvation. Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

Mutual submission on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

My original 2010 post crashed because there were too many comments for my blog to handle, so I am putting up this post again so that people can read the article which is no longer available because of the crash.  Thanks to one of my readers who asked me to repost.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday I received two polar opposite views of Ephesians 5:22 by email.  One was from “NN” who has responded here in the past.  He  is a complementarian who has commented on authority in marriage, one of a handful of complementarians who have been willing to give their views on women on this blog in a respectful manner.  In NN’s email he sent me a link to his view on submission in marriage which he says is not to be mutual.  In the other email my son Ryan gave me his conclusions after a time of researching on his own the issue of authority and submission in marriage in order to present a biblical answer to his pastor.  I am going to refer to both views in this article for us to consider.

NN suggested that my blog readers might be interested in his views that he has recently posted on his blog. NN wrote to me about the time period since he last corresponded on my blog back in December 2009:

Since then I have meant to write up a brief logical clearly addressing the question of hierarchy in the instructions of the apostles on the marital relationship.  Unfortunately it took until now for me to actually find the time.  Nonetheless – I thought you might be interested (and possibly even your readership given the torrent of comments in that last discussion).

NN’s premise is that submission in marriage is not mutual but my son’s conclusion is the polar opposite.  First of all here is Ryan’s finding.  His article starts with the thought that the understanding of “source” for the Greek word for head (kephale) in 1 Corinthians 11 can also fit in with Ephesians 5:22-25 when you consider the context.  Ryan’s main concern in his research is whether submission is mutual or relegated to wives alone.  Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

Two verbs, one object on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

Some egalitarians suggest that the object “a man” in 1 Timothy 2:12 should rightfully be connected to only one verb “authentein” and that the infinitive form of the verb “to teach” was not meant to be connected to the object “man”.

Let me first state that I am an egalitarian and I appreciate men who passionately contend for women in ministry.  At the same time I am more interested in knowing what God intended in the text rather than hold to a particular party line so I am free to disagree if I believe that a view is not correct.  In this post I would like to examine the view that  denies that two verbs are connected to the same object in 1 Timothy 2:12.  The view that I will be examining is presented by Philip B. Payne in his book Man and Woman, One in Christ An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.

Payne’s view presupposes the view that Paul is not giving out two prohibitions, but one.  I have blogged on my disagreement with that view here.  On pages 354 and 355 Payne gives 5 reasons why “a man” cannot be the object of “to teach”.  Payne uses a comparison to Acts 8:21 as the basis for his reasoning.  Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

Why the eye cannot say to the hand/ Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

The body of Christ is a body ministry where each of us are needed and each gift that God has distributed among us is needed.  So why is it that many men say that they do not need for a woman teacher when this personal rejection of their own need is contradicted by 1 Corinthians 12:21?

1 Corinthians 12:21 (NASB95)

21And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”

Why does the Bible say that the eye cannot say to the hand that others may need you, but I have no need of you?  In other words, why is it that some say what the Bible says they cannot say?

The Greek term for “cannot” is the negative of dynamai which is one’s ability or capability of doing something, thus the term “cannot say” should mean that the eye has no personal ability to say something.  Kittel’s Theological Dictionary gives an expanded understanding of what it means to not be able to do something:

Words of this stem all have the basic sense of ability or capability. dynamai means a. “to be able” in a general sense, b. “to be able” with reference to the attitude that makes one able, hence sometimes “to will,” and c. (of things) “to be equivalent to,” “to count as,” “to signify.”

Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (186).

Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

1-timothy-2-12-prohibitions

I started a post months ago and then life became so complicated I had to set my blog aside to cope.  This post will now be the new “home” on the discussion on whether 1 Timothy 2:12 has two prohibitions or one.  As a review here is what I originally wrote:

Complementarians typically say that Paul is prohibiting two things (teaching and exercising authority over a man) while many egalitarians are taking the position that there is only one thing that Paul has prohibited.  The prohibition is listed as God is against women assuming authority for themselves to teach men.  This view has been brought out by Philip B. Payne in “Man and Woman One in Christ” pg 338.

I do not agree with complementarians that there are two entirely separate prohibitions that are not connected.  But I do not agree with Philip Payne either that there is only one prohibition and that this prohibition is to be defined as the forbidding of women to assume authority for themselves to teach men without a properly delegated authority from men.

As I have been reading through Philip B. Payne’s book, I have been paying special attention to his process of reasoning.  First of all I should say that I really appreciate the fact that Mr. Payne has written this book in an effort to affirm women’s place in the body of Christ.  I know that many have found his work very compelling even though I have some serious disagreements with his work.  I want to affirm him as a dear brother in Christ at the outset and I appreciate any man willing to stick his neck out to support his sisters in Christ.

Philip B. Payne’s thesis starts in chapter 19, as he asserts on page 338 that the Greek term “oude” (English “or”) is typically used by Paul to join together expressions that reinforce or make more specific a single idea.  Here it is in context: Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

1 Timothy 2:12 two prohibitions or one? on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

In 1 Timothy 2:12 is there one prohibition or two?  Complementarians typically say that Paul is prohibiting two things (teaching and exercising authority over a man) while many egalitarians are taking the position that there is only one thing that Paul has prohibited.  The prohibition is listed as God is against women assuming authority for themselves to teach men.  This view has been brought out by Philip B. Payne in “Man and Woman One in Christ” pg 338.

I do not agree with complementarians that there are two entirely separate prohibitions that are not connected.  But I do not agree with Philip Payne either that there is only one prohibition and that this prohibition is to be defined as the forbidding of women to assume authority for themselves to teach men without a properly delegated authority from men.

I will be developing this post in the next few days as I have time, and I may add to it as the discussion continues.  The original discussion that promoted this post was from ongoing discussion here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/08/10/1-timothy-215-going-deeper/ I will be shutting down the comments there as the posts tend to have problems when the comments reach a very high number and/or when the comments reach a certain length. At that time the comments  usually just disappear.  So while I get this article together, comments are open here to continue discussion and I will flesh out my own view in the next few days.

Thanks to Kristen for suggesting this topic as one for discussion and I trust that hashing out different views and finding holes and/or support for the different views will be very educational for us all.

Print This Post Print This Post

Going deeper in 1 Timothy 2:15 on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

1 Timothy 2:15 has been one of the most puzzling verses to decipher throughout church history. One of the difficult things in interpreting this verse is the translator’s rendering of some difficult grammar. Some translations leave out some of the grammar that is necessary to come to a correct interpretation. How can we claim to know what Paul meant in this passage if we leave out some of the key inspired grammar?

Here are some of the particular grammar issues that Paul presents in 1 Timothy 2:15 –

  1. Paul switches from singular feminine to third person plural. Since it is improper grammar to allow both singular and plural to refer to the exact same person(s), then “she” cannot be the exact same thing as “they”.
  2. Paul uses a unique form of childbearing by using a definite noun and not a verb
  3. “The childbearing” is singular not plural
  4. The grammar is future tense with a conditional clause so the “she” in question cannot be someone who is dead at the time of Paul’s writing.

Many of the translations of this difficult verse move into interpretation rather than just translation in an effort to help people understand Paul’s hard saying, but in doing so they leave out some of the inspired grammar that actually would conflict with their interpretation.   Without the presence of all of the inspired grammar any English translation of 1 Timothy 2:15 is going to be much harder to understand Paul’s thought process. For example some translations leave out the singular so that it appears Paul is talking about all women.  Others leave out the plural so that it appears that Paul is talking about a generic woman. Some change the singular noun to childbearing as plural as if the birth of all children is in view and some also leave out the definite article as if childbearing is concerning any child and any birth without any particularity. Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

Anaphoric reference in 1 Timothy 2:12 on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

In a recent blog post there has been some discussion on 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 in the comment section, and the question of whether “a woman” is generic woman or a specific woman.  I always appreciate questions and challenges on my position as it continually pushes me to continue to do research in order to answer the questions that are posed to me.

The question that was posed to me was regarding “a woman” and whether there is any proof that she is a particular woman that Timothy was aware of.  The reason the question was asked is because in 1 Timothy 2:14 “the woman” is referenced and it is clear from the grammar that this is not Eve because “the woman” is still in the after effects of her transgression and her deception and since Eve is dead, her transgression is not on-going.  A similar situation is in 1 Timothy 2:15 where “she” will be saved…if…  The grammar is future tense and again it is impossible for this to be Eve as Eve is dead and gone and her salvation cannot be in the future and conditional.

The person who challenged me believes that “the woman” in 1 Timothy 2:14 is indeed a woman who is one of the deceived teachers who Timothy was instructed to stop from teaching, but he also seems to be convinced that since the first reference to “woman” in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 is without the definite article that the first reference to a singular woman must be a “generic” woman while the last reference would be to a specific woman since the definite article is there.  He did say that it is possible that I am correct that “a woman” of 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 was that specific person but he said that there is no real way for us to know for sure.

In doing some research on this issue, I came across a strong precedent for a second reference within the context where the definite article attached to a noun connects to a first noun that is without the article.  It is called an anaphoric reference.  I have an audio clip from Dr. James White who is quoting his agreement on a grammar reference from Dr. Daniel Wallace on the anaphoric reference.  Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

Taking the place of master by law on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

The Bible records a law that requires men to take the place of sole master in the home. We find this law in the book of Esther chapter 1 verse 22.

Let me first give a little background.  King Ahasuerus was a very wealthy and powerful king who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces.  In the third year of his reign he made a huge banquet for his nobles and officials as well as military leaders.  Then for 180 days he displayed his great riches and all that went with the majesty of his position.  At the end of all this show of the king’s splendor, he threw a seven day banquet for all the people who were present in his capital city, both the greatest of them to the least of them.  It was at that time, after seven days of partying, that the king became joyful from the wine that was served at the banquet, and in a hasty decision to show-case all that he owned that was magnificent beauty, he ordered that queen Vashti be called to appear before the king wearing her crown in order to parade her beauty before the crowd. Vashti refused to have her person put on display and this caused the king to feel great wrath and he called his wise men to find out what could be done by law to punish queen Vashti for refusing to obey his command.  In verses 16 to 19 Memucan one of the wise men said,

Esther 1:16-19 Queen Vashti has wronged not only the king but also all the princes and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. For the queen’s conduct will become known to all the women causing them to look with contempt on their husbands by saying, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought in to his presence, but she did not come.’  This day the ladies of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s conduct will speak in the same way to all the king’s princes, and there will be plenty of contempt and anger. If it pleases the king, let a royal edict be issued by him and let it be written in the laws of Persia and Media so athat it cannot be repealed, that Vashti may no longer come into the presence of King Ahasuerus, and let the king give her royal position to another who is more worthy than she.

This is truly an amazing passage showing that a woman’s right to make her own decisions was something that was feared in that culture. It didn’t matter that one woman didn’t want to be treated as a piece of property that was being put on display, it was an act that threatened the perceived priority of the husband.  The thought was that if one woman received freedom to do as she pleased, then every woman would see that as setting a precedence and all the other wives will think they have the choice to act the same way. So a law was created to take care of the woman problem.  Memucan continued: Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

sign

Newsflash July 24, 2010

Today I was emailed a letter that was just FedExed to Dr. Randy Stinson and Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III on behalf of the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition which is demanding an apology for harm done to Christian women because of the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Freedom for Christian Women Coalition

July 24, 2010

Dr. Randy Stinson, President
Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
2825 Lexington Road, Box 926
Louisville, KY 40280

And

Dr. J Ligon Duncan III
Chairman of the Board of the CBMBW
First Presbyterian Church
1390 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39202

Freedom for Christian Women Coalition met on July 24, 2010, in Orlando, Florida, and agreed and affirmed this Demand for an Apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood because of the concerns as listed in the following pages.

For the sake of all Christians, men and women, we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, make a public apology for the misuse of Holy Scripture as it relates to women, and cease to publish or promote The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood. Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

The humility of God on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

In our past discussions on Ephesians 5:21-22, we have been discussing the issues of mutual submission and whether there is authority in marriage.  In this post, we will discuss the foundation of humility.

One very important part of the nature of God that is rarely talked about is God’s nature of humility.   In fact God as the humble One is revealed in the Old Testament and also through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Psalm 113:5–6 (NAS)

5 Who is like the LORD our God,
Who is enthroned on high,
6 Who humbles Himself to behold
The things that are in heaven and in the earth?

While the amazing Sovereignty of God and His nature of omnipresence , omnipotence and omniscience seems inconsistent with humility, yet there was something about God that was mostly hidden until Jesus revealed the nature of God.  In fact it was God’s humble nature that was the very cause of Jesus becoming man.  Jesus spoke the truth when He said that to see Him was to see the Father as Jesus revealed the very nature of the Father as God.

John 14:8–9 (NAS)

8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Jesus came in the nature of the humble God as He set aside all of His rights as God to come in humility to earth.  Paul explained that this humility was evidenced as looking out for the interests of others. Continue Reading »

Print This Post Print This Post

Ephesians 5:22 on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

Our discussions on Ephesians 5:22 has sparked a flurry of comments with literally hundreds of comments later and seemingly no end to the “iron sharpening iron” discussion between egalitarians as well as complementarians.  This is the place where the discussion will continue as my blog has a habit of blanking out all of the comments if I let too many accumulate under one post.  So continue discussion with this post and thanks all for your lively and irenic comments on a very hotly debated topic of authority and submission in marriage.

For those who haven’t been following all along, here are links to the previous parts of the discussion on Ephesians 5:22.

Part #2 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/06/01/authority-vs-submission-ephesians-522-continuing-comments

Part #1 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/ Part 1 has problems because of the great amount of comments, but at least the original post can be read if the link doesn’t work.  Just scroll down to the bottom until you read the post of May 23, 2010 called Authority vs Submission a Biblical View.

Print This Post Print This Post

Authority given on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

When is authority given and when can it be rightfully assumed?  These are questions that have divided egalitarians and complementarians in the area of marriage.  While egalitarians generally will agree that submission is a characteristic of Spirit-filled Christians who love and respect the body of Christ, and who serve each other with love, complementarians say that husbands are never commanded to submit to their wives because husbands maintain a God-given sphere of authority that requires sacrifice and not submission.  To a complementarian, submission is always something given to an authority.  Since they don’t believe that a wife has authority over a husband they refuse to submit to their wives.  Is this Biblical?

In order to refuse submission as a Christ-like action and/or attitude of both spouses in marriage, they must reject that the reciprocal “to one another” in Ephesians 5:21 really does mean “one to another”.  Instead they are forced to interpret the inspired reciprocal and change it to mean “some to others” as in “Christians who are subject to authority” are to submit to “those in authority”.  This makes it a one-way submission and it adds the condition of authority when no such condition exists.  It also nodles with the inspired text to remove the inspired reciprocal nature of the term to one another.  This is one of the weak links in the complementarian argument.

First of all let’s prove that Ephesians 5:21 has the reciprocal. Note the screen print below of the Greek and the reciprocal grammar:

reciprocal on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

If God had meant that Christians are to submit to authorities in the church, then why didn’t God God just say it like that in Ephesians 5:21 like He did in Romans 13:1?

Romans 13:1 (NASB) Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities

Note that in Romans 13:1, the ones to be under submission are clearly noted as “every person” and those to whom they are to submit themselves to is ” the governing authorities”.  Romans 13:1 is clearly about the requirement for all to submit themselves to the secular governmental authority. But Ephesians 5:21 is not like the one-sided submission of Romans 13:1.  Rather Ephesians 5:21 makes the submission linked to mutuality.
Some may say that the three groups that follow verse 21 are examples of one-sided submission so verse 21 cannot be reciprocal.  But we cannot allow our bias to distort the clear word of Scripture.  The most important issue is that it is God who said the submission is to be reciprocal by His inspiring Paul’s words and grammar.  Secondly God supported this reciprocal nature of submission in chapter 6.

Continue Reading »

Older Posts »