God created every animal as a male-female pair at the same time, except for humans. Why didn’t God create Adam and Eve at the same time? What reason did He have for delaying the creation of Eve?
January 26, 2011
January 26, 2011
God created every animal as a male-female pair at the same time, except for humans. Why didn’t God create Adam and Eve at the same time? What reason did He have for delaying the creation of Eve?
Thinking to Believe 
January 26, 2011 at 4:52 am
Obviously, as woman was an afterthought! 🙂 (if you didn’t guess, that was a joke)
More likely in order to show the authoritive stance – (christ/husband/wife) and to show that it was this way from the beginning and so not a cultural hierarchy. Or possibly as a way of showing us in our roles – with the woman as a helper.
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 10:00 am
Perhaps it was an act of grace, so Adam could at least have a few moments of peace and quiet in his life. 🙂
Ladies, don’t hate me too much now!!
Jason
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Jason,
God first tried to find a good helper for Adam by creating animals. When He finally got it right, it was woman.
Arthur
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Praise the Lord Bro Jason,
Great question.
It seems that the answer concerning why God delayed the creation of Eve
can be found in the ecclesiological instructions that Paul gave to Timothy concerning the roles/function of women in the church . (See 1Timothy 2:11-13)
In his instructions to Timothy, Paul forbade women from filling the office of the pastorate or teacher, and he also forbids women from exercising any type of authority over men in the church assembly because the Elders (who should only be men) are those that function in this leadership capacity.
In vs13 Paul states that Adam was formed first then Eve.
Pauls statements indicate that the woman’s subordinate role was not a result of the fall, and neither was it due to chauvinism, or cultural influences, but her subordinate role was a part of Gods original design from creation.
It was Adams “first place” chronological position in the creation of mankind
that indicated Gods intent concerning the mans authoritative role over the woman,
and it was Eves “second place” chronological position in the creation of mankind that indicated Gods intent concerning the woman’s subordinate role to the man. (This is Gods will in church governance, and also in marriage).
It seems that God didn’t make man and woman simultaneously because in that creational construct there would be no hierarchy of authority ,but it would imply equal authority.(That would be chaotic)
We see this dynamic in the popular mutual submission theology that is commonly taught in today’s churches.
That doctrine is unbiblical.
As a man, I can honestly say, that I thank God for the delay. (LOL)
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Arthur,
Did you really have to follow up my distasteful gender joke with a high compliment to women? You’re making me look worse! 🙂
Jason
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Milton,
I think that is a Biblically informed and reasonable explanation for why God created Eve later than Adam. But let me play devil’s advocate for a second. Was it necessary to delay the creation of Eve in order for God to establish an authority structure? Couldn’t He have just said to Adam and Eve upon their creation, “Eve, you are equal in worth to Adam, but I have designated him as the leader”? Why would it be necessary for God to delay Eve’s creation in order to make Adam the leader?
Jason
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 8:39 am
Milton,
You need to go back and rethink this statement:
In his instructions to Timothy, Paul forbade women from filling the office of the pastorate or teacher, and he also forbids women from exercising any type of authority over men in the church assembly because the Elders (who should only be men) are those that function in this leadership capacity.
It does not line up with the Bible.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 8:42 am
Milton,
And what does this mean:
As a man, I can honestly say, that I thank God for the delay. (LOL)?
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Praise the Lord Bro Jason,
Another great question.
Logically speaking, the delay in the creation of Eve does not appear to have been a “necessary event” in order for God to make Adam the leader.
In deed, God could have established the hierarchy of authority between Adam and Eve via a “personal address” to them after they were created.
It is also plausible to say that it was not “necessary” for God to speak any of his creative decrees and or perform his creative acts, in the chronological order that we see them in Genesis.
For instance, God could have created the Sun on the 1st day instead of the 4th day. But for reasons we can only speculate about, he did not.
It appears that the delay in Eve’s creation order not only denoted her subordinate role to Adam, but it also seems to be an “inferred type” of how God would ultimately bring the NT church into existence, and also its subsequent subordinate role to Christ. Genesis is filled with literal and typological truths.
Let me illustrate this point below:
Adam, who was a type of Christ, existed chronologically before Eve.
Christ, who is the last Adam, existed chronologically before the NT church. (i.e. the Body of Christ)
God put Adam to sleep, and after Adam arose from sleep, he saw the bride that God had created from his rib/flesh.
Jesus died for us on the cross (or was put to sleep)
After Jesus resurrected (awoke from sleep), the church came into being at Pentecost. Instead of the NT church being one flesh with Christ we are “one spirit”.
It seems as if God had a greater purpose in mind for the delay in Eve’s creation.
Logically, the delay was not necessary, but theologically it appears that it was.
It seems that in the mind of God the delay was necessary in order to reveal a greater purpose, and that was to foreshadow future soteriological events in Christ.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Milton,
I don’t think that just because X was not necessary for God to accomplish Y means that God did not do X for the purpose of Y. Indeed, it very well may be that God delayed Eve’s creation (and specifically made her from Adam) so the authority structure God decreed for humans would be abundantly clear from the beginning. And there’s no question that Paul understood this at least to be an implication of the order of creation (if not the reason itself).
As for the other typological reasons you cite, I see the parallels to a certain degree, but apart from a Scriptural affirmation of such typological significance I would not/could not say with any degree of confidence that this was a reason for God’s creation order.
Jason
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Praise the Lord Tiny,
I will bring more clarity to my position.
Let my began by saying that as it relates to women operating in a teaching capacity in the church, I do believe that based on scripture women have liberty to teach in the church, but only in appropriate conditions and circumstances. (Acts 18:26 and Titus 2:3-4)
On a personal note, I do not strive with, operate in a contentious way with, or break fellowship with churches, or those who teach or believe opposite of my position. This issue is non-salvific.
I celebrate, promote, and encourage, women in ministry.
Their anointing, gifts, wisdom, and dedication, have always been and will continue to play a vital role in the church.
I thank God for his grace, and for the prayers, influence, and godly counsel of the mothers of the church, and the countless women of God that he has placed in my life over the years.
Now in response, I do believe that my statements line up with the Bible.
It is implied in the Pastoral Epistles that one of the scriptural qualifications for Overseers/Elders/Bishops/Pastors
(these terms are synonymous)
is that they must be men.
In the New Testament Church, Elders had the ultimate responsibility of governing the church and teaching the saints,
(See 1 Timothy 3:1-7 )
In vs 1
(if a “man” desire the office of a bishop…)
In vs 2 ( the “husband” of one wife….)
In vs 5 (if a “man” know not how to rule his own house)…
(See Titus 1:5-6 -in vs 6 )
(..the “husband” of one wife)
According to scripture women are forbidden from the Eldership ministry because of gender differences and the chain of authority evidenced at creation (1 Timothy 2:11-15; cf. 3:2, Tit. 1:6).
In 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul builds upon his previous statements found in vs 11-13 and says that Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
This implies that by nature, Eve was not suited to assume the position of ultimate responsibility. By leaving Adams protection and usurping his headship, she was vulnerable and fell, thus confirming how important it was for her to stay under the protection and leadership of her husband.(i.e. male leadership)
In 1 Tim 2:12 Paul says I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence.
In this verse Paul is forbidding women from operating in the office a pastor/teacher and from exercising authority over men in the church assembly because the elders(who were only men) are those that operate in that capacity.
Tiny, what scriptures are you basing your position on?
God bless.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 8:20 pm
To God be he Glory Tiny,
Let me first say that I said this jokingly.
My intent was not to disrespect women.
So I apologize if you or anyone else took it that way.
I sincerely, (in the love of Christ), honor, and respect all women, especially those of the household of faith.
What I meant by my statement is that as a man, I have witnessed the struggle that most women have (saved and unsaved women)
with submitting to male authority and leadership (Especially in marriage)
And I’m not just talking about unloving, inept, cruel, and insensitive male leadership,(that’s understandable) but also loving, godly, and selfless male authority and leadership. This grieves my heart and I am sure it also grieves the heart of God.
From my experiences, often times in the church, “women of God” will know what the scriptures state concerning male authority and leadership, and with their mouths they confess that this is what they desire, but it seems that they struggle with this spiritual principle and rarely gain victory in the area of submission. (Even to godly male leadership)
Also, when I read 1 Peter chap 3 vs 1-6,
where Peter gave instructions to wives to stay submissive to husbands that are not obedient to the word….as a man , I say to my self , “My God, I can understand why doing that would be a struggle”.
(I know this instruction precludes coercion to sin, disobedience to Gods word, and or physical harm)
Also In vs 6 Peter recognizes the potential fears for a Christian woman
who sets out to operate in this level of submission.
Truly this level of submission can only come by trusting in God.
I respect all women, and I respect those who are fighting the good fight of faith in the area of submission to their husbands.
But as a man, out of all of he struggles that I have to face,
that is one I would not want on my plate.
God bless all women in Jesus Name.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Can we find the answer to this question perhaps in God’s command to Adam that he take dominion over the garden and over every living thing that God had previously created?
Could this be a pattern for modern day man that he first should exhibit dominion over what his hand finds to do, and then and only then seek the help that God intends for the “help meet” to provide?
God’s pattern of dominion, exhibited through a man’s work and worship, seems to be at play here.
Just some thoughts……
LikeLike
February 1, 2011 at 9:44 am
Milton,
First of all, Galatians tells us that there is neither Jew nor Greek,slave nor free, male or female. We are all one in Christ Jesus.
Secondly there are numerous places that state that women had offices in the church.
(Romans 16:1-5,Phil 4:2-3)
Romans 16:7 states: Greet Andronicus and Junia (woman), my fellow Jews, who where in prison with me. They are highly respected (prominent) among the apostles and became followers of Christ before I did.
Thirdly the passages of scripture in 1 Timothy are speaking of Adam and Eve, a husband and wife relationship. No where does he invoke submission of women to men in general or forbid eldership to women.
(The word for woman and wife is the same in Greek).
Furthermore, with the previously given passages in 1 Corinthians 11:5,13 Paul admonishes women to pray and prophesy with her head covered. Acts 21:9 A certain man had 4 daughters, virgins, who did prophesy.
Looking into the Old Testament, Deborah was a Judge over Israel, Miram was called a prophetess.
Taking all of these passages together, it seems clear that you need to look into your position again.
And one last statement: I see no commandment against women elders/bishops because the word “man” was invoked by Paul in 1 Timothy 3. He was simply giving some guiding principles for these offices. If we were to follow the letter and not the principle then anyone who had been widowed and remarried could not be a bishop or elder.
The letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life!
Sources:
Netbible.org
Steven Beardsley UGST
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 3:19 am
Maybe he simply wanted to leave no doubt that mens life without women sucks?
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Praise the Lord Bro Jason,
Point well taken.
Just as you are playing devils advocate, (for purposes of debate)
I am not postulating this as doctrine, but I am just musing out loud, about the possible inferences of the text (for purposes of debate) in response to your inquiry.
Concerning this matter, no one can state their positions with exactitude without sufficient biblical support.
We both agree that there is more scriptural support for my first premise.
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Praise the Lord Tiny
I will bring “more” clarity to my position.
Let my began by saying (again) that as it relates to women operating in a teaching capacity in the church, I do believe that based on scripture women have liberty to teach in the church, but only in appropriate conditions and circumstances.
Also I do believe (based on scripture)that women can operate in the 9 gifts.
Again, I do not strive with, operate in a contentious way with, or break fellowship with churches, or those who teach or believe opposite of my position. This issue is non-salvific.
I celebrate, promote, and encourage, women in ministry.
Now let me respond to your statements.
I am afraid that many who espouse to your position appeal to Galatians 3:28 erroneously to underpin their ecclesiological belief system.
In the context of Galatians 3:28 Paul is not speaking about the hierarchy of authority in the home, neither is he talking about the hierarchy of authority in the church (ecclesiology), but he is speaking about soteriology (salvation).
In context this verse does not deny that God has designed racial, social, and sexual distinctions among Christians, (salvation does not obliterate these distinctions) but it affirms that those do not imply spiritual inequality before God.
Nor is this spiritual equality incompatible with the God ordained roles of headship and submission in the church, society, and at home. For example, though the deity of Jesus Christ is that of the Father, he still assumed a subordinate role in the incarnation.
Under your premise, regeneration not only brings about a new creation in ones soul but it also brings about a new creation in ones gender, race, and social status. And further more regeneration obliterates God ordained roles of headship and submission in church, society, and the home.
This premise can not be supported by scripture.
You also appeal to Romans 16:1-5.
In context Phoebe is referred to as a servant (diakonos in the Greek).
It is debatable whether “diakonos” is referring to the office of a deacon,
or the functionality of a servant.
Again this is debatable but not clear. As such I would not apeal to this text to establish doctrine on this subject.
Hypothetically, even if Paul was referring to Phoebe as one that functioned in the office of a deacon, scripturally, deacons did not carry the primary responsibility for teaching and instructing the saints doctrinally in the church, it was the Elders (who were men ) that operated in this function. So this would still preserve the scriptural hierarchy of authority of women submitting to male leadership in the church.
Also, the principle given in 1 Tim 2:12 appears to be an overarching principle for church life which seems implicitly to limit the role of deacon to men.
Also, In 1 Tim 3: 8-12
It would be strange for the author to discuss women deacons right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons; more naturally they would be addressed by themselves. The author seems to indicate clearly in the next verse (vs 12) that women are not deacons: “Deacons must be husbands of one wife.”
This seems to be the more natural understanding.
You also appeal to (Phil 4:2-3)
In vs 2 your appeal to Euodia and Syntyche is not very persuasive either.
Apparently the rift between these two women was so great, that it brought about apposing factions in the church.
They are instructed by Paul to bring their attitudes into harmony in the Lord.
In vs 3 At this point Paul seeks to enlist the aid of a third party, Syzygus (“yokefellow,” NIV), whom he challenges to live up to his name and be a “loyal yokefellow” by bringing these women together .
(The text does not speak to any offices that these women did or did not function in)
Also, Your appeal to Junia in Rom 16:7 is not persuasive as well.
Because there are several translation problems with this verse, no clear conclusion can be reached. Junia can either be a man or a woman’s name.
Although popularly claimed, Junia was not a common name for a woman in ancient Greece in written Greek literature. So It is not certain if Junia is a man or woman.
When Paul says that they are “of note” (episemos) , it does not necessarily mean that Andronicus and Junias were apostles themselves, it could mean that their ministry with Paul, and perhaps with Peter, and some other apostles in Jerusalem before Paul was converted, was well known and appreciated by the apostles.
Also, the term “apostles” here may not even mean the office “apostles of Jesus Christ,” but it may simply mean “messengers” (the broader sense which the word takes in Phil 2:25, 2 Cor. 8:23, and John 13:16)
This text has too little clear information to allow us to draw a conclusion.
You also state that, “passages of scripture in 1 Timothy are speaking of Adam and Eve, a husband and wife relationship”. “No where does he invoke submission of women to men in general or forbid eldership to women”.
“The word for woman and wife is the same in Greek”.
Let me first say that
You are correct that the word for woman (gunaikas ) can either mean a wife or a women in general.
Depending on how you interpret this word will determine your ecclesiological position on the subject.
But I do not agree that in 1 Tim 2:13-14 that Paul is “specificaly” speaking of a husband and wife relationships.
In 1 Tim 2:8 Paul is speaking on “cooperate worship” in the local assembly.
He is not speaking about marriage.
Vs 8 reads literally: “I desire therefore the “men” to pray in
“every place.”
In v. 9 Paul says, “Likewise also women.”
The use of the definite article with men and not with women seems to suggest that the apostle was laying down the pattern that public worship should be lead by male leadership.
In vs 9 he proceeds to tell how women (not just wives) should conduct themselves in church services.
(Not specifically in marriage).
In vs11-12 Again Paul is establishing regulations of the Church, (not specifically marriage). He instructs that a broad level of “submission “, by all women in general, be given to male authority. (not just wives)
Obviously Paul was not saying that women could not teach in the proper conditions as previously stated.
Paul speaks appreciatively of the fact that Timothy himself had been taught the right way by his godly mother and grandmother (2Tim 1:5; 3:15).
The apostle also writes to Titus that the older women are to train the younger (Titus 2:3, 4). Women have always played a major role in teaching small children, in both home and chruch. And I thank God for it.
Also , Obviously he is not saying that women can not be used in the gifts of the spirit , scripture says they can. But all things should be done in order.
In vs 13,14 Paul is not “specifically” speaking of marriage,
but he is giving the basis for why women should submit to male leadership.
So in order to buttress his position he appeals to the “creational order” of the first man and woman, Adam and Eve.
Notice, he is not appealing to their marriage union.
It’s interesting to note that Paul appeals to first place chronological events.
Adam and Eves creational order was chronologically before their marital union.
(vs 13 Adam was created first, Then eve.)
They were created first, then they became husband and wife.
The marital union is not the basis for why women should submit to male leadership, but the creational order of man and woman is the basis for why women should submit to male leadership(in the church and in marriage).
Paul shows us that females role of submission to male leadership is inherent in creation.
To establish his point more fully
in vs 14 He appeals to 2 other first place chronological events in order to confirm the position as to why women should submit to male leadership, and they were the deception of Eve, and her subsequent transgression in eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil first before Adam did.
vs14 , For Adam was not deceived , but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.
In other words Eve was deceived , and she sinned first.
Adam was not deceived, and he sinned after Eve.
The creational order of Adam and Eve, the way in which both fell into sin,
and the order of the fall are the basis for the reason why women should be under male leadership in the church and home.
Also according to your interpretation of the word woman (gunaikas) to mean “wife” , it would also mean that Paul’s instructions to Timothy concerning the qualification of deacons would exclude women.
For 1 Timothy 3:11 would read,
Likewise their “wives”(not women) must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. (This reveals a contradistinction in your premise)
Also your appeal to Deborah as a Judge is not persuasive either.
Under the period of the Judges, they were responsible for guiding military expeditions against Israel’s foes and arbitrated judicial matters.
We don’t see this office in the NT Church. This just shows again , as I believe, in accodance with scripture that the Lord has , does, and will continue to use anointed women of God.
But this is not a scriptural basis for them being Pastors/Elders in the NT church.
Also appealing to Miram as a prophetess is not persuasive either.
As stated before scripture states,
(and I also believe), that women can prophesy and operate in the gifts.
Again, this is not a scriptural basis for them being Pastors/Elders in the NT church.
In scripture both men and women can operate in the 9 gifts, but only men should operate in the Eldership/Teaching offices of the NT church.
You also stated, “If we were to follow the letter and not the principle then anyone who had been widowed and remarried could not be a bishop or elder.”
This is not so either.
It is important to note in 1 Tim 3:12
the term “husband of one wife” should be understood as a prohibition against a polygamist holding the office of and Elder, not someone who has experienced a Biblical divorce and remarriage, or one whose wife passed away. Nor is it a prohibition against single men holding the office of an Elder. Also the qualifications refer to a man’s present status,not his past life. (There is scriptural support for each of these positions)
Finally , concerning your quote from 2 Cor 3:6 “for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life”….in context , Paul was not giving us a hermeneutical method of interpretation.
He was giving a contrast between two basic characteristics of the old and new covenants.
The basis of the old covenant between Yahweh and Israel was a lifeless, written code, “the book of the covenant” (Exod 24:7). The basis of the new covenant between God and the church is a dynamic, pervasive Spirit.
The written code (or “letter”) pronounced a sentence of death (Rom 7:9-11; Gal 3:10), but the Spirit brings a transformation of life (Rom 7:6; 8:3).
Though the new covenant was ratified by the shedding of Christ’s blood (Heb 13:20) and is symbolized in the communion cup (Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25), it becomes operative only through the indwelling Spirit who imparts new life.
Where “the letter” was powerless, the Spirit is powerful in producing holiness of life, in enabling a person fully to meet the righteous requirements of the law (Rom 8:4).
God bless.
LikeLike
February 7, 2011 at 10:10 am
Milton,
In many instances here you seem to be reading in between the lines when it suits your purposes.
But before I move on let me ask you a couple of questions:
“Under your premise, regeneration not only brings about a new creation in ones soul but it also brings about a new creation in ones gender, race, and social status. And further more regeneration obliterates God ordained roles of headship and submission in church, society, and the home.”
1)Are you implying that in society women are to be in submission to men and have a lower social status?
2)Women are adomonished to dress modestly in 1 Timothy 2, does this exclude men?
3)So you think God would be okay with a woman Judge(and all that entails)in the Old Testament, but not a woman elder in the NT?
4)If Galatians 3:28 applies soley to salvation, does that mean that women of the OT were outside of God’s covenant like the Gentiles?
I’m sorry Milton but Paul’s statement in 1 Tim 2 IS talking about marriage or none of these questions I raise, make sense.
So much of what you have written is your own point of view and cannot be backed by scripture.
Christ raised women up beside men, with men as the leaders at home.
I could go on but I will let this rest….
Tiny
LikeLike
February 7, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Praise the Lord Jesus Tiny,
I enjoyed the discourse. (Even though we strayed away from the original topic.)
I will also cease to comment on this matter as well after my comments below,
and we will agree to disagree in the Love of Christ.
You stated,.. “In many instances here you seem to be reading in between the lines when it suits your purposes.”
Tiny, I can make the same assertion about your statements. But sincerely, I don’t believe that I am. My desire is for truth (and I assume that yours is as well).
My intent is not to interpose my own interpretation or personal biases on the Biblical text. I am willing to change my position if I am presented with a Biblically informed reason to do so. It doesn’t seem as if you are willing to do the same.
Based on your methods of interpretation, it appears as if this is what you are guilty of in this matter, not me.
Your interpretations of the scriptures that you appeal to don’t seem to be grounded in their proper context and as a result do not seem to harmonize with the author’s original intent.
You also stated,
“Under your premise, regeneration not only brings about a new creation in ones soul but it also brings about a new creation in ones gender, race, and social status. And further more regeneration obliterates God ordained roles of headship and submission in church, society, and the home.”
Tiny, by restating my premise back to me in this manner,I think you might have possibly misunderstood my statement here.
What I meant to express in this statement was that your appeal to Galatians 3:28 as a proof text to underpin the veracity of your position is not sound because you are not interpreting the verse in its proper context.
Using this verse to appeal to your premise, results in the belief that regeneration (the new birth) obliterates gender, race, social status, God ordained roles of headship and submission in church, society, and the home. All of which (again), can not be supported by scripture.
Here are my responses to your other questions below…
You asked…
1)Are you implying that in society women are to be in submission to men and have a lower social status?
Tiny, I do not believe that women should be in a lower social status than men.
You are missing my point.
Ones social status has nothing to do with the virtue of godly submission.
I don’t believe that a woman’s social status should prevent her from being submissive to her husband, or to male leadership in the church.
A woman’s social status has nothing to do with God’s instructions for women to submit to their husbands and male leadership in the church.
Hypothetically speaking,
if I was married to a woman that was as wealthy as Oprah Winfrey,
or if my wife was a supreme court Justice (all of which I see no problem with)
her superior social status would not exempt her from submitting to God’s instructions in the scriptures to submit to me as her husband. Neither would it excuse her from Gods instructions to submit to her Pastoral leadership in the church.
What’s happening in today’s society is that certain women are using their superior social status in life as the basis for not submitting themselves to their husbands who are in an equal or lower social status than they are. This is not biblical.
You asked…
2) Women are admonished to dress modestly in 1 Timothy 2, does this exclude men?
Tiny in the context of 1 Tim 2:9-10, Yes, “these verses” exclude men. Paul is specifically speaking about women.
But “I do believe” that the Lord also wants men to wear clothing that pertains to godliness, not provocative, and clothing that pertains to a man and not a woman. But we can not use 1 Tim 2:9-10 as the text to make that point. You are forcing your opinion on the text.(Eisegesis)
You asked…
3) So you think God would be okay with a woman Judge (and all that entails)in the Old Testament, but not a woman elder in the NT?
Frankly Tiny, in the final conclusion, it’s not about what “I think”, it’s about what the scripture purports.
If I were making the rules in isolation outside of scripture, I would think that it would be perfectly fine with me.
But scripture does not corroborate that line of thinking in order to establish doctrine in the NT.
To establish doctrine solely on the premise that since God operated in the OT a certain way, he will/is operating the same way in the NT, is not sound biblical hermeneutics.
Actualy, this is one of the ways false doctrine is proliferated.
One of the chief reasons why people misunderstand scripture is that they fail to recognize the differing covenants found through out the biblical text.
One of the many interpretive guidelines we must follow, is that we must interpret scripture based on its covenantal setting. The covenants will often times have similar and different stipulations. If we do not see NT support for something that was done in a previous covenant, we should not teach what was done in a previous covenant in the NT as doctrine.
This is why in the NT we don’t have a commandment that requires us to worship on a Sabbath day, and we don’t use brazen serpents for healing in the NT, even though God operated that way in the OT.
A while ago I heard a prominent minister say to a congregation, that we in the NT church are the Levitical priesthood. This person also went on to build a replica of the Ark of the Covenant, and made a grand entrance into the assembly with other ministers carrying the ark on poles, and invoking the presence of God, (Like Israel did in the OT).
This person also went on to teach that the Holies of Holies is your prayer closet.
I also saw another prominent minister say that God wants us to give him a “Passover” offering (like they did under the OT) so that the death angel can pass over those in the NT church; this offering was to be monetary.
These teachings are totally unbiblical. The Law , along with its priestly order has been abrogated, we are under grace, the priesthood has changed, and Christ is our Passover.
Do you see the slippery slope we can go down if we use your line of reasoning to establish doctrine?
In Eph 4 (The Five Fold Min Offices) Paul says that Christ gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelist, and some pastors and teachers. (He did not include the office of a Judge in the NT church).
Again, this just shows, as I believe, in accordance with scripture that the Lord has , does, and will continue to use anointed women of God.
But this is not a scriptural basis for them being Pastors/Elders in the NT church.
You asked….
4) If Galatians 3:28 applies solely to salvation, does that mean that women of the OT were outside of God’s covenant like the Gentiles?
Tiny, I don’t see how you can reach this conclusion based on the interpretation that was previously given to you concerning this verse.
How are you equating that having a hierarchy of authority of female submission to male authority in the home and in the church, to women being outside of the God’s covenant?
Women were not outside of the covenant in OT, and they are not outside of the covenant in the NT. Even under the OT, YHWH made provisions for Gentile proselytes (male and female) to be apart of the covenant. (For example Ruth was a Moabite who converted to Judaism)
Tiny , as it relates to gender, this is the point that I am making , In Gal 3:28 Paul is saying that in Christ both male and female receive the same covenantal promises and blessings. But in context this verse does not deny that God has designed sexual distinctions among Christians, (salvation does not obliterate these distinctions) but it affirms that those do not imply spiritual inequality before God.
Nor is this spiritual equality incompatible with the God ordained roles of headship and submission in the church, society, and at home.
For example, in a Christian marriage, just because the husband and the wife both have the same covenantal promises and blessings under the NT, this doesn’t mean that they both have the same level of authority in the home. Why? Because scripture also says that the man is the head of the woman. (Hierarchy of authority)
Also, if a Christian couple has children that are saved, even though the children have spiritual equality with their parents in Christ, they don’t have authoritative equality in the home with their parents. Why? Because the scripture also says that children should obey their parents in the Lord. (Hierarchy of authority)
This same principle applies concerning female submission to male authority in the church. Men and women have covenantal equality in Christ (salvation) , but not authoritative equality in the home and in the church.(Hierarchy of authority)
You stated…
“I’m sorry Milton but Paul’s statement in 1 Tim 2 IS talking about marriage or none of these questions I raise, make sense.”
Tiny for the most part, your questions make sense, but your conclusions don’t.
It is illogical to say that in the home God instructs wives not to teach or have authority over their husbands, but when they get in church they can teach and have authority over their husbands. This would mean God is contradicting himself, and that’s impossible for God to do.
That’s like saying, in the home the parents have authority over their children, but in church they don’t.
Imagine the implications of this type of teaching.
Wives could say to their husbands,
“honey, when we were at home, I know you asked me not to do (x), and I didn’t do it, but when I came to church, the Holy Ghost told me I could do (x) , because we are one in Christ ,and in him there is no male or female.
Children could say, “Dad and Mom” , at home I know you told me that I couldn’t do (y) , but when I came to church , the anointing came upon me, and reveled to me that I could do (y) because we are all one in Christ.
This is confusion, and I don’t believe that God is the author of this teaching.
You stated…
“So much of what you have written is your own point of view and cannot be backed by scripture”.
Tiny , that’s not a true assessment of my arguments. I have taken the scriptures that you have given me , along with others and presented my case.(Over 20 scriptural references with commentary).
You have made a lot of assertions without presenting a persuasive biblical argument.
Finally , you stated, “Christ raised women up beside men, with men as the leaders at home.”
Yes, in Christ, both men and women have been raised up together with him, and we all are sitting with him in heavenly places. (Eph2:6) Again, this verse is also speaking about salvation, not the hierarchy of authority in the home or in the church.
I do agree that God uses both men and women as leaders in the church, but all things should be done in Gods devine order.
LikeLike
February 8, 2011 at 3:03 am
Why are Christians bothering so much with the question of leadership while all they claim to want to do is to serve the lord and his children, which is easier for women then for men in this society? It is really hard to truly serve as a leader of any kind. Also you are always under objection as a leader. Poor men!
I’d sometimes like to state that setting men as leaders and protectors for women enables women to have their soft nature blossom and to experience true devotion to the lord. They are to love men like the church loves Christ; they may raise the children in his love while being loved by a godly man in the same way that Jesus Christ loves his church (Eph. 5). They have to bother less with this world then their husbands while being cared for by god and a godly man. I’m sorry, but I don’t quite understand the problem modern women have with an ideal that lets them orient their life completely towards God and his love. Also men are supposed to look after their wives beliefs for their own sake and a household run by a godly wife is blessed (1Kor 7, 14) through her! Women are quite mighty in the bible (especially when you regard the cultural context) when it comes to beliefs. And they even sometimes are the better servants in Jesus. If men are the head of the family, women are the neck, and it’s quite hard to turn the head in a direction, the neck won’t go! Women are the first to know, that the Lord lives and they are the first to tell the others. Of course women can be talked to by the lord and they can tell others what they’ve heard. They are simply not supposed to put themselves at the head of whatever, because it endangers their nature! That does not even mean, that they are not allowed to give good advice to their leading husbands! They are supposed to! A married leader needs his wives’ support! Martin Luther for example is said to have been quite a whiny and unsteady character. But with his wives’ biblical (Prov 31) support, he broke the Roman Catholic churches institutionalized sin.
LikeLike
December 4, 2011 at 4:37 pm
He needed practice before making his perfect masterpiece!!
LikeLike