negative outlook

 The apostle Paul in his last letter (to Timothy) did not give a positive outlook as time progresses...

" But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!" 2Tim3.1-5

"But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."
2Tim3.13

In saying these things, Paul instructs Timothy...

"But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2Tim3.14-17

Women elders

 I often see people seeking to justify women in the role of elder or overseer by appealing to all the references to women in the New Testament and what they did, but none of those references specifically state that what they did was in the role as an elder or overseer.

What we see is that women, like men, have the same spiritual gifts or functions toward edifying the Church assembly, but many conflate giftedness with that role that has qualifications, being elder or overseer, and that role is by appointment.  Functions like "pastor" or "preacher" have become common designating terms for the lead elder, but they are really functions that can have an application to either sex.  One who pastors or preaches or teaches can do it without being an elder.  You could say that all elders are teachers, but not all teachers are elders.  Elders must meet specific qualifications; the Apostle Paul set forth these qualifications in First Timothy and in Titus.   Paul sent Titus to "appoint" elders.  Elders are not self-appointed.

One of the qualifications is that the elder is the "husband of one wife."  One of the arguments against women pastors is women cannot be the husbands of one wife--Paul is clearly speaking to men.  The comeback is that women could not practice polygamy, and so Paul is addressing specifically men in that case.  I've read the claim that it would be "stupid" for Paul to have said that a woman "must be the wife of one husband."   But is it really a stupid thing to say?   In the same letter to Timothy, in setting forth the restrictions concerning taking in widows by the church, Paul says, "Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man ..." 1 Timothy 5:9   So he actually said such a thing.  If he could say it about widows, surely, he could have said it about elders, if he was including women as candidates for that role.  Was he referring to polyandry, being a woman with more than one husband, or was it about divorce or being devoted to one man at a time?  That's another issue that one has to wrestle with, but the fact that he said it means could have been said if women were candidates for elder.

One other thing to point out is that when Paul gives the qualifications for Deacons, he says, "Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things." 1 Timothy 3:11  "Wives" can be translated "women," and this gives justification for women to be deacons.  Those who point out that male pronouns are not used in the preceding qualifications for elder and deacon but added to the text would need to explain why a specific reference to women and their conduct needs to be made.  If the qualifications are non-gender specific, then why single out women?   The non-gender specific claim so that the qualifications can be applied to women is not helped by saying the reference in verse 11 is about women and not wives.  Aren't those qualifications needed by men too?  Why make a specific reference to women?  Nevertheless, I believe it is referring to wives of the deacons (and surely of the elders), because why single out women for a few specific qualifications apart from men?  But to have these requirements of the wives of the men who would be considered for the role of elder or deacon would make sense.  Women serving as deacons is not going to receive as much opposition as with elder because of 1 Timothy 3:11, and the role doesn't have the same weight as elder, when it comes to having authority over another.  But I believe that "wives" is more likely than "women."

I see discussion about the word "submit" brought up on this issue.   I would write more on this later, but the claim is made that though Scripture says that wives are to submit to their husbands, it also says we are to submit to one another.  Submission speaks of being "put under," or to come under the authority of another.  I just want to briefly point out that all words need to be considered in the context in which they are used.   It's like the word "love."   Men are to love their wives, and yet we are to love one-another.   One is not going to love others like he loves his wife.  Likewise, a woman submitting to her husband is different that how she submits to another man.  In the church, we submit to one another by respecting the differing functions or gifts each have, but that submission is not the same as between a husband wife.  In First Corinthians 7, Paul said that a man has authority over the body of his wife, and wife has authority over her husband's body; neither has authority over the body of someone else.  Submission to an employer is not the same as submission in other contexts.  Yes, we all submit to one another, but it is understood differently in each unique context.

One other thing... God told Eve that "her desire shall be to her husband, but he shall rule over you."   Yes, that is part of the curse.   But consider that God said the same kind of thing to Cain concerning sin:  "Its desire is for you, but you shall rule over it."  The wording is mostly the same.  The desire is about control: the wife wants to control her husband, and sin wants to control us.   The ruling part is easier to address concerning sin, because obviously God wants us to rule over sin, but what about with reference to the conflict between wife and husband?  Yes, it's about the curse.  Do we need to carry it out?   God is saying this is how it will be.  But does it have to be that way?  Does the man have to "rule" over his wife?  Not necessarily.  Does the wife have to control her husband or desire to have control?  No.  But I wonder if all this effort to put women in control over men by putting them in a role of authority over men is seeking to fulfill the curse.  If women don't want men to rule over them, why should they think men want women to control them?  Of course, a leadership role will involve some direction being given and responsibility laid on the one who gives it.  Can the woman accept this role of men in general and of husbands and elders specifically?  Some can't, and some and possibly many have been raised up not to.

In the end, people are going to do what they want.   I suppose find the church that agrees with you.   We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ to be judged according to what we did in this life, whether good or bad.  God help us.

temporal and eternal

 Though I am not a classical dispensationalist--which is a system of theology that recognizes distinct Divine stewardships--I do believe we see distinctions in the purposes of God involving people that are temporal.  The temporal needs to be distinguished from the eternal.   God can have a people for his purpose that is temporal, while from an eternal perspective, there is only one people of God.  Israel was the people of God for His purposes in time. Israel being a distinct nation of people. Presently, the "Church" is the people of God for His purposes in time. The Church being believers of all nations.  God will again restore Israel as a people and nation for His purposes in time.  These distinct people groups are temporal for the Divine purpose in time.  But eternally, there is only one people of God, which looks like the Church does now, because it consists of all believers, while Israel did not consist of all believers, though there may have been very few among the gentiles apart from Israel--not even every Israelite was a believer under the Mosaic law.  It's no different than the fact that all believers are one in Christ, but they have different roles in their service to God.  This also relates to the roles of men and women in this life which are debated:  can women be in authority over a man, such as an elder?   But I suppose that even in the final eternal state, there will be some distinction of roles among the people of God.   That will have to do with rewards and how the world to come will function.   

within means

 

I chose to work for an auto supplier factory most of my life to afford raising a family. And it wasn't the highest pay, about 32,000. average a year for about 37 years before I retired. That's the average, not what I started with (15,313. in '86) and the highest (50,290. in 2021--it went down after that) that I made in a year. I worked a whole lot of overtime too. My wife made about 72,000 total throughout her life--she mostly stayed home to take care of the kids and grandkids. We lived within our means, and I paid off our debts before 40 years old. On that factory income. I did a lot of DIY home improvements to save a lot of money--our first home was about 750 square feet on a slab with no garage, and I bought cheap vehicles. 

Women roles

 

Back in the early 80's, when I was still a member in a SBC church (Southern Baptist Convention), I took classes through a SBC school called Luther Rice Seminary (Bible College Division).

I took a class in Typology, and the textbook was written by a woman; her name was Ada R. Habershon. Luther Rice was a conservative SBC school, and yet, we used a book written by a woman on a theological topic.

There is the question as to whether women can be in a place of authority over men, being an elder or overseer—which I understand to be the same thing.

I made reference to the use of the book by a woman in the SBC school. I don't believe the issue is whether men can learn from the efforts of women. Luther Rice didn't seem to have a problem with that.

You can learn from anybody, and like anything, you have to judge what they are saying. I can listen to or read anything by anybody, but I will still seek to discern truth from error.

The word “pastor” seems to have taken on a more specific meaning than its broader meaning. “Pastor” translates the same Greek word as for “shepherd,” and it could more generally apply to anyone who teaches others, but it has taken on a more specific application for the head/lead elder who is usually a vocational elder—he gets paid to “pastor” the church.  But in a general sense, the pastor is a teacher, and both men and women can fulfill that role. That role is not the same as being an elder, which is an office for which one has to be qualified. Though Ephesians 4:11 has “pastor-teacher” as one of the things given to the church, “pastor” is not in the Apostle Paul's list in First Corinthians 12:28 of spiritual gifts, but “teacher” is—which is set as third in importance in the Church after Apostles and Prophets. Why isn't there a reference to “pastors?” I believe pastor and teacher are interchangeable as to function.

The word “preach,” like pastor, has taken on a more specific meaning, such as giving the “sermon” to the congregation, but the word simply means to “herald” a message. It's not limited to just men to do such. And this is a role, or a function, not limited to the office of elder. Of course the question will be asked whether a woman can do this as the sermon to the church. Is it stepping over the line?  Personally, I can choose to listen to a woman “preach” like I read a book. I will judge its content.

I do believe when it comes to the gifts of the Spirit (roles or functions in the Church for its edification), a woman can do what a man can do as far as the general understanding of the roles and the words used for those roles.

There can be circumstances where it is more appropriate for one sex over the other to fulfill a certain function, such as a man teacher leading teenage boys or young adult men.

I don't believe having a certain gift is the same thing as having the office of elder. Not only are there qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-7), it is, what I can see in Scripture, limited to men.

Even men who are gifted teachers may not qualify to be an elder.

Some men become elders who are not qualified, because their homes are not in order—their children are out of control, or they have a violent temper, or they are not able to teach, have a bad reputation, etc.

Men and women are equals as persons, and yes, “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:8), but that does not mean God hasn't put limits on what the sexes can do in this temporal stage of life. 

The Apostle Paul said that he did “not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:11). I take that “authority over a man” to mean a woman should not be in a place of authoritative leadership over a man--at least in a spiritual sense. 

In the end, we will all give account to Christ for what we believe and practice, at the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Jewish State

 I will admit that I support a Jewish state primarily because I believe Israel, as a people and nation, will be restored at the second coming of Christ.

I believe the Jewish people should have the right to dwell safely in a land, and why not in the land that was originally promised to them by God?

I do believe that they are as a nation still under the consequences of the wrath of God, and anything that is established now for them as a nation is only temporary.

Someone claimed that Muslims are fleeing to other nations because of Israel, but they are leaving many nations that have nothing to do with Israel, and there are many non-Jews that live in Israel. I've been there and can attest to that.

The non-Jewish Palestinians who chose to leave the land of Israel when the Arabs attacked back in 1948, chose to do so with the intention of taking the land of the Jews after they were defeated--"driven into the Mediterranean Sea"--but that didn't happen.

The Arab nations could absorb those Palestinians, but they choose not to--so to always have an accusation against the Jewish State and blame the Palestinians being still in camps on "the occupation."

The British gave the Arabs, the land of Jordan. They were supposed to give Israel land, but they didn't, and President Clinton worked out a Palestinian state plan with Arafat, but in the end he rejected it.

The government of Gaza, which is Hamas, continually shoots rockets in Israel, and they have hundreds of miles of tunnels, so what is Israel To do? When Hamas uses their own citizens as Shields, it's very hard to fight a war. In past wars, the United States killed civilians in the attempt to defeat the Japanese and the Germans; it's not the way you would like it, but what do you do? War is not simply maintaining an equal number of people killed. In World War II, Hitler and the Nazis in Germany had to be stopped. Japan had to be stopped. It's not about equal numbers. It's about stopping them.

Israel's turning

 Israel's future turning away from sin/ ungodliness...

I believe the references to Israel being turned away from godliness and sin is a standing and state distinction.

We read this in Romans, chapter 11:26-27, where it says "the Deliverer will come out of Zion and He will turn ungodliness from Jacob; and this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins."

We see this also in the book of Acts where Peter talks about Israel, being blessed by the coming of Jesus, "in turning every one of you away from your iniquities," Acts 3:26.

I believe the turning away has to do with their state, their conduct, while the remission of sins has to do with their standing, their identity.

Because of the remission of sins, which changes their standing and identity before God, they will turn away from their ungodliness/ iniquities. Though not stated, remission of their sins will result in their new birth. And by the enablement of the new birth and the knowledge of the remission of their sins, they will be motivated and enabled to have a conduct consistent with their new standing with God.

We can see standing and state in Titus 2:11 that says "for the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly less we should live sober, righteously, and godly in this present age, looking for the blessed hope, and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ."

By the grace of God, we are saved, and that salvation teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly righteously and godly in this present age, as we look for the blessed Hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. 

The standing is not determine by the state, but the state is an expected result and a guaranteed potential of the standing—it's not automatic but is a potential reality. Because of all that will happen with Israel as a people and nation at the coming of Christ, they will be the people God wanted them to be, because of the remission of their sins, by the grace of God.