New Moon Meeting: December 2004, 3:10 EST
The Woman: Equality and Roles

Zahakiel: Okay, if this is everyone, let’s begin. Luke, can you please start us off with a prayer?

Qinael: <nods.>

Our holy and loving Father,

We give thanks for this New Moon, and for this specific time during which to come together via the internet...

We thank you for your provision of being able to communicate with each other at such great distances, and with such ease, that the message you have for us may reach all intended ears.

We pray that all eyes and ears be open to what you have for us today, and that you bless us with your Spirit of love and understanding. Be with David as he shares with us what you have shared with him, and may we share with others the same as a result.

In the name of Yahshua we pray, amen.

Zahakiel: Amen.
Brendan: Amen.
Barb: Amen.
Clair: Amen.
Dumah: Amen.
Ron Odem: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.

Zahakiel: All right:) I’d like to thank everyone for being here.

Before we begin the actual study, I’d like to talk about something for a moment. There are two reasons for this. First, it leads up to our topic for this month, and second because we’d like to have a written record of something we’ve decided.

Earlier this month there was a Church meeting about a number of matters, and it was one of the rare occasions for which I could be present – although it was over the internet. Quite a number of issues were discussed, and one of the outcomes of the meeting was a change in the way we as a Church do voting.

Thus far it has been that every baptized member can cast a vote for or against a proposed action of the Body, whether it be purchasing land, revising a point of doctrine, admitting a new convert into the fold by baptism, and so on. With the new resolution that was accepted, we have a slight alteration to this procedure, and it reads as follows:

1) Households under one head (particularly as defined by financial obligation) are counted as one vote if they are in agreement. Any member can dissent, and that dissenting vote would be counted as separate for the purpose of blocking a Church action. Dissenting votes from the same household are also counted as one “Nay;” i.e., all duplicate votes from the same household are counted as one. The same holds true for engaged couples.

2) Votes are given to children over 18 years of age, unless the Church votes to approve one of younger age on the basis of spiritual or mental maturity. Anyone under “censure” cannot vote.

That first may seem a bit confusing, so I’ll break it down a little more.

Zahakiel: The major impact of this is as follows: If a husband and wife both vote the same way, this is counted as one “Yea” if it is “for,” and one “Nay” if it is against.

Now, this does not limit every individual vote, for if the husband and wife are in disagreement the different votes are counted separately. All it means is that one family cannot “block” a Church action by themselves – for you know we have a rule that “two witnesses” are enough to stop an action from passing in accord with Scriptures like Deuteronomy 19:15 and others.

Engaged couples are counted as “married” in the Scriptures to a large extent, for we consider that though Joseph and Mary were not yet man and wife in a full sense, it would have required a “divorce” to become separate, generally a public matter. (Matthew 1:19)

In addition to the practical aspect of this, not having one couple or one family possessed of the ability to stop any action from going forward, we also have Scriptural precedent for it. You notice that when polling was done of the Israelite families, it was done in this manner: “Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls.” (Numbers 1:2)

This is the principle we are applying, and as it is written, “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Yahshua,” (Galatians 3:28b) this introduces the principle of the “dissenting vote.”

Zahakiel: The woman and man are allowed to see things differently within the Body, and of course any “Nay” to a proposed Church action will result in asking the reason for the disagreement – whether it comes from a married pair or not. We are all of “one Spirit,” so the matter will be resolved without problems – but of course we allow for the possibility that someone may see something the rest of us miss, and therefore everyone must have a voice as a member.

Does everyone understand these things? (and let me know if I am going too quickly).

Brendan: <nods.>

Clair: No, you’re very clear.

Crystle: I understand and do agree with the principles stated.

Dumah: Yes… great idea.

Zahakiel: All right :)

Now, this leads into our study for the New Moon, because at some point during the meeting someone suggested (as I had requested in our last meeting) a topic for discussion. It naturally flowed out of this idea of making a couple in agreement have a vote count only once... and it was asked that I give a study on the matter of role and equality between men and women in Christ. These things are in the Scriptures, but here we will examine those things to ensure that everyone has a full understanding of the matter.

I would like to begin with an examination of the nature of the Godhead, because as I have said before – every truly Christian doctrine springs forth from the principles embodied in the Father and Son, and made known to us by their Spirit. This is particularly true of matters relating to roles in marriage, for Paul tells us “I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3)

We see here a direct parallel between the relationship of a wife to her husband with the relationship of Christ to the Father. In fact, based on this Scripture alone, we can establish something of a divine hierarchy.

We have Yahweh the Father first, and then His Son, for Christ said, “I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28b) We will discuss the particulars of this Scripture in a short while, but right now we are just looking at the “order” presented.

Now in 1 Corinthians 11 it says that Christ is the head of “every man,” but in particular Christ is the head of faithful men as a collective body, first and foremost. In other words, Paul says it this way in another passage: “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and He is the Saviour of the Body.” (Ephesians 5:23)

So we see the hierarchy so far is Father, Son, Church. Now, within the Church we come down to the individual level. There we see the Scriptures that most interest us for this study, such as: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” (Eph 5:22)

To quickly add to this Scripture, we have one more level of hierarchy – and so important is this level that it was enshrined in stone. The commandment was given, “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which Yahweh thy Almighty One giveth thee.” (Exodus 20:12) The children of a home must submit to both the father and the mother.

Dumah: So if my husband and I were both members we would in essence be one member...namely my husband...and I would be under or incorporated into his membership by reason of the principle of headship. Am I right?

Zahakiel: If you both voted in the same way, yes. But if you saw something he did not, for example, and one voted one way and the other voted another, each would be given a voice. That way it is headship without arbitrary control.

Dumah: Ok.

Zahakiel: Now in regards to what I have said since regarding the levels... The Scriptures have established this divine hierarchy which is continuous from the highest point in Heaven to the youngest soul on earth, and it is this: Father, Son, Church, Husband, Wife, Children.

Dumah: I suppose the goal, however, is that married couples would be in agreement right?

Qinael: Yes.

Zahakiel: Is everyone understanding this, and how it is established?

Brendan: Aye.
Qinael: <nods.>
Clair: Yes.
Pastor “Chick”: Absolutely :)
Barb: Yes.
Dumah: Yeah.

Crystle: Yes, but I do have one question.

Zahakiel: Okay.

Crystle: If the wife is to be counted as a vote with her husband’s if in agreement, why when she disagrees should it become different then?

Zahakiel: So that she is able to disagree. :) It is a provision for the flesh, in a sense. But it reflects the idea of personal freedom.

Dumah: That is very balanced.

Crystle: Should she not discuss this with her husband who then brings the matter up, if he understands and agrees with her concern, to the body himself... then if it is seen to be a valid concern, she could bring up what it is at that time?

Brendan: Doesn’t it reflect the idea that YAH may use someone to show us something...?

Zahakiel: We will have to discuss the details later, if you have further questions :) That was just the intro to the talk, and not really our topic.

Qinael: That is a long process to go through between asking for a vote and raising hands.

Zahakiel: And perhaps it will become clearer as we proceed on the matter of roles.

Crystle: Okay... thanks from you both. :)

Zahakiel: Okay, so to retrace briefly... we have the hierarchy again:
Father, Son, Church, Husband, Wife, Children.

Now, in order for there to be harmony IN this hierarchy, there must be a bond of love, and this is where the Holy Spirit comes in. The authority exercised by the Father over the Son is not arbitrary. It is written, “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand.” (John 3:35)

So the Son (if we may use human language) feels “safe” submitting to the Father, because there is a token of love there, a gift in the Spirit. Similarly we read that Christ is the “Savior of the Body,” so the Son “gave Himself” for the Church (Ephesians 5:25) and this token of the Spirit allows the Church to submit to His authority with perfect trust.

Now, it is written as we read above, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” (Eph 5:22)

That phrase “as unto the Lord” is important; I did a study on this subject some time ago when I was giving weekly meetings in a Christian chatroom, and that study is still available online. I will post a link to it with the transcript of this meeting. I have not read it in a long time, and so I may repeat some of the points, for the subject is basically the same, but I believe it is still worthy of a reading to get more information. [The link is here]

Dumah: Great.

Zahakiel: Now, that expression “as unto the Lord” indicates that the relationship must be the same as that shared by the Father and the Son to be truly effective. The Lord did not give Himself to mankind so that He could order us around. Neither does He give arbitrary commands and hold His authority over us as a weapon or a gavel. Rather, He gave us all He was, and then asks us to do things purely for our benefit – for He needs nothing from us. With husbands it must be almost the same, for a heavenly family on earth.

He gave us all He was, and then asks us to do things purely for our benefit – for He needs nothing from us. With husbands it must be almost the same, for a heavenly family on earth. Again, Paul speaks not to wives, but to husbands in this verse we have already referenced: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it.” (Ephesians 5:25)

Dumah: So are you saying that we should submit as if we were submitting to Christ, or as the Son submits to the Father, or both?

Zahakiel: Both, for the parallel works on every level. For consider, how did Christ give Himself for the Church?

Brendan: His life, both literally and in the gift of the Spirit.

Qinael: By submitting to the Father.

Zahakiel: Right. But now in manner He did it completely, totally, sacrificially. With all His heart.

This is how a husband must give himself for his wife, and then her submission to him, “as unto the Lord” is not bondage, but freedom.

Dumah: :)

Zahakiel: The world today speaks much of the liberation of women, and to be sure this proper relationship of husband and wife is very nearly unseen in modern society... so worldlings can hardly be blamed for seeking a better way than they have seen. But we as a body, because of our forefathers who fell away, must bear some responsibility for the state of the world.

Yes, we have come out of all false systems, and are working now to restore the purity of Christian religion, but we have the consequences of ages before us to undo.

Again, to complete the chain, we see that this two-way giving takes place on every level of the hierarchy. Children are to submit to their parents, but it is also written, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:4)

Brendan: When does a child cease to be classed with children and become an independent member? When they leave mother and father and cleave to a wife? Or at bar mitzvah age?

Zahakiel: Those, or the obligation of shelter and funding cease, probably.

Brendan: Ok.

Clair: What is bar mitzvah age?

Qinael: 12.

Zahakiel: If the parents are responsible for the child, they are... responsible :)

But now see how the hierarchy and the token-of-love ideas work even on this level. Children are not ours as possessions, but they are a responsibility from Heaven, souls to be trained for service to Christ.

Zahakiel: They must be raised in purity of doctrine, in an environment of holy truth, or else their failures become ours – it is a true, not imagined, responsibility that parents have. Adventists have the advantage of Ellen White’s writings on these matters, and she wrote quite a lot concerning these things :)

So we find that because there is a giving on both sides of each link in the chain, it is not an absolute authority. The Father gives judgment into the hand of the Son. (John 3:35) Yahshua said to His disciples, “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (Matthew 18:18) Thus He gave great responsibility for judgment to the Church, as even Paul tells us “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without [the Church]? Do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Corinthians 5:12) And, “Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life?” (1 Cor 6:3)

Zahakiel: In a godly marriage, likewise, the husband gives great responsibilities to the wife. “The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.” (Proverbs 31:11) “She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.” (verse 16) “She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.” (verse 27) “Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.” (Verse 31)

Zahakiel: No, the hierarchy is not absolute, and thus between every two parts of this chain, there is a binding, and that is the Spirit. For example, because of their common Spirit, the Son says, “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30) This unity is what composes the Godhead. The result of this union is the Creation.

Qinael: What is the authority given from parents to children?

Zahakiel: There must be a trust there as well. It is not as exposed as in the other levels, and with good reason. “Children” are on the lowest scale, and have no authority over others. They are the ones in need of the greatest training. Responsibility also increases as you move up the links :)

Qinael: Thanks.

Zahakiel: Since we are talking about the Spirit being the force of the unions... Because of our common Spirit, Paul says to the Church, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” (1Cor 12:27) Again, “As ye have therefore received Christ Yahshua the Lord, so walk ye in Him.” (Col 2:6)

Yahshua prayed, “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world,” (John 17:24) and as Paul again says, “we have the mind of Christ.” (1Cor2:16)

By the Spirit we are one with Christ, and this is what composes Israel – Divinity and humanity are combined in Yahshua and His people, to Overcome the world and its sin. The result of this union is the 144,000 – and indeed all the Redeemed.

Brendan: The giving of the ‘Mind of Christ’ is explained more in Philippians 2:4-11

Zahakiel: <nods.>

Now going further, because of our common spirit, mankind composes the Church. “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Yahshua the Messiah, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1Cor 1:10)

It is written, “And [Yah] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” (Eph 4:11, 12) So there is a hierarchy even concerning the Church; and though the details of this are not the topic of today’s study, the general principle is that the individual members are served by the Church.

And with this comes again the idea of submission:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2Th 2:15) So what we are seeing here are examples of submission even within unity. We read in places like Acts 15 where the decisions of the elders, led by the Spirit, was given to establish some idea or teaching that had not been explicitly outlined in the Scriptures.

Zahakiel: And now we turn to the individual level, which is the focus of this month’s meeting. Are there any questions before we proceed?

Qinael: None here.

Dumah: This idea is very neat... it appears the same with the government... “they are our benefactors” and so we should obey them.

Crystle: Not right now.

Zahakiel: Right :)

Brendan: Is there a link that I could check out later on the hierarchy within the church? other than that one?

Zahakiel: Not yet. But maybe we can write something about that.

Brendan: <nods.> Thank you.

Zahakiel: Sure thing :)

Dumah: In The Shinaric War the 20 leaders had sort of a head... First Noah then Shem, right?

Zahakiel: Yes. It is a very old order, beginning before there were even humans. And now you’ll see these same principles that we have been looking at carried right down to the individual.

Dumah: Well, running a meeting with no head (leader) is virtually impossible.

Zahakiel: Right.

Now, because of their common Spirit, Yahweh says to the husband and wife – “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen 2:24) Christ repeats this principle clearly, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore Yah hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6) In a family that is godly, there is a shared Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and it makes a man and a woman one. This unity is what makes a Family. The result of this union is, among other things, children.

Now you might be thinking at this point, “A diagram of all this would probably be a great idea.”

Brendan: :)

Zahakiel: Well, as providence would have it, I already have one :)

Study this for a few moments, and let me know if you have any questions (and don’t worry about catching every particular detail).

Dumah: So I suppose if I come into the Church alone...I will function well...as a man?

Zahakiel: As an individual member.

Brendan: neither male nor female...

Zahakiel: So you will have an individual vote, and things like that.

Dumah: Alright:)

Qinael: Nice diagram.

Brendan: Agreed.

Zahakiel: Thanks.

Dumah: Yes... the diagram is nice.

Zahakiel: So, is everyone understanding basically what it says?

Dumah: <nods>
Brendan: Aye.
Qinael: <nods.>
Barb: Yes.

Zahakiel: There are pairs bound by the Spirit into one, and each level has an authority over the unions below it.

Clair: I have question.

Zahakiel: Go ahead :)

Clair: Why are man and woman not interlocked with Church, as the Church is with the Son?

Zahakiel: Oh. They are :) If you notice, the Family is a “close-up” of Humanity, that composes the Church.

Qinael: Oh, that’s what that signifies; I thought it was a picture of a tack and string hanging it from the church.

Crystle: So did I :)

Zahakiel: No, it’s a zoom view :)

Clair: Okay I get it; man and woman are the Church.

Zahakiel: Right, well, good thing that was cleared up, then. <smiles.>

Qinael: <nods.> That makes a bit more sense.

Zahakiel: Okay. And since it will be posted WITH this transcript, that misunderstanding won’t arise again :)

All right. Now, a key part of understanding these unions is the circle around each of those pairs of things which the Scriptures describe as “One.” Whenever two things, ideas or Persons become “one,” it is because of a shared Spirit. The Father and Son share a Spirit, therefore they are One. Christ and His people share a common Spirit, thus we are one with Him. And in a godly family, the father has a common spirit with the wife and children: so they become one in that way.

When John saw a vision of Heaven as recorded in the Revelation, he writes something that recently struck me as significant. He said, “And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a Throne was set in Heaven, and One sat on the Throne. And He that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the Throne, in sight like unto an emerald.” (Rev 4:2, 3)

Then he writes this in the next chapter, “And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the Throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him that sat upon the Throne.” (Rev 5:6, 7)

John, seeing the Majesty of Heaven, describes One sitting on the Throne, and then the Lamb, which represents the Son, coming and being in the “midst of the Throne,” and being worshipped in the following verses by the angels and representatives of humanity. Without getting too deep into this, I would ask then, “Where is the Holy Spirit?”

Dumah: The eyes.

Zahakiel: That is one representation... on the Lamb Itself; but there is something else as well :)

One would think that since the Mosaic Tabernacle was a pattern of that which is in Heaven, the Spirit might be in the Temple in Heaven, but here is what John sees when this structure is opened to his view: “And the Temple of Yahweh was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in His Temple the Ark of His Testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.” (Rev 11:19)

In the Mosaic temple, the Shekinah or the fiery presence of Yah, was in the Most Holy Place, hovering above the Ark of the Covenant, filling the entire Structure at times, as we read in places like 1 Kings 8. Yah was thus described as He “that dwellest between the Cherubim.” (Isa 38:16)

Brendan: The Ark was representative of the Throne... is that the representation of the Spirit?

Zahakiel: In some visions, yes... but here John does not describe the Temple in the same place as the Throne. Here, in the vision of Revelation 4, he is only looking at the Throne.

And I would submit to you that John did indeed see the Holy Spirit in his vision of Heaven... but he saw it, not as a glowing cloud of light in this instance – but as a shining green rainbow that surrounds the Father and Son, reinforcing their unity and showing them as the Elohim of the Covenant.

I’ll explain why I say that in a moment.

Zahakiel: The Ark was mentioned just now, and Brendan had the symbolism quite right :) There is a reason the Ark was called the Ark of the Covenant, because it was a visible sign of God’s promise with mankind. Similarly, the rainbow (which is what was seen in John’s vision here) has always been a token of Yah’s promise to us: “I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.” (Genesis 9:3)

In fact, Ezekiel sees this rainbow around the Throne in Heaven as well.

Dumah: Right.

Zahakiel: Here is what he says: “As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Yahweh. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of One that spake.” (Ezek 1:28)

Crystle: Did he see it because he was in it and it was all around him?

Zahakiel: He saw it in vision, he was not on the Throne...

The prophet here calls the rainbow in Heaven “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Yahweh.” This “glory of Yahweh” is simply another term for the Spirit. “And it came to pass, as Aaron spake unto the whole congregation of the children of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and, behold, the glory of Yahweh appeared in the cloud.” (Exodus 16:10)

Many Scriptures in Exodus equate these terms; the Spirit, the cloud of Glory, and the presence of Yah Himself.

Brendan: “The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son, and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father’s throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both.” [Patriarchs and Prophets, page 36]

Brendan: That was something I was sent recently. That explains it very well also.

Zahakiel: Right. That is a relevant quote :)

Zahakiel: And there’s also this... we see that indeed the Spirit is spoken of as a Promise: “Now He which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is Yahweh; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest [down-payment, promise] of the Spirit in our hearts.” (2 Cor 1:21, 22) Again, “ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of [Christ’s] glory.” (Eph 1:13, 14)

Now, I went through this Scripture in Revelation to establish firmly that by the Spirit, by that divine Presence, the Father and Son are One – One God, One Union, One Voice, One Mind. Is everyone clear on all this?

Dumah: Yes.
Brendan: Aye.
Barb: Ok.
Crystle: Yes.
Qinael: <nods.>
Ron Odem: Clear.

Zahakiel: Good, now that we have established that clearly, we can talk about “roles” with freedom.

Here is the importance of that. Christ would say things like, “my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28b) And it would be said of Him that He “made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” (Phl 2:7) It is further said that “being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (verse 8)

But perhaps the verse that gives people more trouble is where this occurred: “Then saith Yahshua unto him, ‘Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahweh thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.’” (Mat 4:10)

Yet the Father commanded the angels to worship Christ in Hebrews, and the faithful of mankind has always worshipped the Father through the Son both when He appeared as a divine Being in the Old Testament days (Joshua 5:14) and as a divine Being incarnate in the New Testament record. (Mark 5:6)

I say “through the Son” because the Son in turn gives all worship to the Father who sent Him, and here is where the matter of roles becomes most clear.

Brendan: When it says, “let all the angels worship Him” it is referring to the evil angels...? ‘cause it is from a quote in the OT where it talks about ‘gods’.

Zahakiel: No... the “angels of God” is how it reads. [Hebrews 1:6]

Brendan: Ok...

Zahakiel: And we see them doing this in the early chapters of Revelation. So here is the matter: The Son and the Father are One in every spiritual aspect, yet the Son made Himself subject to the Father.

This is never more dramatically displayed than in the Garden of Gethsemane: “Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” (Luke 22:42)

In the flesh of His humanity, by which Christ was like us, He suffered at the thought of so painful a death. In the unity of His Spirit with the Father, He overcame, and laid out a pattern for the redeemed of men to follow. But – and this is the key point – in taking on a lesser role, the Son did NOT make Himself a lesser being than the Father. That is an important distinction.

Dumah: Yeah.

Brendan: For if He wasn’t as divine as His Father, He could not be an “express Image.”

Zahakiel: Right, exactly.

That Rainbow of Spirit still surrounded them both, and there was never a separation between the Two – except when the Father withdrew His Presence in order to allow the Son to feel the weight of sin... and this dark force destroyed Him. And that was for our sakes.

Brendan: And so the Father suffered with the Son, also feeling the loss.

Zahakiel: Right.

Now, looking at that diagram you saw earlier, you see that the Church is subject to Christ, even though the Messiah gave authority TO the Church, in a sense making the judgment of the Church a reflection of His own judgment. He said this to Peter first, “And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)

Now, some groups have taken this a bit too far, and seen a special investment in Peter – but two chapters later Yahshua said this to all His disciples, “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in Heaven.” (Mat 18:18, 19)

This is a powerful responsibility – and this is why we are so very careful with the way we vote on matters as a people, for example.

Brendan: And it was YAHshua’s human brother James who actually took the headship in at least the Jerusalem Council, not Peter.

Zahakiel: If two independent witnesses object, we will not move forward on a proposition, and if even one witness sees a real problem, we examine it carefully to see if we have missed something. Because of our common Spirit, we desire to be both in unity, and in faith. “In faith” is important...

There may be many kinds of unity in the world – at Babel the people were very united, but they were united under sin. We desire not only to be united with each other, but united with Christ, and by the bond of the Spirit we have it. Because we are all united with Christ, by natural consequence we are united one with another :)

Zahakiel: Now, husbands and wives have the same principles working for them. They must individually be united with Christ, they must each make their responsibility to the Father and Son the highest of their loyalties. And when this is done there can be true leadership on the part of the husband, and true submission on the part of the wife.

Paul makes a number of statements that at first may seem troubling to the modern mind. A few examples of these:

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve... And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” (1Tim 2:11-15)

“For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” (1Pet 3:5-6)

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” (1 Cor 14:34)

Zahakiel: Some have been tempted to deal with Paul rather harshly on the basis of these statements, but they do not realize the times in which Paul was living. It was a great and new thing for women to even be considered true parts of the Congregation of Yah, and his other statements were – to a great many minds – revolutionary.

Paul wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Yahshua.” (Gal 3:28) Women were (and are) completely equal with men when it comes to salvation; and of all people Adventists should be the least accused of not respecting women in light of the writer of much of our Spirit of Prophecy material.

Yet this does not take away from the aspect of submission which is also taught clearly in the Scriptures. Women can be both equal with and subject to their husbands, and this is not in the least a contradiction. We saw a careful study just now of Christ’s relationship to the Father, how He is both equal and subject to His Father. Early Adventists, before the Trinity issue clouded things, had a firm grasp of this.

James White wrote “The inexplicable Trinity that makes the Godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, ‘Let us make man in our image?’” [James White, Nov 29, 1877, Review and Herald]

The implied answer, of course, is “No.” The Father and Son are “One,” in all things including equality, and in just the same way the husband and wife are “one flesh,” in all things including equality.

Everyone following?

Qinael: <nods.>
Brendan: <nods.>
Barb: Yes.
Crystle: Yes.
Ron Odem: Yes.
Clair: Yes.
Zahakiel: Okay.

Now, to “fulfill righteousness” an order was instituted at Eden.

Pastor “Chick”: The “concept” of submission was introduced as a result of sin (as I see it)...

Zahakiel: Right, that’s just where I am going :)

Pastor “Chick”: :)

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

Again, it is important to remember that in Christ both parties are equal, yet Paul does not do away with this order in light of our renewed understanding of the role of the husband and wife.

Zahakiel: The last couple meetings in which we studied the ideas behind whole books (Romans and 1 John) were rather lengthy, but we need not take up that much time here.

What we can do to see the application of roles within equality is to merely list the Scriptures that talk about the role of women in the Church and in the family, and discuss them if anyone has any questions. I have already posted a few above; if these, or others, have raised questions in your minds... or if you know of others who have had questions about them, it might be a good idea to list those, so we can have the benefit of discussion.

So then, do any Scriptures of that nature come to mind?

Dumah: “Let the older women teach the younger women.” [Paraphrase of Titus 2:3, 4]

Zahakiel: Ah, well for that one we know that women and women are equal in both role and authority. That is the addition of another principle: That the elderly have lived longer than the young, and probably know some useful things :)

Clair: I have a question about the concept of submission being a result of sin.

Zahakiel: All right, what would the question be, Clair? (And does that deal well with that verse, Kim?)

Dumah: Yes... thank you, brother David.

Clair: Well, it seems like such a perfect structure, and the submission of the Son to the Father did not come as a result of sin, did it? I just don’t see how it fits.

Brendan: And won’t the Son still submit to the Father after the great controversy is ended?

Pastor “Chick”: That is why I say the “concept” :) (it was a “construct” which happened without any decision before sin).

Zahakiel: Right, and also this...

Zahakiel: the submission of the Son to the Father IS in a way the result of sin. The Son submitted to the Father for our sakes... we do not really read of “submission” as such before the fall.

Pastor “Chick”: That is because it just “was” :)

Zahakiel: Right.

The Son says He “proceeded forth” from the Father. [John 8:42]

Dumah: Right.

Zahakiel: So here you have a submission like child to parent, pretty much.

Pastor “Chick”: There was no necessity of BEING in submission, it just was a part of the “state of being”...

Zahakiel: And there is no “sin” in that relationship. Does what we’ve said help with the parallel between Father/Son to Husband/Wife?

Clair: So the order was there before sin?

Zahakiel: The fact that the Son is the “Son” means there was a measure of submission even before sin, yes. But when the Son took “the likeness of sinful flesh” and the submission became of a slightly different order that WAS because of sin... but our sin, and not theirs :)

Clair: Okay. So with man and woman the order was there before sin?

Zahakiel: The roles of wife in submission was instituted at the fall. There may have been a manner of submission before, since the woman came forth from the man as the Son came forth from the Father... but it did not need to be pointed out, or spoken.

Pastor “Chick”: Gen 3:16 “...he shall rule over thee...”

Zahakiel: It was, as pastor said, just the natural state of being.

Qinael: <thinks.> Didn’t Ellen White say that Eve’s first error was leaving Adam’s side, and Adam’s error was allowing her to?

Zahakiel: The idea of “rulership” came in with Gen 3:16.

Zahakiel: Right, but that is not the “rulership” kind of authority. Adam had heard the command about the Tree of Life, and Eve was instructed by Adam.

Brendan: Could it be said that submission and the like was in place but never needed to be clarified until after sin? Cause that’s what it seems; cause the harmony wasn’t questioned.

Zahakiel: That’s a good way of looking at it. But I would also say the nature of the submission was altered a little. [i.e., What was “instructive” before the fall became “rulership” after.]

Zahakiel: There would be no need for it, really, if both were in perfect harmony with Yah and each other. So like the commandments, the record was “added because of transgressions.” [Galatians 3:19]

Brendan: Ok, I’m happy with that.

Zahakiel: All right.

Clair: Okay.

Pastor “Chick”: Let me add something...

Zahakiel: Go ahead.

Pastor “Chick”: In the New Earth, the day of New Moon will be an eternal reminder of submission. It will continue our ordinance of humility, as every New Moon we cast our crowns before the feet of our Master who is our elder Brother...

End of thought :)

Zahakiel: Okay. Thank you for that :)

Dumah: Some people make a dogma out of women only teaching women...while this is the principle, I have noticed times for exception.

Qinael: Are you speaking of women only being the teachers of women, or women only being taught by women?

Dumah: Generally that is the idea.

Qinael: No, I mean... which of the two? “It is not always the case that a woman must be taught by a woman,” or “it is not always the case that a woman only be a teacher of women?”

Or both? I’m not clear which your saying. :)

Dumah: Men can teach women, but it is best for women not to teach men...and also in some areas better for women to be taught by women.

Pastor “Chick”: Let us review the “causes for exception” then :)

Zahakiel: We have certainly held that if there are NO qualified men, whoever has a message would share it.

Pastor “Chick”: Let me preface any statements I make with my observations...

The SDA Church in America experienced their great fall because of not accepting proper “roles” as men and women... The women began to “take over” the church, and this led to sympathy with homosexuals, which brought practicing homosexuals into the church, which finally resulted in the SDA name being trademarked in an attempt to stop them from raising up “SDA Churches.”

Now, the exceptions to men being the teachers of the church. Any input from you?

Dumah: Sounds like a perfect illustration of what ignoring Biblical principle causes.

Qinael: I would agree with what David said, that if there are absolutely NO qualified men.

Clair: If a woman is invited to speak she is not then taking the authority.

Pastor “Chick”: OK, but still IF a woman takes the position, she still must be “qualified” :)

Zahakiel: Right.

Qinael: <nods.>

Dumah: In group meetings... open forums then it seems this may be a time when woman may speak... and share.

Clair: However even with these exceptions it still isn’t ideal, because it takes the woman away from her own important responsibilities.

Pastor “Chick”: Any other exceptions? (And, for Brendan’s sake, I will not invite a woman to speak unless she is the only one that knows what to speak on) :)

Zahakiel: I’m not thinking of other exceptions...

Pastor “Chick”: I can think of one...

and that is when a woman is inspired by the Spirit to give the church a message (she is on fire to do so).

Zahakiel: Oh, I see :)

Dumah: Clair, you made a good point about the need for us to do our responsibilities first.

Ron Odem: Question, how about a house without a man?

Qinael: I think we are talking about the church as a whole, not families...

Zahakiel: That’s a household responsibility, and so the woman would be the head of that...

Ron Odem: Ok.

Zahakiel: :)

Pastor “Chick”: I see a parallel :)

For the home...

Father in Heaven parallels with “father on earth” (law-giver). Son in Heaven parallels with “mother/wife on earth” (executor of the law).

In single parent families, the mother takes the dual role (unfortunately, this has to be)...

Zahakiel: Right.

Ron Odem: Agreed.

Brendan: Though, the Heavenly Father has already made provision for that by handing down the Lawbook.

Pastor “Chick”: Give us a little more of that :)

Brendan: Well, if the father is not present in the home circle, the mother can refer to the Lawbook anyway to give the Law, because that is where the father is supposed to get the law anyway.

Pastor “Chick”: Agreed.

Brendan: And the missing link is filled by Heaven.

Dumah: :) My mom was both.

Zahakiel: Certainly, when we are talking about moral responsibilities and so on. I think we are considering the day-to-day decisions when we describe the husband as the “lawgiver.”

Qinael: <nods.> Like “take out the trash” :)

Zahakiel: Right.

Pastor “Chick”: Right :)

Brendan: Ok :)

Zahakiel: Okay, so if we are all settled on these things, we may take a brief look at some of the Scriptures I posted before, so we can have an “official” understanding of them, and then we will close.

Here is the first, and this covers a lot of the principle: “Let your women keep silence in the Churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” (1 Cor 14:34) We’ve actually already talked about this one somewhat, when discussing the idea of women as teachers.

Pastor “Chick”: Question: “as also saith the law”... which is that one?

Dumah: Good question.

Qinael: I wondered and studied that once... The only thing I could find was the Genesis curse.

Zahakiel: Actually, I looked in a commentary on that a while ago. Other than Genesis, no specific law is named.

Qinael: It says under obedience, not silence, so that is what I came to conclude.

Pastor “Chick”: Gen 3:16?

Zahakiel: Right.

Qinael: <nods.>

Zahakiel: Does anyone else have ideas on that?

Dumah: Maybe it was in the lost book of Jehu?

Zahakiel: You mean Jasher? I don’t recall seeing it in there...

Qinael: I’ve generally seen no problem with it meaning Gen 3:16...

Clair: I agree.

Dumah: I can’t spell it...but there is a book written that has never been found.

Zahakiel: Jasher :) And it’s been found... sort of; at least a book that claims to be it. But as far as we know, it was never considered to be “law” so we still have to look in the OT for what Paul meant.

Dumah: Yeah.

Barb: So, in this verse, you understand ‘speaking’ to mean ‘teaching’ only?

Zahakiel: Well, actually I wanted to look at that here.

Barb: Ok.

Pastor “Chick”: Key phrase: “...thy desire shall be to thy husband...”

Zahakiel: There’s also the matter of intercession, which we will look at briefly.

Crystle: I thought that the “saith the law” is referring to being commanded to be under obedience. . . subjection to their husbands...

Zahakiel: Right, but we were talking about which “law” “saith” it :)

Zahakiel: Now then... The verse talks about women not teaching in Churches... and we see that there are reasons for this.

Yah has chosen to represent Himself as a Father; and His Firstborn is His Son. He made Mankind in His image, and provided “woman” as a suitable and equal companion for him.

In matters of intercession, in matters of Church office and priesthood, the participant represents the Son, as an intercessor, and thus Yah has chosen from the beginning of His System to have faithful men stand before Him in these roles.

Pastor “Chick”: Amen.

Zahakiel: Women intercede on behalf of themselves and their children, but the picture presented by the Scriptures seems to be that the intercessors for the people of Yah in general, these should represent Christ as He appeared on earth, a “Son” of Yah.

Everyone seeing how that works?

Brendan: Aye.
Qinael: <nods.>
Pastor “Chick”: Amen.

Zahakiel: In prayer on behalf of “all the people,” men are representing Christ in His role of Sonship.

Clair: Yet a woman’s job is very important.

Zahakiel: Certainly :)

All right, the next Scripture, if there are no pressing objections... “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” (Eph 5:24) This one is important for a number of reasons. It lets us know that there is not an indiscriminate submission of women to men. Wives are to be subject to their “own husbands,” and a man with no other Church authority has nothing over a woman, but both are subject to the Church authority as individuals.

This gets into what Kim was saying... if a woman is single and joins the Church alone, or something along those lines, she is not necessarily to submit to all the men as she would to a husband.

Crystle: But to the church as a whole since she has not a husband?

Zahakiel: Right.

This is the qualifier, to a man “with no other Church authority.” We are all, men and women, to submit to the elders, and teachers, etc.

Dumah: Ok.

Zahakiel: And another thing this leads to is the issue of Church authority in general. Protestant ethic tells us most clearly that the conscience of an individual is to be considered above even the arbitrary (not God-lead) rulings of a Church. Now, this actually helps people who are in a wrong Church to realize they are in a wrong church.

If a Church doctrine teaches, “God changed the Sabbath to Sunday,” or “The Godhead is a Trinity,” or “It’s okay to unite with the government to crush our enemies and make them do what we say,” conscience, common sense, the testimony of Scripture – and hopefully all three, should raise a flag.

As protestants, our duty is to raise an objection, and if we cannot submit to their authority (if they will not change), we must follow God rather than men. We must seek the true Church. We know Christ is leading a people, and not just individuals. We know independent ministries, separate from the Church Structure, are nowhere sanctioned in the Bible.

Pastor “Chick”: Amen.

Zahakiel: This is not the same thing as splitting off on one’s own – no, rather it is following the voice of Christ to the Fold, where the people ARE in unity with Christ and each other, independent of tradition, or the doctrines of demons and men.

Brendan: Don’t they get that [idea of independent ministries] from EGW where she says she saw little bands of people?

Zahakiel: They do, but they misapply her words badly.

She does not in one place speak of the unity of the brethren and then make it void with her teaching on “little bands.” The little bands are all one Church :)

Brendan: Amen.

Qinael: <nods.> Like David, for example. He is a couple of states (well, a couple of countries right now) away from the congregation here.

Zahakiel: Yeah, I’m one of the littlest bands.

But now when this place is found, this one Church, we can say with Paul, “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.” (Romans 9:1)

Now, the only caution that can be had here is this one – is my conscience being led by the Holy Spirit? And of course this is a question that may be asked by both men and women.

Many may feel their consciences troubling them over something perfectly godly – but this is because either they have not received the witness of the Scriptures that testifies to God’s character, OR they are being motivated by something other than love.

And a lot of people have split off from the SDA Church (for example) because of personal grievances, or some other nonBiblical reason. This may be fear, bitterness, love of some transgression, mistrust of the brethren, whatever it is. But perfect love casts out all fear, and all these other things as well, and this is why true unity is indeed possible.

On a marriage level, as we have already noted, a wife’s first responsibility is to the Almighty, thus her conscience is honored above the principle of submission to the husband – if needs be. And this, of course, is what led to our provision in the voting changes, that disagreeing votes must be counted separately :) We do not expect this to happen often – but we have to give provision for the eventuality of misunderstandings, of course.

Zahakiel: Those are the Scriptures that I had in mind on this matter, and we have dealt with some others that you have listed. Are there any further questions on any of these matters before we close?

Brendan: No, I’m good.

Clair: Me too.

Pastor “Chick”: I was thinking about what Luke said... about the mistakes that Adam and Eve made :)

Dumah: Did we come to a conclusion on women speaking in the church? That was mostly local to that time and culture?

Crystle: I do not have any questions, but I do have the answer to my question that I asked at the beginning :)

Zahakiel: Okay, good (to Crystle).

Zahakiel: It was partly time and culture, but we see that there are some eternal principles involved that continue to this day. Actually, the time and culture were what made Paul’s statements “new” but they were and are accurate in application.

Zahakiel: What were you thinking there, pastor?

Pastor “Chick”: I was looking at “the law” which is what we agreed upon as the “authority” for Paul’s statement of obedience to the women... but, I see Crystle typing...

Crystle: About the disagreeing votes of the woman. She need not go to her husband, but because her first responsibility is to the Almighty, she can voice her objection with a clear conscience.

Brendan: The truth is that we can all bypass the links to go with confidence to the Throne of YAH... and that is the essential of freedom of conscience?

Zahakiel: Right.

Can you continue with your thought there, pastor?

Pastor “Chick”: Yes... SOP says that Eve’s first error was to leave the side of her husband, and Adam was not without fault to see that she was by his side. That bond of the Spirit was broken (in a sense).

Zahakiel: Right.

Pastor “Chick”: When I looked at the “law” referred to by Paul (Gen. 3:16), I see the instruction(s) dealing with that very initial error of the couple.

1) to the woman: “thy desire shall be to thy husband”, and
2) to the man: “he shall rule over thee.”

In the first instruction, the woman is to stay close to her husband, and in the second, the husband is to keep the protective bounds and bonds on his wife :)

Zahakiel: Right :)

Pastor “Chick”: Thus the “bond of Spirit” is kept intact :)

Ron Odem: Amen.

Zahakiel: I think that idea has more applications than I’ve seen. I may study that a bit... In the meantime, perhaps we should close this transcript with a prayer... and remember to let me know if anyone has ideas for next month’s topic.

All in agreement?

Qinael: <nods.>
Pastor “Chick”: Ok.
Barb: Yes.
Brendan: Aye.
Ron Odem: Yes.

Zahakiel: Pastor, will you please pray for us?

Pastor “Chick”: Father in Heaven...

We thank you for your Spirit. We thank you for that “bond” which cements our hearts as one...

We thank you that we have the “unity of the faith” in the relationship of the Father and the Son. We further thank you for inspiring our Brother to break forth the “bread of life” to us today.

Thank you for your presence and teaching, and may we all commit our heart perfectly to your Word and bring forth the fruit of righteousness in the earth. Dismiss us from this meeting with your continued providential guidance, and until we meet again, we say, “Hallelu-YAH”...
Amen.

Brendan: Amen.
Zahakiel: Amen :)
Qinael: Amen.
Ron Odem: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.
Dumah: Amen.
Barb: Amen :)