1 Timothy 2:12

[_Steve]

I don't know if Paul had anything like this in mind. He did not say so clearly enough for me to catch it in reading his comments.

I do think that a woman married to an unbeliever is still under her husband's headship (as 1 Peter 3:1-6 would seem to indicate), but Christ is that husband's head as well, even though he does not acknowledge this to be so. He will have to answer to Christ ultimately, and Christ can sovereignly control much of his behavior in response to the wife's prayers.

The woman, of course, can also claim Christ as her head, in a different sense, since He is the Head of the Church, of which she is a member (the same can be said of the unmarried woman). When the demands of the husband-head are in conflict with those of the Christ-Head, I believe the woman must give priority to Christ.

The wife should be careful, however, not to interpret her preferences as the demands of Christ, in order to defy her husband when his leadership is displeasing to her.

[Guest]

Just curious about the resurrected Christ appointing in essence Mary to be the first to see him and telling her to go tell the disciples about what she saw. Was'nt she appointed directly by Christ to proclaim the single most important event in history to the male disciples and in doing so was'nt she preaching the gospel to men. Or am i reading to much into this?

[_Steve]

Yes, women were the first evangelists appointed by God after the resurrection—a very important ministry. That certainly proves that, even though they are not placed in the eldership positions of the church, God does not think poorly of women. Women have great things to do in the Kingdom!

[Guest]

Steve, I like to watch Joyce Meyer on TV even though i know she's not the most theologically sound preacher. I guess she would be called a Tele vangelist. Is this TV ministry biblically acceptable since she's a women and obviously some men will watch her on TV?

[_Steve]

I am not comfortable with the ministry of Joyce Meyer, but not because of her gender. Mrs. Meyer's theology is pretty flakey and superstitious, in my judgment. She is Word of Faith oriented and has rather superstitious notions of "the name" and "the blood" of Jesus—fairly typical of many Pentecostals. If I enjoyed her teaching more than I do, I would not find anything objectionable to her, as a woman, being on television.

Preaching on television is not off-bounds to a woman who otherwise has legitimacy as a preacher. Joyce Meyer is not in a position of spiritual or ecclesiastical authority over those in her television audience (and I don't believe she pastors a church), so I don't think she is in violation of 1 Timothy 2:12 on those grounds. Television is such a venue that she cannot control who may tune in or not. I don't fault her for using TV as a medium. However, her influence concerns me.

[Guest]

superstitious notions of "the name" and "the blood" of Jesus—fairly typical of many Pentecostals.

I know this is out of context. I'm not trying to make it seem you have said something that you have not said.

Anyway Hi Steve. Hope all is well with you and your family.

By question is, What does, "superstitious notions of "the name" and "the blood" of Jesus mean?

[_Steve]

My definition of a religious "superstition" would be an idea or ritual based upon folklore or ignorance, having no basis in scripture, which invokes some mystical power for spiritual benefit. Protestants can easily identify this element in such Roman Catholic practices as sprinkling "holy water," lighting candles, crossing oneself across the chest, or praying the Rosary.

However, Protestants may have their own religious superstitions, as well. The greatest abundance of superstitions per capita, outside the Catholic Church, can be found among the charismatics (in whose number I must include myself).

Charismatics have more superstitions than you can shake a stick at, and seem to continually add more as time goes by. An example would be the idea of the transference of spirits, whereby a Christian fears that he/she may come under the power of a demon by physical contact with a demon-possessed person (this is akin to the fear the Pharisees had of accidental defilement through inadvertent contact with a Gentile in the marketplace).

Mankind is, by nature, subject to fear of the unknown, and hence to superstitious notions that arise out of that fear. Christians who do not rigorously check and recheck their ideas against scripture are very prone to adopt religious superstitions as much as the heathen do.

A great number of superstitions have to do with the imagined powers or dangers associated with saying certain words. One example of this could be the idea that, if you can simply persuade an unbeliever to repeat "the sinner's prayer" that this will automatically produce in him the miracle of regeneration. Witness Lee (founder of the "Local Church" or "The Lord's Recovery" movement)actually taught that you can get anyone saved if only you can get him to say out loud (however reluctantly) the words, "Oh, Lord Jesus!" three times!

Real Christianity recognizes the power of faith in certain realities; superstition attributes power to mere words about realities.

I have met Christians who are afraid that if they say something negative about another, or if something negative is said about them, that this amounts to invoking a "curse" that must be "broken" before spiritual progress can be made. One mother I knew, when someone innocuously remarked that her child had an "imp-ish" expression (meaning, "cute"), responded in alarm, "Don't curse him! An imp is a demon!"

The Word of Faith movement, with its "positive confession" obsession (and the fear of admitting, for instance, that one is sick or poor, for fear that they will perpetuate the condition by their "negative confession") is as notoriously superstitious as is any sector of the Christian world.

Purveyors of such superstitions are not without their biblical texts, which they use to convince themselves and others that their notions are scriptural, but such people show themselves incapable of handling the scriptures responsibly or exegetically.

Such is the common use, by many, of "the Name of Jesus," or "the blood of Jesus." Doubtless, the scriptures tell us that there is tremendous power in both the Name and the blood of Christ, but this can be quite misunderstood. It is superstitious to mistake the words for the realities, and to invoke the words themselves (as if possessing mystic powers) to the neglect of the realities. The most striking scriptural example of such a superstitious invocation of the name of Jesus is seen in the actions of the seven sons of Sceva, who invoked the name of Jesus to exorcize a demon, as if the name by itself had magical qualities (Acts 19:13-16).

In the same way, many Christians today speak of "pleading the blood" for protection against disaster. Some "plead the blood" over their houses, cars, bank accounts, etc., as if doing so causes an invisible force field to descend over these realms, keeping the devil from being able to perform any of his mischief.

Neither "the name" nor "the blood" of Jesus are mere words to be wielded as if they worked like garlic against vampires.

In scripture, the name of God or of Christ speaks of the whole identity and character of the Person named. That Christ's name has been entrusted to us as members of His body means that we can act on His behalf, having something like "power of attorney."

This authority is not based upon our ability to pronounce a name of two syllables, but upon our genuinely living in Christ and acting as His agents under His authorization. This is what it always means to act in the name of another person. The sons of Sceva knew how to pronounce the word "Jesus," but they carried no authority to use that name—so the demons had them for lunch.

Though much Christian hymnody and traditional phraseology has alluded to the "power in the blood," this is not exactly a biblical expression, and may miss the point altogether of the biblical teaching concerning the blood of Christ. The only "power" attributed to the blood of Christ in scripture (though the word "power" is never used of this concept in scripture) is the power to justify (Rom.5:9), to redeem (Eph.1:7/Col.1:14/Rev.5:9), and to cleanse the conscience (Heb.9:14/1 John 1:7) from sin.

In other words, the blood of Jesus speaks of a legal remedy for guilt, not a powerful weapon for fighting aggressive spiritual battles. I realize that some may get the latter impression from a misunderstanding of Revelation 12:11—

"They overcame him [the accuser of the brethren] by the blood of the Lamb..."

While overcoming Satan may bring to the mind images of aggressive spiritual warfare, the context (v.10) makes it fairly clear that what is being "overcome" by the blood is the accusations that the accuser is bringing against the saints. That is, Satan accuses us of sin (correctly or not), and our defense against such accusations is our appeal to the justifying efficacy of Christ's sacrifice on the cross—the shedding of His blood. Before the accusations of the enemy, how shall I plead—guilty or not guilty? Neither, because both have an element of truth in them. Before God, I stand "without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me." It is my only defense.

Thus, it is superstitious to think that the mere vocalization of a phrase like "the name of Jesus" or "the blood" must always wield such mystical powers as to frighten-off the devil. He can spot a poser a mile away. It is not the words, but the realities to which they refer, that cause the demons to "tremble" (James 2:19).

This is not to suggest that there is no efficacy in sincerely "calling on the name of the Lord," when in distress. There is a real Person behind that name, who responds to the cries of His people. There is a real freedom from guilt and condemnation that is ours by appealing to and believing in the redeeming blood of Christ. It is the realities, not the phraseology, that we must master, if we hope to live in victory.

[Guest]

I totally agree with you. Thank you for clearing up what you meant. I thought as much that that is what you were referring to but wanted to hear it from the horse mouth so to speak.

One of the problems people have is using, "In the name of Jesus," as some formula.

All I gotta say is In the Name of Jesus and ____________ will happen.

What does everyone think of "Asking in Faith?"

Has that become another superstitious thing?

As far as asking in Faith I think HH (Bible Answer Man) says it well, "Faith is only as good as the object it is placed in."

So we place faith in Yahweh to do something, if it is His will, it will happen.

[_Steve]

Asking in faith is not a superstition, since it is advocated in scripture. But Hank is correct in pointing out that the object of our faith is where our trust must rest—not in our faith itself.

[Guest]

Asking in faith is not a superstition, since it is advocated in scripture. But Hank is correct in pointing out that the object of our faith is where our trust must rest—not in our faith itself.

Oh yeah. I agree it's Biblical.

I should have been more clear.

I'm talking more about the "enought faith" stuff Or faith as if it's magic.