Perhaps one could say that Debra influenced authority because of her proximity to it rather than say she exerted authority in place of the king. ...
Jesus did not make Mary, His mother, to be head of the disciples but gave her into the care of one whom He trusted.
Roger, you're totally overlooking context. Deborah led Israel during the time of the judges. There was no king at the time.
Jesus was not addressing leadership at all; nothing from the context suggests that. The most sensible way to read the passage is that Jesus was ensuring that His mother was taken care of after He died.
I am definitely not prejudiced against women at all, maybe with that way of thinking God is prejudice in your mind because he says through the inspired writers: ... [SUP]16 [/SUP]To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to[SUP][a][/SUP] your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
Why would God in His wisdom assign now-sinful men to rule over women? This is a statement of certain consequence, not of judgement, punishment, intention, or curse. If God had said, "It is best that women have men to rule over them" it would be completely different. He didn't say that. God was telling Eve what would happen, not what He wanted to happen.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil ...
The blood ordinances, however, were nailed to the cross.
You're inserting words into the Scripture (eisegesis) and overlooking the meaning of the most important word in the passage: "fulfil"... to make complete. If you pay off a mortgage, you have fulfilled its terms... do you keep paying? Of course not. Scripture does not say that the blood ordinances were nailed to the cross; it says the written code was nailed to the cross. Please read Galatians!
To all of you: If you haven't read Angela53510's exegesis on pages 5 and 7, please do so.