It’s now been a day ago since I finished reading Udo Middleman’s book, “The Innocence of God.” His book discusses why God is innocent with regard to moral choices made on the part of moral agents (humankind). Middleman seeks to uproot the Calvinist fallacy that God predetermines EVERYTHING that happens in one’s life—including whether or not you park in the space closest to the Walmart or one further away (just an example, ‘tis all).
One of Middleman’s emphases in the book with regards to Calvinism is history. Middleman writes,
"There are always several players on the stage of history, and there is no common script between them, though they intersect at all times. Any understanding of history as a seamless cloth, a narrow road, or a printout of one author’s text denies real significance, real battles, and real time. History can be sped up and down, turned left and right, EXPRESS MORE GOOD OR MORE EVIL BEING DONE ON THE WHOLE. For history, like “mankind” in Marxist thought, IS NOT A PERSON AND HAS NO LIFE OF ITS OWN…IT HAS NO MIND OF ITS OWN, NO PURPOSE, AND EVEN NO DIRECTION. Thought, purposeful action, and direction are initiated and undertaken only by persons” (Udo Middleman, “The Innocence of God,” pages 176-177).
Middleman’s quote emphasizes something: that history is flexible, no matter what. History is not some concrete wall that can’t be broken. What really hit me was when Middleman writes that history can “express more good or more evil being done on the whole.” I think the reason this phrase gripped me is because it reminds us that the events of history did not have to unfold as they did. There was no inherent amount of good and evil that came with history itself when time began. History, then, has not only been affected by God, but also humanity: “the direction [of history] is…INITIATED and UNDERTAKEN ONLY BY PERSONS.”
But if history is flexible, and can only be affected by humans on earth (and God), then why is it that God gets credit for everything that happens in history (including the horrible events such as the Holocaust)?
Calvinists use history to say that “God did it,” God willed things to happen and they just did. But God not only possesses sovereignty; He also GAVE man a form of derived sovereignty whereby man and woman would have dominion over the earth. Because man, then, has a share of sovereignty within himself (as an ordained possession by God), then why is it that we can take our power from God, MISUSE IT, and STILL blame God for it all?
In the debate on women in ministry, S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. portrays his “Calvinist” leanings (predeterminist) when he uses the “Historical Orthodox Argument” to show that the traditional interpretation of Galatians 3:28 is correct. In his chapter called “Role Distinctions in the Church (from Grudem and Piper’s “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”), Johnson writes:
"There is little need to multiply footnotes to document that this has been the view of historic orthodoxy to the present and, in fact, is still the majority view, although presently under vigorous attack. The very fact that its opponents call the view of historic orthodoxy “the traditional view” acknowledges its historical primacy.There arises at this point, however, a matter worthy of serious consideration: If the Christian church has held this view for centuries with Bible in hand, then we may presume that there exists some good reason for that fact. The Lord Jesus Christ promised the church the gift of the permanently indwelling Spirit to provide understanding of the Scriptures (cf. John 16:12-15; Psalm 36:9). We have reason to believe that His promise has been kept, and that the church has received that light in understanding the Word of God. Widespread agreement in such understanding by orthodox believers should not be abandoned without the most careful consideration of objections, both exegetical and theological.
To treat the church’s historical understanding of Scripture lightly is to forget that it is the believing body that, through the centuries, carries on the theological enterprise with the Word in hand and accompanied by the enlightening Spirit. Thus, the largest part of any theologian’s work comes from reverent consideration and response to the Christian theological tradition. The creeds of the church, the results of serious spiritual and theological strife, are more important than the views of individuals. We should begin our discussions with the assumption that the church is probably right, unless exegetical and theological study compel us otherwise. 'The proclamation of new discoveries,' Abraham Kuyper, the famed founder of the Free University of Amsterdam, wrote, “is not always a proof of devotion to the truth, it is sometimes a tribute to self-esteem.”
Did you notice the first statement in bold print above (in the excerpt)? The statement says that, since the church has had this view for centuries, and interpreted Scripture the way they did, “then we may presume that there exists some good reason for that fact.”
There very well may be reasons for the church’s interpretation; but that begs the question, “What?” What are the reasons for the church’s interpretation down through the centuries? You, as am I, are curious to find out what the church fathers must have thought about women and their place in the church. This statement is vague—it basically tells us to agree with the church BECAUSE OF ITS HISTORY! Remember what I said above? History can be molded and shaped according to those who have a chance to impact it. Therefore, if history has shown that women are to be sidelined in the church, then does this AUTOMATICALLY demonstrate the INHERENT correctness of the complementarian position? Of course not! But complementarians will appeal to Calvinist methods in order to support their position.
Last but not least, the second bold quote tells us the technique of the complementarian camp: “ASSUME[assumption] THAT THE CHURCH IS PROBABLY RIGHT…” Now, I want to be fair. The end of this quote states that exegetical study and theological study are the two boulders of evidence that would change the church’s stance on the view of women. Nevertheless, why is there a need to ASSUME that the church is right? There are views the church has held for years that are wrong. For instance, in slavery times, the church actually “held the Bible in hand” and argued that blacks were supposed to be slaves…BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAID SO!
I think I’ve become so annoyed with the use of history to prove a point in an argument that I long for some other reasoning. History is full of good and bad. As Middleman tells us, history is subject to those in charge of changing its face. If this is true, then I think history—even that of the church—is less of a solid rock and more of sinking sand.
Showing posts with label Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Responses). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Responses). Show all posts
Friday, March 20, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Presupposition Complicates Everything
In my last post, I wrote about Douglas Moo and how he fails to notice the impact of the false teaching on the church at Ephesus—although he spends quite a lot of time referencing it.
Here in this post I will show how Moo’s presupposition—as that of the complementarian mind—will not release them to see clearly how they skew the last few verses of 1 Timothy 2 to fit their personal beliefs.
Let’s look again at Douglas Moo’s article, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?”:
“In order to understand 1 Timothy 2:11-15, we need to back up and begin with verse 8, where Paul requests that ‘men everywhere…lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing’…THIS CAUTION ABOUT ANGER AND QUARRELING DURING PRAYER IS ALMOST SURELY OCCASIONED BY THE IMPACT OF THE FALSE TEACHING ON THE CHURCH, for one of the most obvious results of that false teaching was divisiveness and discord (see 1 Timothy 6:4-5)” (178).
Notice that regarding verse 8, Moo says that false teaching was responsible for this disturbance. But notice that verse 8 mentions NOTHING about the false teachers:
“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;”
What about verses 9 and 10? Do they relate to false teaching?
“The exhortation of verses 9-10…might also be directed AGAINST THE IMPACT OF THE FALSE TEACHING IN EPHESUS. For ostentatious dress, in the ancient world, sometimes could signal a woman’s loose morals and independence from her husband” (178, 179).
Verses 9 and 10 don’t mention false teaching at all; yet and still, Moo believes that these verses, too, involve the false teachers.
What about verse 11?
“In verse 11, he commands them to ‘learn in quietness and full submission’…THESE WOMEN HAD PROBABLY PICKED UP THE DISPUTATIOUS HABITS OF THE FALSE TEACHERS, and Paul must therefore warn them to accept without criticism the teaching of the properly appointed church leaders” (179).
So in verse 11, the false teachers are to blame for women rising up against their instructors.
But look at what Moo writes starting at verse 12:
“Verse 12 is the focus of discussion in this passage, for it is here that Paul prohibits the women at Ephesus FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN MINISTRIES WITH REFERENCE TO MEN” (180).
Here, Moo doesn’t seem to even CONSIDER the possibility that verse 12, regarding teaching and authority have ANYTHING to do with the false teachers! However, he doesn’t seem hesitant to acknowledge verses 8-11 concern false teachers (although there is no direct evidence from the text). The only two things Moo addresses with regard to verse 12 are whether or not Paul is appealing to all women or wives only, and whether or not “epitrepo” (the Greek infinitive) is translated “permit” or “forbid.” After discussing these two things, Moo goes into what constitutes the nature of teaching that Paul is prohibiting. However, Moo just said earlier in his article that no one knew the nature of the false teaching! Next, he asks a question:
“At this point the QUESTION OF APPLICATION cannot be evaded. WHAT FUNCTIONS IN THE MODERN CHURCH WOULD BE CONSIDERED TEACHING IN THIS SENSE?” (181).
Instead of explaining what this verse means, Moo simply jumps to what “teaching” would have been discussed here. And the answer he gives is totally based on presupposition:
“In light of these considerations, we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching…and the teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries. Other activities—leading Bible studies, for instance- may be included, depending on how they are done” (181).
Once again, what “authority” over men is not given in the text—but somehow, complementarians ASSUME it refers to ecclesiastical authority. Adam however, didn’t have ECCLESIASTICAL authority over his wife, but HOME authority—being the head of his household (Genesis 3). The church hadn’t been created yet, so how could Adam receive “headship over the church” from God? Secondly, notice that Ephesians 5 refers to Christ as “head of the church.” Christ, then, NEVER relinquished His title as “Head of the church” to anybody—not even husbands.
What other authority did Adam have PRIOR to Genesis 3—authority given to him as THE FIRST HUMAN! This is why he was allowed to name his wife—because he was created first! There is authority that came with being the first human; but we can’t take that and read a much-later created church authority back into a text that is much older. While Paul later wrote in Ephesians 5 that Adam and Eve were concerning Christ and the Church, he doesn’t say that Adam and Eve were a symbol of LEADERSHIP IN THE CHURCH!
Moo simply fails to address his biggest issue—his presupposition. We’ve seen it through his exposition of verses 8-15. When someone can address every other verse as referring to false teachers EXCEPT verse 12, there seems to be something suspicious happening. Presupposition complicates EVERYTHING…
To click on Moo's article, go to http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw.pdf.
Here in this post I will show how Moo’s presupposition—as that of the complementarian mind—will not release them to see clearly how they skew the last few verses of 1 Timothy 2 to fit their personal beliefs.
Let’s look again at Douglas Moo’s article, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?”:
“In order to understand 1 Timothy 2:11-15, we need to back up and begin with verse 8, where Paul requests that ‘men everywhere…lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing’…THIS CAUTION ABOUT ANGER AND QUARRELING DURING PRAYER IS ALMOST SURELY OCCASIONED BY THE IMPACT OF THE FALSE TEACHING ON THE CHURCH, for one of the most obvious results of that false teaching was divisiveness and discord (see 1 Timothy 6:4-5)” (178).
Notice that regarding verse 8, Moo says that false teaching was responsible for this disturbance. But notice that verse 8 mentions NOTHING about the false teachers:
“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;”
What about verses 9 and 10? Do they relate to false teaching?
“The exhortation of verses 9-10…might also be directed AGAINST THE IMPACT OF THE FALSE TEACHING IN EPHESUS. For ostentatious dress, in the ancient world, sometimes could signal a woman’s loose morals and independence from her husband” (178, 179).
Verses 9 and 10 don’t mention false teaching at all; yet and still, Moo believes that these verses, too, involve the false teachers.
What about verse 11?
“In verse 11, he commands them to ‘learn in quietness and full submission’…THESE WOMEN HAD PROBABLY PICKED UP THE DISPUTATIOUS HABITS OF THE FALSE TEACHERS, and Paul must therefore warn them to accept without criticism the teaching of the properly appointed church leaders” (179).
So in verse 11, the false teachers are to blame for women rising up against their instructors.
But look at what Moo writes starting at verse 12:
“Verse 12 is the focus of discussion in this passage, for it is here that Paul prohibits the women at Ephesus FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN MINISTRIES WITH REFERENCE TO MEN” (180).
Here, Moo doesn’t seem to even CONSIDER the possibility that verse 12, regarding teaching and authority have ANYTHING to do with the false teachers! However, he doesn’t seem hesitant to acknowledge verses 8-11 concern false teachers (although there is no direct evidence from the text). The only two things Moo addresses with regard to verse 12 are whether or not Paul is appealing to all women or wives only, and whether or not “epitrepo” (the Greek infinitive) is translated “permit” or “forbid.” After discussing these two things, Moo goes into what constitutes the nature of teaching that Paul is prohibiting. However, Moo just said earlier in his article that no one knew the nature of the false teaching! Next, he asks a question:
“At this point the QUESTION OF APPLICATION cannot be evaded. WHAT FUNCTIONS IN THE MODERN CHURCH WOULD BE CONSIDERED TEACHING IN THIS SENSE?” (181).
Instead of explaining what this verse means, Moo simply jumps to what “teaching” would have been discussed here. And the answer he gives is totally based on presupposition:
“In light of these considerations, we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching…and the teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries. Other activities—leading Bible studies, for instance- may be included, depending on how they are done” (181).
Once again, what “authority” over men is not given in the text—but somehow, complementarians ASSUME it refers to ecclesiastical authority. Adam however, didn’t have ECCLESIASTICAL authority over his wife, but HOME authority—being the head of his household (Genesis 3). The church hadn’t been created yet, so how could Adam receive “headship over the church” from God? Secondly, notice that Ephesians 5 refers to Christ as “head of the church.” Christ, then, NEVER relinquished His title as “Head of the church” to anybody—not even husbands.
What other authority did Adam have PRIOR to Genesis 3—authority given to him as THE FIRST HUMAN! This is why he was allowed to name his wife—because he was created first! There is authority that came with being the first human; but we can’t take that and read a much-later created church authority back into a text that is much older. While Paul later wrote in Ephesians 5 that Adam and Eve were concerning Christ and the Church, he doesn’t say that Adam and Eve were a symbol of LEADERSHIP IN THE CHURCH!
Moo simply fails to address his biggest issue—his presupposition. We’ve seen it through his exposition of verses 8-15. When someone can address every other verse as referring to false teachers EXCEPT verse 12, there seems to be something suspicious happening. Presupposition complicates EVERYTHING…
To click on Moo's article, go to http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw.pdf.
Impact Unnoticed
“Many interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 rely heavily on the nature of this false teaching at Ephesus in explaining what Paul means in these verses. There is nothing wrong with this in principle; good exegesis always takes into consideration the larger context in which a text appears. However, Paul tells us remarkably little about the specifics of this false teaching, presumably because he knows that Timothy is well acquainted with the problem. This means that WE CANNOT BE AT ALL SURE ABOUT THE PRECISE NATURE OF THIS FALSE TEACHING AND, PARTICULARLY, ABOUT ITS IMPACT ON THE WOMEN IN THE CHURCH…” (Grudem and Piper, “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” 177).
Douglas Moo wrote the above statement in his chapter from “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” entitled “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” Moo attempts in his article to study 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and show through exegesis why it is that women’s ministries are limited in the church. What interests me is the last phrase of the above quote.
Moo states that because we don’t know the nature of the false teaching, what the false teaching was exactly, that we can’t know of its impact on the church at Ephesus. But what is troublesome about this statement is that, according to context, we know a great deal about the impact of the false teaching on the church. Consider the following statements:
1 Timothy 1:6 (ESV)—“Certain persons, by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion…”
1 Tim. 1:19b—“by rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith…”
These verses show us that such false teaching threw those influenced by it out of the faith. In addition, we have a proper context from 1 Timothy 1 that tells us the situation:
“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons NOT TO TEACH ANY DIFFERENT DOCTRINE, NOR TO DEVOTE THEMSELVES TO MYTHS AND ENDLESS GENEALOGIES, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith” (1 Tim. 1:3-4).
In addition, view these few verses:
“Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into VAIN DISCUSSION, DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING EITHER WHAT THEY ARE SAYING OR THE THINGS ABOUT WHICH THEY MAKE CONFIDENT ASSERTIONS. Now we know that the law is good, IF ONE USES IT LAWFULLY…” (1 Tim. 1:6-8, ESV).
It is not a coincidence with that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 discusses teaching (discussed in 1:3). In addition, notice that chapter 2 discusses genealogy (“Adam was first formed, then Eve”), which is also discussed in 1:4) and myth (“and Adam was not deceived”), which is discussed in chapter one, verse 4. Complementarians have made this passage seem more vague and obscure than it really is.
Whenever we seek to study a biblical text, we have to keep in mind that ALL WE HAVE IS THE TEXT! All we have is what the text gives us to make inferences. We have to examine the text in-front of us to discover the setting and background. In my reading of complementarian studies, I have found that many of them seek to make the issue here one of an “overrealized eschatology”; yet and still, the text of 1 Timothy does not discuss an “overrealized eschatology,” but instead, a false doctrine of myths and endless genealogies as we are told from 1 Timothy 1. If they truly seek to examine the text as it is, with its context, they don’t have to look any further than the book of 1 Timothy. To mention an event of 2 Timothy (overrealized eschatology) is to reconstruct the text, to read a later issue back into an earlier situation. It is, in short, bad exegesis!
As if they don’t notice how terrible their response is regarding the false teaching, they turn around and DEMONSTRATE ITS IMPACT!
Look at another excerpt of Moo’s chapter:
“Some of the aspects specifically relevant to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are:
1. The false teachers SOWED DISSENSION AND WERE PREOCCUPIED WITH TRIVIALITIES…
2. The false teachers HAD PERSUADED MANY WOMEN TO FOLLOW THEM IN THEIR DOCTRINES (1 Timothy 5:15; 2 Timothy 3:6-7)” (177).
Here we see that division and a drifting away of believers occurred in this church. These results are no small things to snuff at! The impact of the false teaching was a mass explosion, according to 1 Timothy itself. How then, can complementarians look at this and conclude, as Moo does, that we don’t have any idea of the impact of the false teaching? Not knowing the nature of the teaching doesn’t excuse away its impact.
Moo doesn’t notice the impact of the false teaching on the church at Ephesus in the first century. If false teaching is as prevalent in the book as Moo shows it to be, then how can this be disregarded when considering the purpose of chapter 2?
For those who want to view this argue, go to the following site and scroll through the table of contents: http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw.pdf
Douglas Moo wrote the above statement in his chapter from “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” entitled “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” Moo attempts in his article to study 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and show through exegesis why it is that women’s ministries are limited in the church. What interests me is the last phrase of the above quote.
Moo states that because we don’t know the nature of the false teaching, what the false teaching was exactly, that we can’t know of its impact on the church at Ephesus. But what is troublesome about this statement is that, according to context, we know a great deal about the impact of the false teaching on the church. Consider the following statements:
1 Timothy 1:6 (ESV)—“Certain persons, by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion…”
1 Tim. 1:19b—“by rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith…”
These verses show us that such false teaching threw those influenced by it out of the faith. In addition, we have a proper context from 1 Timothy 1 that tells us the situation:
“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons NOT TO TEACH ANY DIFFERENT DOCTRINE, NOR TO DEVOTE THEMSELVES TO MYTHS AND ENDLESS GENEALOGIES, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith” (1 Tim. 1:3-4).
In addition, view these few verses:
“Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into VAIN DISCUSSION, DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING EITHER WHAT THEY ARE SAYING OR THE THINGS ABOUT WHICH THEY MAKE CONFIDENT ASSERTIONS. Now we know that the law is good, IF ONE USES IT LAWFULLY…” (1 Tim. 1:6-8, ESV).
It is not a coincidence with that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 discusses teaching (discussed in 1:3). In addition, notice that chapter 2 discusses genealogy (“Adam was first formed, then Eve”), which is also discussed in 1:4) and myth (“and Adam was not deceived”), which is discussed in chapter one, verse 4. Complementarians have made this passage seem more vague and obscure than it really is.
Whenever we seek to study a biblical text, we have to keep in mind that ALL WE HAVE IS THE TEXT! All we have is what the text gives us to make inferences. We have to examine the text in-front of us to discover the setting and background. In my reading of complementarian studies, I have found that many of them seek to make the issue here one of an “overrealized eschatology”; yet and still, the text of 1 Timothy does not discuss an “overrealized eschatology,” but instead, a false doctrine of myths and endless genealogies as we are told from 1 Timothy 1. If they truly seek to examine the text as it is, with its context, they don’t have to look any further than the book of 1 Timothy. To mention an event of 2 Timothy (overrealized eschatology) is to reconstruct the text, to read a later issue back into an earlier situation. It is, in short, bad exegesis!
As if they don’t notice how terrible their response is regarding the false teaching, they turn around and DEMONSTRATE ITS IMPACT!
Look at another excerpt of Moo’s chapter:
“Some of the aspects specifically relevant to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are:
1. The false teachers SOWED DISSENSION AND WERE PREOCCUPIED WITH TRIVIALITIES…
2. The false teachers HAD PERSUADED MANY WOMEN TO FOLLOW THEM IN THEIR DOCTRINES (1 Timothy 5:15; 2 Timothy 3:6-7)” (177).
Here we see that division and a drifting away of believers occurred in this church. These results are no small things to snuff at! The impact of the false teaching was a mass explosion, according to 1 Timothy itself. How then, can complementarians look at this and conclude, as Moo does, that we don’t have any idea of the impact of the false teaching? Not knowing the nature of the teaching doesn’t excuse away its impact.
Moo doesn’t notice the impact of the false teaching on the church at Ephesus in the first century. If false teaching is as prevalent in the book as Moo shows it to be, then how can this be disregarded when considering the purpose of chapter 2?
For those who want to view this argue, go to the following site and scroll through the table of contents: http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw.pdf
Spiritual Privileges and Spiritual Gifts
I finally worked up the courage to return to reading material for Wayne Grudem and John Piper’s book called “Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” Today I read chapter 7, entitled “Role Distinctions in the Church (Galatians 3:28)” by S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. The entire chapter was written to demonstrate that, while Galatians 3:28 allows us all to be on equal footing “in Christ” and “before God,” such status does not eliminate social distinctions (for instance, being male or female).
I want to take time, however, to focus on some key statements Johnson makes and demonstrate where his argument fails.
First, on page 151 of Grudem and Piper’s book, Johnson writes (regarding Galatians 3:28),
“The universal privilege of sonship in the present age through union with Christ is Paul’s point, and it sets the tone of the context for interpreting verse twenty-eight. PAUL’S EMPHASIS IS ON SPIRITUAL STATUS IN CHRIST, “THE SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGE OF BEING THE SONS OF GOD” (151).
Notice that Johnson calls being a child of God a “spiritual privilege.” But aren’t spiritual gifts “spiritual privileges” as well? I mean, gifts do come from the Spirit:
11All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit,(W) who apportions to each one individually(X) as he wills. (1 Corinthians 12:11, ESV).
The Spirit gives the gifts as He sees fit, which means that the Spirit gives gifts to both genders—to each man and woman according to what He decides to do. The Holy Spirit does not consult the “Council of Complementarians” when He chooses to gift His people—He does it without answering to anyone because He is God and is free to do as He pleases.
When referring to the context of Galatians 3:28, Johnson writes:
“…it must…be remembered that in this context Paul is not speaking of relationships in the family and church, but of STANDING BEFORE GOD IN RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH” (153).
Did you notice that? Johnson (and thus, Grudem and Piper) do what Sumner accuses them of—they place women as equals to themselves BEFORE GOD, but not before GOD’S PEOPLE!
“…Piper and Grudem qualify women’s status as ‘fully equal…before God.’ They affirm the status of women in the presence of the Lord BUT NOT IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD’S PEOPLE. It sounds pleasant for every Christian man to feel ‘in his heart’ that God sees Christian women as men’s equals. But it doesn’t strike me as being challenging. It’s easy to give assent to God’s impartiality toward women. The biblical teaching is much harder. The Bible makes it plain that every believer is expected to become impartial too (1 Tim. 5:21)’” (Sumner, “Men and Women in the Church, pp. 280-81).
Now, I want you the reader, to notice something about a former connection I made. In a post I wrote a few days ago, called “Encountering Church Tradition,” I stated that, if we were saved by grace through faith, and are all welcome to be baptized in Christ, then why is it that, after salvation, the gifts (given through grace) suddenly become based on social distinctions? That doesn’t make any sense!
Well, believe it or not, I’ve finally found a verse-to-verse connection that will demonstrate the point I was trying to make in that post. Let’s look at Galatians 3:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 12:12-13—
Galatians 3:26-28 (ESV)—“ 26for in Christ Jesus(AV) you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as(AW) were baptized(AX) into Christ have(AY) put on Christ. 28(AZ) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free,(BA) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (ESV)—“ 12For just as(Y) the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body,(Z) so it is with Christ. 13For(AA) in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—(AB) Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and(AC) all were made to drink of one Spirit.”
Do you notice something between these two passages? Galatians 3 tells us that we were baptized into Christ; 1 Corinthians 12 tells us that we were baptized in one Spirit. What these two passages are telling us is that, when we accepted Christ, not only did we put on Christ, but we were also given His Holy Spirit. We “were made to drink of one Spirit,” which means that the Spirit was part of this baptism. If we were given spiritual privileges at the moment of our salvation, then we were also given spiritual gifts at this baptism—which means that the spiritual gifts are SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGES!
This is so important because Johnson, Grudem, and Piper have spent time arguing that we get spiritual privileges as sons of God—but if we get spiritual privileges, and we are baptized into the Spirit as well—then we also receive spiritual gifts, which are PART of the spiritual privileges (or spiritual inheritance)! And how do we know a person receives a spiritual gift? God visibly manifests it in the lives of those whom He gives the gifts to-- and everyone else around them can see it as clear as day.
I want to address gifts and offices, but I’ll do it in my next post.
I want to take time, however, to focus on some key statements Johnson makes and demonstrate where his argument fails.
First, on page 151 of Grudem and Piper’s book, Johnson writes (regarding Galatians 3:28),
“The universal privilege of sonship in the present age through union with Christ is Paul’s point, and it sets the tone of the context for interpreting verse twenty-eight. PAUL’S EMPHASIS IS ON SPIRITUAL STATUS IN CHRIST, “THE SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGE OF BEING THE SONS OF GOD” (151).
Notice that Johnson calls being a child of God a “spiritual privilege.” But aren’t spiritual gifts “spiritual privileges” as well? I mean, gifts do come from the Spirit:
11All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit,(W) who apportions to each one individually(X) as he wills. (1 Corinthians 12:11, ESV).
The Spirit gives the gifts as He sees fit, which means that the Spirit gives gifts to both genders—to each man and woman according to what He decides to do. The Holy Spirit does not consult the “Council of Complementarians” when He chooses to gift His people—He does it without answering to anyone because He is God and is free to do as He pleases.
When referring to the context of Galatians 3:28, Johnson writes:
“…it must…be remembered that in this context Paul is not speaking of relationships in the family and church, but of STANDING BEFORE GOD IN RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH” (153).
Did you notice that? Johnson (and thus, Grudem and Piper) do what Sumner accuses them of—they place women as equals to themselves BEFORE GOD, but not before GOD’S PEOPLE!
“…Piper and Grudem qualify women’s status as ‘fully equal…before God.’ They affirm the status of women in the presence of the Lord BUT NOT IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD’S PEOPLE. It sounds pleasant for every Christian man to feel ‘in his heart’ that God sees Christian women as men’s equals. But it doesn’t strike me as being challenging. It’s easy to give assent to God’s impartiality toward women. The biblical teaching is much harder. The Bible makes it plain that every believer is expected to become impartial too (1 Tim. 5:21)’” (Sumner, “Men and Women in the Church, pp. 280-81).
Now, I want you the reader, to notice something about a former connection I made. In a post I wrote a few days ago, called “Encountering Church Tradition,” I stated that, if we were saved by grace through faith, and are all welcome to be baptized in Christ, then why is it that, after salvation, the gifts (given through grace) suddenly become based on social distinctions? That doesn’t make any sense!
Well, believe it or not, I’ve finally found a verse-to-verse connection that will demonstrate the point I was trying to make in that post. Let’s look at Galatians 3:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 12:12-13—
Galatians 3:26-28 (ESV)—“ 26for in Christ Jesus(AV) you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as(AW) were baptized(AX) into Christ have(AY) put on Christ. 28(AZ) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free,(BA) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (ESV)—“ 12For just as(Y) the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body,(Z) so it is with Christ. 13For(AA) in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—(AB) Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and(AC) all were made to drink of one Spirit.”
Do you notice something between these two passages? Galatians 3 tells us that we were baptized into Christ; 1 Corinthians 12 tells us that we were baptized in one Spirit. What these two passages are telling us is that, when we accepted Christ, not only did we put on Christ, but we were also given His Holy Spirit. We “were made to drink of one Spirit,” which means that the Spirit was part of this baptism. If we were given spiritual privileges at the moment of our salvation, then we were also given spiritual gifts at this baptism—which means that the spiritual gifts are SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGES!
This is so important because Johnson, Grudem, and Piper have spent time arguing that we get spiritual privileges as sons of God—but if we get spiritual privileges, and we are baptized into the Spirit as well—then we also receive spiritual gifts, which are PART of the spiritual privileges (or spiritual inheritance)! And how do we know a person receives a spiritual gift? God visibly manifests it in the lives of those whom He gives the gifts to-- and everyone else around them can see it as clear as day.
I want to address gifts and offices, but I’ll do it in my next post.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Chapter 13-- The Church as Family: Why Male Leadership in the Family Requires Male Leadership in the Church
The title of this chapter of “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”(http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bbmw/bbmw.pdf) has always intrigued me, for it sums up the complementarian position in a nutshell. Since the church is given the analogy of a family, it is to be run like one, with men in control and women in submission.
The writer of this chapter, Vern Sheridan Poythress, goes to great lengths to make his case; however, he flaws on two major points. I will discuss these below.
First, he flaws in his analysis of the book of 1 Timothy. In his section of the chapter entitled “God’s Household in 1 Timothy, Poythress writes, “The overseers or elders ought to be respectable family men: ‘Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife…he must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect…’ (1 Timothy 3:2-5, pg. 238).”
There is a fundamental flaw in Poythress’s analysis. 1 Timothy 3:1 states the following:
“1The saying is(A) trustworthy: If anyone aspires to(B) the office of overseer, he desires a noble task” (1 Timothy 3:1, English Standard Version).
Verse 1 of chapter 3 begins with “anyone” who desires the office of an overseer. The word here then, surely does not mean “a male,” but “a man,” anyone, someone, whoever. The word “tis” in the Greek then, is inclusive of everyone, not exclusive. When the requirement “the husband of one wife” is listed (v. 2), this shows the masculine hermeneutic at play. Notice at the end of 1 Tim. 3:1 that “he” desires a good work. The “he” used here isn’t in the Greek; instead, the word in the Greek for “desires” is “epithumei,” a word in the third person singular—which refers to “he” or “she”! Piper and Grudem begin their book with discussions about how the race of humanity was named after “Man,” not “Woman.” That is why we are called “mankind” and not “womankind.” But if this is so, then when the word “someone” is used, and the masculine pronoun is used, the usage of the masculine does not discount the feminine but rather embraces it. “Tis” is inclusive of the female gender and the Greek word for “desires” (in the third person) further confirms this thought.
In the quoted passage of 1 Timothy 3:2-5 (pg. 238), we see the words “He must MANAGE his own family well…” There is a problem, however: the word used here for “manage” also refers to the woman as well. In 1 Timothy 5:14, we see these words:
“14So I would have(U) younger widows marry, bear children,(V) manage their households, and(W) give the adversary no occasion for slander. ”
The word for “manage” here in the Greek is “oikodespotein.” This word is coined by Paul here in 1 Timothy 5 and is a combination of two Greek words: “oikos” (house) and “despotein” (to be the despot). While “oikos” shows the sphere of influence, what is of particular interest is the second word, “despotein.” The word “despotein” literally means “to be the despot.” What is a despot? A despot is a dictator, a tyrannical ruler. So young widows were not just to remarry and have children, but to “rule the home,” to be despots of the home. The word used here, “despotein,” comes from the parent word “despoteis,” which is used of “Christ” in Jude:
“For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:4, ESV).
The word here for “Master” is “despoteis.” So when the younger widows are told to marry, they are told to be “rulers” in their homes. The idea of “ruling” takes us back to the qualifications of the overseer in 1 Timothy 3:
“4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity(J) keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for(K) God’s church?” (1 Timothy 3:4-5, ESV).
There is a clue located in these two verses that give the woman a greater inclusiveness into the office of overseer itself. Notice that the person who desires the office of overseer must “manage his household.” The woman is to manage her household as well, so this includes her. But there is something else: in addition, the candidate for the office must “keep his children submissive.” Notice that it says NOTHING about keeping the woman submissive. Surely, if Paul wanted to keep women out of this office, he would have included the submission of the wife, for he does it throughout his letters (Ephesians 5:22, 24; Colossians 3:18). Peter mentions this as well in 1 Peter 3:1. The fact that Paul doesn’t use it, combined with his idea that women were to “be the despot” of their households indicates what Paul thought of women—they, like the men, were just as capable of serving in the office.
Finally, with our favorite passage, 1 Tim. 3:2-5, there is one last thing to point out—the question Paul asks:
“If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?”
I need to focus on this part of the passage above for a few moments.
This verse, placed on page 238 of Poythress’s chapter, is a mistranslation of the Greek text. The text does not read about the man who “manages his own family.” In the Greek, the text literally says, “if someone does not know how to MANAGE ONE’S OWN HOME, how will he care for God’s church?”
With the idea of managing the home comes the idea that these verses of 1 Timothy 3 are inclusive for both man and woman. If Paul used such a strong word to refer to women “managing the home,” then surely, this verse would apply to them as much as to a man. The ending of the question as well is inclusive: “how will he care for God’s church?” Notice that the person in line for the office does not RULE God’s church, but instead, CARES for the church. Because the church is the “house of God” (1 Tim. 3:15), God is the ruler of the church, the head of the church (Eph. 5). A man or woman as overseer can only CARE FOR the church, can only be a steward for the church. This truth doesn’t place the man any more in the position than it does a woman.
To finish a critique of this article, we have Poythress’s comment and a Scripture text to support his supposed “family theme” throughout 1 Timothy:
“14I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, 15if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:14-15, ESV)
Poythress writes,
“In fact, these verses SUMMARIZE THE THRUST OF THE WHOLE LETTER. The phrase ‘these instructions’ is most naturally understood as referring to the contents of the letter as a whole. Thus the letter as a whole has the purpose of indicating ‘how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household” (239).
But these words trump the complementarian argument; for, if Paul is writing to restore order to the house of God, then why does 1 Timothy 2 have to refer to women not teaching over men when it could, instead, show us the chaos in Ephesus? If the letter rests on these words, then 1 Timothy 2 would be more about Paul correcting abuses in the church at Ephesus, not about church leadership (after all, he doesn’t tackle leadership until chapter 3).
The only thing in the letter that the complementarian can use to advocate male leadership is 1 Timothy 2. But what’s sad about the complementarian interpretation is that there is NO OTHER PLACE in the Pauline epistle where women having spiritual authority in the church is mentioned. In fact, Paul doesn’t write about women not having spiritual authority in any more of his letters.
I could say more about the analogy of the church as family, but I’ll finish this discussion soon.
The writer of this chapter, Vern Sheridan Poythress, goes to great lengths to make his case; however, he flaws on two major points. I will discuss these below.
First, he flaws in his analysis of the book of 1 Timothy. In his section of the chapter entitled “God’s Household in 1 Timothy, Poythress writes, “The overseers or elders ought to be respectable family men: ‘Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife…he must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect…’ (1 Timothy 3:2-5, pg. 238).”
There is a fundamental flaw in Poythress’s analysis. 1 Timothy 3:1 states the following:
“1The saying is(A) trustworthy: If anyone aspires to(B) the office of overseer, he desires a noble task” (1 Timothy 3:1, English Standard Version).
Verse 1 of chapter 3 begins with “anyone” who desires the office of an overseer. The word here then, surely does not mean “a male,” but “a man,” anyone, someone, whoever. The word “tis” in the Greek then, is inclusive of everyone, not exclusive. When the requirement “the husband of one wife” is listed (v. 2), this shows the masculine hermeneutic at play. Notice at the end of 1 Tim. 3:1 that “he” desires a good work. The “he” used here isn’t in the Greek; instead, the word in the Greek for “desires” is “epithumei,” a word in the third person singular—which refers to “he” or “she”! Piper and Grudem begin their book with discussions about how the race of humanity was named after “Man,” not “Woman.” That is why we are called “mankind” and not “womankind.” But if this is so, then when the word “someone” is used, and the masculine pronoun is used, the usage of the masculine does not discount the feminine but rather embraces it. “Tis” is inclusive of the female gender and the Greek word for “desires” (in the third person) further confirms this thought.
In the quoted passage of 1 Timothy 3:2-5 (pg. 238), we see the words “He must MANAGE his own family well…” There is a problem, however: the word used here for “manage” also refers to the woman as well. In 1 Timothy 5:14, we see these words:
“14So I would have(U) younger widows marry, bear children,(V) manage their households, and(W) give the adversary no occasion for slander. ”
The word for “manage” here in the Greek is “oikodespotein.” This word is coined by Paul here in 1 Timothy 5 and is a combination of two Greek words: “oikos” (house) and “despotein” (to be the despot). While “oikos” shows the sphere of influence, what is of particular interest is the second word, “despotein.” The word “despotein” literally means “to be the despot.” What is a despot? A despot is a dictator, a tyrannical ruler. So young widows were not just to remarry and have children, but to “rule the home,” to be despots of the home. The word used here, “despotein,” comes from the parent word “despoteis,” which is used of “Christ” in Jude:
“For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:4, ESV).
The word here for “Master” is “despoteis.” So when the younger widows are told to marry, they are told to be “rulers” in their homes. The idea of “ruling” takes us back to the qualifications of the overseer in 1 Timothy 3:
“4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity(J) keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for(K) God’s church?” (1 Timothy 3:4-5, ESV).
There is a clue located in these two verses that give the woman a greater inclusiveness into the office of overseer itself. Notice that the person who desires the office of overseer must “manage his household.” The woman is to manage her household as well, so this includes her. But there is something else: in addition, the candidate for the office must “keep his children submissive.” Notice that it says NOTHING about keeping the woman submissive. Surely, if Paul wanted to keep women out of this office, he would have included the submission of the wife, for he does it throughout his letters (Ephesians 5:22, 24; Colossians 3:18). Peter mentions this as well in 1 Peter 3:1. The fact that Paul doesn’t use it, combined with his idea that women were to “be the despot” of their households indicates what Paul thought of women—they, like the men, were just as capable of serving in the office.
Finally, with our favorite passage, 1 Tim. 3:2-5, there is one last thing to point out—the question Paul asks:
“If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?”
I need to focus on this part of the passage above for a few moments.
This verse, placed on page 238 of Poythress’s chapter, is a mistranslation of the Greek text. The text does not read about the man who “manages his own family.” In the Greek, the text literally says, “if someone does not know how to MANAGE ONE’S OWN HOME, how will he care for God’s church?”
With the idea of managing the home comes the idea that these verses of 1 Timothy 3 are inclusive for both man and woman. If Paul used such a strong word to refer to women “managing the home,” then surely, this verse would apply to them as much as to a man. The ending of the question as well is inclusive: “how will he care for God’s church?” Notice that the person in line for the office does not RULE God’s church, but instead, CARES for the church. Because the church is the “house of God” (1 Tim. 3:15), God is the ruler of the church, the head of the church (Eph. 5). A man or woman as overseer can only CARE FOR the church, can only be a steward for the church. This truth doesn’t place the man any more in the position than it does a woman.
To finish a critique of this article, we have Poythress’s comment and a Scripture text to support his supposed “family theme” throughout 1 Timothy:
“14I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, 15if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:14-15, ESV)
Poythress writes,
“In fact, these verses SUMMARIZE THE THRUST OF THE WHOLE LETTER. The phrase ‘these instructions’ is most naturally understood as referring to the contents of the letter as a whole. Thus the letter as a whole has the purpose of indicating ‘how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household” (239).
But these words trump the complementarian argument; for, if Paul is writing to restore order to the house of God, then why does 1 Timothy 2 have to refer to women not teaching over men when it could, instead, show us the chaos in Ephesus? If the letter rests on these words, then 1 Timothy 2 would be more about Paul correcting abuses in the church at Ephesus, not about church leadership (after all, he doesn’t tackle leadership until chapter 3).
The only thing in the letter that the complementarian can use to advocate male leadership is 1 Timothy 2. But what’s sad about the complementarian interpretation is that there is NO OTHER PLACE in the Pauline epistle where women having spiritual authority in the church is mentioned. In fact, Paul doesn’t write about women not having spiritual authority in any more of his letters.
I could say more about the analogy of the church as family, but I’ll finish this discussion soon.
Chapter 5-- Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity
I started some new reading today. In studying the material on the debate regarding women in ministry, I’ve stumbled across references to the book “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” (John Piper, Wayne Grudem, http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bbmw/bbmw.pdf) numerous times—so much so that I decided I couldn’t argue for women in ministry without exposing this book’s weak points. I have a goal of reading all the books (at least all the important ones) on this issue and debating them here on my blog. As I’ve stated with Grudem’s book, “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth,” he is as guilty as other complementarians are with playing the “1 Timothy 2” card. The issue is no different with this passage of 1 Corinthians 11. I’ve already given some thoughts on this passage with Andreas Kostenberger’s blog post revolving around male headship. Here, however, I’ll exegete this passage again. It seems that Piper and Grudem have both given me another reason to re-examine this passage to argue a convincing case for women. As the saying goes, “Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”
Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, Thomas Schreiner writes, “Paul objects to men wearing head coverings in verse 4…because that is what women wore (11:5-6), and thus a man who wore such a head covering would be shamefully depicting himself as a woman. Conversely, if women do not wear head coverings, their failure to be adorned properly would be shameful (11:5) because they would be dressing like men” (122).
Paul does not object to men wearing head coverings because that is what women wore. The answer to why Paul objects to men wearing head coverings is found in verses 7-9:
“7For a man ought not to cover his head, since(K) he is the image and glory of God, but(L) woman is the glory of man. 8For(M) man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but(N) woman for man.”
A man shouldn’t wear a head covering because he is “the glory of God,” meaning that he is the first of creation, the first human God created to be “like Himself.” Because man was created first, he was given authority and power by God and Adam (specifically, the first human) became responsible for all of the human race. Next, “man was not made from woman, but woman from man…neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (vv.8, 9). The man was literally formed from the dust of the ground by God, while the woman (Adam’s wife, Eve) was formed from a rib in Adam’s side. She, bearing similarity to the male, the source of humankind, should wear a head covering to demonstrate that she is “under” authority.
For men to wear head coverings would look as if they were not the ones in authority, but the ones under authority. The wife was to wear a head covering to demonstrate that she was under authority, the authority of her husband. Paul then, does not tell men to avoid wearing head coverings because to do so would make them seem like a woman. Paul’s writing had nothing to do with preserving gender distinctions, but instead, to show the biblical importance of the tradition itself.
I desire to take time here to show that the “man” and “woman” mentioned here are not just EVERY man and EVERY woman—instead, the two referred to in this passage are husband and wife. The English Standard Version, of which Wayne Grudem served on the Oversight Committee of its translation, writes at the bottom of the page (regarding a footnote in verse 5):
“In verses 5-13, the Greek word ‘gune’ is translated ‘wife’ in verses that deal with wearing a veil, A SIGN OF BEING MARRIED in first-century culture.”
So, for women to wear a head covering was to show authority to their husbands. This clearly does not include single women. Every single woman, in addition, is not forced to show submission to EVERY SINGLE MAN.
As if this response isn’t terrible enough, Schreiner goes on to state (regarding the woman),
“Thus, we can conclude that Paul wants women to wear head coverings while praying and prophesying because to do otherwise would be TO CONFUSE THE SEXES AND GIVE THE SHAMEFUL IMPRESSION THAT WOMEN ARE BEHAVING LIKE MEN” (123).
Wearing head coverings for women had nothing to do with confusing the sexes; it did, however, have everything to do with a woman recognizing that she was under the authority of her husband. Schreiner gives a rather weird interpretation of verse 6:
“A woman’s failure to wear a head covering is analogous to her having her hair cut short or shaved. Every woman in the culture of that day would have been ashamed of appearing in public with her head shaved or her hair cut short, because then SHE WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE A MAN” (122).
Yes, for women to appear in that culture with short hair would have been contrary to the normal expectation, but, it was not “looking like a man” that concerned Paul, but instead, it was contrary to nature. This is why Paul writes in 1 Cor. 11:14-15 (ESV),
“14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
Nature is the reason why a woman should wear a head covering, not because if she doesn’t she looks like a man. Imagine what a woman would look like if she cut her hair short, or even shaved it all off! She just doesn’t look “normal,” which is Paul’s point. Women were made to have hair on their heads, because it is comely for a woman to have long hair. Schreiner mentions “looking like a man” as the reason for Paul’s words because of their bias to maintain one sex over the other. There are passages that pertain to sex distinctions, such as Deuteronomy 22, and we should honor those passages; but let’s not add more to the text than is there. Paul’s opening words involve the created order and the purpose of woman’s creation—for the man. The man was not created as the woman’s helper.
I want to take time here to complement Thomas Schreiner for one thing: he does, however, acknowledge that women are exercising their gifts here publicly in the assembly:
“Some scholars have thought that women’s prayer and prophecy were permitted only in private…but the praying and prophesying were probably IN THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY for the following reasons: (1) the context favors the idea these chapters describe public worship. The subsequent topics focus on the Lord’s Supper (11:17-34) and spiritual gifts (12:1-14:40), and these relate to public worship. (2) Prophecy was given to edify the community when gathered (1 Corinthians 14: 1-5, 29-33a); it was not a private gift to be exercised alone” (123, 124).
Yes, the exercising of gifts occurred here in the public assembly. Women were actually using their gifts before the mixed congregation! This should already make a person suspicious of 1 Timothy 2, since complementarians like Schreiner, Piper, and Grudem, who affirm public exercise of gifts here, deny women public exercise of teaching (a gift) in 1 Timothy 2.
However, there are major problems with other parts of his argument. For instance, his summing up of this section on 11:4-6—
“Women can pray and prophesy in public, but they must do so WITH A DEMEANOR AND ATTITUDE THAT SUPPORTS MALE HEADSHIP because in that culture wearing a head covering communicated a submissive demeanor and feminine adornment” (124).
Paul’s arguing of headship here, according to Thomas Schreiner, has to do with wives wearing a sign of submission to their husbands. That, then, doesn’t involve EVERY MAN, for no one woman is married to EVERY MAN! Schreiner here just ASSUMES that male leadership is the key here—however, that is the thing to be proven! If submission to male headship is in Scripture, this is not the passage in which to find it.
When discussing Paul’s use of Genesis 1 and 2 in 1 Cor. 11:8-9, Schreiner writes,
“Nevertheless, Paul OBVIOUSLY interpreted Genesis 2 as revealing a DISTINCTION IN ROLES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN” (125).
Where does this come into play? As I stated earlier in this post, men AND WOMEN were praying and prophesying in the public assembly (vv. 4, 5). The only distinction in the text is between men and women wearing head coverings. There was a belief here in showing honor to authority, but that honor to the husband did not mean the woman could not exercise her gifts in the public assembly. Exercising gifts in the public assembly is not tied here to roles, for, notice that Paul does not prohibit women from praying and prophesying here (as he prohibits women from teaching in 1 Timothy 2).
In regard to verses 13-15, Schreiner records,
“The function of verses 13-15 in the argument is to show that the wearing of a head covering by a woman is in accord with the God-given sense that WOMEN AND MEN ARE DIFFERENT. For a woman to dress like a man is inappropriate because it violates the distinction God has ordained between the sexes” (128).
Paul does not argue head coverings because of a distinction of the sexes, but in order for women to show honor to their husbands, and, ultimately, honor to God’s word (Genesis where the husband is given authority in the home and marriage).
Regarding verse 16,
“Paul concludes his argument by saying, ‘But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.’ Now, some have said that Paul actually rejects the wearing of head coverings by women with these words because the Greek literally says ‘we have no such practice’, and thus they conclude that the practice of wearing head coverings is renounced here by Paul. But SUCH AN UNDERSTANDING IS SURELY WRONG. Paul in this verse is addressing the contentious, who, the previous context makes clear, do not want to wear a head covering. The practice of certain Corinthian women who refuse to wear a head covering is
what Paul refers to when he says ‘we have no such practice’” (128).
In order to determine what verse 16 is all about, we have to look at verses 14 and 15:
“14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
The argument about long hair for women and short hair for men refers to the idea of women having “a sign of authority” on their heads, from verse 10. However, notice something: before verses 14 and 15 comes verse 13 which reads,
“13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?”
Here, in verse 13, he makes the point that a woman praying with her head uncovered is against rules of propriety; therefore, he is arguing for women wearing a head covering here. In verses 14 and 15 he uses nature as proof that women should wear head coverings (seeing that to do so is the same thing as a woman having long hair). Taking this into account, we march on to verse 16:
“16(Q) If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do(R) the churches of God.”
The English Standard Version begins verse 16 with the word “if”; but this is a mistake in translation. Looking in the Greek, the first word of the verse should be the Greek word “de,” meaning “but.” The word “but” shows a contrast to something previously mentioned.
For instance, I could say, “I like the summer, but the spring has the best temperature.” While I still affirm that I like the summer, I am saying in this verse that the spring is the season I like most. Paul is doing the same thing here. He is not doing away with the idea of wearing head coverings to show authority between husbands and wives; however, what he is saying is that, in contrast to the practice of head coverings, should someone want to protest this idea, there is no custom or practice of so doing among the churches. In the words of Schreiner, “Indeed, the other churches already adhere to the practice Paul recommends here” (128), but the problem with this statement is that Paul is not writing to correct their lack of adherence to a tradition, but to answer the question of the Corinthian church regarding this response of the church to women taking off their head coverings. How do I know this? Look back at 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2:
“2Now I commend you(B) because you remember me in everything and(C) maintain the traditions(D) even as I delivered them to you.”
Paul commends the Corinthian church here because they are performing all the traditions “even as I delivered them to you,” as Paul gave the traditions to them. Verse 3 begins with, “But I want you to understand,” which, as the word “de” indicates, is a transition to something new. This, then, is not a tradition practiced in all the churches, but a question that has been brought up by those of the Corinthian church. 1 Corinthians 11 serves as part of the list of concerns the church had, for Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7:1, “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote.” The issue of women wearing head coverings is an issue which the church at Corinth wrote Paul about.
Paul does not do away with the husband’s headship being acknowledged in the assembly; but what he doesn’t do is remove women and their exercising of their God-given gifts to make room for male headship. Schreiner states this in his conclusion: “More specifically, if women pray and prophesy in church, they should do so under the authority of male headship” (129). Schreiner believes that “we should affirm the participation of women in prayer and prophecy in the church” (129). Sadly though, in many conservative churches I’ve been in, either the male deacon or the preacher, elder, pastor, or any other man MUST ALWAYS pray the prayer over the congregation, while the women sit on the sidelines. If the churches clearly believed this, why do they affirm something different in exegesis than they do in their practice? There is an inconsistency there that complementarians must answer to God for.
While the church would have believed the creation order vouched for their position (vv. 7-9), Paul argues that, the creation order is reversed since Adam, for every man is now brought into the world through a woman (vv.11, 12). This being so, the custom is not one the churches have in operation, although, there are good grounds for implementing such a custom.
The issue of women and head coverings should show complementarians such as Schreiner, Piper, and Grudem that one can wear a sign of authority and still be allowed to publicly exercise their gifts (women). If this is so, women would not “have authority over a man” by teaching, because 1 Corinthians 11 doesn’t surely advocate this position. If a WIFE is having authority over her HUSBAND by teaching him, then, according to 1 Corinthians 11, “a sign of authority” such as head coverings solves this issue.
I’ll leave you with this final note: notice that the gender creation is reversed in the time of Paul and today, for women bring men into the world through birth. Yes, Paul here affirms the equality of men and women. But the creation order (that Adam came before Eve) is trumped by the fact that every daughter of Eve must give birth to every son of Adam and thus, comes before the sons of Adam today. Because of this reversed creation order in humanity, then, wearing a head covering is not a NECESSITY, although it could be a good idea for wives to wear a veil to submit to their husbands. If 1 Corinthians 11 does not use creation order to MANDATE head coverings (with the exercising of gifts), then what makes complementarians believe that 1 Timothy 2 prohibits women from exercising their gifts on the basis of the original creation order? 1 Timothy 2 has to be about something more—a Gnostic heresy in the church at Ephesus. 1 Timothy 2, of course, will be saved for another time.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, Thomas Schreiner writes, “Paul objects to men wearing head coverings in verse 4…because that is what women wore (11:5-6), and thus a man who wore such a head covering would be shamefully depicting himself as a woman. Conversely, if women do not wear head coverings, their failure to be adorned properly would be shameful (11:5) because they would be dressing like men” (122).
Paul does not object to men wearing head coverings because that is what women wore. The answer to why Paul objects to men wearing head coverings is found in verses 7-9:
“7For a man ought not to cover his head, since(K) he is the image and glory of God, but(L) woman is the glory of man. 8For(M) man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but(N) woman for man.”
A man shouldn’t wear a head covering because he is “the glory of God,” meaning that he is the first of creation, the first human God created to be “like Himself.” Because man was created first, he was given authority and power by God and Adam (specifically, the first human) became responsible for all of the human race. Next, “man was not made from woman, but woman from man…neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (vv.8, 9). The man was literally formed from the dust of the ground by God, while the woman (Adam’s wife, Eve) was formed from a rib in Adam’s side. She, bearing similarity to the male, the source of humankind, should wear a head covering to demonstrate that she is “under” authority.
For men to wear head coverings would look as if they were not the ones in authority, but the ones under authority. The wife was to wear a head covering to demonstrate that she was under authority, the authority of her husband. Paul then, does not tell men to avoid wearing head coverings because to do so would make them seem like a woman. Paul’s writing had nothing to do with preserving gender distinctions, but instead, to show the biblical importance of the tradition itself.
I desire to take time here to show that the “man” and “woman” mentioned here are not just EVERY man and EVERY woman—instead, the two referred to in this passage are husband and wife. The English Standard Version, of which Wayne Grudem served on the Oversight Committee of its translation, writes at the bottom of the page (regarding a footnote in verse 5):
“In verses 5-13, the Greek word ‘gune’ is translated ‘wife’ in verses that deal with wearing a veil, A SIGN OF BEING MARRIED in first-century culture.”
So, for women to wear a head covering was to show authority to their husbands. This clearly does not include single women. Every single woman, in addition, is not forced to show submission to EVERY SINGLE MAN.
As if this response isn’t terrible enough, Schreiner goes on to state (regarding the woman),
“Thus, we can conclude that Paul wants women to wear head coverings while praying and prophesying because to do otherwise would be TO CONFUSE THE SEXES AND GIVE THE SHAMEFUL IMPRESSION THAT WOMEN ARE BEHAVING LIKE MEN” (123).
Wearing head coverings for women had nothing to do with confusing the sexes; it did, however, have everything to do with a woman recognizing that she was under the authority of her husband. Schreiner gives a rather weird interpretation of verse 6:
“A woman’s failure to wear a head covering is analogous to her having her hair cut short or shaved. Every woman in the culture of that day would have been ashamed of appearing in public with her head shaved or her hair cut short, because then SHE WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE A MAN” (122).
Yes, for women to appear in that culture with short hair would have been contrary to the normal expectation, but, it was not “looking like a man” that concerned Paul, but instead, it was contrary to nature. This is why Paul writes in 1 Cor. 11:14-15 (ESV),
“14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
Nature is the reason why a woman should wear a head covering, not because if she doesn’t she looks like a man. Imagine what a woman would look like if she cut her hair short, or even shaved it all off! She just doesn’t look “normal,” which is Paul’s point. Women were made to have hair on their heads, because it is comely for a woman to have long hair. Schreiner mentions “looking like a man” as the reason for Paul’s words because of their bias to maintain one sex over the other. There are passages that pertain to sex distinctions, such as Deuteronomy 22, and we should honor those passages; but let’s not add more to the text than is there. Paul’s opening words involve the created order and the purpose of woman’s creation—for the man. The man was not created as the woman’s helper.
I want to take time here to complement Thomas Schreiner for one thing: he does, however, acknowledge that women are exercising their gifts here publicly in the assembly:
“Some scholars have thought that women’s prayer and prophecy were permitted only in private…but the praying and prophesying were probably IN THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY for the following reasons: (1) the context favors the idea these chapters describe public worship. The subsequent topics focus on the Lord’s Supper (11:17-34) and spiritual gifts (12:1-14:40), and these relate to public worship. (2) Prophecy was given to edify the community when gathered (1 Corinthians 14: 1-5, 29-33a); it was not a private gift to be exercised alone” (123, 124).
Yes, the exercising of gifts occurred here in the public assembly. Women were actually using their gifts before the mixed congregation! This should already make a person suspicious of 1 Timothy 2, since complementarians like Schreiner, Piper, and Grudem, who affirm public exercise of gifts here, deny women public exercise of teaching (a gift) in 1 Timothy 2.
However, there are major problems with other parts of his argument. For instance, his summing up of this section on 11:4-6—
“Women can pray and prophesy in public, but they must do so WITH A DEMEANOR AND ATTITUDE THAT SUPPORTS MALE HEADSHIP because in that culture wearing a head covering communicated a submissive demeanor and feminine adornment” (124).
Paul’s arguing of headship here, according to Thomas Schreiner, has to do with wives wearing a sign of submission to their husbands. That, then, doesn’t involve EVERY MAN, for no one woman is married to EVERY MAN! Schreiner here just ASSUMES that male leadership is the key here—however, that is the thing to be proven! If submission to male headship is in Scripture, this is not the passage in which to find it.
When discussing Paul’s use of Genesis 1 and 2 in 1 Cor. 11:8-9, Schreiner writes,
“Nevertheless, Paul OBVIOUSLY interpreted Genesis 2 as revealing a DISTINCTION IN ROLES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN” (125).
Where does this come into play? As I stated earlier in this post, men AND WOMEN were praying and prophesying in the public assembly (vv. 4, 5). The only distinction in the text is between men and women wearing head coverings. There was a belief here in showing honor to authority, but that honor to the husband did not mean the woman could not exercise her gifts in the public assembly. Exercising gifts in the public assembly is not tied here to roles, for, notice that Paul does not prohibit women from praying and prophesying here (as he prohibits women from teaching in 1 Timothy 2).
In regard to verses 13-15, Schreiner records,
“The function of verses 13-15 in the argument is to show that the wearing of a head covering by a woman is in accord with the God-given sense that WOMEN AND MEN ARE DIFFERENT. For a woman to dress like a man is inappropriate because it violates the distinction God has ordained between the sexes” (128).
Paul does not argue head coverings because of a distinction of the sexes, but in order for women to show honor to their husbands, and, ultimately, honor to God’s word (Genesis where the husband is given authority in the home and marriage).
Regarding verse 16,
“Paul concludes his argument by saying, ‘But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.’ Now, some have said that Paul actually rejects the wearing of head coverings by women with these words because the Greek literally says ‘we have no such practice’, and thus they conclude that the practice of wearing head coverings is renounced here by Paul. But SUCH AN UNDERSTANDING IS SURELY WRONG. Paul in this verse is addressing the contentious, who, the previous context makes clear, do not want to wear a head covering. The practice of certain Corinthian women who refuse to wear a head covering is
what Paul refers to when he says ‘we have no such practice’” (128).
In order to determine what verse 16 is all about, we have to look at verses 14 and 15:
“14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
The argument about long hair for women and short hair for men refers to the idea of women having “a sign of authority” on their heads, from verse 10. However, notice something: before verses 14 and 15 comes verse 13 which reads,
“13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?”
Here, in verse 13, he makes the point that a woman praying with her head uncovered is against rules of propriety; therefore, he is arguing for women wearing a head covering here. In verses 14 and 15 he uses nature as proof that women should wear head coverings (seeing that to do so is the same thing as a woman having long hair). Taking this into account, we march on to verse 16:
“16(Q) If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do(R) the churches of God.”
The English Standard Version begins verse 16 with the word “if”; but this is a mistake in translation. Looking in the Greek, the first word of the verse should be the Greek word “de,” meaning “but.” The word “but” shows a contrast to something previously mentioned.
For instance, I could say, “I like the summer, but the spring has the best temperature.” While I still affirm that I like the summer, I am saying in this verse that the spring is the season I like most. Paul is doing the same thing here. He is not doing away with the idea of wearing head coverings to show authority between husbands and wives; however, what he is saying is that, in contrast to the practice of head coverings, should someone want to protest this idea, there is no custom or practice of so doing among the churches. In the words of Schreiner, “Indeed, the other churches already adhere to the practice Paul recommends here” (128), but the problem with this statement is that Paul is not writing to correct their lack of adherence to a tradition, but to answer the question of the Corinthian church regarding this response of the church to women taking off their head coverings. How do I know this? Look back at 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2:
“2Now I commend you(B) because you remember me in everything and(C) maintain the traditions(D) even as I delivered them to you.”
Paul commends the Corinthian church here because they are performing all the traditions “even as I delivered them to you,” as Paul gave the traditions to them. Verse 3 begins with, “But I want you to understand,” which, as the word “de” indicates, is a transition to something new. This, then, is not a tradition practiced in all the churches, but a question that has been brought up by those of the Corinthian church. 1 Corinthians 11 serves as part of the list of concerns the church had, for Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7:1, “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote.” The issue of women wearing head coverings is an issue which the church at Corinth wrote Paul about.
Paul does not do away with the husband’s headship being acknowledged in the assembly; but what he doesn’t do is remove women and their exercising of their God-given gifts to make room for male headship. Schreiner states this in his conclusion: “More specifically, if women pray and prophesy in church, they should do so under the authority of male headship” (129). Schreiner believes that “we should affirm the participation of women in prayer and prophecy in the church” (129). Sadly though, in many conservative churches I’ve been in, either the male deacon or the preacher, elder, pastor, or any other man MUST ALWAYS pray the prayer over the congregation, while the women sit on the sidelines. If the churches clearly believed this, why do they affirm something different in exegesis than they do in their practice? There is an inconsistency there that complementarians must answer to God for.
While the church would have believed the creation order vouched for their position (vv. 7-9), Paul argues that, the creation order is reversed since Adam, for every man is now brought into the world through a woman (vv.11, 12). This being so, the custom is not one the churches have in operation, although, there are good grounds for implementing such a custom.
The issue of women and head coverings should show complementarians such as Schreiner, Piper, and Grudem that one can wear a sign of authority and still be allowed to publicly exercise their gifts (women). If this is so, women would not “have authority over a man” by teaching, because 1 Corinthians 11 doesn’t surely advocate this position. If a WIFE is having authority over her HUSBAND by teaching him, then, according to 1 Corinthians 11, “a sign of authority” such as head coverings solves this issue.
I’ll leave you with this final note: notice that the gender creation is reversed in the time of Paul and today, for women bring men into the world through birth. Yes, Paul here affirms the equality of men and women. But the creation order (that Adam came before Eve) is trumped by the fact that every daughter of Eve must give birth to every son of Adam and thus, comes before the sons of Adam today. Because of this reversed creation order in humanity, then, wearing a head covering is not a NECESSITY, although it could be a good idea for wives to wear a veil to submit to their husbands. If 1 Corinthians 11 does not use creation order to MANDATE head coverings (with the exercising of gifts), then what makes complementarians believe that 1 Timothy 2 prohibits women from exercising their gifts on the basis of the original creation order? 1 Timothy 2 has to be about something more—a Gnostic heresy in the church at Ephesus. 1 Timothy 2, of course, will be saved for another time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)