I left off my analysis of Luke’s reversal theme at the end of Luke 7 with the sinful woman who anoints Jesus’ feet. So I will continue this analysis now with Luke 8 through Luke 10, the chapter involving our passage of Martha and Mary. As I stated last time, I am assessing Luke’s reversal theme throughout the Gospel so I can put the story of Martha and Mary into proper perspective.
At the start of chapter 8, Luke records the names of women who are following Jesus (in addition to the Twelve Jesus handpicked to follow Him).
Another piece of evidence for Luke’s reversal theme can be found in verses 19-21. Here Luke reverses the meaning of family:
“Then his [Jesus] mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. And he was told, ‘Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.’ But he answered them, ‘My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.’”
Here Jesus is told that His family is outside waiting to see Him, and He responds with a reversal in the public’s idea of family: family does not consist necessarily of blood relatives, but those who do the will of His Father. This surely would have been a “slap in the face” to Jesus’ own earthly family. Even today, Jesus’ comment would have been considered disrespectful. Families today, as I imagine they did in the lifetime of Christ, were very tight-knit and prided themselves on being so. Families today do the same.
When I was a child, my mother and family always told my twin sister and I to stick together at school. We were never to laugh at each other in someone else’s face; instead, when one of us was laughed at, the other was to come to our aid. We were never to fight each other in public, or call each other names, or make the other cry. And no matter how much we disagreed with the other, in public, we were “on the same team.” That is the way it was throughout my entire childhood. And the reason? As my grandmother always said, “Blood is thicker than water.” No matter how close a non-relative could be, a relative could (and in most cases, would) always be closer.
But for my family, as for many families, as for the hearers of Jesus day, His response would have come as a sheer shock to those around Him—for He was redefining what a “family” is. In Jesus’ day (as well as my own), “blood was thicker than water”—but Jesus was actually asserting that there was something THICKER than family, the family unit. Jesus actually dared to assert the notion that there was a stronger unit than the human family—the family of God!
In chapter 9, we see another social reversal involving children:
“An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side and said to them, ‘Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great” (9:46-48).
Notice that the disciples are getting into a heated debate about who is the greatest amongst themselves. There is no child involved, just the Twelve disciples. But how does Jesus respond? He takes a child, sits the child in front of them, and claims that the child is an example of greatness (the least of those involved).
When we arrive at chapter 10, we see that Jesus sends 72 followers of His (minus the Twelve) to go and proclaim the kingdom among the house of Israel. In verse 17, the 72 returned to Jesus, exclaiming, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” Of all the work that excited them most, it was seeing the demons tremble and shudder at the name of Jesus. They were ecstatic about what they could do to the demons. But Jesus “nudged” them back to reality with the words, “Do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (Lk. 10:20, ESV). While the power was a good thing (it was destroying Satan’s kingdom), what was more important is that they have a heavenly citizenship and eternal life awaiting them. To be able to cast out demons in Christ’s Name (Matthew 7:22), but bear no fruit of repentance, would profit nothing.
In verse 21, Christ praises the Father: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the WISE and UNDERSTANDING and revealed them to LITTLE CHILDREN; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.” In verse 23, Jesus tells the disciples, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you are, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” The Father Himself has done a reversal of knowledge, as those considered to be “little children,” or infants, are “in the know” of God’s plan, while those who are “in the know” in society are ignorant of God’s workings. The reference to “prophets and kings” in verse 24 represents the power group of society, those in leadership, those who served in positions of prominence. Yet, God chose to give healing authority to these lowly 72 disciples, everyday people who chose to follow Christ. Christ truly gave power to the POWERLESS!!
In verses 25-37, Jesus tells the Parable of the Good Samaritan to show a lawyer who his neighbor was (per the lawyer’s request). Notice that the story involves Jewish ruling authority—the priest and a Levite. Priests and Levites served in the tabernacle and were considered to be the religious rulers among God’s people. However, in Jesus’ story, neither of these religious rulers stopped to help the man who had been beaten by robbers. These religious rulers seemed quite unconcerned about the man’s condition (and these were rulers who should have been showing love to the man, who was in need—they were supposed to be representing a God of love and mercy who helps those in need!). Who helps the hurt man? A Samaritan, a representative of an outcast group in Jesus’ day. Samaritans were half-Jewish and half-Gentile, and were considered to be unworthy of association (were known as half-breeds). Samaria was the home of the Samaritans, and no Jew ever visited Samaria. Jesus’ visit there in John 4 and His subsequent discussion with the Samaritan woman stunned His disciples. Jesus makes the Samaritan the example to follow, something that would have been an affront to a Pharisee. Once again, Jesus reverses social expectations—the priest, Levite, or even the Pharisee would have been the Jewish religious example to look to, but, instead, a Samaritan, a disliked opponent of the Jews, was made the godly example.
And this brings us up to the famous passage in question: Luke 10:38-42. In this passage, we have Martha, busy at work trying to be a good hostess, while Mary, Martha’s sister, is sitting at Christ’s feet, listening to Him. Martha tells Jesus to reinforce her command and tell Mary to help her; but Jesus does the reverse—He tells Martha that instead of Mary following her, she should be following Mary—listening to His teaching.
This passage is important when we consider that Luke’s Gospel is a social commentary on the social conditions of his day. Here, he is pairing up two things—the domestic service with the discipleship service. Martha chooses the domestic, the housework, and scolds Mary for not doing the same; but Jesus vindicates Mary and says that she chose “the good portion,” the one NECESSARY thing! Martha was doing a good thing by serving, but it wasn’t NECESSARY or needed.
Jesus overturns a social convention here, the idea that women were meant to be only in the kitchen serving food and being good hostesses. There was a set importance to being a good hostess, but there were other things that were more important, like listening to the teaching of Christ (being a disciple).
Let’s read Aida Spencer’s answer (as Wayne Grudem records it) in Grudem’s book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, page 162:
“Jesus has completely reversed the priorities and the consequences of those priorities in Jewish life. Not only does Jesus not think women are exempt from learning the Torah, but also they do BEST to learn God’s law…in choosing between a woman’s role in homemaking and a woman’s role in education, which Mary and Martha represent…Jesus has concluded that a woman’s role as homemaker is NOT primary...”
I agree with Aida Spencer’s words here. Martha was distracted with being a good hostess, which was the social expectation; but Jesus was concerned with Martha being a good disciple, which, in the eyes of the Savior, was the best state to aspire to. Notice that Jesus calls Mary’s “pupil stance” as the only “necessary” thing. Being a good hostess is optional—but being a good disciple is MANDATORY. Christ demands that we be excellent disciples of His, but whether or not our homes stay entirely immaculate most of the time is another thing entirely (not something in and of itself that plays a great role in our spiritual lives). According to Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, “The picture of a woman in the disciple’s position, at the feet of Jesus, would be STARTLING in a culture where women did not receive formal teaching from a rabbi” (1037, caps mine). Women weren’t taught from the rabbis, didn’t receive instruction in the Torah, because they were told they wouldn’t need it. They weren’t to teach, to instruct anyone in anything, so what did they need to learn the law for? Learning, in and of itself, was pointless…UNLESS you were going to teach. So women, never being able to teach, would have no need to learn. But here, in Luke 10, we see Jesus commending Mary for her desire to learn more of God’s law, and His instructing Martha to follow Mary’s example. Surely, then, there was some importance to learning—but, at the heart of Luke’s Gospel, there was some importance to WOMEN learning.
Let me say two things to conclude the discussion on Mary and Martha, at least for the immediate future. First, there is the idea that Jesus encouraged these women to learn. It is very likely that Martha and Mary were both single women (we have no proof that they were married). So, in their day, whether a woman was married or not, her ASSIGNED role from birth was to be a homemaker. With Jesus’ encouragement to learn, these two women found that they had an option with regard to lifestyle activity. They could now be disciples of Christ and choose to follow Him (as did the women of Luke 8). They were not married, so they could be totally devoted to the Lord.
Next, this has bearing on Wayne Grudem’s favorite passage that we will come to discuss on the blog soon—1 Timothy 2. Many have interpreted 1 Timothy 2 for every woman, whether married or single. However, Wayne Grudem and other complementarians are wrong about this, because the passage specifically mentions “childbearing,” and the rest of the epistle discusses young married wives “keeping house” (chapt. 5), so the passage refers to only married women.
To support Luke 10:38-42, and make sense of 1 Timothy 2, we have the words of the Apostle Paul:
“I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order, and TO SECURE YOUR UNDIVIDED DEVOTION TO THE LORD” (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).
For the unmarried woman, she need only be concerned with pleasing the Lord. If she is a good homemaker, and loves the domestic arena, that’s great—but she is not BOUND to be a homemaker or BOUND out of necessity to care for the home. I think that Jesus told Martha that her only necessary thing was to listen to His teaching because she was unmarried and had no need of a divided devotion. Maintaining her singleness, she could be totally dedicated to the Lord and His service. And it would pay for all single women to do the same as Mary—sit at His feet, learn His Word, and be ready for whatever great task He may commission you to perform.
Showing posts with label Wayne Grudem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wayne Grudem. Show all posts
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Martha and Mary: Luke's Social Concerns
“EGALITARIAN CLAIM 5.2: JESUS AND MARY: WHEN JESUS PRAISED MARY AND CORRECTED MARTHA (LUKE 10:38-42), HE OVERTURNED THE EXPECTATIONS THAT A PATRIARCHAL CULTURE PLACED ON WOMEN” (161).
Grudem’s response to this egalitarian claim is the following: “Jesus overturned some expectations, but the text does not say He overturned all expectations…I am thankful that Jesus taught women and conversed openly with them about theological questions (as in John 4)…but that does not mean that Jesus overturned all Jewish beliefs and customs about the roles of women and men!” (162)
The following response by Wayne Grudem does one major thing: it assumes that there are “roles of women and men.” Grudem’s response fails to address the story of Mary and Martha. In addition, it also fails to consider the theme that runs throughout Luke’s Gospel. I will first address the theme throughout Luke’s Gospel, and then we’ll conclude our study of the Gospel with the text in question (Luke 10:38-42).
All through Luke’s Gospel, there seems to be the theme of unexpected twists. In chapter 5, Jesus calls Matthew (known as Levi) to be His disciple. In verse 30, the Pharisees criticize Christ by saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” To the Pharisees, the elite of the day, the tax collectors and sinners were the “moral filth” of society, the people whom no one wanted to associate with. The Pharisees, claiming to be “the separated ones,” wanted to maintain their distance as far away from such immoral people as possible. But Jesus’ answer presents an unexpected twist to the Pharisaic train of thought: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Lk. 5:31-32, ESV). Jesus’ statement made it clear that the people the Pharisees wanted to shun and stay away from were the very people He came for. We see here that the Pharisees had a very averse train of thought from Christ—He came to heal the sick, not place them in a corner with a “stay away” sign.
From verses 33-39 of the same chapter, Jesus responds to the Pharisees on the issue of fasting. The Pharisees said, “The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink” (v.33). Jesus’ response? “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?” (v.34) Jesus tells the Pharisees that His disciples are eating and drinking because the current time is the proper time to do so, for “the bridegroom” (Himself) is with them, and they are the “wedding guests,” those who are to participate with Him. While Jesus is with them, they will celebrate His time on earth—but a time would come when He would be taken up from them, and, once gone, they would then fast (v.35). Jesus’ purpose for His response was to show the Pharisees that there is a proper time for fasting; and fasting is not to be done just for the sake of fasting. Fasting has a time and a purpose.
Luke 6 concerns the disciples picking grain out of the fields on the Sabbath. Once again the Pharisees come to criticize: “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” (v.2) This time, Jesus was violating a law on the Sabbath. On the Sabbath, it was against the Law to do any form of work—and picking grain out of the fields was constituted as work. Jesus has another twist up His sleeve: He throws the Law back on the Pharisees—“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” (vv.3, 4) Since the Pharisees resorted to the Law to attack Jesus, He did the same to attack them. What is interesting about His reference to the Law is that He mentions David, who ate the bread of the Presence, the bread reserved ONLY for the priests! David and his men were no priests—but they ate the bread anyway! Jesus was showing them that if David could unlawfully eat of the bread of the Presence, and he was “lord” over a kingdom (lowercase, that is!), then, surely, Jesus Himself could do that which seemed unlawful on the Sabbath—He being Lord over the day itself.
In verses 6-11, Jesus confronts the Pharisees again about the Sabbath: “I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” (v.9) Jesus once again made it clear to the Pharisees that it was the spirit of the Law that they should have been upholding, not the letter—“for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6, ESV).
In verses 20-26, Luke records his version of “The Beatitudes.” In contrast to Matthew’s, which mentions more of the heart and issues of the heart, Luke’s “Sermon” emphasizes social concerns: “Blessed are you who are poor…hungry…weep...” (vv.20, 21). However, what is interesting about Luke’s Sermon (in addition to his social slant) is that he declares blessings on those who are unfortunate, but doom on those who are fortunate—“Blessed are you who are poor,” but “woe to you who are rich”; “blessed are you who are hungry” but “woe to you who are full now”; “blessed are you who weep” but “woe to you who laugh now”. Luke’s Gospel, as I mentioned earlier, shows us unexpected twists at every turn. On every page of his Gospel, we see a reversal of fortunes, where those who are fortunate become those who are LESS fortunate; and those who are less fortunate become MORE fortunate.
Verses 36-50 of Luke 7 concern a sinful woman forgiven by Jesus. The woman is described as “a woman of the city, who was a sinner” (v.37). When she discovered that Jesus was sitting at the table of a Pharisee, she “bought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment” (v.38). This woman, what we would call “a woman of the night,” honors Jesus by wiping His feet with her tears and kissing His feet, not to mention anointing His feet. The Pharisee, who invited Jesus to his home, responds to the sinful woman’s actions: “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (v.39). The Pharisee saw this woman as something immoral, dirty, filthy, not worth his time—and similarly, believed that if Jesus really was who He claimed to be, He would have had nothing to do with her as well. She was the corrupt of society, and Pharisees (or good people) stayed away from such “wicked” influences. Jesus addresses him, telling him a story and then going for the jugular: “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little” (vv.44-47).
In response to the woman’s reverence of Christ, Jesus forgives her of her sins. Jesus promotes her at the table—yes, she who had no seat at it! However, those who had seats at the table were not praised; instead, they were told to learn something from this “woman of the night,” a woman whom the Pharisee (Simon) believed Jesus should have made no time for.
I will continue my study of Luke’s “reversal theme” in the next post. Finally, I will tie Luke’s reversal theme in with the egalitarian claim as well as Grudem’s response to show why I disagree with Grudem’s conclusion.
Grudem’s response to this egalitarian claim is the following: “Jesus overturned some expectations, but the text does not say He overturned all expectations…I am thankful that Jesus taught women and conversed openly with them about theological questions (as in John 4)…but that does not mean that Jesus overturned all Jewish beliefs and customs about the roles of women and men!” (162)
The following response by Wayne Grudem does one major thing: it assumes that there are “roles of women and men.” Grudem’s response fails to address the story of Mary and Martha. In addition, it also fails to consider the theme that runs throughout Luke’s Gospel. I will first address the theme throughout Luke’s Gospel, and then we’ll conclude our study of the Gospel with the text in question (Luke 10:38-42).
All through Luke’s Gospel, there seems to be the theme of unexpected twists. In chapter 5, Jesus calls Matthew (known as Levi) to be His disciple. In verse 30, the Pharisees criticize Christ by saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” To the Pharisees, the elite of the day, the tax collectors and sinners were the “moral filth” of society, the people whom no one wanted to associate with. The Pharisees, claiming to be “the separated ones,” wanted to maintain their distance as far away from such immoral people as possible. But Jesus’ answer presents an unexpected twist to the Pharisaic train of thought: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Lk. 5:31-32, ESV). Jesus’ statement made it clear that the people the Pharisees wanted to shun and stay away from were the very people He came for. We see here that the Pharisees had a very averse train of thought from Christ—He came to heal the sick, not place them in a corner with a “stay away” sign.
From verses 33-39 of the same chapter, Jesus responds to the Pharisees on the issue of fasting. The Pharisees said, “The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink” (v.33). Jesus’ response? “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?” (v.34) Jesus tells the Pharisees that His disciples are eating and drinking because the current time is the proper time to do so, for “the bridegroom” (Himself) is with them, and they are the “wedding guests,” those who are to participate with Him. While Jesus is with them, they will celebrate His time on earth—but a time would come when He would be taken up from them, and, once gone, they would then fast (v.35). Jesus’ purpose for His response was to show the Pharisees that there is a proper time for fasting; and fasting is not to be done just for the sake of fasting. Fasting has a time and a purpose.
Luke 6 concerns the disciples picking grain out of the fields on the Sabbath. Once again the Pharisees come to criticize: “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” (v.2) This time, Jesus was violating a law on the Sabbath. On the Sabbath, it was against the Law to do any form of work—and picking grain out of the fields was constituted as work. Jesus has another twist up His sleeve: He throws the Law back on the Pharisees—“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” (vv.3, 4) Since the Pharisees resorted to the Law to attack Jesus, He did the same to attack them. What is interesting about His reference to the Law is that He mentions David, who ate the bread of the Presence, the bread reserved ONLY for the priests! David and his men were no priests—but they ate the bread anyway! Jesus was showing them that if David could unlawfully eat of the bread of the Presence, and he was “lord” over a kingdom (lowercase, that is!), then, surely, Jesus Himself could do that which seemed unlawful on the Sabbath—He being Lord over the day itself.
In verses 6-11, Jesus confronts the Pharisees again about the Sabbath: “I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” (v.9) Jesus once again made it clear to the Pharisees that it was the spirit of the Law that they should have been upholding, not the letter—“for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6, ESV).
In verses 20-26, Luke records his version of “The Beatitudes.” In contrast to Matthew’s, which mentions more of the heart and issues of the heart, Luke’s “Sermon” emphasizes social concerns: “Blessed are you who are poor…hungry…weep...” (vv.20, 21). However, what is interesting about Luke’s Sermon (in addition to his social slant) is that he declares blessings on those who are unfortunate, but doom on those who are fortunate—“Blessed are you who are poor,” but “woe to you who are rich”; “blessed are you who are hungry” but “woe to you who are full now”; “blessed are you who weep” but “woe to you who laugh now”. Luke’s Gospel, as I mentioned earlier, shows us unexpected twists at every turn. On every page of his Gospel, we see a reversal of fortunes, where those who are fortunate become those who are LESS fortunate; and those who are less fortunate become MORE fortunate.
Verses 36-50 of Luke 7 concern a sinful woman forgiven by Jesus. The woman is described as “a woman of the city, who was a sinner” (v.37). When she discovered that Jesus was sitting at the table of a Pharisee, she “bought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment” (v.38). This woman, what we would call “a woman of the night,” honors Jesus by wiping His feet with her tears and kissing His feet, not to mention anointing His feet. The Pharisee, who invited Jesus to his home, responds to the sinful woman’s actions: “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (v.39). The Pharisee saw this woman as something immoral, dirty, filthy, not worth his time—and similarly, believed that if Jesus really was who He claimed to be, He would have had nothing to do with her as well. She was the corrupt of society, and Pharisees (or good people) stayed away from such “wicked” influences. Jesus addresses him, telling him a story and then going for the jugular: “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little” (vv.44-47).
In response to the woman’s reverence of Christ, Jesus forgives her of her sins. Jesus promotes her at the table—yes, she who had no seat at it! However, those who had seats at the table were not praised; instead, they were told to learn something from this “woman of the night,” a woman whom the Pharisee (Simon) believed Jesus should have made no time for.
I will continue my study of Luke’s “reversal theme” in the next post. Finally, I will tie Luke’s reversal theme in with the egalitarian claim as well as Grudem’s response to show why I disagree with Grudem’s conclusion.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
"Prophecy and Biblical Authority"
While glancing through some articles online from the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, I stumbled upon an article called “Anne Graham Lotz and Women in Church Leadership” by Brent Nelson. The article, dated October 21, 2008, discussed how Anne Graham Lotz felt when pastors walked out on her in a seminary chapel service. Anne Graham Lotz told Brent Nelson at Washington Post that she was discouraged until she began to pray and the Lord revealed to her a passage of comfort—John 20, where Mary Magdalene was sent by the Lord to the disciples to tell them that He had risen. She also thought about Acts 2:17 where the prophet Joel is quoted and the reference from Joel 2:28 is brought to the surface—“ ‘And in the last days it shall be,’ God declares, ‘that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY…”
I was reading this portion of Anne Graham Lotz’s response to rejection by Brent Nelson, so I didn’t get all the details about her interview. Nevertheless, Nelson’s response to Lotz (on the CBMW site) is worth showing:
“Imprecision is the handmaid of confusion, and confusion the prelude to bondage (John 8:32). We would do well to make a distinction between women in ministry (which the Bible affirms) and women in the pastorate (which the Bible forbids - 1 Timothy 2:12). Mary seeing Jesus and being commissioned to tell the disciples of his rising is indeed an honor, but certainly does not qualify her to take the role of an Elder or Pastor to men. Lotz is right to notice how the Spirit empowers both men and women to prophesy (1 Corinthians 11:5), but prophesying is not a biblically authoritative act. Children, servants, even unbelievers can prophesy, therefore it must be tested against Scripture (1 Corinthians 14:29, 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21).”
Did you notice something interesting about that quote? “Lotz is right to notice how the Spirit empowers both men and women to prophesy, but prophesying is NOT a BIBLICALLY-AUTHORITATIVE ACT.” What this says is that, while women can certainly prophesy in the church, they do not have any biblical authority because the gift of prophecy does not carry any spiritual authority with it.
Let’s look back at 1 Corinthians 11, the passage that Nelson references in his response to Anne Graham Lotz. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 concerns men and women prophesying. Now verse 5, pertaining to women, states, “but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven” (ESV). The English Standard Version translates “gunaikos” as “wife” because of later context (vv.7,8). Therefore, women should wear a head covering: “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” A wife should have authority on her head (according to the text). But why? The text tells us that “woman is the glory of the man.” But there is another reason as well—and the rest of chapter 11 gives it away. The context of the remainder of chapter 11 concerns the Lord’s Supper, which is done in a public setting—“When you come together…” (v.20). So women are not praying and prophesying in private, or in secret, or to the side, but publicly in the congregation! This, then, is why they must wear a head covering.
But, according to Nelson, prophecy does not carry any biblical authority. However, this isn’t true, and 1 Corinthians 11 contradicts what Nelson believes. Why else would these prophetesses be ordered to wear head coverings in public if they weren’t assuming an authoritative position in the assembly when they prophesied? It is precisely because they are assuming an authoritative stance that they are ordered to wear head coverings by the congregation. The purpose for creating this rule was so that women could show submission to their husbands (a first-century concern and a present one) as well as exercise their God-given spiritual authority. However, the early church didn’t have the problem that some churches have today—prohibiting women from exercising spiritual authority in the assembly.
The idea of not wearing a head covering appeared to the church to be a sign of headship, of assuming headship in the household and in the marriage. Paul’s words, then, concern women recognizing their place in the home, and their place before their husbands. Even at the conclusion, however, Paul does not make this idea a rule: “if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16). Notice also that Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:29, “let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.” Only prophets are able to judge prophecies, which means that prophets have a certain amount of biblical and spiritual authority (this is in addition to standing and speaking before the public assembly). Women, then, serving as prophetesses (1 Cor. 11:5), clearly had biblical and spiritual authority in the public assembly.
For those who wanna access the article, you can access it via the following website address: http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Anne-Graham-Lotz-and-Women-in-Church-Leadership
From there, you can access the Washington Post article.
I was reading this portion of Anne Graham Lotz’s response to rejection by Brent Nelson, so I didn’t get all the details about her interview. Nevertheless, Nelson’s response to Lotz (on the CBMW site) is worth showing:
“Imprecision is the handmaid of confusion, and confusion the prelude to bondage (John 8:32). We would do well to make a distinction between women in ministry (which the Bible affirms) and women in the pastorate (which the Bible forbids - 1 Timothy 2:12). Mary seeing Jesus and being commissioned to tell the disciples of his rising is indeed an honor, but certainly does not qualify her to take the role of an Elder or Pastor to men. Lotz is right to notice how the Spirit empowers both men and women to prophesy (1 Corinthians 11:5), but prophesying is not a biblically authoritative act. Children, servants, even unbelievers can prophesy, therefore it must be tested against Scripture (1 Corinthians 14:29, 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21).”
Did you notice something interesting about that quote? “Lotz is right to notice how the Spirit empowers both men and women to prophesy, but prophesying is NOT a BIBLICALLY-AUTHORITATIVE ACT.” What this says is that, while women can certainly prophesy in the church, they do not have any biblical authority because the gift of prophecy does not carry any spiritual authority with it.
Let’s look back at 1 Corinthians 11, the passage that Nelson references in his response to Anne Graham Lotz. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 concerns men and women prophesying. Now verse 5, pertaining to women, states, “but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven” (ESV). The English Standard Version translates “gunaikos” as “wife” because of later context (vv.7,8). Therefore, women should wear a head covering: “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” A wife should have authority on her head (according to the text). But why? The text tells us that “woman is the glory of the man.” But there is another reason as well—and the rest of chapter 11 gives it away. The context of the remainder of chapter 11 concerns the Lord’s Supper, which is done in a public setting—“When you come together…” (v.20). So women are not praying and prophesying in private, or in secret, or to the side, but publicly in the congregation! This, then, is why they must wear a head covering.
But, according to Nelson, prophecy does not carry any biblical authority. However, this isn’t true, and 1 Corinthians 11 contradicts what Nelson believes. Why else would these prophetesses be ordered to wear head coverings in public if they weren’t assuming an authoritative position in the assembly when they prophesied? It is precisely because they are assuming an authoritative stance that they are ordered to wear head coverings by the congregation. The purpose for creating this rule was so that women could show submission to their husbands (a first-century concern and a present one) as well as exercise their God-given spiritual authority. However, the early church didn’t have the problem that some churches have today—prohibiting women from exercising spiritual authority in the assembly.
The idea of not wearing a head covering appeared to the church to be a sign of headship, of assuming headship in the household and in the marriage. Paul’s words, then, concern women recognizing their place in the home, and their place before their husbands. Even at the conclusion, however, Paul does not make this idea a rule: “if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16). Notice also that Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:29, “let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.” Only prophets are able to judge prophecies, which means that prophets have a certain amount of biblical and spiritual authority (this is in addition to standing and speaking before the public assembly). Women, then, serving as prophetesses (1 Cor. 11:5), clearly had biblical and spiritual authority in the public assembly.
For those who wanna access the article, you can access it via the following website address: http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Anne-Graham-Lotz-and-Women-in-Church-Leadership
From there, you can access the Washington Post article.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Euodia and Syntyche: Two Notable Philippian Women
EGALITARIAN CLAIM 7.8: WOMEN AS PAUL’S COWORKERS: WOMEN SUCH AS EUODIA AND SYNTYCHE (PHILIPPIANS 4:2-3) WERE PAUL’S COWORKERS AND THEREFORE HAD SIGNIFICANT LEADERSHIP ROLES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Once again, I’m here to bring you another of Grudem’s “infamous” attacks against the egalitarian position. Grudem gives a three-part answer to this question (parts A, B, and C) but I’ll cut to the most serious answer he gives (some of his responses are a bit goofy and defy intellectual ability altogether, so I won’t waste time with answering crazy questions).
His best response for claim 7.8 is the following: “It is true that women were Paul’s coworkers, but the title ‘coworker’ does not imply that they had equal authority to Paul, or that they had the office of elder, or that they taught or governed in any New Testament churches” (248). His second response is “Some coworkers do things that other coworkers do not do” (248).
I’ll start with an example. Say that a person decides to go into business overnight and dreams of owning their very own business. Suppose that person decides to ask a friend to go into business with him, since he needs the extra energy, hands, and, not to mention, creativity. Within about six months, the company is alive and running and both men are given credit for ownership.
My question would be, “Who owns the business?” Keep in mind that one person decided to own a business, but asked a friend to join him in the business venture. If the original inventor is the owner, what does that make his friend—just an employee? No, I don’t think so! It makes the friend a CO-OWNER of the business. He and the original guy who dreamed up the idea are both CO-OWNERS! Each owns fifty percent of the company and are free to do with their fifty percent what they choose. Because they CO-OWN the business, they are both able to make lasting changes to the business and possess the power and authority to do so.
In Philippians 4, Paul refers to Euodia and Syntyche as his “coworkers.” This means that they worked closely with Paul, they labored alongside of Paul, they were right there on the front lines of evangelism, aiding in starting churches and preaching and teaching, etc. Euodia and Syntyche are no mere “hospitality committee members,” that’s for sure. If they are coworkers with Paul, then that means they labored with him to accomplish great things for the Gospel’s sake. That alone makes them very visible members of Paul’s ministry teams.
During my time home over the Christmas season, I read one of five books entitled “A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity” by Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Y. MacDonald. I’ll share some thoughts from this book in another blog post in the future. For now, I wanna talk about what I read in this book that ties into our investigation of Euodia and Syntyche:
“…Paul’s language implies that these women were involved in the evangelization of nonbelievers. They were apparently successful despite having experienced opposition from nonbelievers…using a verb that recalls the struggles of war or the violent contests of the games (sunathleo), the text describes them as coworkers who fought at Paul’s side in the gospel. The only other use of the term in the New Testament appears earlier in Philippians to refer to the struggle of the community against some external threat that Paul himself experienced (Phil. 1:27-30; see also Acts 16:19-40; 1 Thess. 2:2)” (“A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity”, 227).
According to Osiek, the word “sunathleo” refers to fighting, to contend, to struggling with something; and the fact that this verb is written by Paul about Euodia and Syntyche places them at the top of Paul’s workers in the churches he founded. If we look at a literal translation of the verb “sunathleo,” it literally means “to fight with,” or “to be a fighter with.” From the parent verb “athleo” comes our English word “athlete.” An athlete is one who plays sports, whether it be basketball, football, hockey, tennis, volleyball, track and field, gymnastics, etc. Athletes are distinguished from everyday people because they often wear uniforms at their games—and, they are usually the only ones who sweat themselves to death during the games! Athletes get themselves dirty in games—they dive for the ball, catch the baseball out in left field, slide to home base, make the winning soccer goal kick, hit the volleyball over the net, etc. Athletes, then, are very active in their games. No spectators are allowed to play in sports games—only the ATHLETES are. They do not sit on the sidelines and look pretty; no, they are the ones making plays happen for their team. And although everyone has a different part to play on the team, they are all still one team…and should they win a championship, everyone gets to share in the prestige and glory of victory (not one person is left out).
So to take this discussion of the verb “sunathleo” a little further, I will now look at the Philippians passage Osiek cites to see what we can gather about the significance of this “athlete” verb that just may set Euodia and Syntyche apart from the rest of Paul’s workers in the churches.
In Philippians 1:27-30, Paul tells the Philippians to “strive together for the faith of the gospel”(KJV). But this “striving together” is in a context that involves outside opposition: “And in nothing terrified by your adversaries” (1:28). In verse 30, Paul writes, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also TO SUFFER for his sake…” The verb is used here in a context of fighting against an enemy or an opponent.
Looking up the word “sunathleo” on my own, I discovered that Paul writes it to someone else—his son in the ministry, Timothy. 2 Timothy 2:5 is where we find our “famous” word: “And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.” The word for “strive” is “athleo,” being used as a subjunctive (a statement of possibility). In 2 Timothy 2:5, Paul uses the word “athleo” because he is giving Timothy an analogy of an athlete. Notice in 2 Tim. 2:5 that Paul talks about a man being “crowned,” which indicates that the athletes here are not just any athletes, but probably olympians. The reason why Paul gives Timothy this exhortation is because he wants Timothy to fight a good fight: “Thou therefore ENDURE HARDNESS, as a good soldier” (2 Tim. 2:3, King James Version), “if we SUFFER we shall also reign with him” (v.12), and especially some of Paul’s opening words—“but be thou PARTAKER OF THE AFFLICTIONS of the gospel according to the power of God” (1:8). Paul is talking to Timothy about the spiritual warfare he must rage in the city of Ephesus, where false teaching is prevailing among the believers, causing some to wander from the faith (and causing others to doubt their faith).
The word “athleo” may be found elsewhere in Scripture (such studies are to be discussed at a later time); but, for now, we know that these women were on the front lines with Paul, “sweating” for the gospel’s sake. Grudem’s first response, that these women did not have equal authority to Paul, is just an attack with no scriptural basis. Paul, for instance, refers to Apollos, for instance, on the same plane as himself: “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” (1 Corinthians 3:6-7). Look at these two verses. Paul notes that Apollos’ job is different from his own—he was charged by God to plant churches, while Apollos’ job was to edify the churches, to instruct believers, to build up the churches in the faith (in short, to nurse Paul’s “baby” churches and grow them into maturity). Nevertheless, Paul makes it clear that he and Apollos are both equally-called ministers of the gospel. In 1 Corinthians 3:8, Paul writes, “Now he that planteth and he that watereth ARE ONE,” and in 3:9, “for we are laborers together with God…” He places himself and Apollos in the same category, and he doesn’t distinguish his power from Apollos’. To be brief, he isn’t caught up in how much power he had. He is simply concerned about God’s work and that the churches reap the fruits of he, Apollos’, and Cephas’s labor.
If Paul considered Apollos to be on the same level with him in ministry, and Apollos was not one of Paul’s “team workers,” then what does this tell us about his view of Euodia and Syntyche? Since they fought “side-by-side” with him, they were certainly on the same plane as Paul was. Evidently, these women were so powerful in the church at Philippi that their dissention was causing division among the believers.
In Grudem’s response (www.EFBT100.com), he uses, as an example of “fellow worker,” 3 John 8, where it reads, “Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be FELLOW WORKERS for the truth.” Grudem responds with saying, “But this surely does not mean that everyone who supported a traveling missionary had ruling authority over the churches!” (248) Grudem actually believes his usage of 3 John 8 proves his point; however, he fails to see that John actually qualifies his use of “fellow worker” in 3 John 8: “fellow workers OF THE TRUTH.” All of those who believe in Christ are fellow workers of the truth! Because this title refers to all believers, this is not a statement on par with Paul’s classifications of “fellow worker” throughout his letters. In the Pauline letters, there are several people who “worked hard” for Paul, but not all of them are called “fellow workers.” In contrast, every believer is “a fellow worker of the truth.” He lifts up those in 3 John who support missionaries, saying that all believers have an opportunity to support the truth. While this is a nice try, it is really an extreme example that has no bearing on Paul’s labels of certain individuals. Once again, Grudem plays a “1 Timothy 2” card. He is still hung up on the “insane” notion that women never had any spiritual authority in the churches…and the more we examine his responses to egalitarianism, the more the “1 Timothy 2” card shines through.
Once again, I’m here to bring you another of Grudem’s “infamous” attacks against the egalitarian position. Grudem gives a three-part answer to this question (parts A, B, and C) but I’ll cut to the most serious answer he gives (some of his responses are a bit goofy and defy intellectual ability altogether, so I won’t waste time with answering crazy questions).
His best response for claim 7.8 is the following: “It is true that women were Paul’s coworkers, but the title ‘coworker’ does not imply that they had equal authority to Paul, or that they had the office of elder, or that they taught or governed in any New Testament churches” (248). His second response is “Some coworkers do things that other coworkers do not do” (248).
I’ll start with an example. Say that a person decides to go into business overnight and dreams of owning their very own business. Suppose that person decides to ask a friend to go into business with him, since he needs the extra energy, hands, and, not to mention, creativity. Within about six months, the company is alive and running and both men are given credit for ownership.
My question would be, “Who owns the business?” Keep in mind that one person decided to own a business, but asked a friend to join him in the business venture. If the original inventor is the owner, what does that make his friend—just an employee? No, I don’t think so! It makes the friend a CO-OWNER of the business. He and the original guy who dreamed up the idea are both CO-OWNERS! Each owns fifty percent of the company and are free to do with their fifty percent what they choose. Because they CO-OWN the business, they are both able to make lasting changes to the business and possess the power and authority to do so.
In Philippians 4, Paul refers to Euodia and Syntyche as his “coworkers.” This means that they worked closely with Paul, they labored alongside of Paul, they were right there on the front lines of evangelism, aiding in starting churches and preaching and teaching, etc. Euodia and Syntyche are no mere “hospitality committee members,” that’s for sure. If they are coworkers with Paul, then that means they labored with him to accomplish great things for the Gospel’s sake. That alone makes them very visible members of Paul’s ministry teams.
During my time home over the Christmas season, I read one of five books entitled “A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity” by Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Y. MacDonald. I’ll share some thoughts from this book in another blog post in the future. For now, I wanna talk about what I read in this book that ties into our investigation of Euodia and Syntyche:
“…Paul’s language implies that these women were involved in the evangelization of nonbelievers. They were apparently successful despite having experienced opposition from nonbelievers…using a verb that recalls the struggles of war or the violent contests of the games (sunathleo), the text describes them as coworkers who fought at Paul’s side in the gospel. The only other use of the term in the New Testament appears earlier in Philippians to refer to the struggle of the community against some external threat that Paul himself experienced (Phil. 1:27-30; see also Acts 16:19-40; 1 Thess. 2:2)” (“A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity”, 227).
According to Osiek, the word “sunathleo” refers to fighting, to contend, to struggling with something; and the fact that this verb is written by Paul about Euodia and Syntyche places them at the top of Paul’s workers in the churches he founded. If we look at a literal translation of the verb “sunathleo,” it literally means “to fight with,” or “to be a fighter with.” From the parent verb “athleo” comes our English word “athlete.” An athlete is one who plays sports, whether it be basketball, football, hockey, tennis, volleyball, track and field, gymnastics, etc. Athletes are distinguished from everyday people because they often wear uniforms at their games—and, they are usually the only ones who sweat themselves to death during the games! Athletes get themselves dirty in games—they dive for the ball, catch the baseball out in left field, slide to home base, make the winning soccer goal kick, hit the volleyball over the net, etc. Athletes, then, are very active in their games. No spectators are allowed to play in sports games—only the ATHLETES are. They do not sit on the sidelines and look pretty; no, they are the ones making plays happen for their team. And although everyone has a different part to play on the team, they are all still one team…and should they win a championship, everyone gets to share in the prestige and glory of victory (not one person is left out).
So to take this discussion of the verb “sunathleo” a little further, I will now look at the Philippians passage Osiek cites to see what we can gather about the significance of this “athlete” verb that just may set Euodia and Syntyche apart from the rest of Paul’s workers in the churches.
In Philippians 1:27-30, Paul tells the Philippians to “strive together for the faith of the gospel”(KJV). But this “striving together” is in a context that involves outside opposition: “And in nothing terrified by your adversaries” (1:28). In verse 30, Paul writes, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also TO SUFFER for his sake…” The verb is used here in a context of fighting against an enemy or an opponent.
Looking up the word “sunathleo” on my own, I discovered that Paul writes it to someone else—his son in the ministry, Timothy. 2 Timothy 2:5 is where we find our “famous” word: “And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.” The word for “strive” is “athleo,” being used as a subjunctive (a statement of possibility). In 2 Timothy 2:5, Paul uses the word “athleo” because he is giving Timothy an analogy of an athlete. Notice in 2 Tim. 2:5 that Paul talks about a man being “crowned,” which indicates that the athletes here are not just any athletes, but probably olympians. The reason why Paul gives Timothy this exhortation is because he wants Timothy to fight a good fight: “Thou therefore ENDURE HARDNESS, as a good soldier” (2 Tim. 2:3, King James Version), “if we SUFFER we shall also reign with him” (v.12), and especially some of Paul’s opening words—“but be thou PARTAKER OF THE AFFLICTIONS of the gospel according to the power of God” (1:8). Paul is talking to Timothy about the spiritual warfare he must rage in the city of Ephesus, where false teaching is prevailing among the believers, causing some to wander from the faith (and causing others to doubt their faith).
The word “athleo” may be found elsewhere in Scripture (such studies are to be discussed at a later time); but, for now, we know that these women were on the front lines with Paul, “sweating” for the gospel’s sake. Grudem’s first response, that these women did not have equal authority to Paul, is just an attack with no scriptural basis. Paul, for instance, refers to Apollos, for instance, on the same plane as himself: “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” (1 Corinthians 3:6-7). Look at these two verses. Paul notes that Apollos’ job is different from his own—he was charged by God to plant churches, while Apollos’ job was to edify the churches, to instruct believers, to build up the churches in the faith (in short, to nurse Paul’s “baby” churches and grow them into maturity). Nevertheless, Paul makes it clear that he and Apollos are both equally-called ministers of the gospel. In 1 Corinthians 3:8, Paul writes, “Now he that planteth and he that watereth ARE ONE,” and in 3:9, “for we are laborers together with God…” He places himself and Apollos in the same category, and he doesn’t distinguish his power from Apollos’. To be brief, he isn’t caught up in how much power he had. He is simply concerned about God’s work and that the churches reap the fruits of he, Apollos’, and Cephas’s labor.
If Paul considered Apollos to be on the same level with him in ministry, and Apollos was not one of Paul’s “team workers,” then what does this tell us about his view of Euodia and Syntyche? Since they fought “side-by-side” with him, they were certainly on the same plane as Paul was. Evidently, these women were so powerful in the church at Philippi that their dissention was causing division among the believers.
In Grudem’s response (www.EFBT100.com), he uses, as an example of “fellow worker,” 3 John 8, where it reads, “Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be FELLOW WORKERS for the truth.” Grudem responds with saying, “But this surely does not mean that everyone who supported a traveling missionary had ruling authority over the churches!” (248) Grudem actually believes his usage of 3 John 8 proves his point; however, he fails to see that John actually qualifies his use of “fellow worker” in 3 John 8: “fellow workers OF THE TRUTH.” All of those who believe in Christ are fellow workers of the truth! Because this title refers to all believers, this is not a statement on par with Paul’s classifications of “fellow worker” throughout his letters. In the Pauline letters, there are several people who “worked hard” for Paul, but not all of them are called “fellow workers.” In contrast, every believer is “a fellow worker of the truth.” He lifts up those in 3 John who support missionaries, saying that all believers have an opportunity to support the truth. While this is a nice try, it is really an extreme example that has no bearing on Paul’s labels of certain individuals. Once again, Grudem plays a “1 Timothy 2” card. He is still hung up on the “insane” notion that women never had any spiritual authority in the churches…and the more we examine his responses to egalitarianism, the more the “1 Timothy 2” card shines through.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Teaching-- Manner or Means?
“Egalitarian Claim 5.10: Priscilla Taught Apollos: Since Priscilla and Aquila both “explained” to Apollos “the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26), women can teach men in the church” (Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 177).
The above statement comes as an egalitarian response regarding women in the church. Wayne Grudem opposes the idea of women teaching, and, as always, attempts to find a way to debunk the egalitarian argument. His response to the above claim? First, he points out the difference between public teaching and private teaching. According to Grudem, the case of Priscilla teaching Apollos was a private event (Answer 5.10b) and there is a difference between women teaching in private and women teaching in public. His final conclusion in the matter of Priscilla, however, is the following (Answer 5.10C):
“…it is specifically in situations where the whole church is assembled that Paul restricts governing and teaching activities to men (see 1 Corinthians 14:33-36; 1 Timothy 2:11-15; see also qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). The example of Priscilla and Aquila instructing Apollos privately in Acts 18:26 does not contradict this” (Grudem, 179).
Go back to page 75 of Grudem’s book and notice that he talks about this passage in direct relation to 1 Timothy 2. As I’ve stated so many times before, Grudem uses 1 Timothy 2 as a “proof-text” for his inherent gender bias. Here, he argues that, since Priscilla taught him in private, this passage does not contradict 1 Timothy 2.
But Grudem makes a mistake. The emphasis of Acts 18:26 is not about women teaching in private (notice that Aquila aids in this endeavor). Rather, it is about a couple knowledgeable in the faith teaching someone who is not. The focus of the passage is on how to correct fellow believers in a loving and gentle manner. All of Scripture focuses on correcting others first in private, then, if need be, in public. To demonstrate this, the following discussion will start with the New Testament. But first, let’s look at Acts 18:24-26 (NASB):
“Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, BEING ACQUAINTED ONLY WITH THE BAPTISM OF JOHN; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But WHEN PRISCILLA AND AQUILA HEARD HIM, THEY TOOK HIM ASIDE and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”
The two “all caps” phrases are the emphasis of these three verses. Note that Apollos was “an eloquent man…mighty in the Scriptures.” He was not only a good orator, but one very well-versed, one who studied Scripture assiduously. He knew Scripture backwards and forwards. However, there was one problem: he was “acquainted only with the baptism of John.” He only knew of John’s baptism, although John had told of Christ’s baptism to follow. He knew a lot, but he didn’t know everything!
Priscilla and Aquila hear him speaking boldly in the synagogue. The moment they hear him, do they correct him in public? No—they take him aside in private and correct him. This response is a response of love and gentleness that God’s Word requires of us. But this passage is not focusing on women teaching men in private. Grudem claims to be a strict literalist when it comes to 1 Timothy 2: but if he was, he would know that Paul writes (according to Grudem’s own view) that a woman should not teach a man—but it doesn’t say under what context a woman could teach a man! Paul says that a woman can’t (to use Grudem’s belief)! If Grudem believes women can teach men, just not in a public setting, then it must cause a person to pause and wonder if something else isn’t driving Grudem’s belief about women in ministry. If God can use a woman’s ministry gifts in private, why can’t He use them in public? God acknowledged Mary in public as a woman favored by God who was chosen to bear the Christ child…and Mary’s faithfulness to God is something only God saw. David was one who loved God in his heart, and yet, God anointed David publicly, not just in his household among his brothers but also announced him later in the presence of the nation of Israel. God is not one to just use people in secret; He also exalts them in public. Other examples would include Joseph, who was sold into slavery privately by his brothers (Genesis) but later became prime minister of Egypt, as well as Esther who, although a Jewish queen in private, was allowed to save her people publicly. Notice in the Esther story that Mordecai, Esther’s cousin (acting as uncle) exhorted Esther in private, but was exalted by God in public after the Jews’ lives were spared from extinction. Last but not least, look at Jesus—He was born in a little manger in Bethlehem, but later was crucified publicly on a cross in order to redeem and reconcile mankind back to God. Jesus often said many times while on earth that “My hour has not yet come” (John 2, John 7:6), and “my time is near” (Matthew 26:18) to indicate a set time in which He had to be publicly displayed on the cross (see Galatians 4:4 about “the fullness of time”).
Now that we’ve spent time showing examples of private to public displays of God’s ordained gifting of His children, let’s look at some passages that display correction of God’s people in the New Testament. We will look at the Old Testament examples in the days to come.
I. Correction in the New Testament
The example of Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos (Acts 18) seems to show us what love the couple extended to Apollos, while he possessed no knowledge of Christ’s baptism. His ignorance of the subject explains why Priscilla and Aquila took him aside. After all, Apollos is the subject of Acts 18:24-26, not Priscilla. She, like Aquila, is an innocent bystander who simply wants to teach Apollos so that the Gospel would not be blasphemed. The emphasis is Apollos, not Priscilla.
Matthew 18:15-17 shows a person how to teach someone regarding their sin:
“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private…if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED…if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church…”
There is a three-step process here for dealing with a person who is wrong: first, tell them one-on-one; then, take another person or two with you; finally, tell the church; and if the person refuses to listen after that, reject him and walk away. Jesus told the disciples this process of how to encounter individuals in the body of Christ within the context of “becoming like children” in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 18:3) and going after those who are astray (Matt. 18:12-14). To confess sin and see one’s fault is what it means to be like a little child, to humble oneself (Matt. 18:4). To go after those who are astray involves chasing down those who have sinned in your presence (Matt. 18:15). This is part of what it means to do evangelism—go after those who are like that one stray sheep (18:12).
In the case of Apollos, Priscilla and Aquila were both present when Apollos began to teach of John’s baptism, so they both were present to inform Apollos of Christ’s baptism. With the words of Christ, we see that the first step to conducting church discipline is to go to that person IN PRIVATE, not humiliate him in public just to prove a point, or show how sinful he is. The purpose of discipline is to help the person turn from their sin, not make them look like the “chief of sinners” (although Paul labeled himself as such—1 Timothy 1).
However, if a person continues to sin, then other measures are to be taken—next, you take others with the person. After that doesn’t work, then it is time to exercise church discipline, and the church must take action in the problem. We will cover the justification for further action in the next blog on teaching.
The above statement comes as an egalitarian response regarding women in the church. Wayne Grudem opposes the idea of women teaching, and, as always, attempts to find a way to debunk the egalitarian argument. His response to the above claim? First, he points out the difference between public teaching and private teaching. According to Grudem, the case of Priscilla teaching Apollos was a private event (Answer 5.10b) and there is a difference between women teaching in private and women teaching in public. His final conclusion in the matter of Priscilla, however, is the following (Answer 5.10C):
“…it is specifically in situations where the whole church is assembled that Paul restricts governing and teaching activities to men (see 1 Corinthians 14:33-36; 1 Timothy 2:11-15; see also qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). The example of Priscilla and Aquila instructing Apollos privately in Acts 18:26 does not contradict this” (Grudem, 179).
Go back to page 75 of Grudem’s book and notice that he talks about this passage in direct relation to 1 Timothy 2. As I’ve stated so many times before, Grudem uses 1 Timothy 2 as a “proof-text” for his inherent gender bias. Here, he argues that, since Priscilla taught him in private, this passage does not contradict 1 Timothy 2.
But Grudem makes a mistake. The emphasis of Acts 18:26 is not about women teaching in private (notice that Aquila aids in this endeavor). Rather, it is about a couple knowledgeable in the faith teaching someone who is not. The focus of the passage is on how to correct fellow believers in a loving and gentle manner. All of Scripture focuses on correcting others first in private, then, if need be, in public. To demonstrate this, the following discussion will start with the New Testament. But first, let’s look at Acts 18:24-26 (NASB):
“Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, BEING ACQUAINTED ONLY WITH THE BAPTISM OF JOHN; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But WHEN PRISCILLA AND AQUILA HEARD HIM, THEY TOOK HIM ASIDE and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”
The two “all caps” phrases are the emphasis of these three verses. Note that Apollos was “an eloquent man…mighty in the Scriptures.” He was not only a good orator, but one very well-versed, one who studied Scripture assiduously. He knew Scripture backwards and forwards. However, there was one problem: he was “acquainted only with the baptism of John.” He only knew of John’s baptism, although John had told of Christ’s baptism to follow. He knew a lot, but he didn’t know everything!
Priscilla and Aquila hear him speaking boldly in the synagogue. The moment they hear him, do they correct him in public? No—they take him aside in private and correct him. This response is a response of love and gentleness that God’s Word requires of us. But this passage is not focusing on women teaching men in private. Grudem claims to be a strict literalist when it comes to 1 Timothy 2: but if he was, he would know that Paul writes (according to Grudem’s own view) that a woman should not teach a man—but it doesn’t say under what context a woman could teach a man! Paul says that a woman can’t (to use Grudem’s belief)! If Grudem believes women can teach men, just not in a public setting, then it must cause a person to pause and wonder if something else isn’t driving Grudem’s belief about women in ministry. If God can use a woman’s ministry gifts in private, why can’t He use them in public? God acknowledged Mary in public as a woman favored by God who was chosen to bear the Christ child…and Mary’s faithfulness to God is something only God saw. David was one who loved God in his heart, and yet, God anointed David publicly, not just in his household among his brothers but also announced him later in the presence of the nation of Israel. God is not one to just use people in secret; He also exalts them in public. Other examples would include Joseph, who was sold into slavery privately by his brothers (Genesis) but later became prime minister of Egypt, as well as Esther who, although a Jewish queen in private, was allowed to save her people publicly. Notice in the Esther story that Mordecai, Esther’s cousin (acting as uncle) exhorted Esther in private, but was exalted by God in public after the Jews’ lives were spared from extinction. Last but not least, look at Jesus—He was born in a little manger in Bethlehem, but later was crucified publicly on a cross in order to redeem and reconcile mankind back to God. Jesus often said many times while on earth that “My hour has not yet come” (John 2, John 7:6), and “my time is near” (Matthew 26:18) to indicate a set time in which He had to be publicly displayed on the cross (see Galatians 4:4 about “the fullness of time”).
Now that we’ve spent time showing examples of private to public displays of God’s ordained gifting of His children, let’s look at some passages that display correction of God’s people in the New Testament. We will look at the Old Testament examples in the days to come.
I. Correction in the New Testament
The example of Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos (Acts 18) seems to show us what love the couple extended to Apollos, while he possessed no knowledge of Christ’s baptism. His ignorance of the subject explains why Priscilla and Aquila took him aside. After all, Apollos is the subject of Acts 18:24-26, not Priscilla. She, like Aquila, is an innocent bystander who simply wants to teach Apollos so that the Gospel would not be blasphemed. The emphasis is Apollos, not Priscilla.
Matthew 18:15-17 shows a person how to teach someone regarding their sin:
“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private…if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED…if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church…”
There is a three-step process here for dealing with a person who is wrong: first, tell them one-on-one; then, take another person or two with you; finally, tell the church; and if the person refuses to listen after that, reject him and walk away. Jesus told the disciples this process of how to encounter individuals in the body of Christ within the context of “becoming like children” in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 18:3) and going after those who are astray (Matt. 18:12-14). To confess sin and see one’s fault is what it means to be like a little child, to humble oneself (Matt. 18:4). To go after those who are astray involves chasing down those who have sinned in your presence (Matt. 18:15). This is part of what it means to do evangelism—go after those who are like that one stray sheep (18:12).
In the case of Apollos, Priscilla and Aquila were both present when Apollos began to teach of John’s baptism, so they both were present to inform Apollos of Christ’s baptism. With the words of Christ, we see that the first step to conducting church discipline is to go to that person IN PRIVATE, not humiliate him in public just to prove a point, or show how sinful he is. The purpose of discipline is to help the person turn from their sin, not make them look like the “chief of sinners” (although Paul labeled himself as such—1 Timothy 1).
However, if a person continues to sin, then other measures are to be taken—next, you take others with the person. After that doesn’t work, then it is time to exercise church discipline, and the church must take action in the problem. We will cover the justification for further action in the next blog on teaching.
Monday, December 15, 2008
From "Apostolos" to "Episkopos"
I have discussed Junia at some length over quite a few posts. And I stumbled onto something else I wanted to share with my readers.
Junia was a female apostle, possibly one of many—although she was the only one we’ve read of explicitly mentioned in Scripture as such. However, reading Romans 16:7, it is clear that she had an authoritative role in the churches and possessed quite an amount of spiritual authority over the churches at Rome. However, while pondering Junia’s apostleship, something hit me. I kept thinking back to the Eleven apostles (minus Judas, of course, who was the Twelfth), contemplating what an honor it must have been to Junia to read of Paul greeting her the way he did. I can imagine that if I were Junia, I would have thought about the original Twelve disciples often, and dreamed about how blessed I would have been to have been given the apostolic office by God, while at the same time, amazed at how I was “passed the torch” by the original apostles of old. Thinking about Junia’s “spiritual ancestors,” something flashed across my thoughts and I ended up grabbing my NASB translation as well as my UBS text of the “Reader’s Greek New Testament.” To find out where my mind took me (which is a scary thought in and of itself), turn to Acts 1:16-20. The disciples, along with the others, totaling 120 persons, are all in the Upper Room, and Peter is speaking about Judas’s apostleship. Let’s get in on the event:
“Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was counted among us and receive his share in this ministry…For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead be made desolate, and let no one dwell in it’; and, LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE’” (Acts 1:16-17, 20).
Peter tells the gathering that Judas was one of them, but fell from his ministry because the Holy Spirit, speaking through David in Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8, foretold that Judas would do the very thing he did.
I grew up a reader of the King James Version (KJV), so I always read the King James, and, although I was confused at times, tried to make sense of the version. Reading Acts 1:20 in the King James said, “And his bishopric let another man take.” Did you notice the word “bishopric”? Peter, by so speaking, calls the apostolic office a “bishopric.” Immediately, my mind went to 1 Timothy 3, as I remembered that the KJV always began 1 Tim. 3 with the words, “If a man desires the office of a bishop…” I looked at the New American Standard translation to see what it could tell me, and it called the “bishopric” of the KJV an “office” or “position as overseer.” Immediately, I opened my “Reader’s Greek NT” to see what the original language could tell me, and I found this: the word for “bishopric” or “office of overseer” in the Greek is the word “episkopein.” The word used here, “episkopein,” in Acts 1:20, is the same word used for the office of a bishop in 1 Tim. 3:1. That got me to thinking, “If apostles are overseers, how is it possible for them to become pastors?” All this because of one little word…and our favorite female apostle, Junia!
Now, in order to answer this question, we’ll have to do a little Bible digging. In any case, I began to take notice of leadership in the early church. Acts 15 tells us of a letter sent from the Jewish churches to the new Gentile believers in Antioch. Verse 22 says, “Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole church…” The only leadership in Acts 15 consisted of the apostles and elders. While the elders were there to teach and preach, they were not pastors. Although elders are overseers (and so are pastors), an elder is not a pastor (while a pastor is an elder). There is a difference between the offices of elder and pastor—but the apostles served in the pastoral role in the early church here in Acts 15.
Look in Acts 16. Paul selects Timothy to travel with him through the cities, so they could deliver the decrees of covenant from the church in Jerusalem to the new Gentile churches. Acts 16:4 says, “Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem…” The apostles and elders decided what decrees to issue to the new Gentile churches. They served, then, in the capacity of leadership for the Jerusalem church. The apostles, as leaders, would have served in the pastoral role.
Reading further into the New Testament, we can see how fellow workers with Paul, such as Timothy and Titus, served in the apostle/pastoral role. In Acts 18:19, Paul departed from Timothy (and company) and went to Cenchrea (accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila). It is after his departure to Macedonia that we read of 1 Timothy 1:3—“As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines.” Timothy is left at Ephesus to oversee the church and straighten out issues in the church at Ephesus. First, Timothy has got to put an end to the false teaching. Next, Timothy has got to serve in a pastoral role. He has got to give guidance to the church for a while, make sure that everything is going as orthodox as it can. Paul writes to Timothy, “Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching…do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery” (1 Tim. 4:13-14). We read these words in verse 16: “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.” In 1 Tim. 5:19-20 (regarding elders), “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses…those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning” (NASB). These instructions to Timothy are what a pastor does today. Thus, it is no secret that 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are referred to as “The Pastorals.” They are called “The Pastorals” because Paul gives Timothy and Titus pastoral advice regarding what to teach and how to conduct themselves while at these churches (or while establishing them). Although Timothy serves as a pastor, his service is not for long—in 2 Timothy 4:9 Paul says, “Make every effort to come to me soon.” And in 2 Tim. 4:11-12? “Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. But Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus.” Notice that Timothy is not supposed to stay at Ephesus; he was only there in the beginning to “instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:3-4a).
With Titus, the situation was a little different. While Timothy had to deal with existing elders at Ephesus, Titus had to appoint elders himself: “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). Titus was supposed to appoint elders, which is what an apostle would have done. Apostles were supposed to create churches and establish leadership, but then move on to other churches, where there were immediate needs. Apostles could also come back to other churches to maintain a watchful eye on their progress in the faith. Notice, in addition, that Titus doesn’t stay on the island of Crete after all of his work: “When I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, make every effort to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there” (Titus 3:12). Titus, like Timothy, was supposed to serve a set purpose at the churches, but then move on to other needs in other churches. While neither are labeled an apostle outright in the Scriptures, both seem to do the work of apostles.
Last but not least, I wanna comment on the apostolic office: it involved a lot of work. Some time ago I spent time discussing Ephesians 4:11 (also found in 1 Corinthians 12:28) about the ministries of the church—apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. The apostles, having the greatest tasks of all the others, had to be skilled in many of these ministries. In Timothy’s case, he was an apostle (1 Tim. 1:3), a pastor (1 Tim. 5:17-22), a teacher (1 Tim. 4:11), and an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5). In addition, many prophecies had been made about Timothy’s giftedness to the body of Christ (1 Tim. 1:18). Titus was an apostle (Titus 1:5), a teacher (Titus 2:15), and a pastor (1:13, 2:15). In Titus 1:13, Paul makes it clear that as Pastor, Titus’s job is to punish those who are teaching falsehood, deal with them publicly so others won’t do the same. This is indeed a job for the pastor alone.
Apostles had a hard job to do. In the case of Timothy and Titus, they had to prepare themselves for a number of things. But according to Peter’s own words in Acts 1:20, the apostolic office was a “bishopric,” a pastorate, a ministry with a pastoral role of caring for and watching over the churches of God. Junia, then, by being an apostle (Romans 16:7), would have had a job of the same caliber as Timothy and Titus, although she was heavily involved in the churches at Rome.
The next question becomes, then, “how could Junia (a woman apostle) be a woman pastor, a female “episkopos”? that is something I will address in future discussion on the Pastorals.
Junia was a female apostle, possibly one of many—although she was the only one we’ve read of explicitly mentioned in Scripture as such. However, reading Romans 16:7, it is clear that she had an authoritative role in the churches and possessed quite an amount of spiritual authority over the churches at Rome. However, while pondering Junia’s apostleship, something hit me. I kept thinking back to the Eleven apostles (minus Judas, of course, who was the Twelfth), contemplating what an honor it must have been to Junia to read of Paul greeting her the way he did. I can imagine that if I were Junia, I would have thought about the original Twelve disciples often, and dreamed about how blessed I would have been to have been given the apostolic office by God, while at the same time, amazed at how I was “passed the torch” by the original apostles of old. Thinking about Junia’s “spiritual ancestors,” something flashed across my thoughts and I ended up grabbing my NASB translation as well as my UBS text of the “Reader’s Greek New Testament.” To find out where my mind took me (which is a scary thought in and of itself), turn to Acts 1:16-20. The disciples, along with the others, totaling 120 persons, are all in the Upper Room, and Peter is speaking about Judas’s apostleship. Let’s get in on the event:
“Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was counted among us and receive his share in this ministry…For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead be made desolate, and let no one dwell in it’; and, LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE’” (Acts 1:16-17, 20).
Peter tells the gathering that Judas was one of them, but fell from his ministry because the Holy Spirit, speaking through David in Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8, foretold that Judas would do the very thing he did.
I grew up a reader of the King James Version (KJV), so I always read the King James, and, although I was confused at times, tried to make sense of the version. Reading Acts 1:20 in the King James said, “And his bishopric let another man take.” Did you notice the word “bishopric”? Peter, by so speaking, calls the apostolic office a “bishopric.” Immediately, my mind went to 1 Timothy 3, as I remembered that the KJV always began 1 Tim. 3 with the words, “If a man desires the office of a bishop…” I looked at the New American Standard translation to see what it could tell me, and it called the “bishopric” of the KJV an “office” or “position as overseer.” Immediately, I opened my “Reader’s Greek NT” to see what the original language could tell me, and I found this: the word for “bishopric” or “office of overseer” in the Greek is the word “episkopein.” The word used here, “episkopein,” in Acts 1:20, is the same word used for the office of a bishop in 1 Tim. 3:1. That got me to thinking, “If apostles are overseers, how is it possible for them to become pastors?” All this because of one little word…and our favorite female apostle, Junia!
Now, in order to answer this question, we’ll have to do a little Bible digging. In any case, I began to take notice of leadership in the early church. Acts 15 tells us of a letter sent from the Jewish churches to the new Gentile believers in Antioch. Verse 22 says, “Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole church…” The only leadership in Acts 15 consisted of the apostles and elders. While the elders were there to teach and preach, they were not pastors. Although elders are overseers (and so are pastors), an elder is not a pastor (while a pastor is an elder). There is a difference between the offices of elder and pastor—but the apostles served in the pastoral role in the early church here in Acts 15.
Look in Acts 16. Paul selects Timothy to travel with him through the cities, so they could deliver the decrees of covenant from the church in Jerusalem to the new Gentile churches. Acts 16:4 says, “Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem…” The apostles and elders decided what decrees to issue to the new Gentile churches. They served, then, in the capacity of leadership for the Jerusalem church. The apostles, as leaders, would have served in the pastoral role.
Reading further into the New Testament, we can see how fellow workers with Paul, such as Timothy and Titus, served in the apostle/pastoral role. In Acts 18:19, Paul departed from Timothy (and company) and went to Cenchrea (accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila). It is after his departure to Macedonia that we read of 1 Timothy 1:3—“As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines.” Timothy is left at Ephesus to oversee the church and straighten out issues in the church at Ephesus. First, Timothy has got to put an end to the false teaching. Next, Timothy has got to serve in a pastoral role. He has got to give guidance to the church for a while, make sure that everything is going as orthodox as it can. Paul writes to Timothy, “Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching…do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery” (1 Tim. 4:13-14). We read these words in verse 16: “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.” In 1 Tim. 5:19-20 (regarding elders), “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses…those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning” (NASB). These instructions to Timothy are what a pastor does today. Thus, it is no secret that 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are referred to as “The Pastorals.” They are called “The Pastorals” because Paul gives Timothy and Titus pastoral advice regarding what to teach and how to conduct themselves while at these churches (or while establishing them). Although Timothy serves as a pastor, his service is not for long—in 2 Timothy 4:9 Paul says, “Make every effort to come to me soon.” And in 2 Tim. 4:11-12? “Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. But Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus.” Notice that Timothy is not supposed to stay at Ephesus; he was only there in the beginning to “instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:3-4a).
With Titus, the situation was a little different. While Timothy had to deal with existing elders at Ephesus, Titus had to appoint elders himself: “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). Titus was supposed to appoint elders, which is what an apostle would have done. Apostles were supposed to create churches and establish leadership, but then move on to other churches, where there were immediate needs. Apostles could also come back to other churches to maintain a watchful eye on their progress in the faith. Notice, in addition, that Titus doesn’t stay on the island of Crete after all of his work: “When I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, make every effort to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there” (Titus 3:12). Titus, like Timothy, was supposed to serve a set purpose at the churches, but then move on to other needs in other churches. While neither are labeled an apostle outright in the Scriptures, both seem to do the work of apostles.
Last but not least, I wanna comment on the apostolic office: it involved a lot of work. Some time ago I spent time discussing Ephesians 4:11 (also found in 1 Corinthians 12:28) about the ministries of the church—apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. The apostles, having the greatest tasks of all the others, had to be skilled in many of these ministries. In Timothy’s case, he was an apostle (1 Tim. 1:3), a pastor (1 Tim. 5:17-22), a teacher (1 Tim. 4:11), and an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5). In addition, many prophecies had been made about Timothy’s giftedness to the body of Christ (1 Tim. 1:18). Titus was an apostle (Titus 1:5), a teacher (Titus 2:15), and a pastor (1:13, 2:15). In Titus 1:13, Paul makes it clear that as Pastor, Titus’s job is to punish those who are teaching falsehood, deal with them publicly so others won’t do the same. This is indeed a job for the pastor alone.
Apostles had a hard job to do. In the case of Timothy and Titus, they had to prepare themselves for a number of things. But according to Peter’s own words in Acts 1:20, the apostolic office was a “bishopric,” a pastorate, a ministry with a pastoral role of caring for and watching over the churches of God. Junia, then, by being an apostle (Romans 16:7), would have had a job of the same caliber as Timothy and Titus, although she was heavily involved in the churches at Rome.
The next question becomes, then, “how could Junia (a woman apostle) be a woman pastor, a female “episkopos”? that is something I will address in future discussion on the Pastorals.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
"Church Messengers"-- Insignificant?
In our discussion on “Junia or Junias,” we have seen that the name of the mysterious apostle with “Andronicus” in Romans 16:7 was a woman named Junia; secondly, she was an apostle, who Paul says was in Christ before he was. In this post, I am gonna add a final note on the “Junia/Junias” discussion by entertaining Dr. Wayne Grudem’s notion of Junia as a “church messenger.”
My last post on the debate showed the context of the label “apostle” in several texts—John 13, Phil. 2:25, 2 Cor. 8, and Romans 16:7. Today, however, I am gonna deal with some passages that address “church messengers” in their contexts—2 Cor. 8 and Acts 15:22-32. I have already addressed Phil. 2 and Romans 16.
I. 2 Corinthians 8
As I’ve mentioned in a former post, 2 Corinthians 8 is about the Corinthian church providing a financial contribution to help the Macedonians, who were in need. In verse 23, Paul mentions “our brethren,” and labels them as “apostles” to the churches. There is significant evidence to show that the brethren referred to in this passage are church messengers. 2 Cor. 8:19 says, “…he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work…” One of the brothers has been “appointed by the churches,” which is how church messengers are selected. However, go back to verse 18 and we read something else: “We have sent along with him[Titus] the brother whose fame in the things of the gospel has spread through all the churches.” The church representative, then, was not just a Christian in the body of Christ, but someone who labored in the gospel, someone whose spiritual authority was known in the churches. Another brother was sent, according to 2 Cor. 8:22—“We have sent with them [Titus and the famous brother] our brother, whom we have often tested and found diligent in many things, but now even more diligent because of his great confidence in you.” The other representative sent had a record of tried-and-true dedication. He had been tested, tried, examined, and found to be trustworthy and hardworking. The men of 2 Corinthians 8 were men of excellence whose work in the churches spoke volumes for them.
II. Acts 15:22-32
The last passage we will study on this subject is Acts 15:22-32. The text begins by telling us about the traveling mission: “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren…” (Acts 15:22). Judas and Silas were not just ordinary men—they were “leading men” among the brethren, men who stood out among the rest. They were distinguished from the rest of the church body (with the exception of the apostles and elders). In Acts 15:26, we’re told more about Judas and Silas: “men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Not only were they leading men, but they even put their lives on the line for Christ. This is similar to the description Paul gave about Epaphroditus to the Philippian church: “Receive him[Epaphroditus] then in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard; because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me” (Phil. 2:29-30). So the report about Judas and Silas was no flattering language—it was truth, it was the testimony of two godly men who were sent from their church as not only representatives, but living witnesses of godliness to the Gentiles. In addition, with the apostles and elders sending these two men out, it is clear that they selected carefully the kind of character they would have to represent the church.
Last but not least, notice that Judas and Silas were men of spiritual authority as well: “Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message” (Acts 15:32). Notice that both Judas and Silas were prophets, men who stood in the prophetic office. And they were prophets IN ADDITION TO serving as messengers of the church!
Taking all this into account, now look at Romans 16:7 with the apostle Junia. She has been “killed” throughout history and even given a sex change and “recreated” as a man in order to keep women out of ministry positions; but if Junia was only a church messenger, her spiritual authority gets enhanced instead of diminished—for every church messenger sent out by the early churches were those whose hands were constantly being put to the gospel plow.
I wanna end this discussion of Junia (at least for now and the foreseeable future) with a quote from a church father and a quote from a scholar.
The church father John Chrysostom wrote (about Junia):
“Even to be an apostle is great, but also to be prominent among them—consider how wonderful a song of honor that is. For they were prominent because of their works, because of their successes. Glory be! How great the wisdom of this woman that she was even deemed worthy of the apostle’s title” (“Junia—the First Woman Apostle,” by Eldon Jay Epp, pg. 79).
The above research I’ve done, in addition to Chrysostom’s quote, leaves a mass puddle of confusion for Wayne Grudem and complementarians. In the words of Manfred Haucke: “Even assuming that ‘Junia’ could be interpreted as feminine, the function of a ‘lady apostle’ need not lie in the area of public preaching. The strict “ban on teaching” in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 would not be easy to understand given the supposed existence of a female missionary preacher” (Eldon Jay Epp, 81).
Haucke’s response is typical—even when the evidence favors a woman apostle, he (like all other complementarians) still choose to deny women their ordained giftedness in the body of Christ. But, most importantly, if Junia is an apostle, as the evidence shows, what are we to do with 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2? The answer? Maybe both passages are more local in nature and written to specific churches for specific reasons than we’d like to think.
My last post on the debate showed the context of the label “apostle” in several texts—John 13, Phil. 2:25, 2 Cor. 8, and Romans 16:7. Today, however, I am gonna deal with some passages that address “church messengers” in their contexts—2 Cor. 8 and Acts 15:22-32. I have already addressed Phil. 2 and Romans 16.
I. 2 Corinthians 8
As I’ve mentioned in a former post, 2 Corinthians 8 is about the Corinthian church providing a financial contribution to help the Macedonians, who were in need. In verse 23, Paul mentions “our brethren,” and labels them as “apostles” to the churches. There is significant evidence to show that the brethren referred to in this passage are church messengers. 2 Cor. 8:19 says, “…he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work…” One of the brothers has been “appointed by the churches,” which is how church messengers are selected. However, go back to verse 18 and we read something else: “We have sent along with him[Titus] the brother whose fame in the things of the gospel has spread through all the churches.” The church representative, then, was not just a Christian in the body of Christ, but someone who labored in the gospel, someone whose spiritual authority was known in the churches. Another brother was sent, according to 2 Cor. 8:22—“We have sent with them [Titus and the famous brother] our brother, whom we have often tested and found diligent in many things, but now even more diligent because of his great confidence in you.” The other representative sent had a record of tried-and-true dedication. He had been tested, tried, examined, and found to be trustworthy and hardworking. The men of 2 Corinthians 8 were men of excellence whose work in the churches spoke volumes for them.
II. Acts 15:22-32
The last passage we will study on this subject is Acts 15:22-32. The text begins by telling us about the traveling mission: “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren…” (Acts 15:22). Judas and Silas were not just ordinary men—they were “leading men” among the brethren, men who stood out among the rest. They were distinguished from the rest of the church body (with the exception of the apostles and elders). In Acts 15:26, we’re told more about Judas and Silas: “men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Not only were they leading men, but they even put their lives on the line for Christ. This is similar to the description Paul gave about Epaphroditus to the Philippian church: “Receive him[Epaphroditus] then in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard; because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me” (Phil. 2:29-30). So the report about Judas and Silas was no flattering language—it was truth, it was the testimony of two godly men who were sent from their church as not only representatives, but living witnesses of godliness to the Gentiles. In addition, with the apostles and elders sending these two men out, it is clear that they selected carefully the kind of character they would have to represent the church.
Last but not least, notice that Judas and Silas were men of spiritual authority as well: “Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message” (Acts 15:32). Notice that both Judas and Silas were prophets, men who stood in the prophetic office. And they were prophets IN ADDITION TO serving as messengers of the church!
Taking all this into account, now look at Romans 16:7 with the apostle Junia. She has been “killed” throughout history and even given a sex change and “recreated” as a man in order to keep women out of ministry positions; but if Junia was only a church messenger, her spiritual authority gets enhanced instead of diminished—for every church messenger sent out by the early churches were those whose hands were constantly being put to the gospel plow.
I wanna end this discussion of Junia (at least for now and the foreseeable future) with a quote from a church father and a quote from a scholar.
The church father John Chrysostom wrote (about Junia):
“Even to be an apostle is great, but also to be prominent among them—consider how wonderful a song of honor that is. For they were prominent because of their works, because of their successes. Glory be! How great the wisdom of this woman that she was even deemed worthy of the apostle’s title” (“Junia—the First Woman Apostle,” by Eldon Jay Epp, pg. 79).
The above research I’ve done, in addition to Chrysostom’s quote, leaves a mass puddle of confusion for Wayne Grudem and complementarians. In the words of Manfred Haucke: “Even assuming that ‘Junia’ could be interpreted as feminine, the function of a ‘lady apostle’ need not lie in the area of public preaching. The strict “ban on teaching” in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 would not be easy to understand given the supposed existence of a female missionary preacher” (Eldon Jay Epp, 81).
Haucke’s response is typical—even when the evidence favors a woman apostle, he (like all other complementarians) still choose to deny women their ordained giftedness in the body of Christ. But, most importantly, if Junia is an apostle, as the evidence shows, what are we to do with 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2? The answer? Maybe both passages are more local in nature and written to specific churches for specific reasons than we’d like to think.
Prophecy and Teaching II
I was hit with something good tonight. I was thumbing through the index at the back of my NASB Bible, looking for what Scripture could tell me about prophets. Looking in the section labeled “prophets,” I found a reference in Exodus 7 to Aaron as a prophet, and became instantly intrigued.
I started a special section on “prophecy and teaching” a few days ago, and thoughts about both subjects have been rattling through my head ever since. But what got me was the reference in Exodus 7, and then Exodus 4, about Aaron as prophet. This is what Exodus 7:1 has to say: “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.” What was Aaron to do in his prophetic role? “he shall speak for you [Moses] to the people; and he will be as a mouth for you and you will be as God to him” (Ex. 4:16, NASB).
The above verses from Exodus are fascinating, indeed. What God says about Aaron is that Aaron served as a prophet to Moses. Aaron did what all other prophets did in the Old Testament—they spoke for God, they told the people what God told them to pass to His people.
I see the critique coming, though: “Aaron was a prophet to Moses, not to the people.” However, can we be sure of that? Look at Numbers 12. This chapter concerns Aaron’s and Miriam’s murmuring against Moses because he marries an Ethiopian, a Cushite woman (v.1). This is what Miriam and Aaron said against Moses: “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well” (Numbers 12:2)? Both Miriam and Aaron complain against Moses—but they do so because, in a sense, they are on the same level as he: they are prophets, just as much as he is! However, they are different, and God reveals the difference in Numbers 12:6-8—“If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision, I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses…With him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the LORD.” Moses was different in his prophetic office than Miriam and Aaron because God spoke to him directly, in contrast to how God spoke to Miriam and Aaron—through dreams and visions. But notice that God doesn’t chide Aaron for claiming to be a prophet—but for speaking against Moses!
This is significant because in Wayne Grudem’s Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, Grudem attempts to separate the offices of prophet and priest entirely (136-137). Here, however, we first see that the offices are somewhat connected through Aaron, who was a prophet as well as a priest (he didn’t lose his prophetic office even after becoming priest—see Leviticus 10 and Numbers 12). In Leviticus 10, Aaron is made a priest in addition to his sons. In Numbers 12, located after Leviticus 10 (in Israelite history), Aaron is still claiming his prophetic office.
While this connection between prophecy and teaching is great, there exists another thought about the two offices: while the prophetic office remains even in the New Testament, the priestly office disappears: “Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:11-12). The priesthood has been abolished because the ultimate sacrifice, Christ Jesus, has come.
The priesthood has been done away with because of Christ, our High Priest (Heb. 3:1); however, the prophetic office still stands, even though Christ has already come. While the Old Testament prophets prophesied concerning Christ (1 Peter 1:10-11) as well as the sins of the people, the New Testament prophets are to give revelations from God regarding God’s people in the present as well as God’s activity in the future. The nature of New Testament prophecy is up to God, but the office continues for God’s people. The long-standing prophetic office outweighs the short-term priestly office. The priestly office was a “shadow” of that which was to come, namely Christ (Heb. 10:1), but the prophetic office testifies to Christ long-term, since God is, even now, equipping people for this office in order to build up His church and edify His saints (Eph. 4).
While the task of teaching the law was committed to priests in the Old Testament, it is not connected to priests today, and, as such, is a separate gift that God gives. While no women ever served as priests in the Old Testament, by discontinuing the priestly office and making the saints a “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5), God now designates those whom He pleases, no matter gender or bloodline, to teach His Word. As I’ve often stated, Grudem has a 1 Timothy 2 bias that won’t let him go. Everything in his book is connected to 1 Timothy 2, and even when he can’t explain something, he appeals to 1 Timothy 2. It seems as if, for him, this one passage stands out as his view of women, no matter what other evidence (including contextual) tells his otherwise. Don’t worry, though: we’ll get to 1 Timothy 2 soon.
I started a special section on “prophecy and teaching” a few days ago, and thoughts about both subjects have been rattling through my head ever since. But what got me was the reference in Exodus 7, and then Exodus 4, about Aaron as prophet. This is what Exodus 7:1 has to say: “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.” What was Aaron to do in his prophetic role? “he shall speak for you [Moses] to the people; and he will be as a mouth for you and you will be as God to him” (Ex. 4:16, NASB).
The above verses from Exodus are fascinating, indeed. What God says about Aaron is that Aaron served as a prophet to Moses. Aaron did what all other prophets did in the Old Testament—they spoke for God, they told the people what God told them to pass to His people.
I see the critique coming, though: “Aaron was a prophet to Moses, not to the people.” However, can we be sure of that? Look at Numbers 12. This chapter concerns Aaron’s and Miriam’s murmuring against Moses because he marries an Ethiopian, a Cushite woman (v.1). This is what Miriam and Aaron said against Moses: “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well” (Numbers 12:2)? Both Miriam and Aaron complain against Moses—but they do so because, in a sense, they are on the same level as he: they are prophets, just as much as he is! However, they are different, and God reveals the difference in Numbers 12:6-8—“If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision, I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses…With him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the LORD.” Moses was different in his prophetic office than Miriam and Aaron because God spoke to him directly, in contrast to how God spoke to Miriam and Aaron—through dreams and visions. But notice that God doesn’t chide Aaron for claiming to be a prophet—but for speaking against Moses!
This is significant because in Wayne Grudem’s Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, Grudem attempts to separate the offices of prophet and priest entirely (136-137). Here, however, we first see that the offices are somewhat connected through Aaron, who was a prophet as well as a priest (he didn’t lose his prophetic office even after becoming priest—see Leviticus 10 and Numbers 12). In Leviticus 10, Aaron is made a priest in addition to his sons. In Numbers 12, located after Leviticus 10 (in Israelite history), Aaron is still claiming his prophetic office.
While this connection between prophecy and teaching is great, there exists another thought about the two offices: while the prophetic office remains even in the New Testament, the priestly office disappears: “Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:11-12). The priesthood has been abolished because the ultimate sacrifice, Christ Jesus, has come.
The priesthood has been done away with because of Christ, our High Priest (Heb. 3:1); however, the prophetic office still stands, even though Christ has already come. While the Old Testament prophets prophesied concerning Christ (1 Peter 1:10-11) as well as the sins of the people, the New Testament prophets are to give revelations from God regarding God’s people in the present as well as God’s activity in the future. The nature of New Testament prophecy is up to God, but the office continues for God’s people. The long-standing prophetic office outweighs the short-term priestly office. The priestly office was a “shadow” of that which was to come, namely Christ (Heb. 10:1), but the prophetic office testifies to Christ long-term, since God is, even now, equipping people for this office in order to build up His church and edify His saints (Eph. 4).
While the task of teaching the law was committed to priests in the Old Testament, it is not connected to priests today, and, as such, is a separate gift that God gives. While no women ever served as priests in the Old Testament, by discontinuing the priestly office and making the saints a “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5), God now designates those whom He pleases, no matter gender or bloodline, to teach His Word. As I’ve often stated, Grudem has a 1 Timothy 2 bias that won’t let him go. Everything in his book is connected to 1 Timothy 2, and even when he can’t explain something, he appeals to 1 Timothy 2. It seems as if, for him, this one passage stands out as his view of women, no matter what other evidence (including contextual) tells his otherwise. Don’t worry, though: we’ll get to 1 Timothy 2 soon.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Prophecy and Teaching
To handle the issue of men and women in the church, I'd like to start with the issue of prophecy (this being a known gift to both men and women). The Old Testament gives examples of prophetesses, female prophets such as Miriam (Exodus), Deborah (Judges 4), and Huldah.
And the common argument has been from those who accept women into ministry that if women served as prophetesses in the Old Testament (and Philip's daughters, for example, prophesied in the New), then women can exercise any gift and hold any position in the church.
Renown complementarian author Wayne Grudem, writes in his book, "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth" in response 7.3D (prophecy is not the same as teaching):
"Linda Belleville argues that the word "instruct" in 1 Corinthians 14:19 shows that prophets carried out a teaching function in the church...Belleville fails to tell her readers that this verse does not mention prophecy!...Paul says nothing about prophecy in this verse. He is contrasting intelligible speech in the church with speaking in tongues. 'Teaching' has already been mentioned in the context (v.6), and that is most likely what Paul has in mind when he talks about speaking to "instruct others" (pp. 230-231).
First, for those who don't own a copy, you can go to the following website in order to access Wayne Grudem's book: www.EFBT100.com
There is a problem, however, with Grudem's response. If we look at 1 Corinthians 14:19, it doesn't explicitly mention "prophesying." However, we have to look at the verse within its context-- which means we must examine the verses before it and after it to determine what this verse means. Grudem is right in that Paul is talking about intelligible speech; but he is wrong in saying that it applies to teaching only. Look back to verse 8 to determine what the "intelligible speech" of verse 19 consists of: "Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?" Paul includes prophecy in this same discussion, as he does teaching. Grudem, however, fails to tell his readers of prophecy in the same way Belleville fails to tell her readers of teaching in verse 6.
Four more verses, placed after verse 19, also gives us insight into the gifts. These verses are 1 Corinthians 14:22-25:
"Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you."
Notice that in these verses, Paul does not mention teaching; instead, he focuses on prophecy as the gift that will bring sinners into worship of the true and living God (in addition to encouraging believers). Next, notice that the context of prophesying (v.24) is when "the whole church comes together" (v.23).
Prophecy and teaching, while different, are connected, and Grudem fails to take this into account. In 1 Peter 4, Peter discusses those who "speak" in the church (Peter doesn't distinguish between preaching, teaching, and prophesying): "whoever speaks, as one who speaks the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11). Moses received "oracles" while in the wilderness with the Israelites (Acts 7:38). What did these oracles consist of? Messages from God, announcements from God, that which God wanted to relay to His people. So when a person speaks in the church, according to 1 Peter 4, that person should speak as though he were speaking words he received from God Himself. Peter doesn't say that when you speak, you should speak as though you've done your teaching outline, or prepared for a Sunday School lesson. And I believe that Peter makes speaking the oracles of God the goal because this is the more important gift.
Lest someone should think I'm besides myself, I suggest that we look at Ephesians 4 regarding the gifts for the church: "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers" (Eph. 4:7). Complementarians always seem to make the argument that since Adam was created first in the created order, that women should not have a teaching or preaching role in the church (1 Tim. 2:8-15). But, if first is best, if order is important, then what about Ephesians 4? Notice that the apostles and prophets are placed before the pastors and teachers, not after them. In terms of ministry, then, those who are so gifted to be apostles and prophets are of greater importance in ministry than pastors and teachers. If complementarians want to establish that the earliest mentioned is the most important, then they have to take everything to that conclusion-- in this case, they will be forced to admit that apostles and prophets are more important than pastors and teachers.
Scripture testifies of women who served as prophetesses in the Old Testament as well as the New (Philip's daughters in Acts). As for me, however, I'd like to think of all the gifts as being equally important in the body of Christ. However, teaching and prophesying are connected. Even as far back as Isaiah in the Old Testament, prophets taught. When God chastises the prophets he talks to Isaiah about "the prophet who teaches lies" (Isaiah 9:15).
The Old Testament gift of prophesying is the same as that of the New Testament-- people received words from God to give His people. And women are included in the gift of prophecy in the New Testament.
But where does that leave women in teaching? Can women teach, just like they can prophesy? You bet. Grudem argues against women teaching publicly, but women are allowed to prophesy in public; what then, could hold them back from teaching? If prophesy is such a great gift in terms of rank (as Paul says), then what would keep women from teaching, which, according to Ephesians 4, is a lesser office?
Look back at Leviticus 10:11-- "and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes that the Lord has spoken to them by Moses." Remember my earlier quote from Acts 7:38? Well, this is what Leviticus 10 is talking about. The priest had one job-- to teach what they received from Moses. And who was Moses? A prophet. And Moses was greater than his brother Aaron in his task, for God made sure Aaron (the priest) and Miriam knew who the greater was (Numbers 12:6-7).
The prophetic office is more mentioned, even in the Old Testament; and women surely stood in the prophetic office. What then, would stop them from teaching Scripture? In the 1 Corinthians 14 passage above, notice that Paul mentions "prophecy" before "teaching" and so forth. Prophecy and teaching are both important to the body of Christ. But the only thing that Grudem uses to keep women out of the office is his personal interpretation of 1 Timothy 2. And since that's such a good discussion, I'll save it for a future time.
And the common argument has been from those who accept women into ministry that if women served as prophetesses in the Old Testament (and Philip's daughters, for example, prophesied in the New), then women can exercise any gift and hold any position in the church.
Renown complementarian author Wayne Grudem, writes in his book, "Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth" in response 7.3D (prophecy is not the same as teaching):
"Linda Belleville argues that the word "instruct" in 1 Corinthians 14:19 shows that prophets carried out a teaching function in the church...Belleville fails to tell her readers that this verse does not mention prophecy!...Paul says nothing about prophecy in this verse. He is contrasting intelligible speech in the church with speaking in tongues. 'Teaching' has already been mentioned in the context (v.6), and that is most likely what Paul has in mind when he talks about speaking to "instruct others" (pp. 230-231).
First, for those who don't own a copy, you can go to the following website in order to access Wayne Grudem's book: www.EFBT100.com
There is a problem, however, with Grudem's response. If we look at 1 Corinthians 14:19, it doesn't explicitly mention "prophesying." However, we have to look at the verse within its context-- which means we must examine the verses before it and after it to determine what this verse means. Grudem is right in that Paul is talking about intelligible speech; but he is wrong in saying that it applies to teaching only. Look back to verse 8 to determine what the "intelligible speech" of verse 19 consists of: "Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?" Paul includes prophecy in this same discussion, as he does teaching. Grudem, however, fails to tell his readers of prophecy in the same way Belleville fails to tell her readers of teaching in verse 6.
Four more verses, placed after verse 19, also gives us insight into the gifts. These verses are 1 Corinthians 14:22-25:
"Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you."
Notice that in these verses, Paul does not mention teaching; instead, he focuses on prophecy as the gift that will bring sinners into worship of the true and living God (in addition to encouraging believers). Next, notice that the context of prophesying (v.24) is when "the whole church comes together" (v.23).
Prophecy and teaching, while different, are connected, and Grudem fails to take this into account. In 1 Peter 4, Peter discusses those who "speak" in the church (Peter doesn't distinguish between preaching, teaching, and prophesying): "whoever speaks, as one who speaks the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11). Moses received "oracles" while in the wilderness with the Israelites (Acts 7:38). What did these oracles consist of? Messages from God, announcements from God, that which God wanted to relay to His people. So when a person speaks in the church, according to 1 Peter 4, that person should speak as though he were speaking words he received from God Himself. Peter doesn't say that when you speak, you should speak as though you've done your teaching outline, or prepared for a Sunday School lesson. And I believe that Peter makes speaking the oracles of God the goal because this is the more important gift.
Lest someone should think I'm besides myself, I suggest that we look at Ephesians 4 regarding the gifts for the church: "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers" (Eph. 4:7). Complementarians always seem to make the argument that since Adam was created first in the created order, that women should not have a teaching or preaching role in the church (1 Tim. 2:8-15). But, if first is best, if order is important, then what about Ephesians 4? Notice that the apostles and prophets are placed before the pastors and teachers, not after them. In terms of ministry, then, those who are so gifted to be apostles and prophets are of greater importance in ministry than pastors and teachers. If complementarians want to establish that the earliest mentioned is the most important, then they have to take everything to that conclusion-- in this case, they will be forced to admit that apostles and prophets are more important than pastors and teachers.
Scripture testifies of women who served as prophetesses in the Old Testament as well as the New (Philip's daughters in Acts). As for me, however, I'd like to think of all the gifts as being equally important in the body of Christ. However, teaching and prophesying are connected. Even as far back as Isaiah in the Old Testament, prophets taught. When God chastises the prophets he talks to Isaiah about "the prophet who teaches lies" (Isaiah 9:15).
The Old Testament gift of prophesying is the same as that of the New Testament-- people received words from God to give His people. And women are included in the gift of prophecy in the New Testament.
But where does that leave women in teaching? Can women teach, just like they can prophesy? You bet. Grudem argues against women teaching publicly, but women are allowed to prophesy in public; what then, could hold them back from teaching? If prophesy is such a great gift in terms of rank (as Paul says), then what would keep women from teaching, which, according to Ephesians 4, is a lesser office?
Look back at Leviticus 10:11-- "and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes that the Lord has spoken to them by Moses." Remember my earlier quote from Acts 7:38? Well, this is what Leviticus 10 is talking about. The priest had one job-- to teach what they received from Moses. And who was Moses? A prophet. And Moses was greater than his brother Aaron in his task, for God made sure Aaron (the priest) and Miriam knew who the greater was (Numbers 12:6-7).
The prophetic office is more mentioned, even in the Old Testament; and women surely stood in the prophetic office. What then, would stop them from teaching Scripture? In the 1 Corinthians 14 passage above, notice that Paul mentions "prophecy" before "teaching" and so forth. Prophecy and teaching are both important to the body of Christ. But the only thing that Grudem uses to keep women out of the office is his personal interpretation of 1 Timothy 2. And since that's such a good discussion, I'll save it for a future time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)