I stated in my last post that I would explain the issue of "rule" in 1 Timothy 3 in my next post. So, continuing our discussion of the man "ruling," I am now gonna tackle the problems of 1 Timothy 3.
Let's read the passage there:
1The saying is(A) trustworthy: If anyone aspires to(B) the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore(C) an overseer[a] must be above reproach,(D) the husband of one wife,[b](E) sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable,(F) hospitable,(G) able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but(H) gentle, not quarrelsome,(I) not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity(J) keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for(K) God’s church? (1 Tim. 3:1-5, ESV)
1 Timothy 3:1-5 concerns the office of overseer, or the pastorate. While there are a lot of issues regarding this passage, I will only cover those necessary for the current discussion regarding "ruling."
In verses 4 and 5, the ESV translators use the word "manage" to refer to the Greek verb "proistemi," meaning "to be over," or "to stand over." Now many people have said, see, this refers to the man, because the man is to "manage his household." However, to say this is to overlook many other issues with this text, one being the idea of managing itself.
To see this problem, look at 1 Timothy 5:14(ESV)--
"14So I would have(U) younger widows marry, bear children,(V) manage their households, and(W) give the adversary no occasion for slander."
Paul writes that the younger widows should "MANAGE THEIR HOUSEHOLDS." We have a problem here. Didn't Paul tell the pastoral candidates (and diaconate candidates) that they too, should "manage their households?" It's funny that this passage, 1 Timothy 3, has been used as a proof text for only males leading in the church. But if this were so, why doesn't Paul distinguish between the rule of the man in the home and the rule of the woman in the home?
In case you think I'm joking, let's look at the word in the Greek for the young widows to "manage their households." The word for "manage" in the Greek is "oikodespotein." The word itself is an infinitive, which means it is to be translated with the preposition "to" and then the verb itself (such as "to manage"). The Greek word "oikodespotein" is a compound word, consisting of "oikos" (house) and "despotein" (to be ruler). The word "despotein" in Greek is the ancestor of our English word "despot," which refers to an dictator, one who rules with an iron fist. Why would Paul be telling the women to be rulers of their households, and yet, only make males the leaders of the church in 1 Timothy 3? The fact that he uses the same language tells us that Paul saw women fit for the leadership of the church as well. Parallel this with the fact that a diaconate is also created for women (notice that the first diaconate in Acts 6 did not include women).
As I've stated much before, there is no Scriptural evidence showing that men received a Scriptural mandate to "rule" the home. And do you know why? because, as Udo Middleman said it in his book "The Innocence of God," the rule in marriage was a distortion of God's original intention for mankind. God gave man and woman rule over the earth together-- and partnership in the home. But today, we're still oppressing women and placing them on a domestic "leash."
Monday, March 16, 2009
Does God Tell Man To "Rule"?
A recent comment to the post addressed my last post regarding Grudem’s response from his work on “Biblical Foundations of Manhood and Womanhood.” In this work Grudem gave ten reasons why Adam was head of the marriage BEFORE the fall; but as I’ve stated, Grudem confuses headship of the marriage with headship over creation—and merges creation authority with marriage authority (making Adam head of the marriage from Genesis 1). Still, though, if this is true, you have to explain why it is that God waits until Genesis 3 to tell Adam and Eve—and why He gives it as a punishment to Eve! The last response about this post, titled “Scripture to the Rescue!”, failed to give specific scriptural references to the issue of why Adam was the head of the marriage before the fall. Let this be a lesson to all those who respond to the blog to give references regarding their statements. I would like to see where I am BIBLICALLY wrong regarding this matter—so all posts should contain Scripture references.
Today’s post concerns these supposed “Scripture references” the blog commenter mentions (without giving specifics). Let’s look at passages regarding headship.
The first passage will be Ephesians 5:
22(AR) Wives,(AS) submit to your own husbands,(AT) as to the Lord. 23For(AU) the husband is the head of the wife even as(AV) Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is(AW) himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit(AX) in everything to their husbands.
25(AY) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and(AZ) gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by(BA) the washing of water(BB) with the word, 27so(BC) that he might present the church to himself in splendor,(BD) without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28In the same way(BE) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because(BF) we are members of his body. 31(BG) "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and(BH) the two shall become one flesh." 32This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33However,(BI) let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she(BJ) respects her husband.
First, in verse 22, the wife is told to SUBMIT to her husband. However, look at the analogy: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” Notice here that the emphasis is on the wife to honor and respect her husband, not on the husband to RULE over his wife. The emphasis is on submission even in Genesis 3:16, where God tells Eve that Adam “would rule over you.” The word for “rule over” in the Septuagint is “kurieuo,” meaning “to be lord.” It is fitting that the husband should be compared to Christ in the analogy—for it is consistent with Genesis 3. But there are NO OTHER REFERENCES to Adam’s headship in Genesis. Other references to Adam’s headship in Genesis are welcome. Feel free to respond to this post if you should find any references in Genesis that I haven’t noted.
Notice, though, that the rest of Scripture does not deal with the husband being “lord,” but with the woman “submitting.” Similarly, along with the Ephesians 5 analogy, the rest of Scripture concerns itself with the church submitting to Christ. This explains why Paul’s epistles, such as Philippians, deal with following Christ’s example among believers. Let’s look at Philippians chapter 2:
“3Do nothing from(F) rivalry or(G) conceit, but in(H) humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4Let each of you(I) look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5(J) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6(K) who, though he was in(L) the form of God, did not count equality with God(M) a thing to be grasped, 7but(N) made himself nothing, taking the form of a(O) servant,[b](P) being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by(Q) becoming obedient to the point of death,(R) even death on a cross. 9(S) Therefore(T) God has(U) highly exalted him and bestowed on him(V) the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus(W) every knee should bow,(X) in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and(Y) every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is(Z) Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 12Therefore, my beloved,(AA) as you have always(AB) obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13for(AC) it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for(AD) his good pleasure.
Notice here that Paul tells them to look upon the interests of each other (rather than themselves). Then, in verse 5, he begins to show them how to do this: look at the example of Christ’s humility. But then, in verses 12 and 13, Paul tells them to “work out” their salvation, because God is at work in them, using them for His glory (“to will and work for his good pleasure”). Following the example of Christ is how the church would submit to Christ. Christ does not FORCE the church to submit; rather, as the Pauline Epistles show us, Christ desires that the church CHOOSE to submit. I’ve always heard it said that “God is a gentleman.” He doesn’t force Himself on you; but for those who choose Him, they get all of God’s goodness and blessings bestowed upon them.
One more point to be made about Ephesians 5: after the wives are told to submit to their husbands, Paul tells husbands to “love your wives.” It is interesting that in the current debate, the emphasis seems to be submission regarding the wife—while no emphasis is placed on the husband loving his wife.
Look at Colossians 3:19 (ESV):
“Husbands love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.”
These words mimic the words of Paul to the Ephesians in Eph. 5. When Paul mentions the husbands in Colossians, he tells them not to be harsh with their wives (too aggressive). But when he writes Ephesians, read what he tells the Ephesian men:
“25(AY) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and(AZ) gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by(BA) the washing of water(BB) with the word, 27so(BC) that he might present the church to himself in splendor,(BD) without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28In the same way(BE) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because(BF) we are members of his body.”
Paul tells husbands not to be harsh with their wives in Colossians, but goes into greater detail regarding the love of a husband for a wife in Ephesians 5. How could the husbands be gentle towards their wives? By loving them AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER! How else? To love their wives as much as they love their own bodies (if not more).
In verse 29 above, Paul gives an analogy of the wife as the “body” of the husband. If the wife is the husband’s body, he should love her and cherish her because to do so is to honor his own body (which makes sense). No one DELIBERATELY disrespects and violates their own body; therefore, it doesn’t make sense to disrespect and hurt your wife if your wife is your own body. Notice in Colossians 3 as well as in Ephesians 5, that Paul does not say, “HUSBANDS, RULE YOUR WIVES, AS CHRIST ALSO RULED THE CHURCH, AND REQUIRED SERVITUDE FROM HER.” The text focuses on husbands LOVING their wives, showing honor to their wives—not lording authority over them.
But someone is going to argue, “Hey, what about 1 Timothy 3?” I’ll cover that in my next post.
Today’s post concerns these supposed “Scripture references” the blog commenter mentions (without giving specifics). Let’s look at passages regarding headship.
The first passage will be Ephesians 5:
22(AR) Wives,(AS) submit to your own husbands,(AT) as to the Lord. 23For(AU) the husband is the head of the wife even as(AV) Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is(AW) himself its Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit(AX) in everything to their husbands.
25(AY) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and(AZ) gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by(BA) the washing of water(BB) with the word, 27so(BC) that he might present the church to himself in splendor,(BD) without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28In the same way(BE) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because(BF) we are members of his body. 31(BG) "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and(BH) the two shall become one flesh." 32This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33However,(BI) let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she(BJ) respects her husband.
First, in verse 22, the wife is told to SUBMIT to her husband. However, look at the analogy: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” Notice here that the emphasis is on the wife to honor and respect her husband, not on the husband to RULE over his wife. The emphasis is on submission even in Genesis 3:16, where God tells Eve that Adam “would rule over you.” The word for “rule over” in the Septuagint is “kurieuo,” meaning “to be lord.” It is fitting that the husband should be compared to Christ in the analogy—for it is consistent with Genesis 3. But there are NO OTHER REFERENCES to Adam’s headship in Genesis. Other references to Adam’s headship in Genesis are welcome. Feel free to respond to this post if you should find any references in Genesis that I haven’t noted.
Notice, though, that the rest of Scripture does not deal with the husband being “lord,” but with the woman “submitting.” Similarly, along with the Ephesians 5 analogy, the rest of Scripture concerns itself with the church submitting to Christ. This explains why Paul’s epistles, such as Philippians, deal with following Christ’s example among believers. Let’s look at Philippians chapter 2:
“3Do nothing from(F) rivalry or(G) conceit, but in(H) humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4Let each of you(I) look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5(J) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6(K) who, though he was in(L) the form of God, did not count equality with God(M) a thing to be grasped, 7but(N) made himself nothing, taking the form of a(O) servant,[b](P) being born in the likeness of men. 8And being found in human form, he humbled himself by(Q) becoming obedient to the point of death,(R) even death on a cross. 9(S) Therefore(T) God has(U) highly exalted him and bestowed on him(V) the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus(W) every knee should bow,(X) in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and(Y) every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is(Z) Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 12Therefore, my beloved,(AA) as you have always(AB) obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13for(AC) it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for(AD) his good pleasure.
Notice here that Paul tells them to look upon the interests of each other (rather than themselves). Then, in verse 5, he begins to show them how to do this: look at the example of Christ’s humility. But then, in verses 12 and 13, Paul tells them to “work out” their salvation, because God is at work in them, using them for His glory (“to will and work for his good pleasure”). Following the example of Christ is how the church would submit to Christ. Christ does not FORCE the church to submit; rather, as the Pauline Epistles show us, Christ desires that the church CHOOSE to submit. I’ve always heard it said that “God is a gentleman.” He doesn’t force Himself on you; but for those who choose Him, they get all of God’s goodness and blessings bestowed upon them.
One more point to be made about Ephesians 5: after the wives are told to submit to their husbands, Paul tells husbands to “love your wives.” It is interesting that in the current debate, the emphasis seems to be submission regarding the wife—while no emphasis is placed on the husband loving his wife.
Look at Colossians 3:19 (ESV):
“Husbands love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.”
These words mimic the words of Paul to the Ephesians in Eph. 5. When Paul mentions the husbands in Colossians, he tells them not to be harsh with their wives (too aggressive). But when he writes Ephesians, read what he tells the Ephesian men:
“25(AY) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and(AZ) gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by(BA) the washing of water(BB) with the word, 27so(BC) that he might present the church to himself in splendor,(BD) without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28In the same way(BE) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30because(BF) we are members of his body.”
Paul tells husbands not to be harsh with their wives in Colossians, but goes into greater detail regarding the love of a husband for a wife in Ephesians 5. How could the husbands be gentle towards their wives? By loving them AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER! How else? To love their wives as much as they love their own bodies (if not more).
In verse 29 above, Paul gives an analogy of the wife as the “body” of the husband. If the wife is the husband’s body, he should love her and cherish her because to do so is to honor his own body (which makes sense). No one DELIBERATELY disrespects and violates their own body; therefore, it doesn’t make sense to disrespect and hurt your wife if your wife is your own body. Notice in Colossians 3 as well as in Ephesians 5, that Paul does not say, “HUSBANDS, RULE YOUR WIVES, AS CHRIST ALSO RULED THE CHURCH, AND REQUIRED SERVITUDE FROM HER.” The text focuses on husbands LOVING their wives, showing honor to their wives—not lording authority over them.
But someone is going to argue, “Hey, what about 1 Timothy 3?” I’ll cover that in my next post.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Scripture to the Rescue!
I’ve been reading a book the last two days called “The Innocence of God” by Udo Middleman. At first, I regretted the idea of having to read ANOTHER BOOK for my Christian Philosophy course called “The Problem of Evil.” However, I am so thankful that I picked up this $20 book and began to read.
I just finished reading chapter two, called “A Just God in an Unjust World,” where Middleman discusses that God is not responsible for sin, but humanity is. He goes into great detail explaining Genesis 3:16. For our purposes, we are only gonna quote a small portion of his response:
“Even in their relationship they[Adam and Eve] would face problems which they must iron out. The man will, unhappily, often, rule over the woman. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A LAMENT, NOT A COMMAND; IT IS A RESULT OF THE FALL, NOT A COMMAND
FOR MARITAL SUBMISSION!” (Udo Middleman, “The Innocence of God,” pg. 46).
What does God say in Genesis 3:16?
“"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
(A) in pain you shall bring forth children.
(B) Your desire shall be for[a] your husband,
and he shall(C) rule over you."
God says that the man would rule over the woman. But who does He say this to? He does not say this to Adam—He says this to Eve: “To the woman he said…”
God said to the WOMAN that her husband would rule over her; but what does God say to Adam? Does He tell Adam to rule over His wife? Does He make Adam responsible for Eve? Does He chide Adam for not “stepping up to the plate,” for neglecting his role as the head of the marriage? No. Instead, God punishes Adam and creation:
“17And to Adam he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
(R) of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
(S) cursed is the ground because of you;
(T) in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
(U) for you are dust,
and(V) to dust you shall return."
God tells Adam two things: first, creation would be punished because of him; secondly, God tells Adam that he would have to work harder in order to bring forth yield from the ground. However, God mentions NOTHING about Adam needing to take control of the household, be a man, and defend his family. Yet and still, this is what men are taught today. This is what they are told in conservative circles—that they need to “step up,” be a man, act like they are men!
I believe complementarians (as evidenced from an earlier post I wrote on “Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood” (Grudem), in their discussion of Adam as being the head of the marriage BEFORE the Fall, attempt to do this in order to “muster” more evidence for their position. But in so doing, they butcher the context and desecrate Scripture.
As a good rule of thumb, let me say that whenever approaching a concept or passage of Scripture, the key to interpretation is to make sure such an explanation doesn’t contradict other parts of Scripture. To maintain their understanding of 1 Timothy 2, complementarians have to violate Scripture from Genesis 3. And they call themselves the master exegetes…
I just finished reading chapter two, called “A Just God in an Unjust World,” where Middleman discusses that God is not responsible for sin, but humanity is. He goes into great detail explaining Genesis 3:16. For our purposes, we are only gonna quote a small portion of his response:
“Even in their relationship they[Adam and Eve] would face problems which they must iron out. The man will, unhappily, often, rule over the woman. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A LAMENT, NOT A COMMAND; IT IS A RESULT OF THE FALL, NOT A COMMAND
FOR MARITAL SUBMISSION!” (Udo Middleman, “The Innocence of God,” pg. 46).
What does God say in Genesis 3:16?
“"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
(A) in pain you shall bring forth children.
(B) Your desire shall be for[a] your husband,
and he shall(C) rule over you."
God says that the man would rule over the woman. But who does He say this to? He does not say this to Adam—He says this to Eve: “To the woman he said…”
God said to the WOMAN that her husband would rule over her; but what does God say to Adam? Does He tell Adam to rule over His wife? Does He make Adam responsible for Eve? Does He chide Adam for not “stepping up to the plate,” for neglecting his role as the head of the marriage? No. Instead, God punishes Adam and creation:
“17And to Adam he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
(R) of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
(S) cursed is the ground because of you;
(T) in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
(U) for you are dust,
and(V) to dust you shall return."
God tells Adam two things: first, creation would be punished because of him; secondly, God tells Adam that he would have to work harder in order to bring forth yield from the ground. However, God mentions NOTHING about Adam needing to take control of the household, be a man, and defend his family. Yet and still, this is what men are taught today. This is what they are told in conservative circles—that they need to “step up,” be a man, act like they are men!
I believe complementarians (as evidenced from an earlier post I wrote on “Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood” (Grudem), in their discussion of Adam as being the head of the marriage BEFORE the Fall, attempt to do this in order to “muster” more evidence for their position. But in so doing, they butcher the context and desecrate Scripture.
As a good rule of thumb, let me say that whenever approaching a concept or passage of Scripture, the key to interpretation is to make sure such an explanation doesn’t contradict other parts of Scripture. To maintain their understanding of 1 Timothy 2, complementarians have to violate Scripture from Genesis 3. And they call themselves the master exegetes…
Monday, March 9, 2009
Doers of the Word
“22But be(AN) doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25But the one who looks into the perfect law,(AO) the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts,(AP) he will be blessed in his doing.” (James 1:22-25, ESV).
On a post I published a few days ago, I made the point that complementarians tend to focus on the status of women BEFORE GOD, while failing to emphasize the equal status of women BEFORE GOD’S PEOPLE!
In this post, I am gonna continue to expose the philosophical and theological differences between complementarians and egalitarians.
Stanley Grenz writes in his book, “Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry,” regarding the complementarian view:
“Complementarians generally limit the implications of Paul’s declaration of equality in Christ to our POSITION as redeemed persons. They see Galatians 3:28 as a statement of our soteriological position, but not of our soteriological function. In their understanding, rather than arguing for ‘social equality’ between male and female, Paul merely declared our fundamental equality of ‘position’ before God (coram Deo). As Robert Saucy explains, ‘The thrust of these statements is the truth that all are equally sons of God; all are equally clothed with Christ; all are equally heirs of the promise. NOTHING WHATSOEVER IS SAID ABOUT ALL BEING EQUAL FUNCTIONALLY IN THE CHURCH OR FOR THAT MATTER IN THE HOME OR IN THE STATE” (Grenz, “Women in the Church,” page 100).
Let’s contrast Saucy’s quote (by Grenz) with the egalitarian view:
“Egalitarians…assert that equality of soteriological position in Christ MUST RECEIVE AN APPROPRIATE OUTWORKING IN THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH (AND IN SOCIETY AS WELL)” (Grenz, “Women in the Church, pg. 101).
We have been discussing (under my section on “Philosophical Factors”) that Thomists assert that God’s will has been revealed to us and that, whenever a person demonstrates spiritual giftedness, that we should place them in their properly ordained role within the church to use their giftedness. Scotists on the other hand believe that God’s will only lies within the mind of God and that we don’t see God’s will demonstrated in reality.
The problem with the Scotist is that he is so hung up on theory that he fails to see application as having any importance. Nowhere in Scripture do we find theory without application. Take for example, the Book of Ephesians. In Ephesians 1 we find the following words:
“3(E) Blessed be(F) the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing(G) in the heavenly places, 4(H) even as he(I) chose us in him(J) before the foundation of the world, that we should be(K) holy and blameless before him. In love 5(L) he predestined us[b] for(M) adoption as sons through Jesus Christ,(N) according to the purpose of his will, 6(O) to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in(P) the Beloved. 7(Q) In him we have(R) redemption(S) through his blood,(T) the forgiveness of our trespasses,(U) according to the riches of his grace, 8which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9(V) making known[c] to us the mystery of his will,(W) according to his purpose, which he(X) set forth in Christ 10as a plan for(Y) the fullness of time,(Z) to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Ephesians 1:3-10, ESV).
These eight verses tell us what Christ did for us: He chose to adopt us as sons before time began (through His Son), redeemed us (through His death and resurrection), and made known to us “the mystery of his will,” the mystery being found in Christ. This is what we call spiritual theory—learning what Christ did for us.
But the Book of Ephesians does not focus just on theory, but also on APPLICATION. Look at Ephesians 3:
“ 1I therefore,(A) a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to(B) walk in a manner worthy of(C) the calling to which you have been called, 2with all(D) humility and(E) gentleness, with(F) patience,(G) bearing with one another in love, 3eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in(H) the bond of peace. 4There is(I) one body and(J) one Spirit—just as you were called to the one(K) hope that belongs to your call— 5(L) one Lord,(M) one faith,(N) one baptism, 6(O) one God and Father of all,(P) who is over all and through all and in all. 7But(Q) grace was given(R) to each one of us(S) according to the measure of Christ’s gift.” (Ephesians 3:1-7).
Here, Paul shifts his focus from what Christ did for the Ephesians (and us), to what they were expected to do—IN LIGHT OF CHRIST’S ATONING WORK ON THE CROSS. This is why Paul tells them “to walk in a manner worthy OF THE CALLING TO WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CALLED.” Because they were called and predestined to be a part of the family of God, they had to adhere to God’s expectations. What Christ did for the Ephesians was supposed to manifest itself in the church body. This is why theology is more than just studying Christ’s work—it involves DOING CHRIST’S WORK! Just as Christ responded with humility, so was the church at Ephesus to respond in the same way. The church body at Ephesus was to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” which means that the unity of the church would take work, effort, sweat and tears!
As the Book of Ephesians has shown us, Paul was concerned with more than just our SOTERIOLOGICAL POSITION BEFORE GOD—but also how that SOTERIOLOGICAL POSITION was to be lived out amongst fellow believers. The Ephesians were to act on Christ’s work—and so are we. James said it best in chapter 1 of his epistle when he told the scattered believers to not only HEAR the Word, but to DO it. Complementarians, at the least, seem to be more concerned about THEORY; and less concerned about APPLICATION. If we listen to the complementarian, God is playing biblical “hide-and-go-seek” with His children…and they may find Him…but they may not.
On a post I published a few days ago, I made the point that complementarians tend to focus on the status of women BEFORE GOD, while failing to emphasize the equal status of women BEFORE GOD’S PEOPLE!
In this post, I am gonna continue to expose the philosophical and theological differences between complementarians and egalitarians.
Stanley Grenz writes in his book, “Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry,” regarding the complementarian view:
“Complementarians generally limit the implications of Paul’s declaration of equality in Christ to our POSITION as redeemed persons. They see Galatians 3:28 as a statement of our soteriological position, but not of our soteriological function. In their understanding, rather than arguing for ‘social equality’ between male and female, Paul merely declared our fundamental equality of ‘position’ before God (coram Deo). As Robert Saucy explains, ‘The thrust of these statements is the truth that all are equally sons of God; all are equally clothed with Christ; all are equally heirs of the promise. NOTHING WHATSOEVER IS SAID ABOUT ALL BEING EQUAL FUNCTIONALLY IN THE CHURCH OR FOR THAT MATTER IN THE HOME OR IN THE STATE” (Grenz, “Women in the Church,” page 100).
Let’s contrast Saucy’s quote (by Grenz) with the egalitarian view:
“Egalitarians…assert that equality of soteriological position in Christ MUST RECEIVE AN APPROPRIATE OUTWORKING IN THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH (AND IN SOCIETY AS WELL)” (Grenz, “Women in the Church, pg. 101).
We have been discussing (under my section on “Philosophical Factors”) that Thomists assert that God’s will has been revealed to us and that, whenever a person demonstrates spiritual giftedness, that we should place them in their properly ordained role within the church to use their giftedness. Scotists on the other hand believe that God’s will only lies within the mind of God and that we don’t see God’s will demonstrated in reality.
The problem with the Scotist is that he is so hung up on theory that he fails to see application as having any importance. Nowhere in Scripture do we find theory without application. Take for example, the Book of Ephesians. In Ephesians 1 we find the following words:
“3(E) Blessed be(F) the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing(G) in the heavenly places, 4(H) even as he(I) chose us in him(J) before the foundation of the world, that we should be(K) holy and blameless before him. In love 5(L) he predestined us[b] for(M) adoption as sons through Jesus Christ,(N) according to the purpose of his will, 6(O) to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in(P) the Beloved. 7(Q) In him we have(R) redemption(S) through his blood,(T) the forgiveness of our trespasses,(U) according to the riches of his grace, 8which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9(V) making known[c] to us the mystery of his will,(W) according to his purpose, which he(X) set forth in Christ 10as a plan for(Y) the fullness of time,(Z) to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Ephesians 1:3-10, ESV).
These eight verses tell us what Christ did for us: He chose to adopt us as sons before time began (through His Son), redeemed us (through His death and resurrection), and made known to us “the mystery of his will,” the mystery being found in Christ. This is what we call spiritual theory—learning what Christ did for us.
But the Book of Ephesians does not focus just on theory, but also on APPLICATION. Look at Ephesians 3:
“ 1I therefore,(A) a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to(B) walk in a manner worthy of(C) the calling to which you have been called, 2with all(D) humility and(E) gentleness, with(F) patience,(G) bearing with one another in love, 3eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in(H) the bond of peace. 4There is(I) one body and(J) one Spirit—just as you were called to the one(K) hope that belongs to your call— 5(L) one Lord,(M) one faith,(N) one baptism, 6(O) one God and Father of all,(P) who is over all and through all and in all. 7But(Q) grace was given(R) to each one of us(S) according to the measure of Christ’s gift.” (Ephesians 3:1-7).
Here, Paul shifts his focus from what Christ did for the Ephesians (and us), to what they were expected to do—IN LIGHT OF CHRIST’S ATONING WORK ON THE CROSS. This is why Paul tells them “to walk in a manner worthy OF THE CALLING TO WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CALLED.” Because they were called and predestined to be a part of the family of God, they had to adhere to God’s expectations. What Christ did for the Ephesians was supposed to manifest itself in the church body. This is why theology is more than just studying Christ’s work—it involves DOING CHRIST’S WORK! Just as Christ responded with humility, so was the church at Ephesus to respond in the same way. The church body at Ephesus was to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” which means that the unity of the church would take work, effort, sweat and tears!
As the Book of Ephesians has shown us, Paul was concerned with more than just our SOTERIOLOGICAL POSITION BEFORE GOD—but also how that SOTERIOLOGICAL POSITION was to be lived out amongst fellow believers. The Ephesians were to act on Christ’s work—and so are we. James said it best in chapter 1 of his epistle when he told the scattered believers to not only HEAR the Word, but to DO it. Complementarians, at the least, seem to be more concerned about THEORY; and less concerned about APPLICATION. If we listen to the complementarian, God is playing biblical “hide-and-go-seek” with His children…and they may find Him…but they may not.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Saving Adam
I think it’s safe to say that I’ve spent a lot of time defending Eve (and subsequently, her “daughters”) on my blog. But today, I’m trying a new approach. We’re gonna take a look at Adam, the one to whom God entrusted care of the Garden and His instructions for living.
A good comment was made on the blog recently: that Adam neglected his role as the head of the marriage, and this is what led to sin. However, I want us to take a look at this statement and see whether or not this really answers the question, “How did sin come into the world?”.
The above question regarding sin is what you and I should be most concerned about with regards to Adam and Eve as Paul quotes the pair in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14. After looking at those two verses, we should look back to the account in Genesis 3 to see what happened. As I stated in my post yesterday on “Reading With Common Sense,” it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at the statements in 1 Tim. 2 and Genesis 3 to know that Paul is simply defending the Fall as it happened, not to prove why women shouldn’t lead in the church.
To answer how sin entered the world, let’s go back to Genesis 2:
15The LORD God took the man(O) and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(P) you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you(Q) shall surely die." (Genesis 2:15-17, ESV).
Do you see God’s words? He gave Adam a commandment and a consequence—if Adam ate from the tree, he would die. End of discussion.
Now that we see God’s warning and promise to Adam regarding the situation, let’s go to Genesis 3, where the serpent begins to dialogue with Eve:
“He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You[a] shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said,(B) 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4(C) But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,[b] she took of its fruit(D) and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her,(E) and he ate. 7(F) Then the eyes of both were opened,(G) and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” (Genesis 3:1b-7, ESV).
I want us to take a long, hard look at Genesis 3:2. When Eve responds to the serpent’s tricky question, she demonstrates knowledge of the commandment; she understands God’s warning regarding the forbidden fruit. Now, don’t get me wrong—Eve doesn’t get it ENTIRELY right. She does add something to what God said (the part about “touching” the fruit)! The point of verse 2, though, is to show that Eve knows the commandment. She never heard it directly from God, so we have to assume that Adam told her—which means Adam did something right! Adam educated his wife regarding what God had told him.
Isn’t that supposed to happen? Aren’t husbands and wives to educate and inform each other regarding God’s promises and warnings? Yes! So, while most of us bash Adam, he actually did something right—he told Eve what God had said.
Now I want us to look at what happens when God punishes Adam, Eve, and the serpent:
“ 17And to Adam he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
(R) of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
(S) cursed is the ground because of you;” (Genesis 3:17, ESV)
Do you see the words in bold print? When God punishes Adam, He does so because Adam listened to his wife instead of God. God says nothing to Adam about neglecting his leadership role in the marriage; Adam is punished for listening to Eve when Adam himself had directly heard God’s commandment from God!
Adam and Eve were supposed to “partner together” and have dominion over God’s green earth. They were supposed to walk right before God together and live in peace and harmony with their Creator. However, instead of working together to do good, they “partnered together” to commit sin; and because they used their unity, their equality, to commit sin, God would make it so that now, Eve would be subject to her husband; husbands and wives would now struggle against each other in the home.
Adam’s wrong, therefore, did not come through neglecting his role—he faithfully warned Eve regarding God’s command. His wrong, however, came in Adam placing his wife before God. Adam’s sin, therefore, shows us our sin. As humans, there has come a time (or there will come one) when we have placed a human (spouse, sister, brother, child, friend, coworker, Pastor, church member, etc.) before God. But we have to learn from Genesis that no matter how many humans come into our lives, God MUST BE FIRST! For if God isn’t first, we will surely listen to other people; and tragedy will grip at our heels.
A good comment was made on the blog recently: that Adam neglected his role as the head of the marriage, and this is what led to sin. However, I want us to take a look at this statement and see whether or not this really answers the question, “How did sin come into the world?”.
The above question regarding sin is what you and I should be most concerned about with regards to Adam and Eve as Paul quotes the pair in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14. After looking at those two verses, we should look back to the account in Genesis 3 to see what happened. As I stated in my post yesterday on “Reading With Common Sense,” it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at the statements in 1 Tim. 2 and Genesis 3 to know that Paul is simply defending the Fall as it happened, not to prove why women shouldn’t lead in the church.
To answer how sin entered the world, let’s go back to Genesis 2:
15The LORD God took the man(O) and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(P) you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you(Q) shall surely die." (Genesis 2:15-17, ESV).
Do you see God’s words? He gave Adam a commandment and a consequence—if Adam ate from the tree, he would die. End of discussion.
Now that we see God’s warning and promise to Adam regarding the situation, let’s go to Genesis 3, where the serpent begins to dialogue with Eve:
“He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You[a] shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said,(B) 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4(C) But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,[b] she took of its fruit(D) and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her,(E) and he ate. 7(F) Then the eyes of both were opened,(G) and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” (Genesis 3:1b-7, ESV).
I want us to take a long, hard look at Genesis 3:2. When Eve responds to the serpent’s tricky question, she demonstrates knowledge of the commandment; she understands God’s warning regarding the forbidden fruit. Now, don’t get me wrong—Eve doesn’t get it ENTIRELY right. She does add something to what God said (the part about “touching” the fruit)! The point of verse 2, though, is to show that Eve knows the commandment. She never heard it directly from God, so we have to assume that Adam told her—which means Adam did something right! Adam educated his wife regarding what God had told him.
Isn’t that supposed to happen? Aren’t husbands and wives to educate and inform each other regarding God’s promises and warnings? Yes! So, while most of us bash Adam, he actually did something right—he told Eve what God had said.
Now I want us to look at what happens when God punishes Adam, Eve, and the serpent:
“ 17And to Adam he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
(R) of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
(S) cursed is the ground because of you;” (Genesis 3:17, ESV)
Do you see the words in bold print? When God punishes Adam, He does so because Adam listened to his wife instead of God. God says nothing to Adam about neglecting his leadership role in the marriage; Adam is punished for listening to Eve when Adam himself had directly heard God’s commandment from God!
Adam and Eve were supposed to “partner together” and have dominion over God’s green earth. They were supposed to walk right before God together and live in peace and harmony with their Creator. However, instead of working together to do good, they “partnered together” to commit sin; and because they used their unity, their equality, to commit sin, God would make it so that now, Eve would be subject to her husband; husbands and wives would now struggle against each other in the home.
Adam’s wrong, therefore, did not come through neglecting his role—he faithfully warned Eve regarding God’s command. His wrong, however, came in Adam placing his wife before God. Adam’s sin, therefore, shows us our sin. As humans, there has come a time (or there will come one) when we have placed a human (spouse, sister, brother, child, friend, coworker, Pastor, church member, etc.) before God. But we have to learn from Genesis that no matter how many humans come into our lives, God MUST BE FIRST! For if God isn’t first, we will surely listen to other people; and tragedy will grip at our heels.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Reading With Common Sense
“When I was in seminary, one of my favorite professors, John Sailhamer, programmed into our heads that Scripture itself contains the most important clues to inform us today of the historical situation in which the books of Bible were written. He told us that he spent eight years formally studying ancient Near Eastern history at the University of Southern California only to find out that he didn’t need such an exotic education in order to read the Scriptures with understanding. It was mainly under his influence that I began to read the Bible anew, paying close attention to the clues that are there in the text.
ALMOST EVERY LINE OF SCRIPTURE GIVES US HINTS ABOUT THE HISTORICAL SITUATION.Sometimes it tells us what the people needed to be reminded of, and sometimes it tells us what they needed to be taught for the first time. IN MANY CASES, IT TELLS US SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE RECIPIENTS OF THE TEXT WERE THINKING OR DOING. For instance, in Galatians, when Paul said to the churches, ‘Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another’ (Galatians 5:26), we can safely guess that Christians in Galatia were competing, not cooperating, with each other” (Sarah Sumner, “Men and Women in the Church,” pp.236-37).
Sumner, once again, helps us see that hermeneutics itself, while sounding like a fancy exercise, really isn’t—the average person CAN read the Bible with understanding and make sense of Scripture. As a Protestant, I stand behind Martin Luther in this regard and proclaim that the average person can read the Bible with understanding.
1 Timothy 2 is no exception to this rule. The chapter can be read with understanding and the chapter can make sense to the person in the pew as well as the Professor in the seminary. But sometimes, I fear that believers have gotten so engrossed in seminaries and Bible colleges all across the country, that the simple techniques for Bible reading have gone neglected—and in most cases, forgotten.
What is the story behind 1 Timothy 2:13-14? Paul gives the prohibition against women in 2:12, but then provides a justification for so doing in verses 13 and 14. The reason why I would like to spend time on this is because so much discussion has been paid to these two verses. The traditional argument will tell you that by virtue of Adam’s being the head of creation and Eve’s deception, that the male should be the only one to lead in the church. As I’ve stated before, however, if you approach the text from this standpoint, you’ve got to affirm that all women everywhere—at all ages and at all times—will be more prone to deception than men are. And if you make that argument, then you’re stomped by the fact that 1 Peter 3 refers to women as having a “weaker” vessel—which doesn’t EXCLUDE men from being physically weak either! If you wanna read the rest of my discussion on 1 Peter 3, please see my blog post called “Schreiner’s Biological Argument Overturned” under the section at my blog called “Philosophical Factors” (www.womeninthechurch-junia.blogspot.com)
On to our task—of finding out what verses 13 and 14 of this controversial chapter of 1 Timothy are all about…
12(A) I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13(B) For Adam was formed first,(C) then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but(D) the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through(E) childbearing—if they continue in(F) faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2:12-15, ESV).
Looking at verses 13 and 14, the common misconception (as noted above) has prevailed. But I think we miss Paul’s argument because we focus so much on ANALYZING the text—we’re always so preoccupied with what the text MEANS, instead of what the text SAYS. Oftentimes, our need to find the meaning without knowing the saying leads us into all types of interpretive complications that could be avoided if we read the text for what it is.
I don’t think I need to remind you that verses 13 and 14 are a reference to Genesis. Everyone on both sides of the debate—whether complementarians or egalitarians—affirm that both verses allude to Genesis 3, the Fall. Let’s pair up verses 13 and 14 with Genesis 3:
1 Timothy 2:13— “For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
Genesis 2:7—“Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”
Genesis 2:22—“And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”
1 Timothy 2:13 argues a set creation order, but all it does is ECHO the creation order that is recorded in Genesis 2—Paul never comments on the creation order. All the commentaries and books I have read that seek to COMMENT on this creation order add to the text. Paul doesn’t say that Eve was formed second and that made her inferior, or Eve was formed second and that makes her less able to lead. These are all presuppositions of tradition that are not demonstrated in the text.
Next, let’s look at 1 Timothy 2:14 and pair it up with its parallel reference in Genesis:
1 Timothy 2:14--14and Adam was not deceived, but(D) the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Genesis 2:16,17—16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(A) you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[a] of it you(B) shall surely die."
Genesis 3:13—13Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said,(A) "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
Why does Paul write, “And Adam was not deceived”? I think Sarah Sumner hits on something vital when she tells us that, from what we read, we can infer the situation. Paul is having to defend Eve being deceived, but Adam NOT being deceived. Why is that, when Genesis NEVER states that Adam was deceived? The reason? Because there was a following in the church at Ephesus (most likely the women) who argued that Adam was deceived instead of Eve!
According to the philosophical concept called “Ockham’s Razor,” the answer to challenging passages of Scripture can be solved with the following: “The easiest answer is ALWAYS the best explanation.” Complementarians have sat around for years wringing their heads, striving to find a way to justify Paul’s reference to Genesis; but I think they’ve wasted so much time analyzing a passage that Paul didn’t analyze. Paul doesn’t write to ANALYZE—he writes to DEFEND! Paul quotes Genesis to uphold the Law in a church where the Law was being abused because of “myths and endless genealogies” (1 Timothy 1).
So how would I interpret 1 Timothy 2:12-15? As the text SAYS. Women should not teach that they are “authentein” (to be the origin) of man. Why? Because Genesis tells us otherwise: “Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” Adam was the origin of mankind and Eve was deceived. Genesis records this—and so does Paul’s letter to Timothy.
ALMOST EVERY LINE OF SCRIPTURE GIVES US HINTS ABOUT THE HISTORICAL SITUATION.Sometimes it tells us what the people needed to be reminded of, and sometimes it tells us what they needed to be taught for the first time. IN MANY CASES, IT TELLS US SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE RECIPIENTS OF THE TEXT WERE THINKING OR DOING. For instance, in Galatians, when Paul said to the churches, ‘Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another’ (Galatians 5:26), we can safely guess that Christians in Galatia were competing, not cooperating, with each other” (Sarah Sumner, “Men and Women in the Church,” pp.236-37).
Sumner, once again, helps us see that hermeneutics itself, while sounding like a fancy exercise, really isn’t—the average person CAN read the Bible with understanding and make sense of Scripture. As a Protestant, I stand behind Martin Luther in this regard and proclaim that the average person can read the Bible with understanding.
1 Timothy 2 is no exception to this rule. The chapter can be read with understanding and the chapter can make sense to the person in the pew as well as the Professor in the seminary. But sometimes, I fear that believers have gotten so engrossed in seminaries and Bible colleges all across the country, that the simple techniques for Bible reading have gone neglected—and in most cases, forgotten.
What is the story behind 1 Timothy 2:13-14? Paul gives the prohibition against women in 2:12, but then provides a justification for so doing in verses 13 and 14. The reason why I would like to spend time on this is because so much discussion has been paid to these two verses. The traditional argument will tell you that by virtue of Adam’s being the head of creation and Eve’s deception, that the male should be the only one to lead in the church. As I’ve stated before, however, if you approach the text from this standpoint, you’ve got to affirm that all women everywhere—at all ages and at all times—will be more prone to deception than men are. And if you make that argument, then you’re stomped by the fact that 1 Peter 3 refers to women as having a “weaker” vessel—which doesn’t EXCLUDE men from being physically weak either! If you wanna read the rest of my discussion on 1 Peter 3, please see my blog post called “Schreiner’s Biological Argument Overturned” under the section at my blog called “Philosophical Factors” (www.womeninthechurch-junia.blogspot.com)
On to our task—of finding out what verses 13 and 14 of this controversial chapter of 1 Timothy are all about…
12(A) I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13(B) For Adam was formed first,(C) then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but(D) the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through(E) childbearing—if they continue in(F) faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2:12-15, ESV).
Looking at verses 13 and 14, the common misconception (as noted above) has prevailed. But I think we miss Paul’s argument because we focus so much on ANALYZING the text—we’re always so preoccupied with what the text MEANS, instead of what the text SAYS. Oftentimes, our need to find the meaning without knowing the saying leads us into all types of interpretive complications that could be avoided if we read the text for what it is.
I don’t think I need to remind you that verses 13 and 14 are a reference to Genesis. Everyone on both sides of the debate—whether complementarians or egalitarians—affirm that both verses allude to Genesis 3, the Fall. Let’s pair up verses 13 and 14 with Genesis 3:
1 Timothy 2:13— “For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
Genesis 2:7—“Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”
Genesis 2:22—“And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”
1 Timothy 2:13 argues a set creation order, but all it does is ECHO the creation order that is recorded in Genesis 2—Paul never comments on the creation order. All the commentaries and books I have read that seek to COMMENT on this creation order add to the text. Paul doesn’t say that Eve was formed second and that made her inferior, or Eve was formed second and that makes her less able to lead. These are all presuppositions of tradition that are not demonstrated in the text.
Next, let’s look at 1 Timothy 2:14 and pair it up with its parallel reference in Genesis:
1 Timothy 2:14--14and Adam was not deceived, but(D) the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Genesis 2:16,17—16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(A) you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[a] of it you(B) shall surely die."
Genesis 3:13—13Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said,(A) "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
Why does Paul write, “And Adam was not deceived”? I think Sarah Sumner hits on something vital when she tells us that, from what we read, we can infer the situation. Paul is having to defend Eve being deceived, but Adam NOT being deceived. Why is that, when Genesis NEVER states that Adam was deceived? The reason? Because there was a following in the church at Ephesus (most likely the women) who argued that Adam was deceived instead of Eve!
According to the philosophical concept called “Ockham’s Razor,” the answer to challenging passages of Scripture can be solved with the following: “The easiest answer is ALWAYS the best explanation.” Complementarians have sat around for years wringing their heads, striving to find a way to justify Paul’s reference to Genesis; but I think they’ve wasted so much time analyzing a passage that Paul didn’t analyze. Paul doesn’t write to ANALYZE—he writes to DEFEND! Paul quotes Genesis to uphold the Law in a church where the Law was being abused because of “myths and endless genealogies” (1 Timothy 1).
So how would I interpret 1 Timothy 2:12-15? As the text SAYS. Women should not teach that they are “authentein” (to be the origin) of man. Why? Because Genesis tells us otherwise: “Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” Adam was the origin of mankind and Eve was deceived. Genesis records this—and so does Paul’s letter to Timothy.
The Ten NOT Reasons
In his section titled “The Key Issues In the Manhood-Womanhood Controversy, and the Way Forward,” Grudem presents what he calls “Ten Reasons Showing Male Headship in Marriage Before the Fall"(http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/biblicalfoundations.pdf).
Grudem believes that these ten reasons “seal the deal” in the struggle between egalitarians and complementarians—showing that the complementarian side is best and right. Before I knock Grudem’s position, let’s examine these ten reasons:
(1) Order.
“Adam was created first, then Eve…according to Scripture itself, then, the fact that Adam was created first and then Eve has implications not just for Adam and Eve themselves, but FOR THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN GENERALLY THROUGHOUT TIME, INCLUDING THE CHURCH AGE” (25).
Grudem’s position seems true at first glance; but if one takes a clear look, one will see a presupposition at work. With Grudem’s quote, he claims that Adam and Eve are an example “between men and women throughout time,” for all generations. The fact that Adam and Eve were created in a set order (Adam first) shows that men are always the ones to lead and women are the ones to follow. Order of the creation of the first two humans, then, serves as an indicator for how life in the church is to be.
But if the original creation order is the ever-guiding principle, what about the MODERN order of creation? Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 11:
11Nevertheless,(O) in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And(P) all things are from God. (1 Cor. 11:11-12, ESV)
Whereas in the beginning of time as we know it, Eve came AFTER Adam, today, men are created THROUGH women giving birth. Women now come first in the creation order—for what man can give birth to a child?
Grudem’s reason of order, then, is NULLIFIED by 1 Corinthians 11. By arguing that man was created first, then woman, he is only appealing to HALF of the argument Paul discusses in 1Corinthians 11.
(2) The representation.
“Adam, not Eve, had a special role in representing the human race” (25).
Grudem emphasizes this again:
“IN REPRESENTING THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, a leadership role that Eve did not have” (26).
However, there is a fundamental problem with this reason—it has to do with creation, not marriage! But Grudem’s reasons are to show “male headship in MARRIAGE,” not headship in CREATION. Grudem makes a huge mistake when he links creation and marriage together. If he intends to make this point stick, he’s got to argue why Adam, the head of creation, is made the head of the marriage—and he has no evidence for it.
(3) The naming of woman.
“The original readers of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament would have been familiar with this pattern, a pattern whereby people who have authority over another person or thing have the ability to assign a name to that person or thing…” (28).
Yes, it’s true: Adam does have authority that allows him to name Eve. But Adam also gets to name the rest of creation. Notice that in Genesis 2 Adam is naming the animals and notices there is no one like himself:
“18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone;(R) I will make him a helper fit for[e] him." 19(S) Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed[f] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and(T) brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21So the LORD God caused a(U) deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.” (Genesis 2:18-22, ESV)
The fact that Adam names creation is a demonstration of God’s image in him. This is part of what God meant in Genesis 1:26 when He said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness.” But Adam does not name Eve AFTER he is given headship of the marriage—he names her BEFORE Genesis 3:16, which shows that at the point at which he names her, he is doing so because of his headship over creation, not the marriage.
(4) The naming of the human race.
“God named the human race ‘Man,’ not ‘Woman.’ Because the idea of naming is so important in the Old Testament, it is interesting what name God chose for the human race as a whole. We read: When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them MAN when they were created’ (Gen. 5:1-2)” (28).
To back up this point, Grudem writes:
“In the Hebrew text, the word that is translated ‘Man’ is the Hebrew word ‘Adam.’ But this is by no means a gender-neutral term in the eyes of the Hebrew reader at this point, because in the four chapters prior to Genesis 5:2, the Hebrew word ‘adam’ has been used many times to speak of a male human being in distinction from a female human being” (29).
Grudem’s analysis forgets context. Looking at Genesis 5:1-2, we can see that there are TWO meanings of the Hebrew word ‘adam’ that are used: the first relates to the male (“him”); the second relates to the race itself (“he created THEM”). With the second sentence of the verse, we understand that the word “man” refers to “human,” not “male” (gender-specific).
Now I understand that the human race was named “man,” and it seems as if the race named was masculine; however, whenever the generic “man” is used, our English word “mankind” is being discussed, not “male-kind” (reference to masculine gender).
There are six other reasons Grudem writes that we will discuss. For now, however, I leave you with a question: what about Genesis 3:16? If Adam already had headship of the home, why does God need to reiterate it in Genesis 3? That’s the question Grudem and other complementarians need to answer. I’ll discuss the other six reasons in future posts.
Grudem believes that these ten reasons “seal the deal” in the struggle between egalitarians and complementarians—showing that the complementarian side is best and right. Before I knock Grudem’s position, let’s examine these ten reasons:
(1) Order.
“Adam was created first, then Eve…according to Scripture itself, then, the fact that Adam was created first and then Eve has implications not just for Adam and Eve themselves, but FOR THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN GENERALLY THROUGHOUT TIME, INCLUDING THE CHURCH AGE” (25).
Grudem’s position seems true at first glance; but if one takes a clear look, one will see a presupposition at work. With Grudem’s quote, he claims that Adam and Eve are an example “between men and women throughout time,” for all generations. The fact that Adam and Eve were created in a set order (Adam first) shows that men are always the ones to lead and women are the ones to follow. Order of the creation of the first two humans, then, serves as an indicator for how life in the church is to be.
But if the original creation order is the ever-guiding principle, what about the MODERN order of creation? Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 11:
11Nevertheless,(O) in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And(P) all things are from God. (1 Cor. 11:11-12, ESV)
Whereas in the beginning of time as we know it, Eve came AFTER Adam, today, men are created THROUGH women giving birth. Women now come first in the creation order—for what man can give birth to a child?
Grudem’s reason of order, then, is NULLIFIED by 1 Corinthians 11. By arguing that man was created first, then woman, he is only appealing to HALF of the argument Paul discusses in 1Corinthians 11.
(2) The representation.
“Adam, not Eve, had a special role in representing the human race” (25).
Grudem emphasizes this again:
“IN REPRESENTING THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, a leadership role that Eve did not have” (26).
However, there is a fundamental problem with this reason—it has to do with creation, not marriage! But Grudem’s reasons are to show “male headship in MARRIAGE,” not headship in CREATION. Grudem makes a huge mistake when he links creation and marriage together. If he intends to make this point stick, he’s got to argue why Adam, the head of creation, is made the head of the marriage—and he has no evidence for it.
(3) The naming of woman.
“The original readers of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament would have been familiar with this pattern, a pattern whereby people who have authority over another person or thing have the ability to assign a name to that person or thing…” (28).
Yes, it’s true: Adam does have authority that allows him to name Eve. But Adam also gets to name the rest of creation. Notice that in Genesis 2 Adam is naming the animals and notices there is no one like himself:
“18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone;(R) I will make him a helper fit for[e] him." 19(S) Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed[f] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and(T) brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21So the LORD God caused a(U) deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.” (Genesis 2:18-22, ESV)
The fact that Adam names creation is a demonstration of God’s image in him. This is part of what God meant in Genesis 1:26 when He said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness.” But Adam does not name Eve AFTER he is given headship of the marriage—he names her BEFORE Genesis 3:16, which shows that at the point at which he names her, he is doing so because of his headship over creation, not the marriage.
(4) The naming of the human race.
“God named the human race ‘Man,’ not ‘Woman.’ Because the idea of naming is so important in the Old Testament, it is interesting what name God chose for the human race as a whole. We read: When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them MAN when they were created’ (Gen. 5:1-2)” (28).
To back up this point, Grudem writes:
“In the Hebrew text, the word that is translated ‘Man’ is the Hebrew word ‘Adam.’ But this is by no means a gender-neutral term in the eyes of the Hebrew reader at this point, because in the four chapters prior to Genesis 5:2, the Hebrew word ‘adam’ has been used many times to speak of a male human being in distinction from a female human being” (29).
Grudem’s analysis forgets context. Looking at Genesis 5:1-2, we can see that there are TWO meanings of the Hebrew word ‘adam’ that are used: the first relates to the male (“him”); the second relates to the race itself (“he created THEM”). With the second sentence of the verse, we understand that the word “man” refers to “human,” not “male” (gender-specific).
Now I understand that the human race was named “man,” and it seems as if the race named was masculine; however, whenever the generic “man” is used, our English word “mankind” is being discussed, not “male-kind” (reference to masculine gender).
There are six other reasons Grudem writes that we will discuss. For now, however, I leave you with a question: what about Genesis 3:16? If Adam already had headship of the home, why does God need to reiterate it in Genesis 3? That’s the question Grudem and other complementarians need to answer. I’ll discuss the other six reasons in future posts.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Presupposition Complicates Everything
In my last post, I wrote about Douglas Moo and how he fails to notice the impact of the false teaching on the church at Ephesus—although he spends quite a lot of time referencing it.
Here in this post I will show how Moo’s presupposition—as that of the complementarian mind—will not release them to see clearly how they skew the last few verses of 1 Timothy 2 to fit their personal beliefs.
Let’s look again at Douglas Moo’s article, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?”:
“In order to understand 1 Timothy 2:11-15, we need to back up and begin with verse 8, where Paul requests that ‘men everywhere…lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing’…THIS CAUTION ABOUT ANGER AND QUARRELING DURING PRAYER IS ALMOST SURELY OCCASIONED BY THE IMPACT OF THE FALSE TEACHING ON THE CHURCH, for one of the most obvious results of that false teaching was divisiveness and discord (see 1 Timothy 6:4-5)” (178).
Notice that regarding verse 8, Moo says that false teaching was responsible for this disturbance. But notice that verse 8 mentions NOTHING about the false teachers:
“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;”
What about verses 9 and 10? Do they relate to false teaching?
“The exhortation of verses 9-10…might also be directed AGAINST THE IMPACT OF THE FALSE TEACHING IN EPHESUS. For ostentatious dress, in the ancient world, sometimes could signal a woman’s loose morals and independence from her husband” (178, 179).
Verses 9 and 10 don’t mention false teaching at all; yet and still, Moo believes that these verses, too, involve the false teachers.
What about verse 11?
“In verse 11, he commands them to ‘learn in quietness and full submission’…THESE WOMEN HAD PROBABLY PICKED UP THE DISPUTATIOUS HABITS OF THE FALSE TEACHERS, and Paul must therefore warn them to accept without criticism the teaching of the properly appointed church leaders” (179).
So in verse 11, the false teachers are to blame for women rising up against their instructors.
But look at what Moo writes starting at verse 12:
“Verse 12 is the focus of discussion in this passage, for it is here that Paul prohibits the women at Ephesus FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN MINISTRIES WITH REFERENCE TO MEN” (180).
Here, Moo doesn’t seem to even CONSIDER the possibility that verse 12, regarding teaching and authority have ANYTHING to do with the false teachers! However, he doesn’t seem hesitant to acknowledge verses 8-11 concern false teachers (although there is no direct evidence from the text). The only two things Moo addresses with regard to verse 12 are whether or not Paul is appealing to all women or wives only, and whether or not “epitrepo” (the Greek infinitive) is translated “permit” or “forbid.” After discussing these two things, Moo goes into what constitutes the nature of teaching that Paul is prohibiting. However, Moo just said earlier in his article that no one knew the nature of the false teaching! Next, he asks a question:
“At this point the QUESTION OF APPLICATION cannot be evaded. WHAT FUNCTIONS IN THE MODERN CHURCH WOULD BE CONSIDERED TEACHING IN THIS SENSE?” (181).
Instead of explaining what this verse means, Moo simply jumps to what “teaching” would have been discussed here. And the answer he gives is totally based on presupposition:
“In light of these considerations, we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching…and the teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries. Other activities—leading Bible studies, for instance- may be included, depending on how they are done” (181).
Once again, what “authority” over men is not given in the text—but somehow, complementarians ASSUME it refers to ecclesiastical authority. Adam however, didn’t have ECCLESIASTICAL authority over his wife, but HOME authority—being the head of his household (Genesis 3). The church hadn’t been created yet, so how could Adam receive “headship over the church” from God? Secondly, notice that Ephesians 5 refers to Christ as “head of the church.” Christ, then, NEVER relinquished His title as “Head of the church” to anybody—not even husbands.
What other authority did Adam have PRIOR to Genesis 3—authority given to him as THE FIRST HUMAN! This is why he was allowed to name his wife—because he was created first! There is authority that came with being the first human; but we can’t take that and read a much-later created church authority back into a text that is much older. While Paul later wrote in Ephesians 5 that Adam and Eve were concerning Christ and the Church, he doesn’t say that Adam and Eve were a symbol of LEADERSHIP IN THE CHURCH!
Moo simply fails to address his biggest issue—his presupposition. We’ve seen it through his exposition of verses 8-15. When someone can address every other verse as referring to false teachers EXCEPT verse 12, there seems to be something suspicious happening. Presupposition complicates EVERYTHING…
To click on Moo's article, go to http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw.pdf.
Here in this post I will show how Moo’s presupposition—as that of the complementarian mind—will not release them to see clearly how they skew the last few verses of 1 Timothy 2 to fit their personal beliefs.
Let’s look again at Douglas Moo’s article, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?”:
“In order to understand 1 Timothy 2:11-15, we need to back up and begin with verse 8, where Paul requests that ‘men everywhere…lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing’…THIS CAUTION ABOUT ANGER AND QUARRELING DURING PRAYER IS ALMOST SURELY OCCASIONED BY THE IMPACT OF THE FALSE TEACHING ON THE CHURCH, for one of the most obvious results of that false teaching was divisiveness and discord (see 1 Timothy 6:4-5)” (178).
Notice that regarding verse 8, Moo says that false teaching was responsible for this disturbance. But notice that verse 8 mentions NOTHING about the false teachers:
“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;”
What about verses 9 and 10? Do they relate to false teaching?
“The exhortation of verses 9-10…might also be directed AGAINST THE IMPACT OF THE FALSE TEACHING IN EPHESUS. For ostentatious dress, in the ancient world, sometimes could signal a woman’s loose morals and independence from her husband” (178, 179).
Verses 9 and 10 don’t mention false teaching at all; yet and still, Moo believes that these verses, too, involve the false teachers.
What about verse 11?
“In verse 11, he commands them to ‘learn in quietness and full submission’…THESE WOMEN HAD PROBABLY PICKED UP THE DISPUTATIOUS HABITS OF THE FALSE TEACHERS, and Paul must therefore warn them to accept without criticism the teaching of the properly appointed church leaders” (179).
So in verse 11, the false teachers are to blame for women rising up against their instructors.
But look at what Moo writes starting at verse 12:
“Verse 12 is the focus of discussion in this passage, for it is here that Paul prohibits the women at Ephesus FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN MINISTRIES WITH REFERENCE TO MEN” (180).
Here, Moo doesn’t seem to even CONSIDER the possibility that verse 12, regarding teaching and authority have ANYTHING to do with the false teachers! However, he doesn’t seem hesitant to acknowledge verses 8-11 concern false teachers (although there is no direct evidence from the text). The only two things Moo addresses with regard to verse 12 are whether or not Paul is appealing to all women or wives only, and whether or not “epitrepo” (the Greek infinitive) is translated “permit” or “forbid.” After discussing these two things, Moo goes into what constitutes the nature of teaching that Paul is prohibiting. However, Moo just said earlier in his article that no one knew the nature of the false teaching! Next, he asks a question:
“At this point the QUESTION OF APPLICATION cannot be evaded. WHAT FUNCTIONS IN THE MODERN CHURCH WOULD BE CONSIDERED TEACHING IN THIS SENSE?” (181).
Instead of explaining what this verse means, Moo simply jumps to what “teaching” would have been discussed here. And the answer he gives is totally based on presupposition:
“In light of these considerations, we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching…and the teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries. Other activities—leading Bible studies, for instance- may be included, depending on how they are done” (181).
Once again, what “authority” over men is not given in the text—but somehow, complementarians ASSUME it refers to ecclesiastical authority. Adam however, didn’t have ECCLESIASTICAL authority over his wife, but HOME authority—being the head of his household (Genesis 3). The church hadn’t been created yet, so how could Adam receive “headship over the church” from God? Secondly, notice that Ephesians 5 refers to Christ as “head of the church.” Christ, then, NEVER relinquished His title as “Head of the church” to anybody—not even husbands.
What other authority did Adam have PRIOR to Genesis 3—authority given to him as THE FIRST HUMAN! This is why he was allowed to name his wife—because he was created first! There is authority that came with being the first human; but we can’t take that and read a much-later created church authority back into a text that is much older. While Paul later wrote in Ephesians 5 that Adam and Eve were concerning Christ and the Church, he doesn’t say that Adam and Eve were a symbol of LEADERSHIP IN THE CHURCH!
Moo simply fails to address his biggest issue—his presupposition. We’ve seen it through his exposition of verses 8-15. When someone can address every other verse as referring to false teachers EXCEPT verse 12, there seems to be something suspicious happening. Presupposition complicates EVERYTHING…
To click on Moo's article, go to http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw.pdf.
Impact Unnoticed
“Many interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 rely heavily on the nature of this false teaching at Ephesus in explaining what Paul means in these verses. There is nothing wrong with this in principle; good exegesis always takes into consideration the larger context in which a text appears. However, Paul tells us remarkably little about the specifics of this false teaching, presumably because he knows that Timothy is well acquainted with the problem. This means that WE CANNOT BE AT ALL SURE ABOUT THE PRECISE NATURE OF THIS FALSE TEACHING AND, PARTICULARLY, ABOUT ITS IMPACT ON THE WOMEN IN THE CHURCH…” (Grudem and Piper, “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” 177).
Douglas Moo wrote the above statement in his chapter from “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” entitled “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” Moo attempts in his article to study 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and show through exegesis why it is that women’s ministries are limited in the church. What interests me is the last phrase of the above quote.
Moo states that because we don’t know the nature of the false teaching, what the false teaching was exactly, that we can’t know of its impact on the church at Ephesus. But what is troublesome about this statement is that, according to context, we know a great deal about the impact of the false teaching on the church. Consider the following statements:
1 Timothy 1:6 (ESV)—“Certain persons, by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion…”
1 Tim. 1:19b—“by rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith…”
These verses show us that such false teaching threw those influenced by it out of the faith. In addition, we have a proper context from 1 Timothy 1 that tells us the situation:
“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons NOT TO TEACH ANY DIFFERENT DOCTRINE, NOR TO DEVOTE THEMSELVES TO MYTHS AND ENDLESS GENEALOGIES, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith” (1 Tim. 1:3-4).
In addition, view these few verses:
“Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into VAIN DISCUSSION, DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING EITHER WHAT THEY ARE SAYING OR THE THINGS ABOUT WHICH THEY MAKE CONFIDENT ASSERTIONS. Now we know that the law is good, IF ONE USES IT LAWFULLY…” (1 Tim. 1:6-8, ESV).
It is not a coincidence with that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 discusses teaching (discussed in 1:3). In addition, notice that chapter 2 discusses genealogy (“Adam was first formed, then Eve”), which is also discussed in 1:4) and myth (“and Adam was not deceived”), which is discussed in chapter one, verse 4. Complementarians have made this passage seem more vague and obscure than it really is.
Whenever we seek to study a biblical text, we have to keep in mind that ALL WE HAVE IS THE TEXT! All we have is what the text gives us to make inferences. We have to examine the text in-front of us to discover the setting and background. In my reading of complementarian studies, I have found that many of them seek to make the issue here one of an “overrealized eschatology”; yet and still, the text of 1 Timothy does not discuss an “overrealized eschatology,” but instead, a false doctrine of myths and endless genealogies as we are told from 1 Timothy 1. If they truly seek to examine the text as it is, with its context, they don’t have to look any further than the book of 1 Timothy. To mention an event of 2 Timothy (overrealized eschatology) is to reconstruct the text, to read a later issue back into an earlier situation. It is, in short, bad exegesis!
As if they don’t notice how terrible their response is regarding the false teaching, they turn around and DEMONSTRATE ITS IMPACT!
Look at another excerpt of Moo’s chapter:
“Some of the aspects specifically relevant to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are:
1. The false teachers SOWED DISSENSION AND WERE PREOCCUPIED WITH TRIVIALITIES…
2. The false teachers HAD PERSUADED MANY WOMEN TO FOLLOW THEM IN THEIR DOCTRINES (1 Timothy 5:15; 2 Timothy 3:6-7)” (177).
Here we see that division and a drifting away of believers occurred in this church. These results are no small things to snuff at! The impact of the false teaching was a mass explosion, according to 1 Timothy itself. How then, can complementarians look at this and conclude, as Moo does, that we don’t have any idea of the impact of the false teaching? Not knowing the nature of the teaching doesn’t excuse away its impact.
Moo doesn’t notice the impact of the false teaching on the church at Ephesus in the first century. If false teaching is as prevalent in the book as Moo shows it to be, then how can this be disregarded when considering the purpose of chapter 2?
For those who want to view this argue, go to the following site and scroll through the table of contents: http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw.pdf
Douglas Moo wrote the above statement in his chapter from “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” entitled “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” Moo attempts in his article to study 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and show through exegesis why it is that women’s ministries are limited in the church. What interests me is the last phrase of the above quote.
Moo states that because we don’t know the nature of the false teaching, what the false teaching was exactly, that we can’t know of its impact on the church at Ephesus. But what is troublesome about this statement is that, according to context, we know a great deal about the impact of the false teaching on the church. Consider the following statements:
1 Timothy 1:6 (ESV)—“Certain persons, by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion…”
1 Tim. 1:19b—“by rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith…”
These verses show us that such false teaching threw those influenced by it out of the faith. In addition, we have a proper context from 1 Timothy 1 that tells us the situation:
“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons NOT TO TEACH ANY DIFFERENT DOCTRINE, NOR TO DEVOTE THEMSELVES TO MYTHS AND ENDLESS GENEALOGIES, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith” (1 Tim. 1:3-4).
In addition, view these few verses:
“Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into VAIN DISCUSSION, DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING EITHER WHAT THEY ARE SAYING OR THE THINGS ABOUT WHICH THEY MAKE CONFIDENT ASSERTIONS. Now we know that the law is good, IF ONE USES IT LAWFULLY…” (1 Tim. 1:6-8, ESV).
It is not a coincidence with that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 discusses teaching (discussed in 1:3). In addition, notice that chapter 2 discusses genealogy (“Adam was first formed, then Eve”), which is also discussed in 1:4) and myth (“and Adam was not deceived”), which is discussed in chapter one, verse 4. Complementarians have made this passage seem more vague and obscure than it really is.
Whenever we seek to study a biblical text, we have to keep in mind that ALL WE HAVE IS THE TEXT! All we have is what the text gives us to make inferences. We have to examine the text in-front of us to discover the setting and background. In my reading of complementarian studies, I have found that many of them seek to make the issue here one of an “overrealized eschatology”; yet and still, the text of 1 Timothy does not discuss an “overrealized eschatology,” but instead, a false doctrine of myths and endless genealogies as we are told from 1 Timothy 1. If they truly seek to examine the text as it is, with its context, they don’t have to look any further than the book of 1 Timothy. To mention an event of 2 Timothy (overrealized eschatology) is to reconstruct the text, to read a later issue back into an earlier situation. It is, in short, bad exegesis!
As if they don’t notice how terrible their response is regarding the false teaching, they turn around and DEMONSTRATE ITS IMPACT!
Look at another excerpt of Moo’s chapter:
“Some of the aspects specifically relevant to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are:
1. The false teachers SOWED DISSENSION AND WERE PREOCCUPIED WITH TRIVIALITIES…
2. The false teachers HAD PERSUADED MANY WOMEN TO FOLLOW THEM IN THEIR DOCTRINES (1 Timothy 5:15; 2 Timothy 3:6-7)” (177).
Here we see that division and a drifting away of believers occurred in this church. These results are no small things to snuff at! The impact of the false teaching was a mass explosion, according to 1 Timothy itself. How then, can complementarians look at this and conclude, as Moo does, that we don’t have any idea of the impact of the false teaching? Not knowing the nature of the teaching doesn’t excuse away its impact.
Moo doesn’t notice the impact of the false teaching on the church at Ephesus in the first century. If false teaching is as prevalent in the book as Moo shows it to be, then how can this be disregarded when considering the purpose of chapter 2?
For those who want to view this argue, go to the following site and scroll through the table of contents: http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw.pdf
Spiritual Privileges and Spiritual Gifts
I finally worked up the courage to return to reading material for Wayne Grudem and John Piper’s book called “Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” Today I read chapter 7, entitled “Role Distinctions in the Church (Galatians 3:28)” by S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. The entire chapter was written to demonstrate that, while Galatians 3:28 allows us all to be on equal footing “in Christ” and “before God,” such status does not eliminate social distinctions (for instance, being male or female).
I want to take time, however, to focus on some key statements Johnson makes and demonstrate where his argument fails.
First, on page 151 of Grudem and Piper’s book, Johnson writes (regarding Galatians 3:28),
“The universal privilege of sonship in the present age through union with Christ is Paul’s point, and it sets the tone of the context for interpreting verse twenty-eight. PAUL’S EMPHASIS IS ON SPIRITUAL STATUS IN CHRIST, “THE SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGE OF BEING THE SONS OF GOD” (151).
Notice that Johnson calls being a child of God a “spiritual privilege.” But aren’t spiritual gifts “spiritual privileges” as well? I mean, gifts do come from the Spirit:
11All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit,(W) who apportions to each one individually(X) as he wills. (1 Corinthians 12:11, ESV).
The Spirit gives the gifts as He sees fit, which means that the Spirit gives gifts to both genders—to each man and woman according to what He decides to do. The Holy Spirit does not consult the “Council of Complementarians” when He chooses to gift His people—He does it without answering to anyone because He is God and is free to do as He pleases.
When referring to the context of Galatians 3:28, Johnson writes:
“…it must…be remembered that in this context Paul is not speaking of relationships in the family and church, but of STANDING BEFORE GOD IN RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH” (153).
Did you notice that? Johnson (and thus, Grudem and Piper) do what Sumner accuses them of—they place women as equals to themselves BEFORE GOD, but not before GOD’S PEOPLE!
“…Piper and Grudem qualify women’s status as ‘fully equal…before God.’ They affirm the status of women in the presence of the Lord BUT NOT IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD’S PEOPLE. It sounds pleasant for every Christian man to feel ‘in his heart’ that God sees Christian women as men’s equals. But it doesn’t strike me as being challenging. It’s easy to give assent to God’s impartiality toward women. The biblical teaching is much harder. The Bible makes it plain that every believer is expected to become impartial too (1 Tim. 5:21)’” (Sumner, “Men and Women in the Church, pp. 280-81).
Now, I want you the reader, to notice something about a former connection I made. In a post I wrote a few days ago, called “Encountering Church Tradition,” I stated that, if we were saved by grace through faith, and are all welcome to be baptized in Christ, then why is it that, after salvation, the gifts (given through grace) suddenly become based on social distinctions? That doesn’t make any sense!
Well, believe it or not, I’ve finally found a verse-to-verse connection that will demonstrate the point I was trying to make in that post. Let’s look at Galatians 3:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 12:12-13—
Galatians 3:26-28 (ESV)—“ 26for in Christ Jesus(AV) you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as(AW) were baptized(AX) into Christ have(AY) put on Christ. 28(AZ) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free,(BA) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (ESV)—“ 12For just as(Y) the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body,(Z) so it is with Christ. 13For(AA) in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—(AB) Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and(AC) all were made to drink of one Spirit.”
Do you notice something between these two passages? Galatians 3 tells us that we were baptized into Christ; 1 Corinthians 12 tells us that we were baptized in one Spirit. What these two passages are telling us is that, when we accepted Christ, not only did we put on Christ, but we were also given His Holy Spirit. We “were made to drink of one Spirit,” which means that the Spirit was part of this baptism. If we were given spiritual privileges at the moment of our salvation, then we were also given spiritual gifts at this baptism—which means that the spiritual gifts are SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGES!
This is so important because Johnson, Grudem, and Piper have spent time arguing that we get spiritual privileges as sons of God—but if we get spiritual privileges, and we are baptized into the Spirit as well—then we also receive spiritual gifts, which are PART of the spiritual privileges (or spiritual inheritance)! And how do we know a person receives a spiritual gift? God visibly manifests it in the lives of those whom He gives the gifts to-- and everyone else around them can see it as clear as day.
I want to address gifts and offices, but I’ll do it in my next post.
I want to take time, however, to focus on some key statements Johnson makes and demonstrate where his argument fails.
First, on page 151 of Grudem and Piper’s book, Johnson writes (regarding Galatians 3:28),
“The universal privilege of sonship in the present age through union with Christ is Paul’s point, and it sets the tone of the context for interpreting verse twenty-eight. PAUL’S EMPHASIS IS ON SPIRITUAL STATUS IN CHRIST, “THE SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGE OF BEING THE SONS OF GOD” (151).
Notice that Johnson calls being a child of God a “spiritual privilege.” But aren’t spiritual gifts “spiritual privileges” as well? I mean, gifts do come from the Spirit:
11All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit,(W) who apportions to each one individually(X) as he wills. (1 Corinthians 12:11, ESV).
The Spirit gives the gifts as He sees fit, which means that the Spirit gives gifts to both genders—to each man and woman according to what He decides to do. The Holy Spirit does not consult the “Council of Complementarians” when He chooses to gift His people—He does it without answering to anyone because He is God and is free to do as He pleases.
When referring to the context of Galatians 3:28, Johnson writes:
“…it must…be remembered that in this context Paul is not speaking of relationships in the family and church, but of STANDING BEFORE GOD IN RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH” (153).
Did you notice that? Johnson (and thus, Grudem and Piper) do what Sumner accuses them of—they place women as equals to themselves BEFORE GOD, but not before GOD’S PEOPLE!
“…Piper and Grudem qualify women’s status as ‘fully equal…before God.’ They affirm the status of women in the presence of the Lord BUT NOT IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD’S PEOPLE. It sounds pleasant for every Christian man to feel ‘in his heart’ that God sees Christian women as men’s equals. But it doesn’t strike me as being challenging. It’s easy to give assent to God’s impartiality toward women. The biblical teaching is much harder. The Bible makes it plain that every believer is expected to become impartial too (1 Tim. 5:21)’” (Sumner, “Men and Women in the Church, pp. 280-81).
Now, I want you the reader, to notice something about a former connection I made. In a post I wrote a few days ago, called “Encountering Church Tradition,” I stated that, if we were saved by grace through faith, and are all welcome to be baptized in Christ, then why is it that, after salvation, the gifts (given through grace) suddenly become based on social distinctions? That doesn’t make any sense!
Well, believe it or not, I’ve finally found a verse-to-verse connection that will demonstrate the point I was trying to make in that post. Let’s look at Galatians 3:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 12:12-13—
Galatians 3:26-28 (ESV)—“ 26for in Christ Jesus(AV) you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as(AW) were baptized(AX) into Christ have(AY) put on Christ. 28(AZ) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free,(BA) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (ESV)—“ 12For just as(Y) the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body,(Z) so it is with Christ. 13For(AA) in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—(AB) Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and(AC) all were made to drink of one Spirit.”
Do you notice something between these two passages? Galatians 3 tells us that we were baptized into Christ; 1 Corinthians 12 tells us that we were baptized in one Spirit. What these two passages are telling us is that, when we accepted Christ, not only did we put on Christ, but we were also given His Holy Spirit. We “were made to drink of one Spirit,” which means that the Spirit was part of this baptism. If we were given spiritual privileges at the moment of our salvation, then we were also given spiritual gifts at this baptism—which means that the spiritual gifts are SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGES!
This is so important because Johnson, Grudem, and Piper have spent time arguing that we get spiritual privileges as sons of God—but if we get spiritual privileges, and we are baptized into the Spirit as well—then we also receive spiritual gifts, which are PART of the spiritual privileges (or spiritual inheritance)! And how do we know a person receives a spiritual gift? God visibly manifests it in the lives of those whom He gives the gifts to-- and everyone else around them can see it as clear as day.
I want to address gifts and offices, but I’ll do it in my next post.
In the Name of 1 Timothy 2
Chapter 17 of Sarah Sumner’s book called “Men and Women in the Church” is titled “In the Name of 1 Timothy 2.” In this chapter, Sumner begins to present a small study in hermeneutics. Contrary to what is mostly believed about egalitarians, Sumner hasn’t written her book without some background in hermeneutics:
“I first learned the basics of hermeneutics at Baylor University. Everyone who majored in elementary education was required to take a course called ‘Teaching Reading.’ The objective of the class was for teachers to learn how to help children with their reading comprehension. I don’t remember much else about the class except the most important lesson we learned—to teach kids to read for meaning. READING ISN’T READING if the reader doesn’t listen for the MEANING…the task in reading Scripture is TO CATCH THE PROPER MEANING IN ORDER TO APPLY THE PROPER MEANING, to hear for the purpose of doing what God tells us to do” (Sumner, page 208).
With the italicized words above, Sumner makes a profound point regarding the process of hermeneutics: interpreting the passage in its context (including time) is what is first required before a person can interpret the passage in our modern time. You can’t place the passage in our modern time and THEN reread the meaning of what it would have meant, say, in the first century AD. To do so, as I’ve stated in other posts, is to OVERSTAND the text.
When it comes to studying the text, then, how are we to go about the task of interpretation?
“We do not see the Bible as a BOOK OF SECRET CODES that ought to be read mystically as an allegory. When the Bible describes a miracle, we believe a miracle happened…as partakers of the gospel, we are not suspicious of the text. On the contrary, we believe that it’s best to accept the plain and simple meaning of a given Bible passage IF A STRAIGHTFORWARD READING MAKES SENSE” (Sumner, 209).
To support her view, she quotes the great preacher and theologian John Wesley:
“It is a stated rule in interpreting, NEVER TO DEPART from the plain, literal sense, UNLESS IT IMPLIES AN ABSURDITY” (209).
After discussing the proper process of hermeneutics, she applies this to the passage at hand (1 Timothy 2):
“A prime example of a biblical text that cannot sensibly be taken at face value is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Let’s examine it together.
‘But women shall be preserved[saved] through the bearing of children.’ A straightforward reading of this line of the Bible is clearly unacceptable to the born-again Christian mind. Evangelicals don’t believe that women’s souls are saved by motherhood. Moreover, it is counter to the gospel to insinuate that childless women are going to hell because they are childless. Therefore, theologically, this verse can’t mean what it sounds like it means. The Bible says that no one can be saved by anything other than grace. How is the average reader supposed to figure out that ‘saved through the bearing of children’ means ‘saved through the blood of Jesus Christ’?
Consider another line of this same passage. ‘But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.’ Here we face the same difficulty. There’s no way to interpret this verse at face value unless we’re ready to say that it is sinful for a man to learn about God from a woman. Of course most of us hold a more modified view. But that is the point. We hold a view that differs from a straightforward reading. We say, for example, this verse restricts women from teaching the Bible ‘with authority’ to men ‘publicly at the main church service in a pulpit on Sunday morning.’ In other words, WE ADD EXTRA PHRASES TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT in order to make sense of the verse” (Sumner, 210).
Sumner presents us with 1 Timothy 2 and shows the implications of interpreting this passage literally. In conversation about this passage, however, believers give away their need to “add extra phrases” to demonstrate what this text means. And why do we add extra phrases to what this verse means? Because it needs some clarification, because we need some interpretation for this verse. Reading it straight would make us think that salvation could come SOME OTHER WAY—which is totally inconsistent with what the Bible teaches about salvation (for example, Romans 10:9).
Sumner then centers in on two theologians, Wayne Grudem and John Piper, to demonstrate that, they too, don’t believe in a literal reading of the text. In response to Elisabeth Elliott, Grudem and Piper are supportive of her ministry:
“Openly they[Grudem and Piper] believe that the biblical injunction…does not constrain all women entirely. Rather, as they see it, it constrains most women to employ ‘impersonal’ and ‘indirect’ communication to men whenever the gospel is proclaimed.”
To see this quoted openly, read Grudem and Piper’s book on “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” I have posted some on this book and will post further in the future.
Sumner uses the above reference of Grudem and Piper to strengthen her argument regarding how conservatives must “re”interpret the passage so as to accommodate the up-front absurdity of the plain, literal textual reading:
“Here again the driving point is that Piper and Grudem, like everybody else, nuance their reading of 1 Timothy 2. They respond to 1 Tim. 2:12 as if Paul had said, ‘I do not allow MOST WOMEN to teach men IN PERSON, but I do allow for EXCEPTIONS, and I DO ALLOW FOR WOMEN TO TEACH MEN THROUGH OTHER MEDIUMS such as books and radio because that mode of communication is more IMPERSONAL and INDIRECT” (Sumner, 211).
Notice that not all women are included in the injunction, but MOST women. If a woman operates through magazines, books, videos, and talk shows and radio time, she is somehow ADHERING to this verse; but if she’s in a pulpit teaching Scripture or preaching on Sunday morning, then she is IN VIOLATION of this verse.
I like Sumner’s re-creation of 1 Tim. 2:12 (according to Grudem and Piper) because that is what these two men believe. They honestly allow for exceptions, but then stick to generalities. Grudem does this in his book “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.” I stated it in a post earlier this week that Grudem writes about women “in general,” but still notes exceptions. He thinks that most women are relational and nurturing, although SOME women are not. Most women think with their emotions, but SOME women do not. It seems as if Grudem and Piper allow a few women to pursue what they love—as long as most women are left “in their place.” But God doesn’t make exceptions, He makes rules; and when a woman is gifted in teaching and preaching, it should be evident to everyone around her that an extraordinary call of God is on her life—and her giftedness should be exalted and encouraged.
While I am not a feminist, I do believe that everything serves a purpose. And Sarah Sumner is not a feminist, but she believes the same. I leave you with the following:
“Could it be that the global trends of feminism coincide with God’s plan to REFORM THE WAY THE CHURCH TREATS WOMEN? After all, there is biblical precedent for God to use pagans to make his name known and act on behalf of the oppressed. Cyrus, King of Persia, was chosen of the Lord in spite of his false beliefs (Isa. 45:4). God used Cyrus to bring Israel back from Babylon. Would it be so unlike God to use the waves of feminism to REFORM THE WAY THAT PEOPLE EXPERIENCE CHURCH?” (Sumner, 55).
“I first learned the basics of hermeneutics at Baylor University. Everyone who majored in elementary education was required to take a course called ‘Teaching Reading.’ The objective of the class was for teachers to learn how to help children with their reading comprehension. I don’t remember much else about the class except the most important lesson we learned—to teach kids to read for meaning. READING ISN’T READING if the reader doesn’t listen for the MEANING…the task in reading Scripture is TO CATCH THE PROPER MEANING IN ORDER TO APPLY THE PROPER MEANING, to hear for the purpose of doing what God tells us to do” (Sumner, page 208).
With the italicized words above, Sumner makes a profound point regarding the process of hermeneutics: interpreting the passage in its context (including time) is what is first required before a person can interpret the passage in our modern time. You can’t place the passage in our modern time and THEN reread the meaning of what it would have meant, say, in the first century AD. To do so, as I’ve stated in other posts, is to OVERSTAND the text.
When it comes to studying the text, then, how are we to go about the task of interpretation?
“We do not see the Bible as a BOOK OF SECRET CODES that ought to be read mystically as an allegory. When the Bible describes a miracle, we believe a miracle happened…as partakers of the gospel, we are not suspicious of the text. On the contrary, we believe that it’s best to accept the plain and simple meaning of a given Bible passage IF A STRAIGHTFORWARD READING MAKES SENSE” (Sumner, 209).
To support her view, she quotes the great preacher and theologian John Wesley:
“It is a stated rule in interpreting, NEVER TO DEPART from the plain, literal sense, UNLESS IT IMPLIES AN ABSURDITY” (209).
After discussing the proper process of hermeneutics, she applies this to the passage at hand (1 Timothy 2):
“A prime example of a biblical text that cannot sensibly be taken at face value is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Let’s examine it together.
‘But women shall be preserved[saved] through the bearing of children.’ A straightforward reading of this line of the Bible is clearly unacceptable to the born-again Christian mind. Evangelicals don’t believe that women’s souls are saved by motherhood. Moreover, it is counter to the gospel to insinuate that childless women are going to hell because they are childless. Therefore, theologically, this verse can’t mean what it sounds like it means. The Bible says that no one can be saved by anything other than grace. How is the average reader supposed to figure out that ‘saved through the bearing of children’ means ‘saved through the blood of Jesus Christ’?
Consider another line of this same passage. ‘But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.’ Here we face the same difficulty. There’s no way to interpret this verse at face value unless we’re ready to say that it is sinful for a man to learn about God from a woman. Of course most of us hold a more modified view. But that is the point. We hold a view that differs from a straightforward reading. We say, for example, this verse restricts women from teaching the Bible ‘with authority’ to men ‘publicly at the main church service in a pulpit on Sunday morning.’ In other words, WE ADD EXTRA PHRASES TO THE BIBLICAL TEXT in order to make sense of the verse” (Sumner, 210).
Sumner presents us with 1 Timothy 2 and shows the implications of interpreting this passage literally. In conversation about this passage, however, believers give away their need to “add extra phrases” to demonstrate what this text means. And why do we add extra phrases to what this verse means? Because it needs some clarification, because we need some interpretation for this verse. Reading it straight would make us think that salvation could come SOME OTHER WAY—which is totally inconsistent with what the Bible teaches about salvation (for example, Romans 10:9).
Sumner then centers in on two theologians, Wayne Grudem and John Piper, to demonstrate that, they too, don’t believe in a literal reading of the text. In response to Elisabeth Elliott, Grudem and Piper are supportive of her ministry:
“Openly they[Grudem and Piper] believe that the biblical injunction…does not constrain all women entirely. Rather, as they see it, it constrains most women to employ ‘impersonal’ and ‘indirect’ communication to men whenever the gospel is proclaimed.”
To see this quoted openly, read Grudem and Piper’s book on “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” I have posted some on this book and will post further in the future.
Sumner uses the above reference of Grudem and Piper to strengthen her argument regarding how conservatives must “re”interpret the passage so as to accommodate the up-front absurdity of the plain, literal textual reading:
“Here again the driving point is that Piper and Grudem, like everybody else, nuance their reading of 1 Timothy 2. They respond to 1 Tim. 2:12 as if Paul had said, ‘I do not allow MOST WOMEN to teach men IN PERSON, but I do allow for EXCEPTIONS, and I DO ALLOW FOR WOMEN TO TEACH MEN THROUGH OTHER MEDIUMS such as books and radio because that mode of communication is more IMPERSONAL and INDIRECT” (Sumner, 211).
Notice that not all women are included in the injunction, but MOST women. If a woman operates through magazines, books, videos, and talk shows and radio time, she is somehow ADHERING to this verse; but if she’s in a pulpit teaching Scripture or preaching on Sunday morning, then she is IN VIOLATION of this verse.
I like Sumner’s re-creation of 1 Tim. 2:12 (according to Grudem and Piper) because that is what these two men believe. They honestly allow for exceptions, but then stick to generalities. Grudem does this in his book “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.” I stated it in a post earlier this week that Grudem writes about women “in general,” but still notes exceptions. He thinks that most women are relational and nurturing, although SOME women are not. Most women think with their emotions, but SOME women do not. It seems as if Grudem and Piper allow a few women to pursue what they love—as long as most women are left “in their place.” But God doesn’t make exceptions, He makes rules; and when a woman is gifted in teaching and preaching, it should be evident to everyone around her that an extraordinary call of God is on her life—and her giftedness should be exalted and encouraged.
While I am not a feminist, I do believe that everything serves a purpose. And Sarah Sumner is not a feminist, but she believes the same. I leave you with the following:
“Could it be that the global trends of feminism coincide with God’s plan to REFORM THE WAY THE CHURCH TREATS WOMEN? After all, there is biblical precedent for God to use pagans to make his name known and act on behalf of the oppressed. Cyrus, King of Persia, was chosen of the Lord in spite of his false beliefs (Isa. 45:4). God used Cyrus to bring Israel back from Babylon. Would it be so unlike God to use the waves of feminism to REFORM THE WAY THAT PEOPLE EXPERIENCE CHURCH?” (Sumner, 55).
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Permit or Forbid? (Continued)
In the last post I just finished, I stated that there were three passages Thomas Schreiner used to argue that the Greek word “epitrepo” (to permit) does not always have a temporal aspect. The word could also mean “to forbid” and most of evangelicalism could just be wrong on this one…
By now, however, after discussing the context of 1 Corinthians 14:34, it should be apparent that Schreiner has failed to prove the old guard wrong—instead, he’s been shown up once again to lack in his exegesis. But in case the first verse didn’t find him guilty as charged, maybe the next two will…
The next verse we will discuss is 1 Corinthians 16:7. Let’s read from verse 5:
5(F) I will visit you after passing through(G) Macedonia, for(H) I intend to pass through Macedonia, 6and perhaps I will stay with you or even spend the winter, so that you may(I) help me on my journey, wherever I go. 7For I do not want to see you now(J) just in passing. I hope to spend some time with you,(K) if the Lord permits.
Paul writes this to the Corinthians expressing his desire to visit with them.
But, once again, the word “permit” carries a temporal aspect and is based on a SPECIFIC AMOUNT of time—not ALL of time itself. First, there is the time limit Paul wants to spend with the Corinthians: “even spend THE WINTER.” Notice that the winter season is TIME-BASED: the winter does not last all year long! There are three other seasons of the year that are observed like the winter season. The winter season only consists of a few months, no more. Then, at the end of verse 7, Paul writes, “I hope to spend SOME TIME with you…” The word “some” tells us everything—the time being spent with them would be SOME, a small amount of time, not ALL of his time.
Then, Paul writes those famous words:
“If the Lord permits.”
Paul was stating his desire to visit with the Corinthians—but it would be based on the Lord’s will. The word “epitrepo” here, meaning “permit,” is time-based: Paul would only spend a small amount of time visiting with the Corinthians and passing through the area. It would not take him FOREVER to pass through the area. Next, he couldn’t spend FOREVER there—for the Lord had told him that he would die at Rome (Book of Acts). And, of course, once he died, he wouldn’t be able to do anything physical, including visiting the Corinthians.
The final passage to observe is Hebrews 6:3—
3And this we will do(H) if God permits.
To see the context, let’s examine verses 1 and 2:
1Therefore(A) let us leave(B) the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance(C) from dead works and of faith toward God, 2and of(D) instruction about washings,[a](E) the laying on of hands,(F) the resurrection of the dead, and(G) eternal judgment.
The context tells us that the writer of Hebrews desired to move on to more mature matters in the faith than the doctrine of Christ (which is basic to what every believer needs to know). Then the writer states that if God should allow it, both he and the scattered Jewish believers would press on to maturity in the faith.
Schreiner argues that this “permits” is not temporal, but once again, he is proven wrong. All believers only get a LIMITED TIME on earth in which to press on toward maturity. No believer gets FOREVER on earth to do that. Next, the writer starts to discuss Christ as high priest in Hebrews 7, so it seems that this idea of God permitting the writer to move forward was to say that for a short time within the letter, the writer would go on to talk more about the deeper matters of the faith, deeper theology and greater knowledge. The writer states “if God permits” to show that the Lord was in charge of every second, every minute, every moment of time—including the time in which the letter was being written. James says it best regarding time:
13Come now, you who say,(U) "Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit"— 14yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For(V) you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. 15Instead you ought to say,(W) "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that. (James 4:13-15, ESV).
Confidence about the future should only be placed in the phrase “if the Lord wills.” Should God allow us another day, we will have it—but we won’t have days on earth forever. We are only given life here for a limited time only, and we have to make the most of however long or short of a life we have. As James says it in the above text, “For you are a mist that appears FOR A LITTLE TIME and then vanishes.”
These two texts, 1 Cor. 16:7 and Hebrews 6:3, in addition to 1 Corinthians 14:34, show us that “permit,” when used, refers to a SET AMOUNT OF TIME, and is not a permanent binding. Schreiner doesn’t go into details regarding his own thoughts on these passages—but he has a whole lot of explaining to do if he’s gonna “go against the grain,” the multitude of passages where “epitrepo” does have a temporal or time-based aspect…
By now, however, after discussing the context of 1 Corinthians 14:34, it should be apparent that Schreiner has failed to prove the old guard wrong—instead, he’s been shown up once again to lack in his exegesis. But in case the first verse didn’t find him guilty as charged, maybe the next two will…
The next verse we will discuss is 1 Corinthians 16:7. Let’s read from verse 5:
5(F) I will visit you after passing through(G) Macedonia, for(H) I intend to pass through Macedonia, 6and perhaps I will stay with you or even spend the winter, so that you may(I) help me on my journey, wherever I go. 7For I do not want to see you now(J) just in passing. I hope to spend some time with you,(K) if the Lord permits.
Paul writes this to the Corinthians expressing his desire to visit with them.
But, once again, the word “permit” carries a temporal aspect and is based on a SPECIFIC AMOUNT of time—not ALL of time itself. First, there is the time limit Paul wants to spend with the Corinthians: “even spend THE WINTER.” Notice that the winter season is TIME-BASED: the winter does not last all year long! There are three other seasons of the year that are observed like the winter season. The winter season only consists of a few months, no more. Then, at the end of verse 7, Paul writes, “I hope to spend SOME TIME with you…” The word “some” tells us everything—the time being spent with them would be SOME, a small amount of time, not ALL of his time.
Then, Paul writes those famous words:
“If the Lord permits.”
Paul was stating his desire to visit with the Corinthians—but it would be based on the Lord’s will. The word “epitrepo” here, meaning “permit,” is time-based: Paul would only spend a small amount of time visiting with the Corinthians and passing through the area. It would not take him FOREVER to pass through the area. Next, he couldn’t spend FOREVER there—for the Lord had told him that he would die at Rome (Book of Acts). And, of course, once he died, he wouldn’t be able to do anything physical, including visiting the Corinthians.
The final passage to observe is Hebrews 6:3—
3And this we will do(H) if God permits.
To see the context, let’s examine verses 1 and 2:
1Therefore(A) let us leave(B) the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance(C) from dead works and of faith toward God, 2and of(D) instruction about washings,[a](E) the laying on of hands,(F) the resurrection of the dead, and(G) eternal judgment.
The context tells us that the writer of Hebrews desired to move on to more mature matters in the faith than the doctrine of Christ (which is basic to what every believer needs to know). Then the writer states that if God should allow it, both he and the scattered Jewish believers would press on to maturity in the faith.
Schreiner argues that this “permits” is not temporal, but once again, he is proven wrong. All believers only get a LIMITED TIME on earth in which to press on toward maturity. No believer gets FOREVER on earth to do that. Next, the writer starts to discuss Christ as high priest in Hebrews 7, so it seems that this idea of God permitting the writer to move forward was to say that for a short time within the letter, the writer would go on to talk more about the deeper matters of the faith, deeper theology and greater knowledge. The writer states “if God permits” to show that the Lord was in charge of every second, every minute, every moment of time—including the time in which the letter was being written. James says it best regarding time:
13Come now, you who say,(U) "Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit"— 14yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For(V) you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. 15Instead you ought to say,(W) "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that. (James 4:13-15, ESV).
Confidence about the future should only be placed in the phrase “if the Lord wills.” Should God allow us another day, we will have it—but we won’t have days on earth forever. We are only given life here for a limited time only, and we have to make the most of however long or short of a life we have. As James says it in the above text, “For you are a mist that appears FOR A LITTLE TIME and then vanishes.”
These two texts, 1 Cor. 16:7 and Hebrews 6:3, in addition to 1 Corinthians 14:34, show us that “permit,” when used, refers to a SET AMOUNT OF TIME, and is not a permanent binding. Schreiner doesn’t go into details regarding his own thoughts on these passages—but he has a whole lot of explaining to do if he’s gonna “go against the grain,” the multitude of passages where “epitrepo” does have a temporal or time-based aspect…
Permit or Forbid?
On Friday, January 16, 2009, I did a post called “Definition-Twisting: ‘Epitrepo’ in 1 Timothy 2:12.” The post itself talked about definitions of the word “permit” (the meaning of ‘epitrepo’ in the Greek) and showed how the word itself is of temporal significance (possesses an inherit time limit within the word itself).
Thomas Schreiner writes regarding the meaning of ‘epitrepo’:
“More promising, on first glance, is the contention that ‘epitrepo’ contains the idea of a temporary limitation by virtue of its intrinsic meaning. That the verb may relate to a specific situation is obvious in a number of contexts (Matt. 8:21 par.; Mark 5:13 par.; John 19:38; Acts 21:39, 40; 26:1; 27:3; 28:16). Nonetheless, the argument is again dubious. The specificity of the situation is plain not from the verb itself but from the context in which it occurs…in other contexts, ‘epitrepo’ is NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO A SPECIFIC SITUATION (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34; 16:7; Heb. 6:3, etc.)” (Kostenberger and Schreiner, “Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15”).
Schreiner affirms that a large number of verses demonstrate that the verb itself is temporal, time-based. However, he gives three verses that are supposed to prove that the verb itself is not temporal; these are the three verses that I will spend time on in this post.
First, we have 1 Corinthians 14:34 (ESV)-- 34(AI) the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but(AJ) should be in submission, as(AK) the Law also says.
The word “epitrepo” used here in 1 Cor. 14:34 means “to permit.” Paul is not permitting or allowing the Corinthian women to talk during worship. Schreiner claims that “epitrepo” here is used in the sense of “to forbid”; however, Paul does use the word “forbid”; but he uses it in reference to speaking in tongues in verse 39:
“39So, my brothers,(AM) earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.
Note that he has to tell them to “NOT FORBID” speaking in tongues. Evidently, the situation at Corinth had gotten out of hand, so much so that the church there was stopping people altogether from speaking in tongues! No one was allowed to come there EVER and speak in tongues because so many people were speaking in tongues in a chaotic fashion. Paul tells the church here to not hinder people from exercising their gifts in the house of the Lord (since the Lord is the one who gave the gifts); nevertheless,
40(AN) But all things should be done decently and(AO) in order.
Paul’s concern with the church was correct protocol and order, in contrast to the disorder of the services in Corinth. Paul offered a simple way for the believers of the church there to be able to use their gifts WITHOUT hindering anyone from exercising them. If Paul fails to BAN believers from speaking in tongues, why would he BAN women from teaching in 1 Timothy 2? If he did so, he would be doing in Ephesus what he accused the church of doing in Corinth! As I’ve said earlier, complementarians who espouse such interpretations are the ones who are theologically liberal—for they support their twisted views about what these texts say about women while failing to hold to the hermeneutical principle of BIBLICAL CONSISTENCY!
When Paul tells the women not to talk, he is not dealing with a gift—he is dealing with a normal activity. Next, he is talking about the women talking during a SPECIAL TIME of church gathering in Corinth—during the worship services. Notice that in verse 26, Paul shows the time limit in which women are to be quiet—“When you come together…”
Now, let’s look at this time limit. To do so, we will need to examine 1 Corinthians 14:26 (ESV):
26What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has(Y) a hymn,(Z) a lesson,(AA) a revelation,(AB) a tongue, or(AC) an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
Paul is describing the gathering of believers when it is time for worship. He notes the abilities of the believers: “EACH ONE has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” Women would have been included in this list of those who had a gift to exercise in the church (they surely served as prophetesses in 1 Corinthians 11).
But notice something else: Paul zooms in on this time limit and makes the time limit even more specific and detailed than JUST worship time:
“29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others(AE) weigh what is said. 30If a revelation is made to another sitting there,(AF) let the first be silent. 31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33For God is not a God of(AG) confusion but of peace.
As in(AH) all the churches of the saints, 34(AI) the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but(AJ) should be in submission, as(AK) the Law also says.
Paul mentions women talking in the church right after he discusses the prophets and
how each prophet should have his turn exercising his gift—that is, prophesying to the church. So it seems as if these women were not talking during ALL of the worship service—just DURING THE TIME THAT PROPHECIES AND REVELATION WERE BEING GIVEN! In times of prophecy and revelation, God was sending a message to the church (God Himself was speaking), and the people needed to hear what God was trying to tell them through His chosen vessels—that is, the prophets. But if the people were talking during such a time, they couldn’t hear what God was saying—and they couldn’t be encouraged. The women desired so much to learn that they began to ask questions regarding everything being said during this time of sharing prophecies and revelations that Paul had to take away their privilege of asking questions and talking during this SPECIFIC TIME because the women didn’t know how to handle it.
This explains why Paul had to write the following verse in the chapter:
35If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Paul had no problem with the women learning: it was just that they inquired regarding things said in the service DURING THE SERVICE, and Paul believed there was a better time to talk about the service—outside of the service at home. This is why he says at the end of verse 35 that it is “shameful” for women to talk in the church. Why is it “shameful”? Because it is a “SLAP IN THE FACE” to God, who was trying to talk through His prophets and prophetesses! It would be the equivalent of INTERRUPTING GOD while God was speaking to carry on your own conversation and pretend that God didn’t matter! The thought of disrespecting God like that gives me chills! Ooohhh…
Schreiner told us in the above quote at the top of the post that 1 Corinthians 14 would show us that “epitrepo” (Greek for “permit”) didn’t always have a temporal perspective; however, as the above text shows us, the context itself backs up why Paul didn’t “permit” the women to speak instead of “forbidding” them. It also showed us why Paul told the church to “not forbid” speaking in tongues—because it was a gift given by God to be used in the Lord’s House. Paul’s concern with the women as well as the gifts was order, which is why he ends 1 Corinthians 14 with the words “Let everything be done decent and in order.” As my hermeneutics professor always said, “A text means what it means in its context”; and I don’t think words are any different…
Thomas Schreiner writes regarding the meaning of ‘epitrepo’:
“More promising, on first glance, is the contention that ‘epitrepo’ contains the idea of a temporary limitation by virtue of its intrinsic meaning. That the verb may relate to a specific situation is obvious in a number of contexts (Matt. 8:21 par.; Mark 5:13 par.; John 19:38; Acts 21:39, 40; 26:1; 27:3; 28:16). Nonetheless, the argument is again dubious. The specificity of the situation is plain not from the verb itself but from the context in which it occurs…in other contexts, ‘epitrepo’ is NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO A SPECIFIC SITUATION (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34; 16:7; Heb. 6:3, etc.)” (Kostenberger and Schreiner, “Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15”).
Schreiner affirms that a large number of verses demonstrate that the verb itself is temporal, time-based. However, he gives three verses that are supposed to prove that the verb itself is not temporal; these are the three verses that I will spend time on in this post.
First, we have 1 Corinthians 14:34 (ESV)-- 34(AI) the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but(AJ) should be in submission, as(AK) the Law also says.
The word “epitrepo” used here in 1 Cor. 14:34 means “to permit.” Paul is not permitting or allowing the Corinthian women to talk during worship. Schreiner claims that “epitrepo” here is used in the sense of “to forbid”; however, Paul does use the word “forbid”; but he uses it in reference to speaking in tongues in verse 39:
“39So, my brothers,(AM) earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.
Note that he has to tell them to “NOT FORBID” speaking in tongues. Evidently, the situation at Corinth had gotten out of hand, so much so that the church there was stopping people altogether from speaking in tongues! No one was allowed to come there EVER and speak in tongues because so many people were speaking in tongues in a chaotic fashion. Paul tells the church here to not hinder people from exercising their gifts in the house of the Lord (since the Lord is the one who gave the gifts); nevertheless,
40(AN) But all things should be done decently and(AO) in order.
Paul’s concern with the church was correct protocol and order, in contrast to the disorder of the services in Corinth. Paul offered a simple way for the believers of the church there to be able to use their gifts WITHOUT hindering anyone from exercising them. If Paul fails to BAN believers from speaking in tongues, why would he BAN women from teaching in 1 Timothy 2? If he did so, he would be doing in Ephesus what he accused the church of doing in Corinth! As I’ve said earlier, complementarians who espouse such interpretations are the ones who are theologically liberal—for they support their twisted views about what these texts say about women while failing to hold to the hermeneutical principle of BIBLICAL CONSISTENCY!
When Paul tells the women not to talk, he is not dealing with a gift—he is dealing with a normal activity. Next, he is talking about the women talking during a SPECIAL TIME of church gathering in Corinth—during the worship services. Notice that in verse 26, Paul shows the time limit in which women are to be quiet—“When you come together…”
Now, let’s look at this time limit. To do so, we will need to examine 1 Corinthians 14:26 (ESV):
26What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has(Y) a hymn,(Z) a lesson,(AA) a revelation,(AB) a tongue, or(AC) an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
Paul is describing the gathering of believers when it is time for worship. He notes the abilities of the believers: “EACH ONE has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.” Women would have been included in this list of those who had a gift to exercise in the church (they surely served as prophetesses in 1 Corinthians 11).
But notice something else: Paul zooms in on this time limit and makes the time limit even more specific and detailed than JUST worship time:
“29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others(AE) weigh what is said. 30If a revelation is made to another sitting there,(AF) let the first be silent. 31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33For God is not a God of(AG) confusion but of peace.
As in(AH) all the churches of the saints, 34(AI) the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but(AJ) should be in submission, as(AK) the Law also says.
Paul mentions women talking in the church right after he discusses the prophets and
how each prophet should have his turn exercising his gift—that is, prophesying to the church. So it seems as if these women were not talking during ALL of the worship service—just DURING THE TIME THAT PROPHECIES AND REVELATION WERE BEING GIVEN! In times of prophecy and revelation, God was sending a message to the church (God Himself was speaking), and the people needed to hear what God was trying to tell them through His chosen vessels—that is, the prophets. But if the people were talking during such a time, they couldn’t hear what God was saying—and they couldn’t be encouraged. The women desired so much to learn that they began to ask questions regarding everything being said during this time of sharing prophecies and revelations that Paul had to take away their privilege of asking questions and talking during this SPECIFIC TIME because the women didn’t know how to handle it.
This explains why Paul had to write the following verse in the chapter:
35If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Paul had no problem with the women learning: it was just that they inquired regarding things said in the service DURING THE SERVICE, and Paul believed there was a better time to talk about the service—outside of the service at home. This is why he says at the end of verse 35 that it is “shameful” for women to talk in the church. Why is it “shameful”? Because it is a “SLAP IN THE FACE” to God, who was trying to talk through His prophets and prophetesses! It would be the equivalent of INTERRUPTING GOD while God was speaking to carry on your own conversation and pretend that God didn’t matter! The thought of disrespecting God like that gives me chills! Ooohhh…
Schreiner told us in the above quote at the top of the post that 1 Corinthians 14 would show us that “epitrepo” (Greek for “permit”) didn’t always have a temporal perspective; however, as the above text shows us, the context itself backs up why Paul didn’t “permit” the women to speak instead of “forbidding” them. It also showed us why Paul told the church to “not forbid” speaking in tongues—because it was a gift given by God to be used in the Lord’s House. Paul’s concern with the women as well as the gifts was order, which is why he ends 1 Corinthians 14 with the words “Let everything be done decent and in order.” As my hermeneutics professor always said, “A text means what it means in its context”; and I don’t think words are any different…
Monday, March 2, 2009
Schreiner's Biological Argument Overturned
Recently I wrote a post on I. Howard Marshall’s chapter in “Theological Interpretation of the New Testament” (edited by Vanhoozer, Treier, and N.T. Wright), where I showed Marshall’s study of 1 Timothy 2 revealed that the traditional argument doesn’t make sense and can’t be proven. After writing that post, I mulled the statements from Thomas Schreiner and Wayne Grudem over and over in my head. I’ve been studying this subject for the last two years (intensely), and the last three years at large; but I think that the ridiculous statements from the complementarian camp still seem to shock me. After all this time, I can still feel “the woman” rising in me when someone repeats the biological argument against women and their ministries.
Reading Schreiner and Grudem’s quotes from Grudem’s book “Evangelical Feminism,” I began to remember that Sarah Sumner wrote something in her book called “Men and Women in the Church” that seemed to tackle the biological argument—her chapter called “What’s a ‘Weaker Vessel’?” (chapter 11).
Just to get a feel for what I’m discussing, let’s place Schreiner’s and Grudem’s quotes up once more for all to see:
““God’s order of creation is mirrored in the nature of men and women. Satan approached the woman first not only because of the order of creation but also because of the different inclinations present in Adam and Eve. Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity…appointing women to the teaching office is prohibited because they are LESS LIKELY to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables, and thus DECEPTION AND FALSE TEACHING WILL MORE EASILY ENTER THE CHURCH…” (pg. 71; quote itself taken from Thomas Schreiner’s “Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, pp. 145-146).
Grudem, after quoting Thomas Schreiner, takes up this line of thought himself in “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth”:
“God gave men, IN GENERAL, a disposition that is BETTER SUITED TO TEACHING AND GOVERNING in the church, a disposition that inclines more to rational, logical analysis of doctrine and a desire to protect the doctrinal purity of the church, and God gave women, IN GENERAL, a disposition that INCLINES MORE TOWARD A RELATIONAL, NURTURING EMPHASIS THAT PLACES A HIGHER VALUE ON UNITY AND COMMUNITY IN THE CHURCH (v.14)” (pg. 72).
If one reads Schreiner’s explanations of the biological differences between men and women, one is easily led to believe that a woman’s “relational and nurturing nature” make her “less likely to combat error in the church,” which means that she is a weakling. On the other hand, men are supposed to “protect” the doctrine of the church and maintain her purity (once again, the male is to “protect” the feminine, which is the church).
Without saying it, Schreiner states that men are stronger “in mind,” while women are stronger “in heart”—the heart being the seat of emotions.
But the question is, is this what Scripture affirms? The answer is a firm “No.” Jesus came on earth and took on human flesh—yet He wept over Lazarus (John 11:35) and was grieved for the masses who had no shepherd to guide them (Matthew 9:36). Jesus even sweated “like drops of blood” as He prayed for the Father to remove the task before Him (Luke 22:44). Jesus possessed emotion and showed it while one earth. Men should have a problem with Schreiner’s and Grudem’s views of men as just being “of the mind”—basically, without saying it, these two men are labeling the male gender as “heartless.” And what about the women? Well, according to their ideas about biological constitution, women let their emotions rule them. This is absolutely ridiculous when you look at the number of great women that study in universities and academic institutions in this country, and go on to make lasting changes on our society. If emotions ruled them, the intellect would take a back seat—and yet, it doesn’t. Doesn’t that tell us something about the way these men think that should disturb us?
Does Scripture affirm Schreiner’s and Grudem’s view of men and women? Absolutely not!
Let’s take a look at 1 Peter 3:7—
“7Likewise,(I) husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker(J) vessel, since they are heirs with you[a] of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”
Notice that Peter calls the woman “the weaker vessel.” Now I thought at first glance—as well as most—that when Peter calls women “the weaker vessel,” that he was affirming Schreiner and Grudem; but Sarah Sumner hit at something that I had never thought about before:
“The word is a comparative—weakER. The implication is that husbands are WEAK and wives are WEAKER. BOTH ARE VULNERABLE. To be more precise, the Greek word ‘asthenes’ literally means ‘STRENGTHLESS’. The implication, then, is that MEN ARE STRENGTHLESS AND WOMEN ARE YET MORE STRENGTHLESS. The DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN LIES IN THE DEGREE OF THEIR STRENGTHLESSNESS, or as we said before, their VULNERABILITY” (Sumner, “Men and Women in the Church,” pg. 135).
When Peter calls women “weaker,” he must be calling them “weaker” in relation to something. For instance, if I like eating at Applebee’s, I might say that the food was “good.” But what about if I am asked about Applebee’s food VERSUS FOOD SOMEWHERE ELSE, like Chili’s? I might say, “I like Applebee’s, but I like Chili’s BETTER.” Why do I use the word “better”? Because I am comparing one restaurant’s food to another’s. Only with a comparison is the word “better” used; and it is the same with “weaker.” If women are the “weaker,” then they have to be weak IN RELATION TO SOMETHING! In relation to what? In relation to men.
But what does this comparison do for us? It shows us that women are not the ONLY WEAK ONES—MEN ARE WEAK TOO, but women are MORE WEAK than men!
But where does this weakness lie? Sumner discusses the use of the word “vessel” (skeuos) in 1 Peter 3:7 to reveal the source of weakness:
“The Greek word for ‘vessel’ (skeuos) specifies PHYSICALITY. The same word occurs in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4, ‘For this is the will of God…that each of you know how to possess his own ‘vessel’ in sanctification and honor.’ The point is for every individual Christian to be responsible to stay sexually pure. To possess your own ‘vessel’ means to control your own body. Thus women, as weaker vessels, are PHYSICALLY MORE VULNERABLE THAN MEN” (Sumner, 135).
So men are WEAK in body, contrary to what society tells them—and women are WEAKER in body than men are. Men are physically stronger than women are, but the physicality is where it stops—NOTHING in Scripture indicates that men are stronger MENTALLY or EMOTIONALLY, or any of the rest of it. Neither does Scripture indicate women are stronger in their emotions or mentality, etc. Men are, however, physically stronger.
Now, back to Schreiner’s statement: Scripture has nothing to say along the lines of Schreiner. There is no biological argument that makes men more fit to lead in the church than women. There is only a Scriptural argument regarding the physical strength of men and women. But, fascinatingly enough, God doesn’t pick leaders according to their strength…
Reading Schreiner and Grudem’s quotes from Grudem’s book “Evangelical Feminism,” I began to remember that Sarah Sumner wrote something in her book called “Men and Women in the Church” that seemed to tackle the biological argument—her chapter called “What’s a ‘Weaker Vessel’?” (chapter 11).
Just to get a feel for what I’m discussing, let’s place Schreiner’s and Grudem’s quotes up once more for all to see:
““God’s order of creation is mirrored in the nature of men and women. Satan approached the woman first not only because of the order of creation but also because of the different inclinations present in Adam and Eve. Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity…appointing women to the teaching office is prohibited because they are LESS LIKELY to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables, and thus DECEPTION AND FALSE TEACHING WILL MORE EASILY ENTER THE CHURCH…” (pg. 71; quote itself taken from Thomas Schreiner’s “Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, pp. 145-146).
Grudem, after quoting Thomas Schreiner, takes up this line of thought himself in “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth”:
“God gave men, IN GENERAL, a disposition that is BETTER SUITED TO TEACHING AND GOVERNING in the church, a disposition that inclines more to rational, logical analysis of doctrine and a desire to protect the doctrinal purity of the church, and God gave women, IN GENERAL, a disposition that INCLINES MORE TOWARD A RELATIONAL, NURTURING EMPHASIS THAT PLACES A HIGHER VALUE ON UNITY AND COMMUNITY IN THE CHURCH (v.14)” (pg. 72).
If one reads Schreiner’s explanations of the biological differences between men and women, one is easily led to believe that a woman’s “relational and nurturing nature” make her “less likely to combat error in the church,” which means that she is a weakling. On the other hand, men are supposed to “protect” the doctrine of the church and maintain her purity (once again, the male is to “protect” the feminine, which is the church).
Without saying it, Schreiner states that men are stronger “in mind,” while women are stronger “in heart”—the heart being the seat of emotions.
But the question is, is this what Scripture affirms? The answer is a firm “No.” Jesus came on earth and took on human flesh—yet He wept over Lazarus (John 11:35) and was grieved for the masses who had no shepherd to guide them (Matthew 9:36). Jesus even sweated “like drops of blood” as He prayed for the Father to remove the task before Him (Luke 22:44). Jesus possessed emotion and showed it while one earth. Men should have a problem with Schreiner’s and Grudem’s views of men as just being “of the mind”—basically, without saying it, these two men are labeling the male gender as “heartless.” And what about the women? Well, according to their ideas about biological constitution, women let their emotions rule them. This is absolutely ridiculous when you look at the number of great women that study in universities and academic institutions in this country, and go on to make lasting changes on our society. If emotions ruled them, the intellect would take a back seat—and yet, it doesn’t. Doesn’t that tell us something about the way these men think that should disturb us?
Does Scripture affirm Schreiner’s and Grudem’s view of men and women? Absolutely not!
Let’s take a look at 1 Peter 3:7—
“7Likewise,(I) husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker(J) vessel, since they are heirs with you[a] of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”
Notice that Peter calls the woman “the weaker vessel.” Now I thought at first glance—as well as most—that when Peter calls women “the weaker vessel,” that he was affirming Schreiner and Grudem; but Sarah Sumner hit at something that I had never thought about before:
“The word is a comparative—weakER. The implication is that husbands are WEAK and wives are WEAKER. BOTH ARE VULNERABLE. To be more precise, the Greek word ‘asthenes’ literally means ‘STRENGTHLESS’. The implication, then, is that MEN ARE STRENGTHLESS AND WOMEN ARE YET MORE STRENGTHLESS. The DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN LIES IN THE DEGREE OF THEIR STRENGTHLESSNESS, or as we said before, their VULNERABILITY” (Sumner, “Men and Women in the Church,” pg. 135).
When Peter calls women “weaker,” he must be calling them “weaker” in relation to something. For instance, if I like eating at Applebee’s, I might say that the food was “good.” But what about if I am asked about Applebee’s food VERSUS FOOD SOMEWHERE ELSE, like Chili’s? I might say, “I like Applebee’s, but I like Chili’s BETTER.” Why do I use the word “better”? Because I am comparing one restaurant’s food to another’s. Only with a comparison is the word “better” used; and it is the same with “weaker.” If women are the “weaker,” then they have to be weak IN RELATION TO SOMETHING! In relation to what? In relation to men.
But what does this comparison do for us? It shows us that women are not the ONLY WEAK ONES—MEN ARE WEAK TOO, but women are MORE WEAK than men!
But where does this weakness lie? Sumner discusses the use of the word “vessel” (skeuos) in 1 Peter 3:7 to reveal the source of weakness:
“The Greek word for ‘vessel’ (skeuos) specifies PHYSICALITY. The same word occurs in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4, ‘For this is the will of God…that each of you know how to possess his own ‘vessel’ in sanctification and honor.’ The point is for every individual Christian to be responsible to stay sexually pure. To possess your own ‘vessel’ means to control your own body. Thus women, as weaker vessels, are PHYSICALLY MORE VULNERABLE THAN MEN” (Sumner, 135).
So men are WEAK in body, contrary to what society tells them—and women are WEAKER in body than men are. Men are physically stronger than women are, but the physicality is where it stops—NOTHING in Scripture indicates that men are stronger MENTALLY or EMOTIONALLY, or any of the rest of it. Neither does Scripture indicate women are stronger in their emotions or mentality, etc. Men are, however, physically stronger.
Now, back to Schreiner’s statement: Scripture has nothing to say along the lines of Schreiner. There is no biological argument that makes men more fit to lead in the church than women. There is only a Scriptural argument regarding the physical strength of men and women. But, fascinatingly enough, God doesn’t pick leaders according to their strength…
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Encountering Church Tradition
Sometime ago, I wrote about the philosophical differences in the debate on women in ministry between the Thomists and the Scotists. While the Thomist believes that God's will is revealed in God's design, Scotists do not-- they believe that, despite God's will, design will not reveal it. By advocating such a theory, they do a major disgrace to God's glory-- for, according to Romans 1, God's glory has been revealed in the things that have been made.
The example Sarah Sumner used regarding a Scotist was the elder who said that his wife would make a better elder in ministry than he was. But Sumner uses this example to go into the bigger issue: while there is a philosophical issue at stake, the issue of women in ministry is deeply rooted in church tradition. Sumner notes church tradition and the clashing response of the elder:
"Church tradition says that she is not to be treated on a par with the men because she, being a woman, stands below. According to tradition, it makes sense for the status of the person to align with the status of the role. Therefore traditionally it has been thought that a woman ought to be assigned a subordinate role since she is an inferior being. This was the rule because this was the logic of tradition.
Counter to tradition, this elder says his wife is not inferior. Her essence, according to him, is EQUAL to his own. Thus there is no correlation in his complementarian logic between his wife's EQUAL essence and her subordinate role. Her equality as a person has no bearing whatsoever on her function. Consider the comparison:
Tradition: women as INFERIORS should always assume SUBORDINATE roles.
Complementarianism: women as EQUALS should always assume SUBORDINATE roles.
Do you see what has happened? Complementarians, in their benevolent intention to be BIBLICAL and LOVING, dumped the traditional premise that women are inferior to men. Unwittingly, however, they continue to maintain the logical conclusion of that premise. It makes good sense to say inferior beings ought to assume subordinate roles; that's why the church fathers said it. But it doesn't make sense to say EQUAL beings should always be SUBORDINATE too. It's more logical to say that equal beings share in equal status"(Sumner, "Men and Women in the Church," pp. 285-86).
I looked up the word "equal" in Webster's dictionary () and I was given one important definition (among others):
(1) Like in quality, nature, or status.
(2) like for each member of a group, class, or society.
Looking at definition number one, we can understand that men and women are made with a unique quality and nature-- for they are both made in the image of God. Remember God's words in Genesis 1:26-27?
26Then God said,(O) "Let us make man[h] in our image,(P) after our likeness. And(Q) let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; (R) male and female he created them.
Both man and woman were made EQUALLY in the image of God, women no less than men (women were considered to be LESS made in the image of God than men in church tradition as well-- read Sumner's chapter on "Is It Better to Be a Man than a Woman?").
Notice however with the first definition, that equality is not just in nature and quality, but also "status."
Merriam-Webster's dictionary also accords us a definition of "status":
(1) position or rank in relation to others.
(2) the condition of a person or thing in the eyes of the law
So, equality does not just involve quality and nature, but also "status"-- which means that no one gender is able to achieve a place of prominence over the other, because both are given the opportunity to achieve and advance.
To some this may seem like just a political definition. But this position is also accorded in Scripture in Galatians 3:
25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus(AV) you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as(AW) were baptized(AX) into Christ have(AY) put on Christ. 28(AZ) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free,(BA) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And(BB) if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring,(BC) heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:25-28, ESV).
The context of Galatians 3 concerns being "in Christ," or being in the family of Christ. Everyone that professes Jesus as Lord is as EQUALLY a part of the Body of Christ as anyone else, and everyone is EQUAL before the Lord. Everyone is entitled to the spiritual blessings of Christ (Ephesians 1:3-4), as well as the fellowship that believers have together in Christ. No one is to be left out on the basis of whether they are Jew, Gentile, slave, free man, male, or female.
I wanna stop here and involve a counter to church tradition: Complementarians often attack egalitarians because they use Galatians 3:28 so much as basis for why women should be on equal par with men in the church; however, complementarians, as Sumner shows us, have failed to think through their logical system: if God has a will, and He reveals Himself, why wouldn't mankind "see" God's will in creation?
But I wanna take this a step further. Complementarians also fail in their logic with regards to Galatians 3:28. This verse states that someone's ethnic, economic, or gender status is not what "merits" one into the family of Christ-- what brings someone into the family of Christ is because of what Christ did on the cross (Christ's birth, death, and crucifixion being in the will of the Father). If social status of any kind cannot warrant a person into the family of God, what makes the complementarian believe that now, one's social status (whether male or female, for instance), can warrant a person's giftedness in the body of Christ?
How can complementarians espouse a Gospel of Grace, but yet, advocate a Gospel of favoritism with regard to the gifts-- that God gifts only men for certain gifts? The logic doesn't make any sense.
That's the gist of Sumner's argument. Look back at the quotes from the traditional and complementarian views. The traditional view of women as "inferior" has changed to "equal"; but women, no matter how the initial portion of the premise has changed, are still to assume subordinate roles!
It's time for complementarians (such as the elder in Sumner's example) to admit to themselves and the rest of evangelical Christendom that they have a presuppositional gender bias that won't allow them to give women a warm reception into ministry. As I've always heard it said, "the first step to tackling a problem is to ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE ONE...
The example Sarah Sumner used regarding a Scotist was the elder who said that his wife would make a better elder in ministry than he was. But Sumner uses this example to go into the bigger issue: while there is a philosophical issue at stake, the issue of women in ministry is deeply rooted in church tradition. Sumner notes church tradition and the clashing response of the elder:
"Church tradition says that she is not to be treated on a par with the men because she, being a woman, stands below. According to tradition, it makes sense for the status of the person to align with the status of the role. Therefore traditionally it has been thought that a woman ought to be assigned a subordinate role since she is an inferior being. This was the rule because this was the logic of tradition.
Counter to tradition, this elder says his wife is not inferior. Her essence, according to him, is EQUAL to his own. Thus there is no correlation in his complementarian logic between his wife's EQUAL essence and her subordinate role. Her equality as a person has no bearing whatsoever on her function. Consider the comparison:
Tradition: women as INFERIORS should always assume SUBORDINATE roles.
Complementarianism: women as EQUALS should always assume SUBORDINATE roles.
Do you see what has happened? Complementarians, in their benevolent intention to be BIBLICAL and LOVING, dumped the traditional premise that women are inferior to men. Unwittingly, however, they continue to maintain the logical conclusion of that premise. It makes good sense to say inferior beings ought to assume subordinate roles; that's why the church fathers said it. But it doesn't make sense to say EQUAL beings should always be SUBORDINATE too. It's more logical to say that equal beings share in equal status"(Sumner, "Men and Women in the Church," pp. 285-86).
I looked up the word "equal" in Webster's dictionary (
(1) Like in quality, nature, or status.
(2) like for each member of a group, class, or society.
Looking at definition number one, we can understand that men and women are made with a unique quality and nature-- for they are both made in the image of God. Remember God's words in Genesis 1:26-27?
26Then God said,(O) "Let us make man[h] in our image,(P) after our likeness. And(Q) let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; (R) male and female he created them.
Both man and woman were made EQUALLY in the image of God, women no less than men (women were considered to be LESS made in the image of God than men in church tradition as well-- read Sumner's chapter on "Is It Better to Be a Man than a Woman?").
Notice however with the first definition, that equality is not just in nature and quality, but also "status."
Merriam-Webster's dictionary also accords us a definition of "status":
(1) position or rank in relation to others.
(2) the condition of a person or thing in the eyes of the law
So, equality does not just involve quality and nature, but also "status"-- which means that no one gender is able to achieve a place of prominence over the other, because both are given the opportunity to achieve and advance.
To some this may seem like just a political definition. But this position is also accorded in Scripture in Galatians 3:
25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus(AV) you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as(AW) were baptized(AX) into Christ have(AY) put on Christ. 28(AZ) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free,(BA) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And(BB) if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring,(BC) heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:25-28, ESV).
The context of Galatians 3 concerns being "in Christ," or being in the family of Christ. Everyone that professes Jesus as Lord is as EQUALLY a part of the Body of Christ as anyone else, and everyone is EQUAL before the Lord. Everyone is entitled to the spiritual blessings of Christ (Ephesians 1:3-4), as well as the fellowship that believers have together in Christ. No one is to be left out on the basis of whether they are Jew, Gentile, slave, free man, male, or female.
I wanna stop here and involve a counter to church tradition: Complementarians often attack egalitarians because they use Galatians 3:28 so much as basis for why women should be on equal par with men in the church; however, complementarians, as Sumner shows us, have failed to think through their logical system: if God has a will, and He reveals Himself, why wouldn't mankind "see" God's will in creation?
But I wanna take this a step further. Complementarians also fail in their logic with regards to Galatians 3:28. This verse states that someone's ethnic, economic, or gender status is not what "merits" one into the family of Christ-- what brings someone into the family of Christ is because of what Christ did on the cross (Christ's birth, death, and crucifixion being in the will of the Father). If social status of any kind cannot warrant a person into the family of God, what makes the complementarian believe that now, one's social status (whether male or female, for instance), can warrant a person's giftedness in the body of Christ?
How can complementarians espouse a Gospel of Grace, but yet, advocate a Gospel of favoritism with regard to the gifts-- that God gifts only men for certain gifts? The logic doesn't make any sense.
That's the gist of Sumner's argument. Look back at the quotes from the traditional and complementarian views. The traditional view of women as "inferior" has changed to "equal"; but women, no matter how the initial portion of the premise has changed, are still to assume subordinate roles!
It's time for complementarians (such as the elder in Sumner's example) to admit to themselves and the rest of evangelical Christendom that they have a presuppositional gender bias that won't allow them to give women a warm reception into ministry. As I've always heard it said, "the first step to tackling a problem is to ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE ONE...
Traditional Problems Noted
Earlier tonight I decided to flip through a book called “Theological Interpretation of the New Testament” by editors Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Daniel J. Treier, and N.T. Wright.
Yes—as you can imagine, I flipped through the section of 1 Timothy to see what the writer of the commentary on the book (I. Howard Marshall) had to say about the controversial passage of 1 Timothy 2: 8-15. And I found that Marshall shows us (as all commentaries do) both parts of the prohibition against women teaching:
“It [Scripture] has a twofold argument that Adam was created prior to Eve (and therefore is superior), and that it is Eve who was deceived by the serpent (with the implication that women are still more likely to be deceived than men)” (“Theological Interpretation of the New
Testament,” pg. 166).
What I. Howard Marshall presents to us is the traditional argument—that women can’t teach, preach, or pastor because the woman was born SECOND to the man; and secondly, women can’t lead in the church because “Eve was deceived”—which means women are naturally more deceived than men.
We can see this argument of deception in Grudem’s work “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth” (a quote from Thomas Schreiner”):
“God’s order of creation is mirrored in the nature of men and women. Satan approached the woman first not only because of the order of creation but also because of the different inclinations present in Adam and Eve. Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity…appointing women to the teaching office is prohibited because they are LESS LIKELY to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables, and thus DECEPTION AND FALSE TEACHING WILL MORE EASILY ENTER THE CHURCH…” (pg. 71; quote itself taken from Thomas Schreiner’s “Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, pp. 145-146).
Grudem, after quoting Thomas Schreiner, takes up this line of thought himself in “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth”:
“God gave men, IN GENERAL, a disposition that is BETTER SUITED TO TEACHING AND GOVERNING in the church, a disposition that inclines more to rational, logical analysis of doctrine and a desire to protect the doctrinal purity of the church, and God gave women, IN GENERAL, a disposition that INCLINES MORE TOWARD A RELATIONAL, NURTURING EMPHASIS THAT PLACES A HIGHER VALUE ON UNITY AND COMMUNITY IN THE CHURCH (v.14)” (pg. 72).
So now, it seems, according to Schreiner and Grudem, women are the ones who preserve the church, while the men just teach and preach in it! It’s funny to think, though, that Paul would actually write the entire Philippian church in Philippians 2 if unity was just a “woman” thing! It’s also another thought that Schreiner and Grudem credit men with preserving the doctrine of the church—but if this is so, why does Paul write Galatians to attack Judaizers? And why does Paul tell Timothy to deal with the false teachers of 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy (which, Grudem and other complementarians will tell you, where ALL MEN)? The only ones in Scripture stirring up major trouble in the church in regards to doctrinal purity were the men!
Marshall responds to such statements on the subject of women with the following:
“The argument that women are for all time more likely to be deceived than men because Eve was deceived is GROUNDLESS. In any case, there is no way of knowing whether, if the serpent had spoken to Adam rather than to Eve, he would not have fallen just as readily as she had” (Theological Intepretation of the NT, 167).
Marshall is right: who can say whether or not Adam would have fallen had he been given the choice first? I mean, look at the choice he did make in the end. It doesn’t sound to me like Adam would have reacted any different had he been given first choice. In Genesis, God first gave Adam the command he was to give his wife—so he was in the same position as in the ideal state to make the right choice. He didn’t because He CHOSE to disobey.
Marshall then goes on to list two possibilities on how to deal with the prohibition against women:
“One possible interpretation is that, even if a woman should not have authority over a man, the exercise or teaching or the holding of ministerial office in the church SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS INFRINGING THIS PRINCIPLE IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY” (Vanhoozer, 167).
This is the theologically-liberal position: that it was binding for the first century, but not today.
Let’s proceed to the second and final possibility:
“Another possibility is that there may have been women teaching that women were superior to men on the basis of a faulty interpretation of Genesis, and the author is concerned simply to refute this and to stop the women giving false teaching. Hence, nothing more may be involved than a CORRECTION OF A FALSE INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION” (Vanhoozer, 167).
Marshall’s listing of this final possibility is one to consider: after all, in verses 13 and 14, Paul is upholding the events as recorded in Genesis: according to Genesis itself, Adam was formed first, and then, because God thought it bad for man to be alone, made Eve from Adam’s rib (Adam’s side). Next, notice that Paul writes in verse 14, “And Adam was not deceived, but THE WOMAN was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim. 2:14, ESV). Why would Paul have to defend Adam NOT BEING DECEIVED and “the woman’s” deception—unless the genealogy were being twisted the other way around to where Adam was formed SECOND and being deceived by the serpent? With Paul’s reference to “the woman,” he goes to an awful lot of trouble to argue which GENDER was deceived. Why would he do that UNLESS there was a sort of GENDER responsibility for the fall being reversed?
Marshall writes (regarding the complementarian position):“…there is at least SUFFICIENT DOUBT concerning the validity of the patriarchal interpretation as a RULING FOR PRACTICE TODAY to make it VERY UNWISE to impose it upon the churches” (Theological Interpretation of the NT, 167).
Even Marshall and Vanhoozer disagree with the traditionalist (complementarian view). My response? First, gifts have NOTHING to do with anyone else, but with the Lord and how He chooses to grace a person! When did a woman receive a spiritual gift based on whether or not she was married? Next, look at the second choice they offered—that Paul was refuting false doctrine. Most of the churches were dealing with false teachers (at least Judaizers), who still believed you had to be circumcised or do different things.
I think that complementarians have a lot of holes in their argument because of their traditionalist view. If they intend to be the master exegetes anytime soon, however, they better do their homework…
Yes—as you can imagine, I flipped through the section of 1 Timothy to see what the writer of the commentary on the book (I. Howard Marshall) had to say about the controversial passage of 1 Timothy 2: 8-15. And I found that Marshall shows us (as all commentaries do) both parts of the prohibition against women teaching:
“It [Scripture] has a twofold argument that Adam was created prior to Eve (and therefore is superior), and that it is Eve who was deceived by the serpent (with the implication that women are still more likely to be deceived than men)” (“Theological Interpretation of the New
Testament,” pg. 166).
What I. Howard Marshall presents to us is the traditional argument—that women can’t teach, preach, or pastor because the woman was born SECOND to the man; and secondly, women can’t lead in the church because “Eve was deceived”—which means women are naturally more deceived than men.
We can see this argument of deception in Grudem’s work “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth” (a quote from Thomas Schreiner”):
“God’s order of creation is mirrored in the nature of men and women. Satan approached the woman first not only because of the order of creation but also because of the different inclinations present in Adam and Eve. Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity…appointing women to the teaching office is prohibited because they are LESS LIKELY to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables, and thus DECEPTION AND FALSE TEACHING WILL MORE EASILY ENTER THE CHURCH…” (pg. 71; quote itself taken from Thomas Schreiner’s “Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, pp. 145-146).
Grudem, after quoting Thomas Schreiner, takes up this line of thought himself in “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth”:
“God gave men, IN GENERAL, a disposition that is BETTER SUITED TO TEACHING AND GOVERNING in the church, a disposition that inclines more to rational, logical analysis of doctrine and a desire to protect the doctrinal purity of the church, and God gave women, IN GENERAL, a disposition that INCLINES MORE TOWARD A RELATIONAL, NURTURING EMPHASIS THAT PLACES A HIGHER VALUE ON UNITY AND COMMUNITY IN THE CHURCH (v.14)” (pg. 72).
So now, it seems, according to Schreiner and Grudem, women are the ones who preserve the church, while the men just teach and preach in it! It’s funny to think, though, that Paul would actually write the entire Philippian church in Philippians 2 if unity was just a “woman” thing! It’s also another thought that Schreiner and Grudem credit men with preserving the doctrine of the church—but if this is so, why does Paul write Galatians to attack Judaizers? And why does Paul tell Timothy to deal with the false teachers of 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy (which, Grudem and other complementarians will tell you, where ALL MEN)? The only ones in Scripture stirring up major trouble in the church in regards to doctrinal purity were the men!
Marshall responds to such statements on the subject of women with the following:
“The argument that women are for all time more likely to be deceived than men because Eve was deceived is GROUNDLESS. In any case, there is no way of knowing whether, if the serpent had spoken to Adam rather than to Eve, he would not have fallen just as readily as she had” (Theological Intepretation of the NT, 167).
Marshall is right: who can say whether or not Adam would have fallen had he been given the choice first? I mean, look at the choice he did make in the end. It doesn’t sound to me like Adam would have reacted any different had he been given first choice. In Genesis, God first gave Adam the command he was to give his wife—so he was in the same position as in the ideal state to make the right choice. He didn’t because He CHOSE to disobey.
Marshall then goes on to list two possibilities on how to deal with the prohibition against women:
“One possible interpretation is that, even if a woman should not have authority over a man, the exercise or teaching or the holding of ministerial office in the church SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS INFRINGING THIS PRINCIPLE IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY” (Vanhoozer, 167).
This is the theologically-liberal position: that it was binding for the first century, but not today.
Let’s proceed to the second and final possibility:
“Another possibility is that there may have been women teaching that women were superior to men on the basis of a faulty interpretation of Genesis, and the author is concerned simply to refute this and to stop the women giving false teaching. Hence, nothing more may be involved than a CORRECTION OF A FALSE INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION” (Vanhoozer, 167).
Marshall’s listing of this final possibility is one to consider: after all, in verses 13 and 14, Paul is upholding the events as recorded in Genesis: according to Genesis itself, Adam was formed first, and then, because God thought it bad for man to be alone, made Eve from Adam’s rib (Adam’s side). Next, notice that Paul writes in verse 14, “And Adam was not deceived, but THE WOMAN was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim. 2:14, ESV). Why would Paul have to defend Adam NOT BEING DECEIVED and “the woman’s” deception—unless the genealogy were being twisted the other way around to where Adam was formed SECOND and being deceived by the serpent? With Paul’s reference to “the woman,” he goes to an awful lot of trouble to argue which GENDER was deceived. Why would he do that UNLESS there was a sort of GENDER responsibility for the fall being reversed?
Marshall writes (regarding the complementarian position):“…there is at least SUFFICIENT DOUBT concerning the validity of the patriarchal interpretation as a RULING FOR PRACTICE TODAY to make it VERY UNWISE to impose it upon the churches” (Theological Interpretation of the NT, 167).
Even Marshall and Vanhoozer disagree with the traditionalist (complementarian view). My response? First, gifts have NOTHING to do with anyone else, but with the Lord and how He chooses to grace a person! When did a woman receive a spiritual gift based on whether or not she was married? Next, look at the second choice they offered—that Paul was refuting false doctrine. Most of the churches were dealing with false teachers (at least Judaizers), who still believed you had to be circumcised or do different things.
I think that complementarians have a lot of holes in their argument because of their traditionalist view. If they intend to be the master exegetes anytime soon, however, they better do their homework…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)