The issue of women in ministry keeps popping up in some blogs that I read. It is an exceedingly frustrating discussion, and I don’t know why I comment. I should stay out of it. There are legitimate issues about church ministry today that the church should be wrestling with. Whether or not women should be in positions of authority over men is simply not one of them. Out of everything in Scripture that is explicit, this is one of them.
Let me quickly summarize a few key points.
We must first recognize that Paul’s prohibition of women having authority over men is not Paul’s. It is God’s, by virtue of inspiration. Some want to claim that it was merely Paul’s preference. But 2 Tim 3:16 makes it clear that it was God’s command.
We must also recognize that it is a command that cannot be restricted merely to first century culture. It is common to argue that Paul’s command was only about the first century, or only about the church at Ephesus. That is easily answered in two parts.
First, NT Christianity was not shy about shedding cultural norms for biblical obedience. Christ made a habit of breaking cultural norms that had religious significance attached to them (such as healing on the Sabbath, picking grain on the Sabbath, eating with women and Gentiles, etc.). If this prohibition were merely cultural, it seems clear that Christ would not have felt bound by such a principle.
Second, the exegetical reasons given for the prohibition have nothing to do with the first century. These reasons go back thousands of years to the time of creation and the fall. God says the reason that women are not to have authority over men is two fold: 1) Men were created first and 2) the woman was deceived.
For those who argue that the command is no longer valid, we need to figure out which foundational reason is no longer true. If Paul had argued that it was a first century reason, I could buy the argument that women are now permitted to have authority. But Paul expressly does not say that.
Some argue that the death of Christ removes the affects of the fall. Really?? Try telling that to the mother in labor, or the husband who comes home smelling like sweat, dirty as a pig. Try telling that to the rose gardener who hands are scratched by the thorns that protrude from the bushes. Try telling that the people whose bodies lay decomposing in the grave (returning to dust). The simple fact is that Christ’s death did not overturn the physical affects of the fall, nor the relational affects.
Some argue that both men and women have “the blessed opportunity to be filled with and gifted by the Holy Spirit” (an actual attempt at an argument). I would ask who disagrees with that? Egalitarianism certainly doesn’t. We believe that women should be honored and treated as the Bible prescribes. We should never lower the dignity and worth of womanhood by asking them to do something God has forbidden, or by allowing it.
There is much that women can do in ministry and should do. May God give to his church a great number of godly women who will model godly womanhood by good works that fit a woman who professes to follow God, who will teach the younger women how to be godly. May God protect his church from disobedient women who refuse to live by Scripture.
In the end, this is a discussion about biblical authority. Will we let the Bible dictate our theology and practice, or will we let culture? Will we honor women, or will we allow them to disobey God?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
You are right when you say that this is a matter of biblical authority. This is a quote from the book "Weaving the Sermon: Preaching in a Feminist Perspective" written by Christine Smith:
"Christian feminists no longer assume that the Bible has ultimate authority, nor do they agree that all texts should be understood as God's revelation" (p. 94)
The concept of women in the pastorate is unbiblical and they know it. But they are disobedient to the Word of God.
So that you are fully familiar with a scholarly view which maintains that scripture is the authoritative word of God (which it is) you may wish to read Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. After reading this book cover to cover, you will be able to articulate this view clearly and accurately without resorting to accusations that all those who understand scripture to authoritatively support women and men equally in ministry are "feminist" views or views which discount biblical authority. Such accusations are in error.
-Susan
Biblical authority. Interesting phrase which usually, if not always means, "biblical authority as *I* interpret it."
Susan -
Amen. Daniel et al: please, have your opinions as you are free to do and voice them in whatever forum you like, but at least present them from an educated stand point instead of blatantly and ignorantly dismissing every oposing opinion as "unbiblical" (a much overused word in christian debate).
Susan and Makeesha,
Please explain how women can meet the spiritual qualifications of a pastor in 1 Peter, Titus 1 and Acts 20?
Susan,
The issue is not whether one claims to follow Scriptural authority, but whether they actually do. There is a big difference, as I am sure you know, between the two. The test is in their actions. I have read some of the scholarly work done on your side, and find it to be very lacking in its exegetical work. IT is largely culturally driven, not biblically driven, and that is the issue I have with it.
For some "biblical authority" does mean "as I interpret it." This is not one of those cases. It is hard to read something like "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority" and misunderstand what the words mean. In fact, the meaning of the words is very clear. The application, not the intepretation, is the issue. EVeryone interprets it the same, but they apply it differently, which is the difference between egalitarianism and complementarianism.
For proof, just as Susan what the text "says." She will say that it says that women should not teach or have authority over men. That means she understands the text. What she will do is say that it doesnt' apply to today. And that is where we differ. I think the fact that Paul uses reasons that are thousands of years old that are still true rather than first century reasons that are no longer true is decisive.
If Paul was addressing a first century problem, why didn't he use first century examples like he did in 1 Cor 11 where he talks about headcoverings as a sign of authority? OR when he talked about meat offered to idols (a cultural expression). He could use first century issues when he wanted to, but here he didn't. He specifically used creation reasons that will always be true.
So I find that to be decisive and authoritative.
I reject any misrepresentation of the other side's view, and try very hard not to do it myself. I do draw conclusions about positions, which is necessary.
But thanks for reading, all.
When Jesus says "foxes have holes and birds have nests" is He talking about animals or Roman authorities? Clearly He is talking about animals, right? I mean the text is plain enough. It doesn't get any clearer than that, no? A little historical research provides a deeper insight however. Yet you dismiss this possibiltiy out of hand when it comes to Paul and the surrounding pagan religions of his day and rest on your authority which says claims that the text stands alone removed from any cultural context. Then you call this biblical.
Others ask questions like,"Does scripture reveal a redemptive movement in how we are to treat women or not?" (See William Webb's book.) How does the surrounding religious cults impact Paul's directives to the churches? How do we fit all of these together? This all is interpretation.
So, you may be right in your interpretation (and you may be wrong too), but whatever,it is your interpretation, not the "clear teaching of scripture."
How is "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over men" not "clear teaching"? How would it read if it was clear? If God wanted to prohibit women in positions of teaching and authority over men, what would he say to make it clear? How would it differ?
Secondly, if Paulwas addresssing pagan religious cults, why doesn't he say that? He has no trouble making that clear in places like Col 2.
It seems to me that he goes out of his way to avoid addressing a first century pagan practice and reaches all the way back to creation? God is the one who "removed it" from "any cultural context" so to speak.
I think Scripture does reveal a "redemptive movement in how we are to treat women." That is not really the issue, and you are conflating issues by bringing that up, it seems to me. It seems an attempt to take a prima facie position and make it apply to a completely different issue. I don't find that helpful at all.
Let me ask you this: Do you Webb and others got their position because they started with Scripture and worked from there to culture? Or because they started with culture and worked from there to Scripture?
Yes it is very clear teaching. But what is very unclear is whether this very clear teaching is to be applied to all cultures for all time?
Is Paul engaging in dialogue or not? If he is does he need to spell out all the terms of the argument and/or conversation? If I refer to "Star Wars" won't most people in our culture know that I am referring to a movie? Maybe Paul doesn't need to spell this out because his audience understands what is going on.
So it makes sense that if there is a dominant culture teaching that woman was created before man, Paul would appeal to creation to counter that.
Some other questions to consider.
Do you have both hands and eyes, Larry? What about Jesus "plain words" and teaching?
But really, ignore all that, because frankly, I don't care where you come down on this issue, I really don't. Nor do I care to change your mind. What bothers me is your certainty that you alone are faithful to scripture.
When you raise the question where we begin, whether with scripture or culture, you are creating a red herring. Webb, Susan, myself and others *begin* with scripture just as you do. We also understand that scripture was not written in a cultural vacuum. We have utmost respect for scripture and so we will seek to understand it as best we can which means understanding its historical and cultural background. We also try to understand all of scripture, like how Paul can write that there is no longer "male nor female" and yet say women cannot exercise authority over men. For you to claim that yours alone is the biblical position is naïve at best and arrogance at worst.
Do I smell some progress here?
So you agree that the teaching is clear? Good. Now let me ask this: Since God used two supports that are universally true in all cultures and all times to make his point, on what basis do you limit it to the first century only? What would he have said if he were going to make it span cultures and times?
Second, I hardly think that it is a red herring to talk about where we begin. I think it is the crux of the issue. It is easy (far too easy) to get an idea in our head and run to Scripture looking for support. It is far too easy to look at what culture accepts and then work Scripture in around that. And that is what it seems is going on here. I don't think the exegesis of the text will support your position apart from the elaborate construction of an extra-biblical framework that you are guessing about. AFter all, you are guessing that Paul was addressed this first century teaching in Ephesus. Paul didn't say that, and in fact gives no indication of it. He uses much older truths to support his points.
As for claiming that mine alone is the biblical position, how is that different than your claim? We are offering mutually exclusive options here. One of us is right, and the other is wrong. If I am right, you are wrong; if you are right, I am wrong. We are both claiming to be "the only biblical position." Why is it "naive at best and arrogance at worst" for me to do it, but not for you?
I am willing to let you differ on this point. YOu won't answer to me for it. But I am also willing to make my view known, along with its arguments, and allow people to interact with them.
BTW, and I meant to say this last time, would you mind using a name. I prefer to interact with names, rather than "anonymous." I don't ask for any identifying information such as email addresses or the like, but a moniker would be nice.
Thanks for reading, and interacting.
"Plain Teaching" ... a very convenient excuse for bigotry.
Do women wear veils in your congregation?
Do you greet eachother with kisses?
Do you all drink a little wine for your stomachs?
Do the slaves among you obey you well?
Surely not one of your leaders have childeren who are unbelievers,
and as the commentor above pointed out, I'll bet all of the men in your congregation still have both eyes and both hands.
Really??
The women here don't wear veils because that was a cultural sign of being under authority, as we know from studying Scripture and culture. Today, we practice modern signs of being under authority. But it is interesting that you seem to want to ignore the point of the passage, that women are under the authority of men, just as men are under the authority of Christ. Or do I misread you there?
We don't greet one another with a holy kiss because that is cultural, though in some countries they still do. We usually use a handshake and sometimes a hug. In some countries, particularly European countries as I understand it, the kiss on teh cheek is a very common greeting to this day. It just isn't practiced in America much.
We do drink a little wine for various medical reasons. And some drink a little wine for social reasons.
We do encourage all employees to live like Christ on teh job, which was what the command to slaves were. When you study first century slavery, it was for the most part very much like modern employees are, with some cultural changes.
And most of the men in our congregation have eyes and hands, which is really irrelevant to this discussion.
I can't help but notice that 1) you posted without a name (please use one), and 2) you seem to post with a great deal of anger and hatred with very little substantive interaction with the theological issues involved. Is there a reason you avoided the theology?
The reasons God gave us for this command were not cultural reasons. They were creation and fall reasons. Which of those two reasons is no longer true?
I stand totally opposed to all bigotry, which is one reason why I allow all comments here. I won't be a bigot towards those who can't make a coherent argument, or those who have a differing opinion. I won't call them names, or accuse them of bigotry or the like.
I simply ask for common courtesy and civility, and to use a name when you post.
"Do I smell some progress here?
So you agree that the teaching is clear? Good. Now let me ask this: Since God used two supports that are universally true in all cultures and all times to make his point, on what basis do you limit it to the first century only? What would he have said if he were going to make it span cultures and times?
I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about Paul. Paul appeals to what God has done to counter the claims of pagan cults. I limit his instruction on the role of women in the church to the first century based on the movement of scripture, the way Jesus treated women and other 'second class' peoples, based on Paul's words in Galatians and based on what we have learned about Paul and his culture and why it would make sense in his culture to make this directive. This, it seems to me is the Spirit's leading, the Spirit that Jesus said would lead us to truth.
Second, I hardly think that it is a red herring to talk about where we begin.
Not sure how to explain this other than to say that you seem to think that Scripture was written in a vacuum and I do not.
As for claiming that mine alone is the biblical position, how is that different than your claim? We are offering mutually exclusive options here. One of us is right, and the other is wrong. If I am right, you are wrong; if you are right, I am wrong. We are both claiming to be "the only biblical position." Why is it "naive at best and arrogance at worst" for me to do it, but not for you?
Yes, we disagree. I however, have never claimed that mine is the "clear teaching of scripture." Nor have I claimed that I do not need to interpret scripture and again, this is my biggest problem with your position: you think you don't interpret scripture because it is "plain." That is the distinction as I see it.
Finally, you're right, I shouldn't post without a name. My name is Brian and the last "anonymous" comment (at 12:42 pm) is not mine, though the previous ones are.
So, yes, the lack of name has caused some confusion.
Not sure which of this last comment is to me and which is to our other anonymous friend.
-Brian
Thanks Brian,
First, when it comes to Scripture, I don't think we can make a valid distinguish between what Paul said and what God said. God says that all Scripture is God-breathed, or sourced in God (2 Tim 3:16). It is not of private origin, but holy men spoke as they were borne along by teh Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21). So what Paul said is what God said.
Second, I agree with most of your paragraph, but come out a very different place. The Spirit leads us through his word.
What if we apply your hermeneutic to other passages? Let's play with "saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone." What is that was a just a first century teaching that should now be abandoned because we know more about the progress that man can make through education or money? On what basis would we argue against that? I think you run into big problems with your hermeneutic.
Lastly, with respect to interpretation, I think we all interpret, but I also think that "that's just your interpretation" becomes an excuse for denial. Take the "salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone." Someone comes and says, "That's just your interpretation." Will you accept that as a valid reason to reject the doctrine? I wouldn't.
I think there are some things so clear that they are universally agreed on by orthodox Christianity. There are other things about which we can admit a legitimate spectrum of disagreement. While women in pastoral roles is not a salvation issue, I think it falls more in the first category than the second.
This is not a life or death issue. I do think it is important, but as I have said, no one will answer to me for it (unless she wants to speak here).
Thanks again.
I love debating and discussing theology and hermeneutics and all that stuff, I really do, and I have enjoyed our give and take. Unfortunately, I think I'll have to beg out of the discussion for now, but I guess I'll try to answer some of your questions so as to not leave you hanging. I've already been too distracted from my work today! I promise to check back later to read any final response you may have. Perhaps in the future I'll return a further comment, but I think I really must stop for some time.
(BTW, I hope knowing that the other anonymous post was not me helps assure you that I am not at angry. Written word has it limits, I know, so you can read all my posts with a civil tone in mind, which is how they were intended to come across.)
Scripture: While I agree that it isn't wise to make a distinction between what Paul and God says, I must point out that Paul makes that very distinction. (1 Cor. 7:12) My point is simply that I believe every human author who contributed to the Old and New Testaments had specific ideas they wanted to communicate and they weren't passive in their writing. God may have used their words beyond what they understood (inspiration) but it doesn't mean the writer had no active intention in his or her writing. (Quick example: I think the human author of Judges was writing, in large part, an anti-kingship polemic. God's inspiration makes that book more than just that however.)
So if Paul is giving a directive for his day, we may need to see a bigger picture of what God would have us do. And we may see from Paul a principle in how we relate to a dominant culture.
So yes the Spirit leads us through the word, but have we fully understood that word or is their more to learn? Did Luther and Calvin get it all or does the Spirit continue to lead us as he led them, building on their discoveries and refining them? (A nice relational picture, no?)
"Grace...through faith alone":
In Paul's day we would explore what the Jewish community understood about the law and faith v. deeds. (Isn't this what Sanders raises in his work? Not sure...)
Going further for us today and our Christian heritage, we must ask What does it mean to have faith in Christ? Does it mean only to believe in our hearts or is there some actions that ought to (necessarily?) follow? How do you square this verse with Matthew 25 (Sheep and Goats)? Perhaps Luther and Calvin have overstated faith (with no works whatsoever) due to the overstatement and distortion of works on the part of the Catholics? Did the culture of Luther and Calvin demand they emphasize this passage and limit James to the "epistle of straw" (Luther's words) because of their cultural context? (And perhaps a more modern culture causes us to limit "faith" to rational belief divorced from actions?) Perhaps Jesus sheds light on this by calling us to advance the kingdom; loving our neighbors, fighting for the poor and oppressed (women?) etc. And by the way, lest we think that it is these good works that have saved us, Paul makes it clear that these works would not be possible apart from the work of Christ. (In all of this I'm not trying to argue with you, rather I'm trying to give you a picture of how my hermeneutic might work and that it's probably not all that different from yours.) My point is that we can't simply assume that the plain meaning or what appears to be plain meaning always is the plain meaning. We have to use all the resources available to us. In doing so we may conclude that there isn't much more to understand about the verse in question or we may not.
I understand my hermeneutic is "dangerous" but I believe a very safe hermeneutic got the Pharisees way off track and perhaps we evangelicals are running into the same problems, that's all. I don't mean to imply that you are a Pharisee, notice I said, "We". Rather we need to be especially diligent in all matters of faith, (I'm sure you'd agree)and thus sometimes a dangerous hermeneutic is required (pretty sure you wouldn't agree.)
Finally, perhaps we have come to an agreement on interpretation, but I'm not sure. When I engage in these sorts of conversations, "just what you believe" is not sufficient. I want to hear how you interpret and understand all of scripture. I just bristle at the suggestion that yours is the "only" way to possibly understand scripture. I know mine is not and I got the sense that you believed yours is. Obviously we both think we're right, otherwise we’d change our opinions. (I think that's Anne Lamont's joke.) A position such as that, i.e. "mine is the only reasonable interpretation" (whether intentional or not) usually leads to a quick degeneration of the conversation.
Thanks.
-Brian
Larry,
You said:
>>How is "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over men" not "clear teaching"? How would it read if it was clear? If God wanted to prohibit women in positions of teaching and authority over men, what would he say to make it clear? How would it differ?<<
So how would it read if it was clear? It would read this way:
#1. God has established that every prohibition, every law must have at least two or three witnesses to be established and to be valid. Why is the prohibition on women teaching men the only prohibition that is without the second witness? Therefore for God to make it clear, he would have had to give a second witness to this prohibition at the very least and a third witness would have been great.
#2. The 1 Timothy 2 passages uses a word for "authority" that is only used once in scripture and it is in this passage. If God wanted to make sure that no woman had authority over any man by being able to teach him biblical doctrine, then he would have used a "normal" word for authority not one that is clearly attached to very destructive behavior (look "authenteo" up in the blue letter bible). Now since no man is ever given the right to have "authenteo" over any other person then we know it is not a good, godly authority that is granted to men but not to women.
#3. If God had wanted to stop women from teaching the bible to men, he would have listed this prohibition in chapter one: i.e. Paul would have said that Timothy was left in Ephesus to stop the false teachers *and* to stop the women from teaching. There now you have three ways that God could have made this clear.
But it isn't clear. Why?
The prohibition against women teaching the bible to men does not have a second witness. God never goes against his own rules, but to believe that he forbids all women from teaching the bible to all men, makes God break his own rules on what establishes a law. Is it not reasonable to read in context that the act that Paul is forbidding in chapter two is connected to the false teaching that is prohibited in chapter one? Is Paul therefore not forbidding false teaching from one who has been deceived since the prohibition is also connected to the deception of Eve? And what does the first creation of Adam have to do with why he wasn't deceived? All of these questions are answered on the 4 DVD set called "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" Reviews of WIM can be found at http://www.mmoutreach.org/wim.htm and the introduction clip is included on this page that you can watch on line. The entire set of 4 DVD's is 3 1/2 hours of teaching on the hard passages of scripture concerning women. The passages are gone through verse by verse to draw conclusions based on the context, the language and the culture of that day. So why did Paul mention the salvation of women in 1 Timothy 2:15 when the salvation of women is never questioned? The answer to that question is found in "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" and it ties in to the question that we would all like to know regarding the salvation of deceived people who are teaching error (1 Timothy 1).
Also my blog spot answers questions on WIM and it is found at http://women-in-ministry.blogspot.com/
Cheryl
Several quick points in response to your comments.
1. The "two or three witnesses" is never invoked for God's Law or God's revelation. It is only invoked for accusations against a person to avoid putting someone to death on the testimony of one person. It is a protection against liars. Since God is not a liar, he does not need two or three witnesses. He always tells the truth, and therefore only needs to say something one time for it to be authoritative.
2. The meaning of authenteo is by no means clearly only associated with abusive or domineering authority. Good lexical research will demonstrate the fallacy of claim #2.
3. Why is chapter 1 more important than chapter 2? Is he not serious about pastoral qualifications because he lists them in chapter 3? Is his prohibition about the love of money really irrelevant since it doesn't come until chapter 6? Your argument assume that women were actually teaching (something I am not sure is actually in evidence). Furthermore, it assumes that they were not false teachers. They may well have been, and if so, were included in chapter 1 when he talked about false teachers.
So clearly, your three arguments carry no weight at all under scrutiny.
Your argument that Adam's experience in teh garden is what prevented him from being deceived is clearly not a scriptural argument.
When you read 1 Timothy, you see that Paul gives two arguments: 1) man created first; 2) woman deceived. He does not give one argument: 1) woman deceived because man created first.
I had previously done some browsing on your blog. I found many many weak arguments such as the ones you put forth here.
I appreciate your comments but urge you to take this matter more seriously with respect to the revelation of God. We can't just ignore the parts we don't like or say they mean something else. It seems to me you are in the delicate position of saying God didn't really mean what he said. I can't find that as a legitimate approach to revelation from God.
1. God's law is never singular. God tells the truth but he never does it without two or three witnesses. There is not one single sin that is listed in the bible that is listed only once. Why is that? Because God has given us a standard to establish the facts. Paul repeats this standard in 2 Corinthians 13:1 "This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES." If it is a fact, then it must be confirmed by two or three witnesses and God follows this standard. Nothing that God has established as a law for Christians to follow is ever given only once. So the fact that you cannot give another witness shows that you are admitting that God's law regarding disallowing godly Christian women from teaching the bible to men, has only one witness. That was my point. This would be the first time that God had a prohibition without a second witness. Since God has been consistent in scripture by always having a second witness as a bare minimum, then certainly we can trust God to have a second witness when we believe that scripture is forbidding one gender from teaching godly, Christian doctrine to men. Why no second witness? Because this teaching contradicts 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul is saying that men and women can prophesy in the church and the reason is so that all may learn. All may prophesy. Prophesying is used to teach others and all (men and women) can learn and all can teach through prophecy. If we take 1 Timothy 2:12 as stopping women from teaching godly, Christian doctrine, then Paul is contradicting himself and God is without a second witness to this prohibition.
2. In point #2 I have established that God has never even once given "authenteo" to men for them to use over the church or over other men or over women. Since Paul used this unique word in this passage alone, and the Holy Spirit did not inspire any of the Greek words for the normal kind of authority, then we must believe that the Holy Spirit inspired this passage exactly as it is written, and we need to check carefully the context to see what is being prohibited. Certainly God is not giving "authenteo" to men in this passage. That is clear. And men are never given "authenteo" over the church in any other passage either. As I said, check out the blue letter bible to see the amount of negative connotations that this word has attached to it. Is it any wonder why Paul never gives "authenteo" to men to use with the church? Never once. If you are holding to the point that "authenteo" can mean good authority, then why aren't men ever given this authority? Why is this word never used in a good, godly way in the New Testament? It is obvious that it is because chapter one starts the context of Timothy being left in Ephesus to stop the false teachers and the false teaching. Deception and false teaching are to be stopped. Paul never stops godly, correct teaching and we must keep in context what is being stopped in chapter one, if we desire to hold to the inspiration of scripture. Scripture is inspired with inspired words and inspired grammar and inspired context.
3. Chapter one is clearly important in that it establishes the setting of a church that has false teaching and false deceived teachers in its midst. In chapter two the leadership is given instruction even as to how to pray with the false teachers in their midst. No argumentative words (wrath and dissention) is to come out in their prayers. Leadership is especially important considering the state of the church, but that does not negate the context of false teachers and error being taught. Context, context, context is important. It further strengthens the context that in the midst of error, strong leadership, gentle and correcting leadership is needed.
Now do I assume that women were not part of the false teachers? Certainly not. The wording in chapter one is not specific to males so men and women can be in the category of false deceived teachers. The fact that Paul specifically mentions "a woman" in chapter two and then likens her situation to the deception of Eve proves that the teaching that is being prohibited is the passing on of deception, not godly correct Christian doctrine.
The weight of the evidence is in the context, inspired words, and the fact that all matters must be established by two or three witnesses. These, my friend, you have not answered. I hold to the inerrent word of God, fully inspired in context, words and grammar and when they are studied in this manner, one will find that God has not placed a particular word in the passage haphazardly. It is there on purpose and for a reason. It is completely inspired.
Now you said that Adam's experiences in the garden that kept him from being deceived is not a scriptural argument. But Paul says it is. He makes a big deal about Adam's first creation and he ties this in to the fact that Adam was not deceived. It's time we take the Holy Spirit's lead and go back to Genesis.
Now you have misrepresented me when you summarize my argument as woman was deceived because man was created first. I didn't say that. I said that Adam was not deceived because he was the first one created. She was deceived because she did not experience what Adam did that kept him safe from deception. Now tell me, why was Adam not deceived? Tell me scripturally because scripture in context with the inspired words and the inspired grammar is breath taking in the answer to that question. What do you say?
I do take scripture very seriously and I don't ignore any scripture. I would like to respectfully say that it appears to me that you are ignoring scripture. I have shown you that God always has a second witness and Paul agrees that every matter is established by two or three witnesses, yet you are ignoring this. Why? I don't ignore scripture even if it appears to contradict my view. I want truth and I embrace scripture fully and completely because God has inspired every word. Do you believe this too?
Finally, you summarize my position by saying that I believe that God didn't really mean what he said. That is not true. God meant exactly what he said and he used the exact words and the exact grammar to say it. What God didn't say is that godly, Christian women are to stop teaching godly, Christian doctrine to men. He did not say that and I believe that God truly meant what he said.
Cheryl
You said on 4/25/06 at 1:25pm: "We don't greet one another with a holy kiss because that is cultural, though in some countries they still do. We usually use a handshake and sometimes a hug. In some countries, particularly European countries as I understand it, the kiss on teh cheek is a very common greeting to this day. It just isn't practiced in America much."
Scripture is plainly clear and God commands us 4 times in the NT (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26) to greet with a holy kiss! How can there be any other interpretation?
Where in the text does it say that holy kissing is cultural? Where is the indication that this command is cultural? What could this text possibly mean if it's not plainly clear to greet with holy kisses? If God wanted to say holy kissing were cultural, why doesn't He make it explicitly clear all 4 times?
Are you starting with American culture and forcing an interpretation onto your reading of Rom 16, 1 Cor 16, 2 Cor 13, and 1 Thess 5??
I don't care whether you "holy kiss" or not. Just make sure it is holy.
Here's the difference: Study of the Bible and study of culture show that a holy kiss is a cultural form of greeting. A kiss as a greeting is still practiced in some parts of the world today.
When it comes to women as pastors, the Bible clearly teaches that it is not cultural. Remember, it goes back to creation and the fall.
If God had said, "Greet one another with a holy kiss because I created the man first and the woman was deceived," then we would know that it is transcending culture.
He didn't do that.
Furthermore, the holy kiss is always in greeting sections. You do not feel compelled to greet all those people, especially since you don't know them. So God did make it explicitly clear that it was a cultural, historical situation in view. He could hardly have made it clearer.
Remember, exegesis of Scripture is not just about the words but about the historical context.
You err by simply missing the point of what exegesis is and how it is carried out. It has nothing to do with American culture. It is about the culture to which the Bible was written, and the things which the Bible says.
1. "Study of the Bible and study of culture show that a holy kiss is a cultural form of greeting." Of course a holy kiss is a form of a greeting. This is exactly why Paul is commanding people to *greet* each other with it.
2. "If God had said, "Greet one another with a holy kiss because I created the man first and the woman was deceived," then we would know that it is transcending culture. He didn't do that." Are you saying that God has to root every command in Scripture with creation and the fall for it to be taken seriously? What about the Ten Commandments? Or even the other commands in the rest of 1 Thess 5:16-22? Is "avoid every kind of evil" cultural and only addressed to a specific audience?
3. "the holy kiss is always in greeting sections". It is not in the greeting sections. It is in the closing sections.
4. "You do not feel compelled to greet all those people, especially since you don't know them". What you feel is of no consequence. What matters is the revelation of God. And here God is commanding greeting with holy kissing.
5. "So God did make it explicitly clear that it was a cultural, historical situation in view". Your point is unconvincing. The commands are crystal clear and there is no indication that it is definitely supposed to be cultural and time-bound.
6. "exegesis of Scripture is not just about the words but about the historical context". Of course, but are you really taking the text *as is*? Or are you letting historical context trump a plain reading of the text? You cannot get any simpler and more explicit than "greet one another with a holy kiss."
7. "You err by simply missing the point of what exegesis is and how it is carried out". You err by simply not realizing that your hermeneutic of 1 Tim 2 is not consistent with your treatment of Rom 16, 1 Cor 16, 2 Cor 13, and 1 Thess 5.
In closing, I use your own quote to describe your treatment of holy kissing...
On 4/25/06 at 12:35pm you wrote: "It is far too easy to look at what culture accepts and then work Scripture in around that. And that is what it seems is going on here. I don't think the exegesis of the text will support your position apart from the elaborate construction of an extra-biblical framework that you are guessing about." (emphasis mine)
Just to hit the highlights, starting at the end.
1. If you think my hermeneutic in 1 Tim 2 is different than in Romans 16, etc, then you don’t understand what my hermeneutic is.
2. As for the location of the “holy kiss” command in greeting sections, the close of these letters contains a greeting section that goes from sixteen verses in Romans 16, to one verse in 1 Thess 5. So, as you can see by reading the epistles, they often close with various greetings to various people. I think you are confusing the opening with a greeting section.
3. As for rooting every command in creation and fall, the answer is a qualified no. However, when it explicitly is tied to creation and fall (as 1 Tim 2 is), then it is undeniably not a cultural issue but one that extends to human history. As soon as the basis for the command in 1 Tim 2 change, then the command will change. The ten commandments are not lasting because they are the ten commandments. In fact, one of them has no authority today. They are rooted however in the character of God. They are clearly different than the holy kiss commands.
1 Thess 5:16-22 is a great example. When you read it you find general commands that are applied differently in different contexts. The “kinds of evil” in Paul’s mind are not the list of evil that we would have today. So yes, there is a cultural component as to how the command is applied.
The “holy kiss” is clearly time bound and cultural. I don’t know how anyone can deny that.
You are a prime example of what you quote from me: You start with culture and then work Scripture around that. I don’t care if you greet with a holy kiss. That’s fine with me. Do it. But it is clear that 1 Tim 2 is a different kind of passage, based on its purpose, it context, and its words.
In short Dan, this is simple. Paul went out of his way to show that his command was not a first century cultural issue, but a human history issue. Ultimately, your side addresses this by simply dismissing what God said rather than actually dealing with it. That is a dangerous way to handle Scripture. Attempting to connect it with dissimilar passages does not help your case.
Post a Comment