I was once a feminist. In my early twenties, I became a complementarian, with the view that God made men and women equal but with different roles and responsibilities. It didn’t happen overnight; I studied the Bible, read books by complementarians and egalitarians, and joined in discussions, until I was convinced that the Bible teaches that God wants men to be servant leaders, and women to be helpers by their side as, together, we make Christ known.
It wasn’t an easy position to come to, and it’s not always an easy one to hold. It’s an unpopular viewpoint in Melbourne and much of Australia, and it doesn’t sit easily with family, friends or the wider church or culture. It’s led to a few uncomfortable moments! I’ve also had to battle my own desires for power and recognition.
Over time, I’ve only become more convinced that God’s plan for men and women is good. I’ve seen women cared for and honoured, and their teaching gifts nurtured and encouraged. I’ve seen men grow strong, gentle and servant-hearted. There’s something beautiful about servant leadership and trusting submission that displays the truth of the gospel in a way nothing else can (Eph 5:22-33).
So I rejoiced when I saw the plans for a complementarian conference in Melbourne: Equal and Complementary, held on the 23rd of October at Holy Trinity Anglican Church. It was organized by an interdenominational group of men and women concerned that egalitarianism is taught and accepted without question in most Melbourne churches (for example, an international egalitarian conference was held here in June), but there’s little teaching on complementarianism. About 150 people came, a mixture of ages, backgrounds, denominations and viewpoints.
I wasn’t sure what to expect from Equal and Complementary. Would God’s word be apologized for and watered down? Would there be an attempt to placate every person and accommodate every position? There’s nothing wrong with open debate, but it’s good to hear the Bible simply and clearly taught. I wasn’t disappointed; the talks were clear and courageous, and I went away encouraged and challenged to believe, obey and think hard about God’s word.
The first speaker was Presbyterian pastor and theologian Neil Chambers. He brought years of theological reflection and pastoral experience to the topic of hermeneutics—the interpretation of God’s word—and reminded us that there’s no gulf we can’t cross when we read the Bible, for it’s the word of God, not just the word of men, and it’s written for us. Scripture is sufficient for its own interpretation: historical information can illuminate but not determine its meaning. God’s word is clear; the mystery isn’t how much of the Bible is misunderstood, but how much has been understood by so many for so long (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:21; Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11). Neil’s conclusion was sobering: “This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isa 66:2).
Martin Pakula, an Anglican theologian, writer and Bible teacher, spoke next on the much-debated text of 1 Tim 2:8-15, calling us to believe and submit to its plain teaching: that women are not to teach or have authority over men in the church. It’s not that women are never to teach (for example, men and women teach one another in private conversation and through singing—Acts 18:26; Col 3:16), but that women are not to teach in the technical sense of the authoritative instruction of the gospel and the Bible in a congregational setting. Instead, women are to “learn in quietness” (1 Tim 2:11 cf. 1 Tim 2:2)—that is, not in “silence” (cf. 1 Cor 11:5), but by listening attentively and without argument in submission to authority. He asked us, will we use a liberal hermeneutic to avoid the plain teaching of Scripture, or will we believe and obey God’s word? I appreciated the fact that Martin was unapologetic, consistent and clear.
At this point, some of the women in the audience may have been feeling a little discouraged. If I’m not to teach or have authority over men in the church, what ministries are open to me? So it was refreshing to hear the third speaker, Fiona McLean, talk about the many ministries God gives to women. She addressed the feminism and individualism of our culture, dealt with objections to and pitfalls of complementarianism, and gave a worked example of its application. It was good to hear a woman’s perspective, and I’ve rarely heard such a precise, thorough and thoughtful talk dealing with issues of this complexity.
I went away with lots to think about, and I’ve had some pretty intense discussions since the conference! If there’s a ‘spectrum’ of teaching, as Martin suggested, some of which is appropriate for women and some not, where do we draw the line? Obviously, complementarians will have different view on this; but at least we can struggle to understand and apply God’s word.
The best thing about Equal and Complementary, for me, was hearing complementarianism taught with clarity and conviction as God’s good word to us. Sometimes it’s (rather patronizingly) suggested that men are complementarian because it advantages them (which it rarely does in our culture) and that complementarian women are oppressed. In fact, as all three speakers testified, we’re complementarian because we believe it’s what God teaches in the Bible, and we see how both men and women are blessed and benefited by it.
Fiona put words to my feelings:
In the end, I want my worldview to be shaped by God’s word, the Bible. Where the Bible’s teaching grates against the culture in which I live, I want to make sure that I am neither misinterpreting the Bible, not capitulating to our culture … As a complementarian woman, I feel affirmed and valued. When men live out the complementarian view, this has enormous benefits for women! All believers, men and women, have a valuable part to play in God’s mission in the world, whether in paid or unpaid work, formal or informal, church-based or home-based or elsewhere. Let’s get on with it!
Martin Pakula has agreed to help me respond to any comments arising from this post or the talks at the conference.
Is it possible to get a hold of the content of what was discussed?
Thanks for your heartfelt sharing of your struggle in an increasingly confusing and confused world.
Hi Walter!
Keep your eye on this website – Equal and Complementary – as they are going to try and load the MP3s of the talks.
Jean.
Hi Jean, great review. Given there is a broad spectrum of ‘teaching’, and working out where to draw the line is difficult, do complementarians view people who draw the line a little to the left still call those others complementarians? In my experience, those who want women to be utterly silent see women praying publically as egalitarian; those who allow praying see female bible study leaders as a feminist conspiracy; those that allow bible study leaders see women preaching as a grave sin; the few that allow preaching see ordination as a capitulation to culture.
Also, what place do you see for female prophecy?
Hey Jean,
Thanks! Will keep an eye out.
Hey Mike,
Isn’t that covered by Jean already? Refer to her coverage of Martin Pakula’s exposition. And how would you define female prophecy – forthtelling or foretelling?
Hi Mike
Thanks for those comments. You raise a great issue. In the question time we speakers were unanimous that we agreed on the theory, but may differ on the practice.
No doubt a generous view would simply allow anyone who called themselves complementarian to be so defined. However I think in preparing for this talk I changed my mind on that myself. It seemed to me that Wayne Grudem would put someone in the egalitarian camp if they thought that women could teach men in the congregational setting. I have not held this view myself in the past, but wonder now if he is not correct. His point I think would be that to arrive at such a position you are using a liberal hermeneutic (whether you are liberal or not). I think I would still err on the side of charity and say that such people are ‘soft’ complementarians.
As for prophecy by women, this was an issue I raised in my talk and in question time. 1 Cor 11 clearly allows women to prophecy in the congregational setting, under male headship. This is not a teaching function. I think we should encourage this in our congregations. The problem is that we are not sure what it would look like, but I would suggest that this shouldn’t stop us trying. Some have already begun to do so. Our congregations are perhaps not following a Biblical model here by not having such ministries. If we see prophecy as including such things as women missionaries speaking about their work; people reflecting on how a passage of scripture impacted them during the week; then men and women who are not involved in up-front teaching could speak in the congregation.
1 Cor 14 then would need to be taken with 1 Cor 11 and perhaps applied as follows. The teaching elders of the church might meet beforehand with those who will engage in such ‘prophesying’ and vet them (weighing prophecies is a teaching function in 1 Cor 14).
I know this doesn’t tie everything down neatly, but I hope it might start a discussion of how we can put 1 Cor 11 into practice in our churches, thus allowing both men and women who are not teaching elders to participate more in our services.
Martin Pakula
Hi walter, I suppose it does address it a little. But for those with an ecclessiology that says whenever the word is heard in a group of christians, there you have a gathering, this definition becomes extremely restrictive again. Also I would like to know what constitutes ‘authoratative’ bible teaching. Can a woman preach non-authoratively? can a man preach non-authoratuvely? What exactly is it that gives the authority, so we know what to avoid for women? (and perhaps more importantly, how to view the teaching of our ‘authorative’ male teachers. Does it mean they cannot be questioned? Is it all the staff, just some, or not dependent on appointment at all?)
If we cant give answers to these questions, then what does the statement of Mr Pakula actually mean? And if we can give definite answers to these questions (and many do), what is to stop us from describing those who have different answers as sinful.(ie obstinantly disobeying the word of God).
As for prophecy, well, it seems to be some kind of public speech which encourages, comforts and builds up the congregation, and which, when true and not false, is recognised as the speech of God through a human. Could be fore or forth or both. But if we see it as a completely different category to ‘authorative teaching’, then it should be ok for the ladies. Should they just avoid Bible references?or speaking the truths of the gospel?Does this happen in your church?
And does this mean we should not weigh up the words of preachers, since now they are in this ‘authorative teacher’ category?
Hi Martin, sorry, we posted at the same time. thanks for the clarification. In reference to the first question, what do you think Grudem would say about your charity? That is, would he say that YOU are employing a liberal hermeneutic by extending such charity with the term complementarian?
Hi Martin,
re prophecy, do you think that was how it worked in the early churches? Does a missionary report contain a ‘revelation’? Should ‘prophecy’ exclude imparting knowledge about the scriptures and the gospel/ and exhortation or appeal to congregational action? If not it sounds surprisingly similar to the ‘she is preaching under my authority’ line I’ve heard from a number of Anglican rectors. I thought complementarians (ala Grudem) saw this as a terrible cop out.
or is the problem that we do do alot of ‘prophecying’ in the form of preaching, and not that much authoritative teaching? If that is the case, why stop women preaching?
I like the process you outlined though!
Hi Mike
You’ve raised some good questions again.
Regarding preaching “authoritatively”, I would not address the issue this way. Preaching IS authoritative. I don’t think you can preach non-authoritatively, etc. The very nature of the exercise carries authority inherently in it (I could say more but will leave it at that for now).
As for my ‘charity’, I doubt Wayne Grudem would see this is a liberal hermeneutic – it’s not a hermeneutic at all. However his concern certainly is to take Scripture at its face value and I wholeheartedly agree with him. Some people are still working out what they think, which is good, and I would be loathe to use a label, I guess, while they are working out what they think about 1 Tim 2. If they are clear that men and women are equal in status before God but have different roles, then they are complementarian.
Prophesying is hard to tie down – I’ll certainly admit that. However I want to interpret Scripture by Scripture. It is clear in 1 Tim 2 that women cannot teach men in the congregational setting. It is clear in 1 Cor 14 that they must be silent when prophesying is weighed. It is also clear in 1 Cor 11 that women can prophesy in the congregational setting. Therefore whatever prophesying is, it cannot be teaching. What it looked like in the early church, I don’t know. And my suggestions of what it may look like now may not be good ones – I’m open to hearing other opinions on this.
I think that 1 Tim 2 says a woman cannot teach AND cannot have authority over a man – not one or the other. Therefore a woman cannot teach in a mixed congregation of men and women under the authority of a man. However that is precisely what is on view in 1 Cor 11, which is not about teaching.
Martin
ok, so prophecying is not teaching.
Don’t you find it strange that we know exactly what the technical term ‘teach’ means, and that it maps neatly onto our modern half hour (min) monologue, yet we have a very fuzzy idea what the practice of prophecying involves and how we might live it out?
Surely the authority of preaching isn’t its form, which changes from place to place and from time to time.
If the authority of preaching is truly intrinsic due to its content (rather than the extrinsic authority placed on it from the congregation or by appointment) when should we be worried about upfront female prophets slipping into preaching? Should I confess my sin if I learn something about God or his word from a woman up the front? Or is it only if they refer to the bible?
i know this is a lot of questions, but could you clarify what you mean by ‘congregational setting’? Is this just the sunday meeting? Or is it any gathering of mixed gender christians? does it include Bible studies, university lectures curch house parties, youth groups?
Does teach simply mean ‘make someone learn something’ or is it more technical than that? If it is this simple, how do you reconcile the cognitive elements of prophecy in 1 Cor 14?
Hi Mike!
Just dropping a line to say I haven’t gone AWOL. I’m following your conversation with Martin with interest – and I’ll continue to leave it to him to answer your questions. I’m heartily in agreement with what he’s written.
One clarification: Martin never said prophecy shouldn’t mention the Bible. One of his examples of prophecy was “people reflecting on how a passage of scripture impacted them during the week”. The issue isn’t whether the person speaking mentions the Bible or the gospel (I’d hope they would!). The issue is whether they’re “teaching” the Bible – whether it’s a word of encouragement or something more authoritative. Now I’ll hand over to Martin to explain the difference between the two …
Just one more comment from a woman’s perspective. You say, “…when should we be worried about upfront female prophets slipping into preaching?”
Speaking as a complementarian woman, yes, I have to take care not to “slip into preaching”. I face this issue writing for a mixed audience all the time! It’s complicated, and not always easy; but I’m constantly aware of honouring male headship in what I write, and also when I speak to men. It affects the content, and it affects the tone. It’s not necessarily something you can put your finger on or define clearly. But it’s a general attitude which shapes how godly women relate to men in light of the created order.
(If, however, I do “slip into preaching” and you – whoops! – learn something, then I think you can thank God for teaching you even through a sinful, fallible human being like me.)
Now over to Martin…
In his grace,
Jean.
Hi Mike
It’s an interesting conversation we’re having! I hope others are finding it helpful.
We know what the word “teach” means quite well, because you can do an extensive word study on it in the New Testament that yields definite results. In 1 Tim 2:12 it therefore has quite a technical meaning. It doesn’t mean any kind of instruction about any matter (as we might mean in English). It refers to the content of the gospel or the Bible. 1 Tim 3 refers to male elders who are indeed appointed and are the authoritative teachers. This gives the context for 1 Tim 2. 1 Tim 3:14-15 gives the purpose of the whole letter: to order the church, the household of God, rightly in the face of false teaching. A congregational setting means such a church setting and does not refer to Bible study groups or Colleges or conferences, etc. I admit the latter examples come close, but strictly speaking, they are not on view in 1 Tim 2.
The authority resides in the Word of God/ gospel. However there is also authority in the position of eldership (Heb 13:17). The office of teaching is a relational one. Teaching is not just imparting information – it is more than this and involves an authoritative relationship.
As for learning from women – I certainly hope you do! Women in the Bible teach men privately (Priscilla to Apollos, with her husband)and teach men in the congregation (not up front) as they sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col 3:16). There is a spectrum along which women teach men. At one end is 1 Tim 2, which forbids it in a congregational setting. At the other end is Col 3:16. All this was in my talk, which hopefully will be on the Equal & Complementarity web site soon.
Hope that helps. Thanks for your questions – I’m sure lots of others have the same questions too.
Martin
Hi All,
From 1 Cor 14 prophecy strengthens, encourages, comforts v3, edifies v4,5, convinces of sin v24, and instructs v31.
My understanding is that many of the church gatherings in NT times were in homes. Meetings weren’t dominated by one person. There were no pulpits. Numbers would vary, but I can envisage something similar to many of our home bible study groups. I can see how many of the comments in our home group would do the same thing as “prophecy”. Could this be what Paul meant by prophecy?
For the last few months, since a sermon on 1 Tim 2:11-15 sparked my interest in this subject, I have discovered that many things that I thought were clear are not so clear. For example Martin mentioned how clear 1 Tim 2 is. Yet as I have studied it, I have found that there is a lot of disagreement among bible believing evangelical Christians. The conclusion to the passage, v15 seems to cause much confusion.
The view that I have found most satisfactory in understanding the whole passage takes into consideration the Greek grammar (of which I am no expert).
There is a change from plural “women” to singular “woman” beginning at v 11 and continuing through to v15.
The passage is then to be understood as concerning a particular Ephesian deceived false teacher. But there is the hope in v15 for her salvation.
I have asked several people, including two Moore College graduates about this view. They don’t agree but as yet have not been able to give any satisfactory reasons why it is wrong. They are “still thinking”.
If anyone would like to discuss this further, I would appreciate it.
Hi Craig
This is very helpful. I suspect that is getting closer to the mark. And while I don’t think a Bible study group is the same as church in every way, there is no doubt that our church meetings are different to what the New Testament is envisaging in 1 Cor 11. We have become too focused on the minister doing everything up front.
Martin
Hi again Craig
Looks like you posted another comment while I was commenting on your first comment!
I have been asked about this before: the switch between plural to singular in v11, then back from singular to plural in v15. Mounce’s commentary in the Word Biblical Commentary series picks up well on this.
I am sure what you are saying is not a right interpretation in this case (no reason not to fly that kite though!). The switch back to plural in v15b would speak against it. Furthermore the Greek for “woman” in verses 11-12 doesn’t have the article: “a woman” not “the woman”. That is, it refers generically to women, not to a specific woman.
I haven’t seen this interpretation before. Is it your own, or did you read it somewhere (and if so where)?
Martin
Hi Mr. Pakula,
Just found this blog – a friend directed me towards it.
I just wanted to thank you for your unique perspective on the issue. I appreciate your courage in standing for a minority view.
But before I take your comments as infallible, I just wanted to say that I do feel that you are smoothing over some of the textual difficulties presented the 1 Timothy 2 passage.
The word “authority” (authentein) is a hapax legomena [cool word, eh
].
To my mind, since it is fairly up in the air, we should be very reticent to construct such precariously balanced theological edifices on it.
As the song goes, the foolish man built his house upon the sands.. and the torrent of textual uncertainty washed it away, clean into the ocean of ambiguity.
Thank you again Mr. Pakula and I look forward to hearing your considered reply.
Thanks Martin and Jean
@Jean. I had a conversation with one of the equal but different ladies where she said the difference for her was whether she was being directive in her teaching or simply leading people to find things in the text (this was in the context of a bible study which she was somewhat uncomfortable leading).That is, in the end it came down to teaching style. Is that what you meant by manner?
@Martin
By ‘church setting’ do you mean a sunday meeting or ‘in the church’? Is the ‘household of God’ in Timothy the sunday meeting or the network of relationships within a given geographical region? It seems you want to prefer the meeting. Yet as Craig noted, first century church meetings may well have been more like our bible studies than our public meetings.
How would you approach gender and ministry in a setting where every gathering of christians was seen as church? Would you push for women to be able to teach, or push for them to have some meeting that was more like our sunday meetings.
I’m still not sure how ‘content of the gospel and the bible’ differntiates teaching from preaching, since we would want both of these to be present in good prophecy. (and I’m glad neither you nor Jean reject the intrinsic authority in the gospel proclaimed by women). I see you have gone back to ‘authoratative teaching’ and the extrinsic authority of the office. What do you mean by ‘authoratative relationship’? This seems to again allow for women to preach if they are not given this ‘authoratative relationship’ over people, but are imparting the content of the faith/gospel/bible. (as perhaps they would in an educational setting). Either the problem is they pick up the intrinsic authority of the content (which would happen in an educational context anyway), or the problem is the extrinsic authority given by the church,which, if it isn’t given, isn’t a problem. (which is what I see happening with some instances of your prophecy, where women are invited to reflect on a passage of scripture).
Yet I find this talk of ‘relational authority’ a bit scary. Is it something separate to the intrinsic authority of the content? Is it over and above the authority of the gospel? Simmering under this is the possibility that I havent given enough authority to my preachers. I was brought up to respect the preacher, listen carefully, then go home, read my Bible and weigh what they were saying. Perhaps this is wrong, and I should only weigh it if they were prophecying. Well I guess I should go and talk to them if I disagree, and submit to them, since they have been appointed as leaders of my church.
But this raises an interesting question for those who are in churches whose appointed and authoratative leaders preach passages like 1 Timothy 2 differently to complementarians. Does this man have the authority to preach this passage in a way I think is wrong or not? And should I speak up or not? The question of silence and submission and authority is not then just an issue for the women. I wonder if your high view of the authority of appointed preachers would hold up for such complementarians?
sorry, that should have read ‘differentiates teaching from prophecy’
Hi Martin,
Thanks Martin for your reply.
v12 speaks of a “woman” and a “man”. v15 speaks of “she” and “they”. It would be most natural to understand “she” as referring to the woman and “they” as referring to both the woman and the man.
How do you see v15 as speaking against it?
My understanding is that “woman” singular, without the article, in Greek can legitimately refer to either a particular woman (eg John 4:7) or to women generically. The context helps us to determine this. The context in v15 (“she”) tells us that Paul is here referring to a particular woman.
I first found this view here
http://www.achurchinryde.com/blog/?p=262
and went from there to find a lot more on it here
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/
Thanks Martin.
Hi Jean
Would God’s word be apologized for and watered down? Would there be an attempt to placate every person and accommodate every position?
I think I had different questions. I was wondering how complementarianism could be taught about in a way that expresses our fellowship in Christ with egalitarians. I don’t think that “placating every person or accommodating every position” is the opposite of being “clear and courageous” on this issue.
Regarding the nature of prophecy in the NT, I’m fairly happy with Grudem’s understanding (and that of Don Carson and Chris Forbes): it is tied to spontaneous revelation from God but is not accorded the same authority as Scripture (note the conjunction of the prophecy/revelation terminology in 1Cor 14:26–33).
An associated observation: the points noted above clearly undermine the claims of many evangelicals that prophecy and preaching are essentially the same activity (since the same argue that women are prohibited from preaching).
But to return to my hobby-horse:
It takes very little to realise that this is hopelessly naive. As I’ve pointed out numerous times before (e.g. here), our understanding of the language of the Bible is inextricably tied to a vast array of extra-biblical data. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Even those fluent in the ancient forms of these languages today rely on information gathered from a vast array of literature written in these languages so that we know what words mean, what phrases and idioms mean, what cultural references mean, and so on. And even with this array of information there remain parts of the text which are unclear.
As such, I agree that it is providential that so much of the text has remained clear up to the present. Yet to then extrapolate to all Scripture on this basis is unjustifiable given the facts. This is where claims that the “plain meaning” of Scripture invariably lead us astray when applied to difficult passages.
If this was the point made, it seems to me to be very unfair. It is easy to dismiss your opponents in this way, but there are scholars whose commitment to the authority and integrity of Scripture is undeniable who reach different conclusions about this issue. They seek to believe and obey God’s word, but they recognise that appeals to “plain teaching” are all too often coloured by our own presuppositions and ignorance.
Craig, on the matter of the interpretation of 1Tim 2:11–15, there was some discussion of this view in a blog post here. In that thread I raised some questions about its viability based on an analysis of the syntax of the passage (unfortunately some of the responses in the comments seem to be missing, but there is still some useful discussion there).
well that does put us in a difficult situation re prophecy Mr Shields. Our women will have to have spontaneous revelations that they can predict before the service so that they can be weighed by the elders!
How do Carson etc relate this prophecy to OT prophecy?
“At this point, some of the women in the audience may have been feeling a little discouraged. If I’m not to teach or have authority over men in the church, what ministries are open to me? So it was refreshing to hear the third speaker, Fiona McLean, talk about the many ministries God gives to women.”
Thing is that all of that is conjecture. There are no gifts in any of the listings of gifts that are divied out according to gender. In addition to that, in the OT there is no record of God anywhere denying or restricting women from things we think today women should be restricted from. In short God didn’t say what you think He did.
“well that does put us in a difficult situation re prophecy Mr Shields. Our women will have to have spontaneous revelations that they can predict before the service so that they can be weighed by the elders!”
LOL :^) Try telling, no demanding, that God give women words at specified times. Somehow, I don’t think God is going to pay much attention to such shenanigans. He is going to send the Holy Spirit among and upon whomsoever He wills when He’s good and ready, when He got us good and ready, and it’s going to be the right timing. :^)
Hi Dan
I can’t remember now whether you were there (I’m presuming not?). You know me – early to bed early to rise. I can’t believe how many posts have gone up while I’ve been asleep!
The difficulty for me with your question and that of others’ is that I addressed many of these issues in my talk, but it’s difficult to convey what I said in brief statements on line. I’ll give it a go anyway!
The talks are apparently now on line at the Equal and Complementary website, so you can hear my talk in its entirety.
First, don’t take my comments as infallible – perish the thought. But I know you never have as my student anyway!
Take the Bible’s words as infallible.
Second, don’t sit lightly to or twist or water down what the Bible says. This is God’s word and we need to obey it. I spoke in my talk about how much this passage clashes with our society. That must not stop
us believing and obeying what it says.
Third, this passage really is very clear. Some passages are indeed harder to understand than others. This is not one of them.
Fourth, the word “authentein” (to have authority over) is indeed a happax (used only here in NT). However in my talk I referred to two chapters on this word in the 2nd edition of “Women in the Church” edited by Thomas Schreiner and Andreas Kostenberger which deal with this word. They prove conclusively that it should be taken as meaning “to have authority over”. It can have a positive meaning “have authority over” or a negative meaning “to domineer”. The latter meaning is not found until the 4th century AD. However more conclusive was the syntactical study that showed that where two ideas are paired grammatically as they are in verse 12 (teach and have authority) they are either both positive or both negative. “Teach” is always used positively in the NT in its absolute sense and therefore “authentein” must be used positively and have the meaning “have authority over”.
Fifth, this is not a minority view. In fact it has been held across denominations for 2,000 years until our generation. It is amazing that someone could think this a minority view: shows your age and the age in which we live!
Finally, no one of either camp builds their view of the passage on one word. However I refer again to the book “Women in the Church” and Mounce’s Word commentary. The latter has 30 pages on the passage. These are the two books I suggested people read at the conference. In my opinion they “nail it”.
Good luck in your exams.
Martin
Hi Mike
You raise good questions about the definition of church. I’ll try and be brief. Let me say that my intention is to encourage us to obey what the Bible says. I am not looking for a way out of obeying the word of God. If you think a Bible study group is a church/ congregational setting, then you should apply 1 Tim 2 to it.
How I would approach such a situation where every gathering is seen as church has been very easy in the past. In churches I have attended the women at church have obeyed this passage more strictly in the past than I have. Therefore I have not had an issue with obedience to this passage in those settings becuase in such conservative churches women refuse to teach men in all those settings. I don’t have to do anything. I don’t push for them to teach men. I do push for those who are suitable to teach women. I don’t ask them to run a Sunday type meeting if it’s Bible study because it’s not a Sunday type meeting.
I don’t differentiate between teaching and preaching in 1 Tim 2. Again, prophecy is not teaching (or preaching).
By “authoritative relationship” I am talking about appointed elders, which in 1 Tim 3 are male only. I’m not sure what the problem is with such authority. Elders are not infallible, as the word of God is, but they do have authority and we are to sit under it. Where they teach something that is not according to the word of GOd, we do not follow or obey their teaching. Where they do teach what the WOrd of God says, we do follow and obey their teaching. If I am in a church where the teaching elder(s) teach that 1 Tim 2 doesn’t say what the church has always taught it plainly says, then I will disagree with my teacher and follow what the Bible says. Of course as a male I will submit to such teachers, just as women do. The point in 1 Tim 2 (& 3) is that those few teaching elders will be men only.
Martin
Hi Craig
Sorry for my brief comments. Am I allowed to say that I was intrigued by your comments more than any others!?! I’m just trying to keep my comments brief – I’m not trying to fob your thesis off lightly. And thanks Martin Shields for directing us to where these ideas may have originated.
In my talk I spoke for a while about hermeneutics (overlapping with Neil’s talk). I talked about what is basically a hermeneutics of “clutching at straws”. I gave examples from commentaries. This where attempts are made to find any “loop hole” possible in words or phrases of a passage to avoid its plain meaning. I guess the question would be: if the church has so understood the passage as having its plain meaning for 2,000 years, how did they miss this interpretation to which you refer? The answer, I think, is that it isn’t a natural or credible reading. I’m trying to work out whether it is even possible (I strongly suspect not).
The reason verse 15 changes from singular to plural is not because verses 11-12 were speaking about a single woman, but because verses 13-14 were speaking about a single woman (Eve). “They” can’t be referring to men and women because men don’t give birth to children.
Hope this helps.
Martin
Martin said, “Craig, on the matter of the interpretation of 1Tim 2:11–15, there was some discussion of this view in a blog post here. In that thread I raised some questions about its viability based on an analysis of the syntax of the passage (unfortunately some of the responses in the comments seem to be missing, but there is still some useful discussion there).”
We changed the format of the blog and lost some of the comments. We do have them and will try and restore them. I believe it was a very worthwhile discussion on 1 Tim 2 that uses the inspired grammar Paul wrote to bring into question what some here see as the ‘plain reading’!
”The reason verse 15 changes from singular to plural is not because verses
11-12 were speaking about a single woman, but because verses 13-14 were
speaking about a single woman (Eve). “They” can’t be referring to men and
women because men don’t give birth to children.”
On the contrary, ‘they’ can be referring to a husband and wife. As such, the ‘they’ would fit in both instances.
This section is such a difficult read that surety may never come. The only thing I can say with surety, is that vs. 11-12 are NOT saying that all women are forbidden to teach all men.
Speaking of plain reading, Martin you said, “The authority resides in the Word of God/ gospel. However there is also authority in the position of eldership (Heb 13:17).”
Heb 13:17 does not say that elders have authority. To believe that it does would, I assume, be to confuse the word ‘submit’with ‘subordinate’. Submission can, but does not always involve authority. This is why in Eph 5 we are told to submit to one another. We cannot, however be subordinate to one another as subordination requires authority of one party over another.
I would have htought that anyone who spoke the truth of God spoke with God’s authority. I would have thought that whatever label you wanted to put on that speaking (prophecy, teaching, preaching, instructing) would have been through the Holy Spirit and with, therefore, God’s authority.
If I can ask, if it was not for Acts 18:26 would comps assume that women were not allowed to instruct men privately either? It seems strange that Timothy would have had to also read Acts to do his job properly!
“The point
in 1 Tim 2 (& 3) is that those few teaching elders will be men only.”
I’m guessing, Martin, that your sticking point for chapter 3 is in interpreting ‘one woman man’ (which BTW is an idiomatic saying IMO) as a round about way of saying an overseer should be a married man.
Hi Martin (Shields)
Great name! I want to respond to some of your comments. I realise that a problem we have here is talking back and forth on Jean’s (excellent) review of 3 conference talks. I have a feeling the conversation would be different if many of you had actually heard the talks (different questions and discussion). Nevertheless, we can’t get around that. But I think you would find the talks were not coloured by presuppositions or ignorance as such. Although the presupposition of all three speakers was a desire to obey what the Bible says.
Neil Chambers would be better to comment than me given that he addressed hermeneutics in his talk. Sadly his did not record (the other two should be up on the website now – Equal & Complementary). But he did address these issues in detail and at length. His discourse was anything but simplistic or naive or ignorant.
For myself I would differ from you on hermeneutics here. I certainly do not deny using extra-Biblical material in interpretation, but I would want to be very careful how I use it. No doubt complementarians will differ here too. I would not want to read the Bible through the lens of extra-Biblical material. I think the Bible can be understood as it is, by reading Scripture in light of Scripture. I am happy to read interesting extra-Biblical material, but I would not want to read the Word of God according to it. (WIsh I could flesh that out, but I want to brief). A corollary of such a reading would be that only experts on extra-Biblical material could comment accurately on the text, etc. We would have a separate priestly caste to whom regular punter Christians would need to go for the right interpretation of the Bible. I’m not saying original languages and extra-Biblical information isn’t helpful – it is, but as you say, the Bible is pretty clear anyway. Perhaps we could say that such extra material might add a depth to understanding.
Usually though extra-Biblical material will involve a side-argument in my opinion. For example an egalitarian approach to 1 Tim 2 can revolve around the education of women in the first century. Thus chapter one of “Women in the Church” (ed Kostenberger & Schreiner) investigates this historically and finds that some women were indeed educated. This is helpful for knocking down a false argument, but hardly adds to understanding of the passage.
Better leave it at that, this is a big topic and opens a whole new can of worms!
Martin
Martin, the she in verse 15 cannot be referring to Eve. It is impossible as Eve cannot do anything in order to win or lose her salvation. Eve is dead at the time Paul wrote. It must refer back to the last singular female, which would be the woman who is not permitted to teach and authentein a man.
I find it hard to understand why you said, ” if the church has so understood the passage as having its plain meaning for 2,000 years, how did they miss this interpretation to which you refer? The answer, I think, is that it isn’t a natural or credible reading. I’m trying to work out whether it is even possible (I strongly suspect not).”
This sounds like you want to run with Bible and tradition. It also sounds like you are not entering the discussion with an openness to what might be the truth. Was the church wrong about slavery for nearly 2000 years? We can get things wrong!
Hi Dave
Good point about verse 15. That is a slip up on my part. Yes, “she” is referring to the woman/ women generically, I agree. The point I was trying to make was rather that it is singular because it comes straight off verses 13-14, which refers to Eve.
As for your comment about the church’s reading of this passage for 2,000 years – yes, I will qualify that. We should be open to new interpretations and it is possible for the church to have had it wrong for 2,000 years. I am not advocating tradition over Scripture. What I am saying however is that our culture today very much dislikes the plain reading of Scripture here. It may seem to some an astounding coincidence that in an age of feminist and liberal interpretation we have suddenly found the right reading of 1 Tim 2. Wayne Grudem is rightly suggesting that such readings come from a modern liberal hermeneutic.
Martin
Hi folks!
I’m not even going to attempt to respond to most of these comments – Martin is better equipped, and he’s doing a great job anyway.
Three things in response to those who asked me something (Mike, Tamie and Tori):
– Mike, what I wrote re writing was a little confused. What I meant was that the tone and manner of how I speak to men (whether it’s preaching, prophecy or just conversation) is a bit like head-coverings in 1 Cor 11: it’s a way of me honouring the created order in my relationships with men. It’s not necessarily “leading people to understand” rather than “teaching” as you say, Mike (some use this to argue women can lead mixed inductive Bible studies, which I would prefer to see led by a man with a female co-leader, as I think this is a pretty authoritative teaching relationship which approaches 1 Tim 2) but, as you say, style and manner. I wish I could put my finger on it more than that. But really it’s just an eagerness and willingness to encourage men in servant leadership whenever and however possible.
– Tamie, I understand your concern – and yes, I’m also concerned that we love our egalitarian brothers and sisters in how we speak and relate to them, and that we’re clear about our fellowship with them on gospel issues. But what I have seen in my experience is another problem: where complementarians honour the Bible in everything they say, but apologise for it (as if it needs to be apologised for if we believe it is God’s good word to us and bleses us). Or, instead of teaching on it, it’s all about “debate” and “presenting different views equally”. As I said in my post, there’s nothing wrong with open debate and talking about our views. But there’s also a time and place for simply teaching the Bible. Why is this “clear and couragesous”? Because sometimes I think it’s fear that keeps us apologising and refusing to teach on this; and because clarity can be watered down if we’re so busy refining our position so as not to offend anyone that we limit its application as much as possible. If this is what God’s word is saying, then it’s good, healthy and true, and we’ll seek to teach and honour it with joy, love and conviction.
– Tori, the issue isn’t gifting, as was made clear in Fiona’s talk. There are men, as there are women, who are gifted in teaching but unable to teach for various reasons. A woman may have teaching gifts just as a man may have; but we are not called to use every gift we have in every context, but according to order, obedience and love. For a woman, this will mean her teaching gifts will be used for other women, as well as for children. Women teaching women is something which, sadly, often falls by the wayside – it’s often seen as something lesser than teaching mixed groups, and is sometimes even actively discouraged (I am not saying this always happens, but I have seen it happen more than once). But Titus 2 encourages women to teach women, and it’s a wonderful, fruitful way women can use teaching gifts!
As for the Old Testament, I wrote about that issue in regards to Deborah here.
And about propecy coming whenever it comes: yes, but men are still given the more authoritative role of weighing prophecies.
Thanks, Mike, Tamie and Tori, for your questions! I know this is hard to talk about on line with any clarity.
In his grace,
Jean.
Martin, the “she” in verse 15 is singular, not generic. To suggest it refers to the “woman” in 13-14 tells us that the “woman” is singular. Paul has not changed to singular because of his reference to Eve. This makes no sense, nor might I add is it a plain reading to the text!
I might add that I do not have a problem with the plain reading of this text. The fact that only about three of 50 translations translate the grammar correctly has not helped the issue over the last 2000 years. I might add that I do not see it as a coincidence that cultural changes have caused us to look more closely at passages like this. Once again, the same happened with the slavery discussion. The church was behind some secular movements on this front too.
It actually has nothing to do with a liberal hermaneutic. Respectfully I must point out that so far in this (short) discussion I have felt you have employed a more liberal hermeneutic than I have!
(the smiley face was designed to help soften the blow of the truth I just spoke in love. I hope it works!)
Hi Mike,
Not necessarily, and AFAIK there’s no requirement that only prophecy given by women should be judged. A prophet could stand and prophesy in the congregation and then the prophecy could be judged in the congregations hearing.
The primary distinction they make relates to authority — the authority of the OT writing prophets is “inherited” in the apostolic writings. NT prophets do not share that authority (as is clear in 1Corinthians and Acts).
Having said that, OT prophecy is itself not so simple — there were schools of prophets, false prophets, ecstatic prohpets, and so on. It is clear that authority was not something all who were identified as prophets shared equally.
Hi Martin,
Although I understand the desire you express, it is simply untrue that the Bible can be understood as it is without reference to extra-biblical material. If you’re reading a translation (English or any other), the process of translation inherently appeals to all manner of extra-biblical material simply to understand what the original language meant. If you read the original language, your understanding of those languages is built on knowledge gained from an array of both biblical and extra-biblical material.
Now a paraphrase should implicitly employ a more extensive appeal to such information, but even a “word for word” translation implicitly does so. The question this then raises is why do you arbitrarily cease examining such information once you have a Bible published in English?
It is also important to recognise that the terrain is not uniform. We need more help from extra-biblical information to understand what “baptism for the dead” than we do most other things Paul refers to (so much so, in fact, that I’m not aware that a clear understanding of the phrase has been identified)! I agree that many proposed readings of 1Tim 2, for example, prove to be improbable on close examination. That, however, does not mean all are automatically false or that they do not bear close examination.
Hi Jean!
You said, “As for the Old Testament, I wrote about that issue in regards to Deborah here.”
I read your post a while back, thanks! It would not let me comment but it let me send a message. I sent one with some comments but never had any reply. I would have appreciated your thoughts on my comments. Did you not get it?
Hi everyone. Will respond to comments soon.
A general comment or two first.
My push in my conference talk was for obedience to the Word of God. We should fear God, tremble at his Word and obey it. We should trust God’s lovingkindness and goodness – that he says what he says for our good and benefit and blessing.
I don’t think that women should wear head coverings to church (1 Cor 11). However if I meet a Christian who thinks that women should, I will be grateful to see that they are wanting to obey the word of God. I don’t agree with them, but praise God that they are keen to obey the Bible.
Second, an excellent treatment of the clarity of Scripture: Mark Thomson’s “A Clear and Present Word”.
Martin
Hi Jean
Thanks for your reply. I agree that there’s no need to apologise for a complementarian view.
I think the language of fear is really interesting. You mentioned that fear keeps us apologising and not teaching on the issue, which I suspect is true in some cases. However, my experience in Melbourne in the last two years has been hearing a lot of ‘us’ and ‘them’ talk between complementarian and egalitarian evangelicals about who will ‘win’ in Melbourne. That makes me wonder how much of taking a strong complementarian line is also motivated by fear.
I’m yet to see the conference on how egalitarians and complementarians work together though I was interested in the comments made by this woman about Lausanne. http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2010/11/rumblings_about_women_at_lausa.html
Hi Dave!
I never got your message, or I would have responded to it. I am sorry about that.
Jean.
Hi Teri!
Yeah, I don’t know. I’m not personally very interested in who “wins”. It’s an odd way to think about it, isn’t it?! Perhaps I’m a little more generation Y than baby boomer on this – although really I’m an X, which makes me like the middle child here!
I am, of course, eager to see complementarianism openly and joyfully taught in Melbourne. I’m eager to see hearts and minds shaped by God’s word on this, because I think it’s true and good. But that’s an individual thing, not a power-base thing. It’s about God’s word changing our hearts, and us rejoicing in his good plans for us.
In Christ,
Jean.
No worries Jean! Perhaps someone in the ‘Sola Panel’s’ inner workings can find it and pass it on.
Sorry Martin…the smiley face on which rested so much has not shown up on my computer. I hope it has on yours!
Sorry, Tamie, I called you Teri! A bit confusing, the similarity of your names. But I meant Tamie, of course! : )
Dave, you need a gap in your smiley face as the emoticons don’t seem to work on SP at the moment i.e. : ). Now there’s a vital piece of information! : )
”What I meant was that the tone and manner of how I speak to men (whether it’s preaching, prophecy or just conversation) is a bit like head-coverings in 1 Cor 11: it’s a way of me honouring the created order in my relationships with men.”
IMO this attitude toward men as first in the created order is one of the most frustrating types of hidden prejudices I’ve ever come across in life. Outside of Christianity, the way many gender hierarchalist comp men often tone themselves toward women, would be called patronizing.
A few years back I decided to do some personal research on this. So, I created an online ID of a male person. Among all the comp circles I was immediately respected even when disagreed with, with few exceptions. I could say the same things as a woman and be slighted, ignored or ?? I experienced first hand the way the women treated the men and frankly it seemed more like a false fawning than sincere acknowledgment of anything that was said. And IMO the way men treated the women in many instances was as if they thought only the men could dialogue with intelligence and comprehension.
There was a reason God created the man first, but it wasn’t so that women could fawn over them. No adult worth his or her ‘salt’ should desire to be fawned over.
Hi Teri.
Yeah, let’s have no fawning here, just love and respect – something both men and women could do a lot better, since we’re all sinners.
Jean.
Testing, testing…1, 2, 3…
Martin. You know how much I love you and how much I owe you. (Well maybe you don’t).
That was a sensational address – not just in its clarity and care – but in its unflinching submission to God’s and courage that what he is says is for our good.
Can I urge everyone to listen to this address, even if you think you have heard it all before:
http://equalandcomplementary.yolasite.com/resources/01 Martin Pakula.mp3
Highlights for me: concentric circles rather than gospel issue/non issue; dealing with the alternative views really well; a call to obey the Bible rather than our culture; and the plain reading of the text.
Still didn’t work…this must be personal… :-(
(sad face)
Could someone fix my link? It didn’t paste properly.
Jean,
”It’s not that simple. In many ways, Deborah is a reluctant leader. The fact that she’s leading Israel seems to be a sign of judgement, an indictment on the men of Israel for failing to take the lead (Isa 3:12).
This is quite incorrect. There is nothing in Judges 4 or 5 that depicts Deborah as reluctant. Barak was reluctant but we shouldn’t hold that against him, since they had been suffering under Sisera’s army for 20 years and unable to defeat them. Thus Barak’s reluctance was reasonable. Barak knew that as long as God’s chosen Judge was alive that He would be with her. (Judges 2:18)
Isa. 3:12 was for a time touted out and incorrectly interpreted to be saying that women shouldn’t lead. In fact it isn’t about women leading at all. Rather their leaders were immature and childlike and allowed their sensual wives to lead them about by the ‘nose’. All the good leaders had been taken away from them by the Lord. Try reading the whole chapter and the chapter before in order to get the gist of what is actually being said.
Deborah was a woman called by God to be the Judge of Israel. Because of her obedience to God the Israelites had peace for 40 years. We should praise God’s choices. He knows best.
Yes, the appeal to exclude extra-biblical knowledge is quite bizarre, and I suspect, not what the doctrine of perspicuity was ever saying.
I applaud your attitude Martin, to people wanting to obey the word of God, even when they differ with you in a more conservative direction. but would you equally rejoice when someone reads 1 Timothy differently to you and trys to be obedient by giving a place to women teaching in the congregation?
“Yeah, let’s have no fawning here, just love and respect – something both men and women could do a lot better, since we’re all sinners.”
Amen to that.
and can we take away the language of bravely standing up against the world?
It gets used on both sides of the debate and is simply a cheap way to define the opposite position as naughty and impure. Complementarian christians are quite different to the culture around them, so are egalatarian christians. Both are attempting to obey God’s word. (even if we can see people in both camps who may have mixed motives)
Hello from the behind-the-scenes editor…
Andrew: Your link didn’t work because the url has spaces in it. I did try and fix it for you, but those spaces make it nigh impossible, as the replacement code keeps getting stripped out. Everyone, please just go to http://equalandcomplementary.yolasite.com/ and follow the links to the talks.
Dave and Jean and everyone else who is missing the smiley faces: I am working on getting them back.
I did not mean to cause any offence. I just thought it was a really good talk. It does take bravery to teach the Bible, doesn’t it? I always pray for bravery before I speak at church.
Hi Dave and everyone else
Back again. Wow – the comments are coming thick and fast! Pity about the smiley faces – I was wondering about that! It’s hard to converse well online like this and those things can help.
Dave, I’ll try and respond to some of your comments.
About Hebrews 13. It says to obey your leaders. This sure sounds like they are in authority to me! As for submit and subordinate… Perhaps Jean could comment here too. I’m not sure why a distinction would be made between these words. My understanding of Eph 5 is that the husband is in authority over his wife and his wife submits to his authority. Is she subordinate? That would take us on to the area of the relations in the Trinity. By subordinate I would not want to mean inferior in essence, etc. The wife willing places herself under the authority of her husband and submits to him (is that not subordinate?).
As for what a complementarian would think without Acts 18 – can’t answer that because we have it (not trying to be ‘cute’ here, just stating the obvious). The point is to recognise the spectrum of women teaching men and to see that 1 Tim 2 is in a specific setting lest we fall into the danger of stopping all teaching by women, which the Bible is certainly not advocating.
As for verse 15 again. I simply refer you at this point really to any commentary, egalitarian, complementarian or otherwise.
Martin
Hi Andrew
I’m very grateful for your comment! I know you love me and the feeling is mutual! (Don’t tell anyone – I don’t want to lose the image of the tough Aussie male).
Love to Ruth.
Martin
Well, here we go with eternal subordination.
I’d like to note that one of the main theological defenders of ESS in Sydney is distancing himself from it now. Not publically yet. His concern isn’t the arguments of opponents (Giles etc), but the heresy he heres when his views are popularised.(you can probably guess that it isn’t Mark Baddley)
Hi Mike
Just to clarify: I am not suggesting we exclude extra-Biblical information. I am suggesting we don’t interpret the Bible by an outside source, but by itself. That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t use such information to inform our understanding. I want though to guard against over-turning a plain meaning of Scripture by appeal to information from outside the Bible. This leads to speculation, which can be answered in turn by more speculation. But without a doubt it is good to read the Bible in the original and to read extra-Biblical information (all of which I teach at Bible College). There’s a hermeneutics debate here again, and I refer again to Mark Thompson’s book “A Clear and Present Word” (also extra-biblical!).
As for applauding an egalitarian reading of 1 Tim 2. No I wouldn’t applaud it. I have read many egalitarian interpretations and apart from John Stott’s would not applaud any (but I wouldn’t call him egalitarian anyway). My reason for this is not blind prejudice but turns on the matter of obedience. The egalitarian interpretations I read seem to me to be attempts to avoid obeying the Bible. If they were seeking to obey it, I would applaud it.
Martin
I agree, Martin.
<b>I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.</b> 2 Tim 4:1-2
<b>Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you. </b> Tit 2:15
Preaching is not just an exercise in “sharing”. It examines the soul, convicts of sin, presses the conscience, and commands obedience. You cannot do this without authority. The preacher wields the sword of authority over his hearers (Heb 4:12-13)
A quick note:
The book which Martin plugs in his talk, Women in the Church edited by Kostenberger and Schreiner, should be read by anyone who wants to seriously assess the complementarian position on 1 Tim 2:11-14. I have just finished reading it, and it is brilliant. It is also not very technical (I don’t know Greek, and I understood it well). You just cannot argue with what is written there. The egalitarian exegesis of this text simply does not hold water.
The book is hard to get hold of in ordinary stores (eg. Koorong), but is available online with FREE DELIVERY for under AU $25.
See
http://www.booko.com.au/books/isbn/9780801029042
We sold out all the copies we had at the conference bookstall!
”About Hebrews 13. It says to obey your leaders. This sure sounds like they are in authority to me! “
Actually, it says to be willing to be persuaded. It’s from peitho. There are connotations of authority, but not the way most people like to take it. We are to obey governments. Our leaders are not rulers but leaders, guides and directors toward something in particular — the presence of God. We are to be as the Bereans that Paul praised and listen willingly, willing to be persuaded, but careful to check that what is spoken is correctly within Scripture. Scripture is our authority. And when we speak we should speak authoritatively, not because of ourselves, but because of the truths of Scripture we are to speak.
I would be interested in hearing how you think our leaders exercise authority over fellow believers, since that is part of our current Bible Study at my church.
Martin, yes Hebrews tells us to obey and submit to our elders. Why? You say it is because they are in authority but this is imported into the terxt. The text, read plainly tells us why. Because they watchover us and we should make it a joy for them.
No, we do not have to go to the ESS discussion, but rather go to a dictionary. Look up submit and subordinate and note the difference. For someone/thing to be subordinate it/they is/are inferior. This is the definition. Submit, no such meaning, though it CAN be used in that context.
Martin, you said, “As for verse 15 again. I simply refer you at this point really to any commentary, egalitarian, complementarian or otherwise.”
How about you direct me to a commentary and I will respond to it? This does sound a bit like, “Read this and go away little one…perhaps you will learn something!” I have read commentaries, but I prefer to also come to my own conclusion as to what scripture means. Craig began, and I have continued to give you reason why we do not accept the comp interpretation. You do not have to deal with it, but please say this rather than sending me to the library!
Finally Martin you said, “The egalitarian interpretations I read seem to me to be attempts to avoid obeying the Bible. If they were seeking to obey it, I would applaud it.”
If this is true then you should applaud what Craig and I have suggested. It tries to understand scripture as scripture was written so that we can obey it. Please, at least give me some evidence as to why the ‘she’ in 15 is not a singular woman and how that does not tell us that 13-14 refers to a singular woman. This appears fair, rather than discounting it. There has been a lot of talk about ‘plain reading’ and ‘obeying the word’…it does not seem that much to ask!
Rachel…I would love to be able to smile!
Rachel…I would love to be able to smile!
try this… :^)
Teri, I am already some what insecure about my nose shape and size. I cannot try that.
Try this then, Dave :-} – ooh…you don’t have funny lips, do you?
Hi Teri
Peitho means obey in the passive, as in Heb 13:17.
As for your question – good question! I certainly need to do more thinking here myself. I guess we Protestants have tended to emphasise the authority inherent in the Word of God (righlty) so much that we sometimes miss these verses (Heb 13:17, etc) which speak of an authority inherent in church elders. Clearly they are under the authority of the word themselves. But that doean’t mean they don’t have authority as well. I take it that a church leader has the authority to run the church for the serving and building up of those believers. That would mean we are to follow their lead in this. This I presume would work out much like marriage. It might be on an area where we agree, or where we disagree. It might be on a ‘big’ issue or ‘small’ one. For instance the leader might want to change something in the service (the way we sing or some structured part of the service, etc). We might not like that. But we should make their work a joy and submit to their leadership.
I know that’s brief and much more could be said.
Martin
Hi Teri!
On Deborah: she is reluctant in the sense that she encourages Barak to take the lead. You don’t see any of the other judges doing this – they lead the armies of Israel themselves. Of course, you could say this is cultural; but she does (unwillingly) accompany Barak as he leads the armies. If you follow the references in my post I think you’ll see that male leadership is the general pattern throughout the Old Testament. In some ways, what she does is akin to prophecy: being a judge was more of a charismatic role than that of a king or priest, and these were reserved for men. I have immense admiration for Deborah – more than any other judge besides Samuel, she was godly and honourable! Yes, she was raised up by God; and yes, I’m sure she spoke his words with joy, not reluctance. But I do think, from her relationship with Barak and the tone of her victory song, that she was eager for men to take the lead, and saddened when they didn’t.
In Christ,
Jean.
Hi Dave
I didn’t mean to fob you off with verse 15 (re go see a commentary, etc). In my conference talk I didn’t comment on verse 15 at all (I had prepared on it, but there wasn’t enough time). I don’t think it is pertinent to the main argument of 1 Tim 2:8-15. It’s important, of course. And we are not even talking about what it means, but a particular aspect of it. The main point of the passage in my opinion is very clear (verses 11-12). But as for verse 15, Mounce’s commentary was good, but so too Knight, Towner, Marshall, Stott, Fee, etc. They are mainly dealing with other issues in verse 15 (same ones keep coming up across the commentaries). But Mounce does deal with what you raise (I think). I feel like I have answered it already. I’m trying not to be too blunt (and not succeeding as usual!). It seems to me that the reading you are suggesting is either implausible or impossible. The reason most books/ commentaries haven’t commented on it is that the passage simply doesn’t read this way. I don’t know of any egalitarian commentary (to my knowledge – happy to be corrected) that would take the passage this way. It seems clear that women in general are being spoken about. I stand by my comments about the connection of v15 to vv13-14, not vv11-12.
As for hermeneutics, what this boils down to is what I have called a “clutching at straws” hermeneutic. That is, attempts to latch on to any possible meaning of a word that would allow the passage to be interpreted in a way differently to the plain meaning of the text. I can’t see how this is an attempt to obey the Bible.
It seems to me we can’t progress much further on this? Feel free to have the last word.
Martin
Dave,
Martin asked me to say something about submission and subordination. Not sure what to say, but I’ll try!
I agree with Martin that there is an authority relationship inherant in what it say in Hebrews 13.
As for Ephesians 5 – “submit to one another” – this shouldn’t be read in the sense that every Christian is called to submit equivilently to every other Christian. Servants obey masters; children obey parents; congregation members obey teaching elders.
There’s a break in the Greek between a long sentence leading up to “submit to one another” which includes lots of “-ings” – I think it’s speaking, singing, thanking, submitting – so the NIV is unhelpful when it breaks up this sentence and groups “submit to one another” with what follows as if it was a qualifying introduction to the husband/wife section. The submission between wives and husbands isn’t reciprocal when it comes to submission, as the following verses in Ephesians show (and the ones on parents and children etc. too!).
Yes, there is subordination (in the sense of authority – obedience) as well as submission in these relationships. To be subordinate is not to be inferior – any more than I am ontologically inferior to a boss or a prime minister. Order is a good blessing of God, not something negative. Of course both leadership and submission can be abused! But when practised with love and selflessness, they aren’t onerous: they’re beautifully designed to point to the relationship between Christ and the church, they are healthy and good.
In his grace
Jean.
Hi Martin,
Please don’t worry about the fobbing! Also, I have not found you ‘blunt’ (even without smiley faces) but gracious (thanks). Thanks also for letting me have the last say, though of course I would welcome any further interaction!
If this passage is important, and the commentaries CANNOT agree on the meaning of verse 15 (and have not for 2000 years), then how can you say you understand the passage? It is easy to say verse 15 is not pertinent, if you do not understand it. Perhaps you do understand it and tell me why there is a singular ‘she’ and a plural ‘they’ while maintaining 1 Tim 2:12-15 as a prohibition against all women teaching. If so I would love to hear it. I am seeking the truth.
If the reading I am suggesting is implausible or impossible as you suggest, then please show me how and why. As I said, I am seeking the truth.
You can stand firm on your comments connecting verse 15 to 13-14 and not 11-12, but you might like to ask yourself why Paul says, “but she will be delivered through the bearing of children, IF THEY REMAIN in…”. The grammar makes it clear that she will be delivered if they continue in certain actions. Once again, Eve cannot continue in any actions to help her be delivered, she is dead.
I realise I am repeating myself to some degree, but you simply have not responded to these issues. It is easy to say egals are using a liberal hermeneutic in response to social norms, but it is tempting to ask if you are using a liberal hermeneutic in response to certain social norms within the theological world! If the people who write commentaries have not understood the verse, should we not make an effort to do so?
Thanks for the interaction Martin!
Hi martin, i understand your aversion to ‘clutching at straws’ hermeneutics. But you repeatedly seem to assume that the ‘plain reading’ of a text is something that everyone agrees on and some try to avoid. The assumption is that if you hold to this ‘plain reading’ then there is no hermeneutics going on. As Martin Sheilds has pointed out this is hopelessly naive. This never, ever happens, even with texts that we all agree on. This doesn’t mean your reading is wrong, or even that your reading isn’t better, but it is not the ‘plain meaning’. In a sense, everyone is aiming at the ‘plain reading’, unless we so privellege our own culture and time that we think it overrides that of the original communicators. That would be an incredibly modern and liberal thing to do, and is always the danger of claiming a ‘plain reading’
Hi Jean! It is my day off and I should be tidying the shed…but this is so interesting! (SMILEY FACE)
I am glad you agree with Martin. Please just show where the authority is and where it is coming from. I assume by ‘inherent’ you mean ‘implicit’ and therefore not actually in the passage. If so, then surely, as I asked for before, someone can show me another verse that speaks of the authority of elders.
You said, “As for Ephesians 5 – “submit to one another” – this shouldn’t be read in the sense that every Christian is called to submit equivilently to every other Christian. Servants obey masters; children obey parents; congregation members obey teaching elders.”
I believe that it is saying that every Christian should submit to every other Christian. I cannot understand how you can say it means anything different. Even Calvin in his commentary on this passage says this, though he rightly connectss submission here to love. He says where there is Christian love then service to one another abounds (or words to the effect!).
With regards to Ephesians…in the original Greek texts there were no breaks at all.
The verses do not show one way submission in relationships. Look at them closely. They do pick up some significant differences in the different types of relationships, but note how fathers are not to provoke their children? Note how the slaves are to obey their lords as though they were obeying Christ…and masters are told to do the same thing!
To be subordinate is to be inferior in some way (not always ontologically…). This is what the dictionary tells us. If you do not like the word, then perhaps you can use a different one? Submission does not require authority. Once again, choose another word if you do not like the meaning of it!
I believe that the created order is good. I simply do not believe the created order says that a man has authority over a woman because he is a man and she is a woman. I do not believe scripture says a woman cannot teach men because she is a woman.
Finally, in regards to Deborah I believe that you have read into the text. If you look at what she says she will do and what she does, she never changes. She follows the plan God gave her. To say she is hesitant or reluctant is not true, unless you want to suggest that she was reluctant to do other than what God told her to do!
Cheers!
“On Deborah: she is reluctant in the sense that she encourages Barak to take the lead.”
Jean,
Deborah is telling Barak that she knows that God has already told him to lead the army. She called him to her to encourage Barak to obey God. It’s not at all about encouraging him to do something she was supposed to do. Deborah is quite well seen as a strong leader in her own, if you read through chapters 4 and 5.
“Peitho means obey in the passive, as in Heb 13:17.
I disagree. The word is about persuasion. Thus persuasion in the passive is to allow oneself to be persuaded to obey or heed what is being presented. You cannot divorce the element of persuasion from the word.
”If you follow the references in my post I think you’ll see that male leadership is the general pattern throughout the Old Testament. In some ways, what she does is akin to prophecy: being a judge was more of a charismatic role than that of a king or priest, and these were reserved for men.”
Jean,
A lot of assumptions here. The fact that more men are used in leadership is not the same as women being not allowed or even not preferred. It just means more men are used. :^)
As for being a leading Prophet of the era, that may have been even more authoritative than being The Judge of the era. The Prophet was the most authoritative position of leadership until God allowed kings. The Judge was not a charismatic figurehead, but like the High Priest (not just one of the priests) was responsible for making judgments even of life and death. To refuse to follow the judgments rendered by the Judge of the nation was an automatic death sentence. Its all right there in Scripture. There is no word of Scripture in the whole of the OT that says that there were callings reserved for men that women were not allowed to do. All we know about the priesthood is that there were no women priests recorded. Many make the jump from there that there were not supposed to be any. We just don’t know absolutely. And it really doesn’t matter. We don’t have Levitical priests anymore; no tribe of Levites.
”which speak of an authority inherent in church elders. Clearly they are under the authority of the word themselves. But that doean’t mean they don’t have authority as well. I take it that a church leader has the authority to run the church for the serving and building up of those believers. That would mean we are to follow their lead in this. This I presume would work out much like marriage. It might be on an area where we agree, or where we disagree. It might be on a ‘big’ issue or ‘small’ one. For instance the leader might want to change something in the service (the way we sing or some structured part of the service, etc). We might not like that. But we should make their work a joy and submit to their leadership. “
I agree that our spiritual leaders have an authority. According to Scripture, the reason we are to remember and consider them, is not to obey their directions but to imitate their faith. We are to obey God and God’s Word and Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. His Words of Truth do not change. In verse 17 the word is peithesthe (from peitho; to persuade), which is essentially saying something like be being persuaded. In other words listen attentively with a willingness to be persuaded to obey or heed the words of our leaders. We are to have this attentiveness so that their ministry of serving us is not done with grief but with joy.
Christian leaders have authority, but it is NOT like a king who rules, or presidents who decree or Judges who will punish disobedience, nor like a father to his children (or an imagined authority of a husband over a wife). We are fellow believers, brothers and sisters, and a priesthood of believers. Christian leaders in the five fold ministries upon which the building up of the body of Christ is indeed dependent to a certain degree must exercise a spiritual influence that is to be deeply centered in the presence of God in their lives. If what someone preaches harms individuals instead of sin, or builds up the speaker instead of Christ, or sets one part of the body of Christ against the other part, then they must not be followed. We must always do what Paul said, and listen but search the Scriptures for ourselves. All the while we must maintain a certain appreciative respect and honor, willing to yield, for those who give of their lives to serve the rest of the Body of believers.
Thanks Martin.
Sorry I missed your point during the Seminar. As you know, I arrived late thanks to a face to face meeting with Whitehorse Road doing 50kph. But this is not an irrelevancy. I simply want to make the point that my theology is framed within the context of hardship (making it doubly valid).
Keeping your previous remarks in mind I still think there are still remarkably few passages explicitly dealing with the issue and they are still contentious – so I would still be unwilling to build doctrines that greatly impact the church on them alone.
As to the plain reading of the text. That strikes me as fallacious – you simply cannot do that. You can appeal to your plain reading of the text. The reality is that there are people that read the text differently.
For example, further on, it says in 1 Timothy 2:15 that women ‘will be saved through child-bearing’. The plain reading of that text is that women will be saved through childbearing – it is giving birth that saves them.
And that is a very-counter cultural statement – the culture disagrees.
A similar thing is going on in that passage, and so it needs to be interpreted (and maybe relativised) by the context of the historical milleau, social context, etc. etc.
Hi Dave,
Yeah, I realised that about Greek soon after I posted it. Whoops! I think the point the Greek scholar I talked to about this was making is that there’s a natural grammatical link between the “-ings”. It’s only important if you take “submit to one another” as, by definition, negating the authority relationships described in the following verses in Ephesians.
I’d be happy to call submission “reciprocal” if we define it as “serving” or “putting others needs before my own”. My guess, without having read Calvin on this for a very long time, is that this is the kind of submission he means, and I’m more than happy with that. I’ve often wondered if this could be the sense this verse should be read, to be honest, when I’ve heard “submit to one another” interpreted as “submit to others when the relationship demands it”.
But I don’t agree submission is reciprocal if it’s defined in terms of authority (which is the way it’s clearly used as the passage in Ephesians goes on). I do think that there are relationships of authority, including elders and congregational members, that aren’t reciprocal. “Inherant” was probably one of those words that just slipped into my sentence and didn’t mean anything – sorry! There is an explicit relationship of authority between elders and congregation members, parents and children, husbands and wives. Yes, the leaders in these relationships are to love/not to provoke/etc., but they are still to lead.
How the dictionary defines a word isn’t definitive for how it’s used in the Bible. But even if we agree that “inferior” is a necessary part of its meaning, I’d argue you can be inferior heirarchically or structually even when you’re not ontologically inferior, or less worthy of love and respect, or less gifted or godly. I’m very happy to use the word submission, even with “inferior” attached (although this is not a word I would use because it’s so open to misinterpretation) if it’s clear that inferior only applies to having a lesser authority rather than having less value as a person. There is a mutual responsibility in a relationship of authority for each to love, serve and care for the other.
Deborah did change her plan in regard to Barak. She wasn’t going to go with him, then she did because of his reluctance to lead without her. It’s not that her willingness to obey God and be committed to his plans changed, but her individual decision to help actively lead the armies did change because of Barak’s unwillingness to lead.
As for the rest of what you say, I’m not sure we’re going to come to agreement about this. We might have to agree to disagree at this point!
In Christ,
Jean.
Martin,
Yes it may show my age – but then again – what is newer is better, right?
Then again, if holding a recent view makes be young, holding a view 2000 years old makes you sound practically antiquated
But, jokes aside, I still think that my point that it is valid that it is a minority view – both views are, given that the debate is only being held within a specific quarter of the church during a specific (and recent) period of time.
The term complementarian is a fairly recent invention
Teri,
“Deborah is telling Barak that she knows that God has already told him to lead the army. She called him to her to encourage Barak to obey God. It’s not at all about encouraging him to do something she was supposed to do. Deborah is quite well seen as a strong leader in her own, if you read through chapters 4 and 5.”
I agree with what you say here.
“If what someone preaches harms individuals instead of sin, or builds up the speaker instead of Christ, or sets one part of the body of Christ against the other part, then they must not be followed. We must always do what Paul said, and listen but search the Scriptures for ourselves. All the while we must maintain a certain appreciative respect and honor, willing to yield, for those who give of their lives to serve the rest of the Body of believers.”
On this, at least, we agree wholeheartedly!
Jean.
Hi Daniel
D’Oh! I can’t believe I forgot what happened to you on the way to the conference. Sorry! Now I remember!
Go to the website and listen to my talk and then tell me what you think.
God bless
Martin
I’m surprised that not everyone agrees with Christian leaders (and preachers) having authority over those who they lead. (cf. Heb 13)
Yes, it should be servant-leadership, not harsh rule, but it is still leadership. And with leadership comes authority..
Command and teach these things… Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1 Tim 4:11-16
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. James 3:1
Leaders/teachers have such a responsibility over their flock that they will be judged with greater strictness, and even the salvation of their listeners hangs on what they teach. They have a duty to “command” their listeners, not just “offer an opinion”.
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 1 Tim 5:17
He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 1 Tim 3:4-5
Clearly, there is authority here, as of a father over his household.
It is a false dichotomy to say that the Word has the authority, not the preacher. Ink on a page does not wield authority—a leader in relationship with his listeners does. A preacher is not a mere pipeline through which divine communication flows; when he preaches the Word he embodies and represents the authority that comes from the Word.
These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority Titus 2:15
”Leaders/teachers have such a responsibility over their flock that they will
be judged with greater strictness, and even the salvation of their listeners
hangs on what they teach. They have a duty to “command” their listeners,
not just “offer an opinion”.
And tell me what they are to command, if not the Word of God. The Word of God is our authority, not a mere human being no matter what his opinion. The Words of Truth are much more than mere ink on paper. We do not obey humans but God. Well, unless you are of the opinion that all leaders are miniature ‘popes’.
”when he preaches the Word he embodies and represents the authority that comes from the Word.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Unless its something like this….
Heb. 4:12For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Jean, you said, “I’d be happy to call submission “reciprocal” if we define it as “serving” or “putting others needs before my own”. “
Cool!
You then said, “But I don’t agree submission is reciprocal if it’s defined in terms of authority (which is the way it’s clearly used as the passage in Ephesians goes on).”
But it is not clearly used in terms of authority in the rest of the chapter. If we take all of Ephesians 5 in context then we realise that Paul has asked everyone to submit to everyone, and he has asked every one to love each other as Christ has loved us. There is nothing new that he asks husbands and wives to do that he has not already asked us all to do. Where does it say that there is a different type of submission for wives or love for husbands?
You then said, “There is an explicit relationship of authority between elders and congregation members, parents and children, husbands and wives. Yes, the leaders in these relationships are to love/not to provoke/etc., but they are still to lead.”
But you left out one, slaves and masters! I assume you believe there is explicit authority between slaves and masters, but is it a part of the created order?
You then said, “How the dictionary defines a word isn’t definitive for how it’s used in the Bible.”
But if we are going to translate words from the original language to English we need to use the right word. I cannot translate John 3:16 to “For God so ‘liked’ the world…”. If you want Heb 13 to say that elders have authority, then you need other words than ‘obey’ and ‘submit’. The problem is I think the word submit fits the passage, as it does Eph 5-6. If you are going to use those words, then you need to ‘submit’ to their meaning!!
You said, “Deborah did change her plan in regard to Barak. She wasn’t going to go with him, then she did because of his reluctance to lead without her.”
Please give me the verse where she says what she is not going to do (and tell me what it is she was not going to do), and then give me the verse that says she did it, and what it was she did. I am just not seeing it!
Dave
Hey Jereth! So…we meet again!
You said, “I’m surprised that not everyone agrees with Christian leaders (and preachers) having authority over those who they lead. (cf. Heb 13)”
We have been discussing Heb 13 and the word authority is not used…
You quoted 1 Tim 4:11. Yep, authority is implied. The word in the Greek is not ‘command’ but probably more accurately translated as ‘direct’. But where does this authority come from? Is it from Timbo? From the preceeding verses I believe it comes from the living God…not Timbo the ‘Elder’.
You point out that elders have more responsibility. I agree. We see this in the Heb 13 passage. They watch over those in their care. This does not mean that they have authority. We are told to submit to them essentially out of love for them…that their task might be a joy not a burden.
You said, “He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? Clearly, there is authority here, as of a father over his household.”
Paul also tells us that mothers should rule their household too. Thoughts?
You said, “It is a false dichotomy to say that the Word has the authority, not the preacher. Ink on a page does not wield authority—a leader in relationship with his listeners does. A preacher is not a mere pipeline through which divine communication flows; when he preaches the Word he embodies and represents the authority that comes from the Word.”
Amen Jereth! You have picked up on a useful point. Problem is that the authority with which I preach the Word comes from the Word made flesh, not the ink on a ‘page type Word’. This is why Heb 4 speaks about the Word in the way it does. So yea, encourage and rebuke with all authority, the authority of Jesus. After all, Colossians tells us that Jesus is the source of all authority!
There has been some talk about plain reading of the text. I have a question. When King Saul lost his kingship, was it his “reading” of the command that he was punished for?
Here comes his “reading” of the text.
And a timely word. No Saul. There is a “reading” that matters.
There is a meaning in every text. I’m not arguing what it means. But there is a meaning and it is that meaning by which we will be judged (if we are a teacher of God’s word).
Hi Teri / Dave.
(Dave, yes we meet again … at last. When I left you i was but the learner. Now, I am the master <Grin> )
We are all in agreement that ultimately authority comes from God. That is not in dispute. But this does not mean that there is no such thing as derived authority. A Sargeant has authority over his privates that is derived from the General above him. It is still real authority.
Church leaders are authorised to command their flock according to Scripture. If the flock does not listen, or persists in sin, the leader may enact discipline (which may be anything from a stern rebuke to excommunication).
Ink on a page cannot challenge/discipline/command/rebuke a rebellious person. That is what I meant when I said that ink on a page does not wield authority. A closed Bible sitting on a table is the Word of God written, but it cannot be effective unless someone opens it and uses it. This someone is the preacher.
Heb 4:12 – a sword does not wield itself. It needs a wielder.
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you Matt 28:18-20
This is Jesus’ charge to the leaders of his church. All authority is given to Jesus. But this authority is passed on to his apostles who are authorised to teach and command on Jesus’ behalf. Jesus does not wield all his authority personally, he delegates it to the leaders of his church.
Andrew,
You’ve completely missed the issue, I’m afraid. In 1Sam 15 (the passage you refer to), Yhwh speaks to Saul through Samuel, commanding him to “So go now and strike down the Amalekites. Destroy everything that they have. Don’t spare them. Put them to death – man, woman, child, infant, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey alike.” After receiving this command from Samuel, Saul assembles the army and attacks the Amalekites. It seems unlikely that Samuel issued Yhwh’s command in Chinese and translators were called in to translate the meaning of the command into Hebrew. Rather, Samuel spoke God’s command using the language Saul also spoke (including all the cultural, social, and linguistic norms with which both were familiar).
Our issue is that we are presented with a text from a time, culture, and language distant from our own. We haven’t grown up understanding the idioms, the words, the syntax and grammar. These must be understood — whether by ourselves or by those who translate the text into English. Hence “reading” becomes a real issue for us.
And I think everyone on this thread would agree with this statement. Yet if we promote a “plain reading” that proves incorrect because it blithely imposes our interpretive grid on the text and ignores factors which would alter the significance of the text, we teach the wrong thing.
The authority that believers carry is to speak truth. In fact, each and every believer is authorized to speak with authority. The purpose of leadership is to spur every believer toward a closer relationship with God SO THAT God may use them to speak forth God’s Truths, to pray for healing, to deliver the ones in bondage and so forth. These are not things reserved for a special class of believers called leaders.
”A closed Bible sitting on a table is the Word of God written, but it cannot be effective unless someone opens it and uses it.
This someone is the preacher. “
That someone is everyone, not just preachers and teachers. Leaders are specially equipped by God as a life gifted to bless and minister to all believers they are around. They are there to give their lives away just like Jesus did, for the upbuilding of the living body of Christ. The authority we have is not about commanding and ruling, but about serving and giving away our lives to bless others.
”Jesus does not wield all his
authority personally, he delegates it to the leaders of his church.”
Who in turn are to admonish, encourage, teach, preach, pray for and spur on the body of believers with all their strength so that the believers will walk in the same authority that Jesus walked in. Ultimately, we are all just brothers and sisters who are to help each other be more like Jesus.
What do we mean by a “plain reading of the text?
Here is my example on 1 Tim 2:11-12
In verse 11 it says:
“Let a woman learn in quietness, in full submission.”
First, note that this verse is teaching that women are to learn the Bible.
Second, it says how a woman is to learn: 1) “in quietness” and 2) “in full submission”.
1)“in quietness”.
The word “quietness” can mean ‘silence’. It doesn’t mean that here. For example, 1 Cor 11 speaks about women prophesying in church – that is not silence in the church. And, another example, verse 2 of 1 Tim 2 speaks about men and women living “quiet” lives, using the same word. That is, Christians under peaceful rule can live, quiet, peaceful lives. That doesn’t mean living ‘silent’ lives – without ever speaking!
Women learning “in quietness” doesn’t mean learning in silence. Women are to learn “in quietness” by listening attentively to the one who is teaching, with deference, and without disputing or arguing,
2)“in full submission”.
Women are also to learn “in full submission”. That is, they are to sit under the authority of the teachers of the church. Now chapter 3 makes it clear that these teachers of the church are male elders. This is saying then that women are to be in full submission to them.
Thus verse 11 is saying that women are to learn in quietness – that is listening attentively to the church teachers, and that women are to learn in full submission – that is under the authority of those church teachers.
Verse 12
Verse 12 says: “I do not permit a woman to teach nor to have authority over a man, but to be in quietness.”
Verses 11 and 12 are clearly parallel. The words “in quietness” occur again at the end of verse 12,
holding the two verses closely together. Learning in quietness is parallel to not teaching; learning in full submission is parallel to not having authority over a man.
Paul is saying that a woman is to learn quietly in church, not to teach men; and she is to be in full submission to the male teachers, and not to have authority over men.
The passage is actually very clear. It is saying that women are not to teach men in church, and that women are not to have authority over men in the church.
That is a plain reading of 1 Tim 2:11-12.
The egalitarian commentaries I have read, if good (eg Fee) agree with this and then say it does not apply to us anymore. But it is still the plain reading of the text.
Martin
Hi Jereth,
have you got an example in the NT of a leader unilaterally excommunicating someone? i had the impression that this was the congregations priority.
Dave,
“But it is not clearly used in terms of authority in the rest of the chapter. If we take all of Ephesians 5 in context then we realise that Paul has asked everyone to submit to everyone, and he has asked every one to love each other as Christ has loved us. There is nothing new that he asks husbands and wives to do that he has not already asked us all to do. Where does it say that there is a different type of submission for wives or love for husbands?”
Do you really not think there is a reason Paul calls husbands to love and wives to submit? Was it random, and could he have equally stated the opposite, with the woman in the position of Christ and the man in the position of the church? Do you really not think that he wants children to obey their parents but not parents to obey their children? Or, for that matter, slaves and masters? Oh, dear, I’m not sure we’re ever going to agree on this! I guess it’s up to others to read the passage and make up their minds.
I’m happy to include slaves and masters. It was just an oversight. The modern equivilent being bosses and employees. His theological appeal isn’t to the created order here, but to obedience to our greater master, Christ. The fact that he doesn’t use a “created order” argument here doesn’t mean it’s not applicable to men and women, where this argument is used in several places in the NT.
I made it clear I’m quite happy with the word “submit”, even with the meaning “inferior”, if by it we’re referring to inferiority of position rather than of value, and if we allow that the one in leadership is to love and serve the one in the “inferior” position.
Judges 4:8-9 – she goes “because of the course you are taking” i.e. Barak. I guess you could argue she’s already planning to go, although that’s not how I read it. But really, the main point I want to make is that Deborah, under God, supported and encouraged male leadership.
Okay, I think that does it. Like Martin, I’m very happy for you to have the last word here! I’ve run out of words, and I’ve got to go and pick up my kids from school and then cook dinner – my computer time is up for now.
In his grace and with every desire for your good,
Jean.
Mike,
I believe that the eldership of a church has the authority to discpline aberrant members without first going to a vote of the whole church membership. I think that this is scriptural.
My point is not about excommunication specifically, but discipline in general. And the exercise of discipline (one among various leadership functions) requires leaders to have authority over the flock.
[an elder] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. Titus 1:9