I spent two 2 days at the mission’s conference at Trinity College Of Florida talking to mission’s organizations and missionaries. I love hearing about what God is doing around the world and opportunities to partner with people who are reaching out to those who have never had a chance to hear the Gospel. There were different workshops to go attend from various organizations all talking about different ways they were reaching out to the lost, the particular people groups they were focusing on and how God was working through them to break down ethnic/racial/cultural barriers to further the Kingdom.
The main speaker was Gary Peterson from Wycliffe Bible Translators. Their goal is to translate the Bible into every language so that all have the opportunity to hear and read about salvation through Christ. He is an amazing man of God and unfortunately put some things out there that are true about Christianity today. Not all Christians share this same passion to reach out to those who have never heard the Gospel. They are selfish and fixated on themselves and their own circumstances. Gary said that he could not count the times that he has heard people say “I just wish Jesus would come back today and get us out of this mess so all the problems would just go away.” Essentially saying “It’s all about me and how bad I have it, I don’t care about the rest of the world, and I want my life to be rainbows and sunshine.”
Don’t get me wrong. I look forward to the day Christ returns. That is the hope I live for and the promise that He gave us. But until that time comes I want to make the most of every opportunity I have to share the Gospel with those who are lost and doomed to judgment on the day Christ does return. I don’t want to think about how bad I have it because I know what my eternal destiny has in store for me. I want to be focused and centered on those who have no hope and offer it to them. I actually don’t want Christ to come for a while because we have a lot of work to do in taking the Gospel to every tribe and nation. There are also friends and family that I want to see in the Kingdom. Until everyone has a chance to hear and respond I don’t want Christ to come.
We have to get past ourselves and realize that it is our responsibility to bring reconciliation to this world. Christians have a hope that allows us not to be concerned with our circumstances because we know where we will be when it is all said and done. Let us leave this selfish attitude behind and begin to focus on the work God has called us to do. The problem today is no different than in Luke 10. The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Quit worrying about your earthly problems and focus on the eternal judgment that is coming to this world. Christ has come and He is coming again. Let us not hope for His second coming until we have completed the work He has given us.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Authorial Intent
When it comes to reading the Bible one has to be very careful not to use it as book of pithy statements that you choose from to offer comfort to someone who is struggling with something. Context is the key to understanding the Bible. The problem is that in order to understand context most of the time you have to read the entire book. The writers of the Bible were not writing random thoughts that came to mind. They were writing a story and the only way to understand a story is to read the entire thing. Let’s be reasonable. Imagine you picked up a 50 page book (very small for a book) and randomly opened it and read a paragraph and concluded that within that paragraph you knew what the book was about. That is complete nonsense. Yet somehow we do this with the Bible.
One of the best ways to understand context is as you read and you see a recurring theme or idea make note of it and trace it through the entire book. As you read the Bible you will see things being repeated over and over again because the author wants you to pay close attention to them. They are keys to understanding what he wants to say and you to understand. Once you have traced the theme through a book you will begin to see breaks in thought and transitions into other concepts or ideas. After you have done all this you can make a purpose statement about why the author wrote this book based on the themes you have traced through it. Once you have a purpose statement you can compliment it by emphasizing the reason you chose this purpose based on the themes you have seen throughout the book.
To help illustrate what I mean I have gone through the book of Mark and traced 3 themes, outlined it, and made a purpose and compliment statement. Since blogger will not let me insert rows and columns you will have to click on the picture to enlarge it.
Outline of Mark
Introduction 1:1-20
1. John the Baptist’s ministry 1-8
2. Jesus baptized and tempted 9-12
3. Jesus calls His first disciples 13-20
Beginning of Jesus’ ministry, His authority and majesty unveiled 1:21-3:19
1. Cast out demon and heal many 1:21-34
2. Jesus gets alone with the Father in prayer 1:35-39
3. Healing of leper and paralytic 1:40-2:12
4. Call of Matthew 2:13-17
5. Pharisees confront Jesus 2:18-6
6. The crowds come to Jesus for healing 3:7-12
7. Jesus selects the 12 Apostles 3:13-19
Jesus takes His message to the multitudes 3:20-6:56
1. Teaching with parables 4:1-34
2. Supreme power and authority revealed 4:35-5:43
3. Disciples sent on first mission 6:6b-13
4. 500 fed and walking on water 6:30-56
Jesus on His second mission to take His message to all 7:1-10:52
1. Rebuking of Pharisees for religious practices 7:1-23
2. 4000 fed and faith of apostles challenged 8:1-21
3. How to enter the kingdom 10:13-31
Surrender to God 11:1-14:42
1. Jesus ransacks the Temple 11:12-25
2. What are you willing to pay 12:1-44
3. The end is coming 13:1-37
4. Christ surrenders His life to the Father 14:32-42
Death, burial, and resurrection 14:43-16:20
1. Jesus arrested 14:43-51
2. Jesus on trial 14:53-15:20
3. Crucifixion 15:21-41
4. Burial 15:42-47
5. Resurrection 16:1-20
Epilogue 16:9-20
1. Jesus reunited with disciples 16:9-14
2. Jesus sends them to preach to the nations 16:15-20
Subject compliment statement for Mark
Purpose: To show the deity of Jesus through teachings and miracles and the faith required to enter the Kingdom of God.
Several times Jesus calls His disciples out for their lack of faith. These men traveled with Jesus and saw the amazing things that He did and they still lacked faith at times. (Mark 4:40, 16:14) Jesus emphasis on faith is shown clearly as to be the source of healing. (Mark 1:40, 2:5, 9:23) These verses show that the key principle to enter the Kingdom of God is faith. The people had to believe Jesus could do what they were asking Him to do. All this was done to show the deity of Christ and His authority to rule the earth. These miracles were the key to Christ’s deity. If He were not Christ He would not have been able to do or say what He did. Even the demons recognized who Jesus was and He shut their mouths as to not spoil His ministry. (Mark 1:24-25) Jesus came to show His authority, teach the way to Heaven, and show that the key to the door is faith.
One of the best ways to understand context is as you read and you see a recurring theme or idea make note of it and trace it through the entire book. As you read the Bible you will see things being repeated over and over again because the author wants you to pay close attention to them. They are keys to understanding what he wants to say and you to understand. Once you have traced the theme through a book you will begin to see breaks in thought and transitions into other concepts or ideas. After you have done all this you can make a purpose statement about why the author wrote this book based on the themes you have traced through it. Once you have a purpose statement you can compliment it by emphasizing the reason you chose this purpose based on the themes you have seen throughout the book.
To help illustrate what I mean I have gone through the book of Mark and traced 3 themes, outlined it, and made a purpose and compliment statement. Since blogger will not let me insert rows and columns you will have to click on the picture to enlarge it.
Outline of Mark
Introduction 1:1-20
1. John the Baptist’s ministry 1-8
2. Jesus baptized and tempted 9-12
3. Jesus calls His first disciples 13-20
Beginning of Jesus’ ministry, His authority and majesty unveiled 1:21-3:19
1. Cast out demon and heal many 1:21-34
2. Jesus gets alone with the Father in prayer 1:35-39
3. Healing of leper and paralytic 1:40-2:12
4. Call of Matthew 2:13-17
5. Pharisees confront Jesus 2:18-6
6. The crowds come to Jesus for healing 3:7-12
7. Jesus selects the 12 Apostles 3:13-19
Jesus takes His message to the multitudes 3:20-6:56
1. Teaching with parables 4:1-34
2. Supreme power and authority revealed 4:35-5:43
3. Disciples sent on first mission 6:6b-13
4. 500 fed and walking on water 6:30-56
Jesus on His second mission to take His message to all 7:1-10:52
1. Rebuking of Pharisees for religious practices 7:1-23
2. 4000 fed and faith of apostles challenged 8:1-21
3. How to enter the kingdom 10:13-31
Surrender to God 11:1-14:42
1. Jesus ransacks the Temple 11:12-25
2. What are you willing to pay 12:1-44
3. The end is coming 13:1-37
4. Christ surrenders His life to the Father 14:32-42
Death, burial, and resurrection 14:43-16:20
1. Jesus arrested 14:43-51
2. Jesus on trial 14:53-15:20
3. Crucifixion 15:21-41
4. Burial 15:42-47
5. Resurrection 16:1-20
Epilogue 16:9-20
1. Jesus reunited with disciples 16:9-14
2. Jesus sends them to preach to the nations 16:15-20
Subject compliment statement for Mark
Purpose: To show the deity of Jesus through teachings and miracles and the faith required to enter the Kingdom of God.
Several times Jesus calls His disciples out for their lack of faith. These men traveled with Jesus and saw the amazing things that He did and they still lacked faith at times. (Mark 4:40, 16:14) Jesus emphasis on faith is shown clearly as to be the source of healing. (Mark 1:40, 2:5, 9:23) These verses show that the key principle to enter the Kingdom of God is faith. The people had to believe Jesus could do what they were asking Him to do. All this was done to show the deity of Christ and His authority to rule the earth. These miracles were the key to Christ’s deity. If He were not Christ He would not have been able to do or say what He did. Even the demons recognized who Jesus was and He shut their mouths as to not spoil His ministry. (Mark 1:24-25) Jesus came to show His authority, teach the way to Heaven, and show that the key to the door is faith.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Looking Out For The Needs Of Others
I recently posted a blog about a situation I was dealing with and my frustration with God. My truck died and was going to cost about $3500 for the mechanic to replace the engine. I did not and still do not have the money to fix my truck but had a friend who read the post and has been an answer to prayer. I was asking God to provide a way for me to get to work and back until I was able to have my truck fixed and God has shown His provision in answering my prayer.
My friend recently had to leave the country due to unexpected circumstances. They read my post and have generously offered to let me use their vehicle in the states until my truck gets fixed. It immediately reminded me of Philippians 2:3-4 which talks about looking out for the interests of others and not only our own circumstances. My friend is having a very hard time dealing with the fact they had to leave the U.S. without any say in the matter and the chance of them coming back is going to take a long time for paperwork to be processed. Regardless of how hard they seem to have it they have modeled this concept in Philippians. They are not just looking out for their own interests but also of others. They could have been so fixated on how bad their circumstance is that they overlooked the need of someone else.
When this person contacted me I was floored at seeing God provide, but even more so by the fact that they overlooked how bad things were for them. If only we could see more of this in the church today. Not that it is not happening today, but what if it was more evident, especially in the dire times that we seem to be in economically? One thing that has spoken to me is that God’s provision is not limited to border lines or continents but extends and reaches beyond what we could think. God has answered my prayer and provided for me from a place I never even thought of looking. How often do we look at what is in front of our and question whether God is there? Things seem dim and no hope can be seen, but God has shown His power to be able to break racial and continental barriers before. Why can’t He still do it today? My challenge in all of this is this. Where and to who are you looking to provide for your needs? Are you fixated on your own circumstances and not looking out for others when you can provide what they need. My friend has really been a blessing to me and it was not because they wanted to be put on display so they could be seen as a great person, but because they were doing what the Bible tells us to do.
Who is in your life that needs help and you can help them? Are you willing to look past your circumstance and help them without reciprocation?
Thanks friend (who will remain anonymous) for being an answer to prayer! Will you be the answer to someone else’s need? I hope I can say yes when the time comes and look past how bad I think I may have it to be a blessing to someone else and be what God has called the church to be.
My friend recently had to leave the country due to unexpected circumstances. They read my post and have generously offered to let me use their vehicle in the states until my truck gets fixed. It immediately reminded me of Philippians 2:3-4 which talks about looking out for the interests of others and not only our own circumstances. My friend is having a very hard time dealing with the fact they had to leave the U.S. without any say in the matter and the chance of them coming back is going to take a long time for paperwork to be processed. Regardless of how hard they seem to have it they have modeled this concept in Philippians. They are not just looking out for their own interests but also of others. They could have been so fixated on how bad their circumstance is that they overlooked the need of someone else.
When this person contacted me I was floored at seeing God provide, but even more so by the fact that they overlooked how bad things were for them. If only we could see more of this in the church today. Not that it is not happening today, but what if it was more evident, especially in the dire times that we seem to be in economically? One thing that has spoken to me is that God’s provision is not limited to border lines or continents but extends and reaches beyond what we could think. God has answered my prayer and provided for me from a place I never even thought of looking. How often do we look at what is in front of our and question whether God is there? Things seem dim and no hope can be seen, but God has shown His power to be able to break racial and continental barriers before. Why can’t He still do it today? My challenge in all of this is this. Where and to who are you looking to provide for your needs? Are you fixated on your own circumstances and not looking out for others when you can provide what they need. My friend has really been a blessing to me and it was not because they wanted to be put on display so they could be seen as a great person, but because they were doing what the Bible tells us to do.
Who is in your life that needs help and you can help them? Are you willing to look past your circumstance and help them without reciprocation?
Thanks friend (who will remain anonymous) for being an answer to prayer! Will you be the answer to someone else’s need? I hope I can say yes when the time comes and look past how bad I think I may have it to be a blessing to someone else and be what God has called the church to be.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Women Leaders Or Not? Part 2
Jeanene Reese says that there is a partnership between men and women in ministry and when you look at this from a historical perspective you will begin to see and understand that God intended for men and women to work together. You see this from the very outset of creation when both male and female were created in the image of God. Adam had no participation or knowledge of the creation of Eve. He was asleep when God formed her from one of his ribs and when he saw her he was amazed, not by the differences but the likeness that was so striking (Reese 106-107). He wasn’t a overbearing domineer who commanded her to be in submission to him, as if to say “Well I was here first so you have to obey me.” It was a partnership that they shared together. This theme can be seen in the Old and New Testament. Deborah was a key figure in Judges and played a role that would have been equivalent to an elder. But more importantly when you look to the New Testament which is closer to the context which we are dealing with you see many women serving in different capacities of leadership.
In almost every aspect it can be seen that a woman has served in that particular type of leadership baring that of elder/overseer (Ibid 107). In Luke 8:1-3 Mary, Joanna, and Susanna are seen with Jesus and the disciples providing for their needs. Tabitha who was called a disciple was doing all kinds of good works and fell sick and died. The people were so distraught that Peter resurrects her from the dead so she can continue her good works (Acts 9:36-41). In Acts 46:14-15, 40; Lydia was worshipping on the Sabbath and after she heard the gospel her entire household was baptized, which she was the head of. Priscilla and Aquila correct Apollos false teaching and are with Paul as co-leaders (Acts 18:24-28; Rom. 16:3, 4; 1 Cor. 16:19). Philip an evangelist had 4 unmarried daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). Phoebe is a deaconess in Romans 16:1 and Paul admonishes her for the work and in verse 7 Junia is considered outstanding among the apostles (Ibid 113).
This evidence of women serving and being commended by Paul certainly has some very significant meaning. It is not so clear after all that women are not to be serving in the capacity of authority. If that is the case then Paul seems to be contradicting himself if we are to believe that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is the final authority on women in leadership. If you are to take Timothy by itself you will win the argument. But when you look to scripture as a whole you will find it very difficult to say that this one passage and the 2 others that allude to this concept of exempting women from leadership are the final authority. If that is the case you will see a contradiction in God’s word. Therefore, careful exegesis and hermeneutics are required to find out what Paul is hinting at in this passage. With that said, we turn to a literary analysis of the passage.
Because the Bible is so dense and complex it is natural that certain passages seem to keep coming about for reevaluation and since this seems to be one of the most important topics for today it almost appears as if this text “has in a way chosen us instead of vice versa (Pierce 344).” There is definitely something going on here and because this text keeps surfacing it seems that we are missing something. There are three traditional interpretations of this passage. 1) You read it literally and apply it to all women and therefore ordination of women is excluded. 2) You say this doesn’t apply to us today because it carries no authority. In other words, Paul didn’t write such a thing. 3) Paul was only referring to women in the first century. It was a cultural issue. The major problem that comes about when interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is placing it next to Colossians 3:11; Eph. 2:14; 5:21; 1 Cor. 11:11-12; Gal. 3:18; which seem to contradict what Paul was saying (Spencer 315).
Within reading this in its literary context it is important to note several things. First, Paul is not simply addressing woman because they are women. Second, we must understand that as readers of this letter we are analyzing the interaction of the author with receivers of the letter. We are working with one side of the dialogue and must infer from the one side what inspired the writer to say what he said. Third, it requires a “Hermeneutic of hearing that encourages a careful listening to the text (Heidebrecht 171-173).” What the writer says and how he says it are huge keys to proper interpretation.
So what are the possibilities of Paul calling women to be silent in Ephesus, because he is clearly not making this as a blanket statement to all the churches? Spencer points out that in 2 Timothy 3:5b-7 the Greek word used is for “weak women” who were deceived and who listened to the wrong persons. It is possible that because of the false teaching some of the women had believed it and were now propagating it; indicating what Paul was trying to do away with in his first letter to Timothy. Thus Paul is telling the women to stop teaching because what they are teaching is false because they were deceived by the false teachers. This would also add emphasis to Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve serving as a reminder of how Eve was deceived and brought Adam into sin through her deception (216).
The entire context of this particular letter has to deal with Timothy correcting the false teaching. Paul begins the letter by informing us of what the false teaching was 1 Tim 1:3; 6:3. The people were proclaiming a different gospel. He then alludes to the fact that this false teaching is going on inside the church and people are being led away (1 Tim 1:4-6; 4:1; 6:21, 2). This false teaching was also causing division among the church. This false teaching was meaningless talk (1 Tim. 1:6; 6:4). Finally the false teaching looks to have been influencing entire households (Titus 1:11) (Heidebrecht 173-174). We can get a pretty good picture of what the scene looked like. And with the freedom that women now have we can see how easily things could have gotten out of hand. The church is just beginning to grow and develop and you have pagans coming from cults where they exercised authority and are now trying to exercise that same authority in the church. What Paul may have specifically been trying to combat is women aggressively trying to take the leadership from the already established leaders of the church. Women were frequently associated with the worshiping within the fertility cult in which they were extremely dominant. So as they enter into the church they very well may have been trying to gain power in the ranks of the church (Pierce 353). In the pagan worship of the fertility god you had to engage in sexual intercourse and the women played the dominant role of whether that happened. Either you did what they said to have sex with them or they denied you the privilege excluding you from worship. With that type of power the new female converts may have been trying to exercise the same dominance but under false teaching because of what they heard from the false teachers that Paul is having Timothy address. That is why Paul excluded then from teaching. Not because they were female but because they were deceived by false teaching.
When you compare this with Gal. 3:18 you see Paul doing something radical, but this is not a universal timeless truth that was being communicated. It was to address a particular phenomenon that was taking place in Ephesus. The temporary aspect can be illustrated by turning to 1 Cor. 11:2-16; where women had to wear coverings and men’s hair lengths were addressed. We do not demand that women today wear head coverings and pull out rulers to check men’s hair length. So why must we also enforce the timeless aspect on the women in Ephesus (Pierce 347)? There is clearly a particular phenomenon taking place and special action needed to be taken to correct the problem. But that does not mean that we must enforce those same rules today.
What Paul seems to be hinting at with the use of Adam and Eve is not so much a reminder of what happened back in Genesis, but is illustrating what was happening in Ephesus with language borrowed from the fall (Perriman 140). He saw something happening and it reminded him of the fall because it was the exact same thing that was happening in Ephesus. Women were being deceived and were deceiving men. So at this point Paul used his best judgment on how to combat the situation and the best option was to silence the women until they could learn the true doctrine. This is why Paul worded the statement by saying “I am not allowing/permitting” not “I will not let or never allow (Spencer 219).”
Some say this passage has nothing to do with men and women but is actually speaking of the husband and wife (Hugenberger 342). This passage has nothing to do with the church and leadership but is dealing with wives being submitted to their husbands. Fee argues that “the ‘full’ probably has a larger front in view which includes younger widows going from house to house saying things they ought not to (Fee 72).” So it is not very promising that this has the marital relationship in view.
It is my argument that we cannot be as dogmatic as we have been for the past two millennia. There is good Biblical support and evidence to prove that women have been in places of leadership and to put a dogmatic “no” based on 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is an interpretive fallacy. We must realize that culture and time have changed and there were certain things that needed to be done within the early church that do not necessarily apply today. Is that to say that scripture changes? No. It is to say that time changes and we live in a different day and age when things that were applicable several thousand years ago are not going to fit comfortably in society today. Is that to say that if the Bible is not comfortable to us we change it or conform it so it is? No. It is to say that we need to read, analyze, use proper hermeneutics and exegesis and see what truths are timeless and which ones are not.
We do not conform the Bible to our world and life. The Bible conforms us to it. As time changes so will some of the application. The truth will remain the same but the application will be different. There are a lot of Biblical passages that need to be revisited and looked at through the lens of 2009. To me personally it appears that this traditional understanding seems to sound like the man is losing something if the female is given any right in leadership. It appears as if pride is a big issue and we need to humble ourselves and reevaluate where we stand on certain doctrines. Are we imposing doctrines of man on people or doctrines of God? That is where I think we need to start the investigation. What are your motives and presuppositions that you use to interpret scripture? Because if you do it for any other reason than for God to illuminate you to His truth in scripture, then you will find it to say anything you want it too. You will be the best eisegete ever. J.I. Packer said that “The burden of proof regarding the exclusion of women in the office of teaching and ruling within congregation now lies on those who maintain the exclusion rather than those who challenge it (Pierce 353).” I think they need a lot of evidence to put on the table if we are to exclude females from leadership.
My opinion after much research is that there is something to say about man being created before woman, but do we exclude them from a lead position? I still do not know. Something inside me says no from my personal experience and what scripture teaches. It must be my fundamentalist upbringing, but I am wrestling with it. Do they have the right to be in a position of authority Yes. Can they speak in a public worship setting? Yes. Does that mean they stay in the nursery? No! I strongly encourage women to get up and speak in a public worship setting. One of the professors at my school who is a woman spoke in chapel and her message about parenting absolutely rocked my world. We need to give women who show themselves approved just as much right to speak to the church as the men who do the same.
1. Bible. NIV.
2. Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook Of Theology. Moody Publishing, 2008.
3. Fee, Gordon D. 1 And 2 Timothy, Titus. Peabody, MA: Hendriksen Publishers, 1984.
4. Greene Oliver B. The epistles of Paul the apostle to Timothy and Titus. Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour Inc., 1964.
5. Heidebrecht, Doug “Reading 1 Timothy 2:12-15 In Its Literary Context.” Biblical Schloarship 33 no 2 (2004): 171-184.
6. Hendriksen, William. The exposition of the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1957.
7. Hugenberger, Gordon P. “Women In church Office: Hermeneutics Or Exegesis? A survey of approaches To 1 Timothy 2:8-15.” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society. 35 no 3 (1992): 341-360.
8. Kent Jr., Homer a. The Pastoral Epistles Studies in I and II Timothy and Titus. Chicago: Moody Press, 1958.
9. Liddon, H. P. St. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy. Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978.
10. McGee J. Vernon. I & II Timothy Titus Philemon. La Verne, CA: El Camino Press, 1978.
11. Perriman, Andrew C. “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: The Meaning Of Authenteo In 1 Timothy 2:12.” Tyndale Bulletin 44 no 1 (1993): 129-142.
12. Pierce, Ronald W. “Evangelicals And Gender Roles In The 1990s: 1 Timothy 2:8-15: A Test Case.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 no 3 (1993): 343-355.
13. Reese, Jeanene P. “Co-workers In The Lord: A Biblical Theology Of Partnership” Restoration Quarterly. 45 no 1-2 (2003) 106-114.
14. Spencer, Dina Besancon “Eve At Ephesus.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 17 no 4 (1974): 215-222.
15. Trentham, Charles a. Studies in Timothy. Nashville, TN: Convention press, 1959.
In almost every aspect it can be seen that a woman has served in that particular type of leadership baring that of elder/overseer (Ibid 107). In Luke 8:1-3 Mary, Joanna, and Susanna are seen with Jesus and the disciples providing for their needs. Tabitha who was called a disciple was doing all kinds of good works and fell sick and died. The people were so distraught that Peter resurrects her from the dead so she can continue her good works (Acts 9:36-41). In Acts 46:14-15, 40; Lydia was worshipping on the Sabbath and after she heard the gospel her entire household was baptized, which she was the head of. Priscilla and Aquila correct Apollos false teaching and are with Paul as co-leaders (Acts 18:24-28; Rom. 16:3, 4; 1 Cor. 16:19). Philip an evangelist had 4 unmarried daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). Phoebe is a deaconess in Romans 16:1 and Paul admonishes her for the work and in verse 7 Junia is considered outstanding among the apostles (Ibid 113).
This evidence of women serving and being commended by Paul certainly has some very significant meaning. It is not so clear after all that women are not to be serving in the capacity of authority. If that is the case then Paul seems to be contradicting himself if we are to believe that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is the final authority on women in leadership. If you are to take Timothy by itself you will win the argument. But when you look to scripture as a whole you will find it very difficult to say that this one passage and the 2 others that allude to this concept of exempting women from leadership are the final authority. If that is the case you will see a contradiction in God’s word. Therefore, careful exegesis and hermeneutics are required to find out what Paul is hinting at in this passage. With that said, we turn to a literary analysis of the passage.
Because the Bible is so dense and complex it is natural that certain passages seem to keep coming about for reevaluation and since this seems to be one of the most important topics for today it almost appears as if this text “has in a way chosen us instead of vice versa (Pierce 344).” There is definitely something going on here and because this text keeps surfacing it seems that we are missing something. There are three traditional interpretations of this passage. 1) You read it literally and apply it to all women and therefore ordination of women is excluded. 2) You say this doesn’t apply to us today because it carries no authority. In other words, Paul didn’t write such a thing. 3) Paul was only referring to women in the first century. It was a cultural issue. The major problem that comes about when interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is placing it next to Colossians 3:11; Eph. 2:14; 5:21; 1 Cor. 11:11-12; Gal. 3:18; which seem to contradict what Paul was saying (Spencer 315).
Within reading this in its literary context it is important to note several things. First, Paul is not simply addressing woman because they are women. Second, we must understand that as readers of this letter we are analyzing the interaction of the author with receivers of the letter. We are working with one side of the dialogue and must infer from the one side what inspired the writer to say what he said. Third, it requires a “Hermeneutic of hearing that encourages a careful listening to the text (Heidebrecht 171-173).” What the writer says and how he says it are huge keys to proper interpretation.
So what are the possibilities of Paul calling women to be silent in Ephesus, because he is clearly not making this as a blanket statement to all the churches? Spencer points out that in 2 Timothy 3:5b-7 the Greek word used is for “weak women” who were deceived and who listened to the wrong persons. It is possible that because of the false teaching some of the women had believed it and were now propagating it; indicating what Paul was trying to do away with in his first letter to Timothy. Thus Paul is telling the women to stop teaching because what they are teaching is false because they were deceived by the false teachers. This would also add emphasis to Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve serving as a reminder of how Eve was deceived and brought Adam into sin through her deception (216).
The entire context of this particular letter has to deal with Timothy correcting the false teaching. Paul begins the letter by informing us of what the false teaching was 1 Tim 1:3; 6:3. The people were proclaiming a different gospel. He then alludes to the fact that this false teaching is going on inside the church and people are being led away (1 Tim 1:4-6; 4:1; 6:21, 2). This false teaching was also causing division among the church. This false teaching was meaningless talk (1 Tim. 1:6; 6:4). Finally the false teaching looks to have been influencing entire households (Titus 1:11) (Heidebrecht 173-174). We can get a pretty good picture of what the scene looked like. And with the freedom that women now have we can see how easily things could have gotten out of hand. The church is just beginning to grow and develop and you have pagans coming from cults where they exercised authority and are now trying to exercise that same authority in the church. What Paul may have specifically been trying to combat is women aggressively trying to take the leadership from the already established leaders of the church. Women were frequently associated with the worshiping within the fertility cult in which they were extremely dominant. So as they enter into the church they very well may have been trying to gain power in the ranks of the church (Pierce 353). In the pagan worship of the fertility god you had to engage in sexual intercourse and the women played the dominant role of whether that happened. Either you did what they said to have sex with them or they denied you the privilege excluding you from worship. With that type of power the new female converts may have been trying to exercise the same dominance but under false teaching because of what they heard from the false teachers that Paul is having Timothy address. That is why Paul excluded then from teaching. Not because they were female but because they were deceived by false teaching.
When you compare this with Gal. 3:18 you see Paul doing something radical, but this is not a universal timeless truth that was being communicated. It was to address a particular phenomenon that was taking place in Ephesus. The temporary aspect can be illustrated by turning to 1 Cor. 11:2-16; where women had to wear coverings and men’s hair lengths were addressed. We do not demand that women today wear head coverings and pull out rulers to check men’s hair length. So why must we also enforce the timeless aspect on the women in Ephesus (Pierce 347)? There is clearly a particular phenomenon taking place and special action needed to be taken to correct the problem. But that does not mean that we must enforce those same rules today.
What Paul seems to be hinting at with the use of Adam and Eve is not so much a reminder of what happened back in Genesis, but is illustrating what was happening in Ephesus with language borrowed from the fall (Perriman 140). He saw something happening and it reminded him of the fall because it was the exact same thing that was happening in Ephesus. Women were being deceived and were deceiving men. So at this point Paul used his best judgment on how to combat the situation and the best option was to silence the women until they could learn the true doctrine. This is why Paul worded the statement by saying “I am not allowing/permitting” not “I will not let or never allow (Spencer 219).”
Some say this passage has nothing to do with men and women but is actually speaking of the husband and wife (Hugenberger 342). This passage has nothing to do with the church and leadership but is dealing with wives being submitted to their husbands. Fee argues that “the ‘full’ probably has a larger front in view which includes younger widows going from house to house saying things they ought not to (Fee 72).” So it is not very promising that this has the marital relationship in view.
It is my argument that we cannot be as dogmatic as we have been for the past two millennia. There is good Biblical support and evidence to prove that women have been in places of leadership and to put a dogmatic “no” based on 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is an interpretive fallacy. We must realize that culture and time have changed and there were certain things that needed to be done within the early church that do not necessarily apply today. Is that to say that scripture changes? No. It is to say that time changes and we live in a different day and age when things that were applicable several thousand years ago are not going to fit comfortably in society today. Is that to say that if the Bible is not comfortable to us we change it or conform it so it is? No. It is to say that we need to read, analyze, use proper hermeneutics and exegesis and see what truths are timeless and which ones are not.
We do not conform the Bible to our world and life. The Bible conforms us to it. As time changes so will some of the application. The truth will remain the same but the application will be different. There are a lot of Biblical passages that need to be revisited and looked at through the lens of 2009. To me personally it appears that this traditional understanding seems to sound like the man is losing something if the female is given any right in leadership. It appears as if pride is a big issue and we need to humble ourselves and reevaluate where we stand on certain doctrines. Are we imposing doctrines of man on people or doctrines of God? That is where I think we need to start the investigation. What are your motives and presuppositions that you use to interpret scripture? Because if you do it for any other reason than for God to illuminate you to His truth in scripture, then you will find it to say anything you want it too. You will be the best eisegete ever. J.I. Packer said that “The burden of proof regarding the exclusion of women in the office of teaching and ruling within congregation now lies on those who maintain the exclusion rather than those who challenge it (Pierce 353).” I think they need a lot of evidence to put on the table if we are to exclude females from leadership.
My opinion after much research is that there is something to say about man being created before woman, but do we exclude them from a lead position? I still do not know. Something inside me says no from my personal experience and what scripture teaches. It must be my fundamentalist upbringing, but I am wrestling with it. Do they have the right to be in a position of authority Yes. Can they speak in a public worship setting? Yes. Does that mean they stay in the nursery? No! I strongly encourage women to get up and speak in a public worship setting. One of the professors at my school who is a woman spoke in chapel and her message about parenting absolutely rocked my world. We need to give women who show themselves approved just as much right to speak to the church as the men who do the same.
1. Bible. NIV.
2. Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook Of Theology. Moody Publishing, 2008.
3. Fee, Gordon D. 1 And 2 Timothy, Titus. Peabody, MA: Hendriksen Publishers, 1984.
4. Greene Oliver B. The epistles of Paul the apostle to Timothy and Titus. Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour Inc., 1964.
5. Heidebrecht, Doug “Reading 1 Timothy 2:12-15 In Its Literary Context.” Biblical Schloarship 33 no 2 (2004): 171-184.
6. Hendriksen, William. The exposition of the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1957.
7. Hugenberger, Gordon P. “Women In church Office: Hermeneutics Or Exegesis? A survey of approaches To 1 Timothy 2:8-15.” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society. 35 no 3 (1992): 341-360.
8. Kent Jr., Homer a. The Pastoral Epistles Studies in I and II Timothy and Titus. Chicago: Moody Press, 1958.
9. Liddon, H. P. St. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy. Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978.
10. McGee J. Vernon. I & II Timothy Titus Philemon. La Verne, CA: El Camino Press, 1978.
11. Perriman, Andrew C. “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: The Meaning Of Authenteo In 1 Timothy 2:12.” Tyndale Bulletin 44 no 1 (1993): 129-142.
12. Pierce, Ronald W. “Evangelicals And Gender Roles In The 1990s: 1 Timothy 2:8-15: A Test Case.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 no 3 (1993): 343-355.
13. Reese, Jeanene P. “Co-workers In The Lord: A Biblical Theology Of Partnership” Restoration Quarterly. 45 no 1-2 (2003) 106-114.
14. Spencer, Dina Besancon “Eve At Ephesus.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 17 no 4 (1974): 215-222.
15. Trentham, Charles a. Studies in Timothy. Nashville, TN: Convention press, 1959.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Interpretation
After much consideration after my last post on whether women should be leaders in the church and from what God has been speaking to me I feel it necessary to say a few things before I post the other side. I have also got some very interesting emails from people on this topic.
1. I know this is a very controversial topic and the reason I talk about it is to not prove anyone wrong or me being right. It is simply me researching this on my own time trying to understand a very controversial topic in scripture.
2. If you are offended by what scripture teaches then you need to check your heart.
3. You must understand the context of what was going on culturally to be able to have an accurate understanding of what Paul and the writers of the Bible are trying to say.
4. Research does not mean a literal interpretation.
5. Paul and other writers use some very foundational Old Testament passages to affirm their argument.
6. I do not intend to argue with people on what scripture teaches, but to list the facts.
7. If you cannot handle the facts of context then you need to re-think what the author meant…. (might not want to do that)
8. (almost feels like I am making a top 10 list)
9. (last one cause I do not want to make a top 10 list) Is a literal interpretation the best method all the time?
The reason I throw all these things at out is because one of the things I have learned from my professors at Trinity College of Florida is that if you want to learn the most then you have to ask questions. If you cannot respond then it means that you have not thought through it all the way. These questions are to help you think your way through the process of drawing a final conclusion of what scripture teaches with the help of the Holy Spirit as you listen to Him and He guides you through scripture. My prayer is this “May God open our eyes and ears to see and hear what he has to say to you through His word. God have mercy on us and grant us Your wisdom. Speak to us now. Amen”
1. I know this is a very controversial topic and the reason I talk about it is to not prove anyone wrong or me being right. It is simply me researching this on my own time trying to understand a very controversial topic in scripture.
2. If you are offended by what scripture teaches then you need to check your heart.
3. You must understand the context of what was going on culturally to be able to have an accurate understanding of what Paul and the writers of the Bible are trying to say.
4. Research does not mean a literal interpretation.
5. Paul and other writers use some very foundational Old Testament passages to affirm their argument.
6. I do not intend to argue with people on what scripture teaches, but to list the facts.
7. If you cannot handle the facts of context then you need to re-think what the author meant…. (might not want to do that)
8. (almost feels like I am making a top 10 list)
9. (last one cause I do not want to make a top 10 list) Is a literal interpretation the best method all the time?
The reason I throw all these things at out is because one of the things I have learned from my professors at Trinity College of Florida is that if you want to learn the most then you have to ask questions. If you cannot respond then it means that you have not thought through it all the way. These questions are to help you think your way through the process of drawing a final conclusion of what scripture teaches with the help of the Holy Spirit as you listen to Him and He guides you through scripture. My prayer is this “May God open our eyes and ears to see and hear what he has to say to you through His word. God have mercy on us and grant us Your wisdom. Speak to us now. Amen”
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Women Leaders Or Not?
Whether women should be able to be a leader in the church has been something of controversy over a long period of time. After much consideration and research I will post both sides of the argument as this is a huge debate.
My final opinion will be drawn at the end.
1 Timothy 2:12-15 it is hard passage to draw a conclusion on because it is hard to understand what exactly Paul is trying to communicate. There are a number of interpretations and because of the difficulty in understanding the passage I find it very hard to be as dogmatic as the traditionalist are in their interpretation. After further investigation in the passage I find myself agreeing with Ronald Pierce who says that he “experienced a significant change of mind (344)” when he completed his study on the text. The traditionalist or conservative say that with absolute certainty we know what Paul is telling us in the text. But how can we be so certain with such an obscure passage? This new perspective will investigate both sides of the argument excluding and permitting women to teach in the public worship setting. We begin with the exclusion.
From the text itself it is easy to deduce what Paul meant when he referred to the creation account. Women are to play the role of the learner and not the teacher. This is the problem in Ephesus and is why Paul returns to the first instance of when a woman tried to teach a man (Trentham 34). According to Trentham and others like Moo, Mcgee, and Greene it is perfectly clear that what Paul is trying to communicate is a subordination of the sexes. Man is superior to woman. The reason for this instruction from Paul was to show that Adam was formed first and then Eve which shows man as being dominant over woman (Liddon 18). This is what God had intended by creating man first and then woman. The woman is to be subordinate to the man because he not only came first, but because she was created from him.
Therefore, when it comes to the public assembly as Paul is referring to in 1 Timothy it is the man who is to teach not the woman. She is to remain subordinate to him because of her mistake in trying to teach man from the beginning and leading him into sin. Greene says that it is the man’s job to lead in public prayer and speak and the woman is to sit in silence and accept the doctrine being taught. The office of a teacher was that of an authoritative office. These teachers are exercising their God-given authority to proclaim the truth of the gospel message (Acts 13:1; Eph 4:1). But this public proclamation was denied to women (Kent 113). Women are forbidden to teach in any public gathering and are to learn in quiet submission. 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 clearly states that women are not allowed to speak in a public setting. They are to learn from their husband in the home if they wish to learn anything (Greene 95).
The man has a God-given authority to lead and the woman is not to try and take that away from him. It may sound like these are harsh words but they are actually very comforting. They refer to letting a woman be a woman. Let her be what she was created to be. Don’t let her try to be something she is not. Don’t let her dwell in a place that she should not. “Let a fish not live on land. Let a bird not dwell under water. Let not a woman yearn to exercise authority over a man by lecturing in public worship.” For her own sake and the sake of the congregation let not a woman mingle with that which is forbidden (Hendricksen 108). Why let women try to be or do something that they were not created for? It would be like trying to glue something together with Vaseline. They are completely incompatible. The comfort in these terms is being used in a way in which she will be fruitful.
Women find their satisfaction and joy in life when they devote themselves to what they were created for. So what were they created for? They were created to be housewives and give birth and raise children. When God leads a woman to be a housewife she will find no greater joy than fulfilling the work she was called to especially not endeavoring to become a leader within the church (Trentham 35). Tradition has it that aside from the charge in Deut. 31:12 for women to learn, they were not allowed to study the Torah. The reason behind this was that women were viewed to not be as intellectually capable of learning and they were not expected to be able to learn because they were to be a housewife. Rabbi Hisda interprets the book of Turubin from the Talmud as saying “This teaches that the Holy one, blessed be He, built Eve in the shape of a storehouse (Spencer 217).” As a framer makes a storehouse narrow at the top and wide at the bottom, so also did God do with Eve. He made the womb of a woman wide so as to be the storehouse of the embryo. The woman is so clearly described as a housewife that even her body was built in such a way as to make that possible. Because of this it was natural to see that it is the job of the man to study and learn and not the woman (Ibid 218).
However, this does not completely eliminate women from all teaching and learning in every aspect. If there were no godly women in the churches then most churches would be forced to close their doors. Obviously the woman plays a very important role in the rearing of their children and it would be travesty to say they could not teach their children. In this context these verses refer to a woman usurping their authority over men (Greene 93). No where does it say that a woman is not allowed to teach Sunday school or a small group Bible study. Nor does this forbid women in the mission fields so long as they are not the representative authority figure. Women are fully capable of teaching as long as they are not the ultimate authority figure. Paul gives two reasons why. Man was created first and the chronological implications of this are clear. The other is in the fact that it was Eve who was deceived not Adam (Kent 114-115). There are several places one can turn and see that God uses a woman to teach and they are commanded to teach certain people. Acts 18:22 shows a husband and wife in private correcting Apollos in his false teaching (Greene 100). It was not just the man but also the woman who was participating in the correcting. But this was not in a public worship setting. It was in the privacy of the home. That is the integral point of the passage in Timothy. It is dealing with the corporate public worship setting not the privacy of the home or a small group setting.
Every woman has the right to be in the mission field, teach Sunday school, small group Bible studies as long as they are not taking the authority of the man in charge and going over his head. The woman has certain liberties but they are in no capacity to demand the right to fill an office of authority. There are no grounds for a woman to say they have scriptural support for taking a role in leadership in the public worship. No where does it even allude to this in the Bible (Greene 94-95). “No woman has the right to stand up in the public assembly and argue with the pastor, the deacons, or those who are in the seat of authority (Ibid).” She is to sit in quiet submission learning; not trying to take man’s God-given authority. This is the God ordained and instituted hierarchal chain of command.
But is that the true meaning of this text? Is it really so clear in its meaning? Can you boldly say that this is absolutely the meaning Paul intended when he wrote this letter? This is one of the toughest passages to interpret and yet so many say that “it simply means this.” I beg to differ. I don’t see this as being a simple passage to interpret. It is one of the hardest if not the hardest aside from eschatological prophecy. There are several other alternatives to understanding this passage and the danger of following one of those interpretations is being categorized as a complementarian or an egalitarian. The complementarian says that in the eyes of God women are equal to men and hold just as much importance in the family as in the church. The egalitarian says that women are equal to men in all aspects regardless of redemptive status (Enns 624). I consider myself a fundamentalist but with new insight on a very difficult passage to interpret.
The otherside will be posted later. I will also post the bibliography at the end of the second post for both arguments.
My final opinion will be drawn at the end.
1 Timothy 2:12-15 it is hard passage to draw a conclusion on because it is hard to understand what exactly Paul is trying to communicate. There are a number of interpretations and because of the difficulty in understanding the passage I find it very hard to be as dogmatic as the traditionalist are in their interpretation. After further investigation in the passage I find myself agreeing with Ronald Pierce who says that he “experienced a significant change of mind (344)” when he completed his study on the text. The traditionalist or conservative say that with absolute certainty we know what Paul is telling us in the text. But how can we be so certain with such an obscure passage? This new perspective will investigate both sides of the argument excluding and permitting women to teach in the public worship setting. We begin with the exclusion.
From the text itself it is easy to deduce what Paul meant when he referred to the creation account. Women are to play the role of the learner and not the teacher. This is the problem in Ephesus and is why Paul returns to the first instance of when a woman tried to teach a man (Trentham 34). According to Trentham and others like Moo, Mcgee, and Greene it is perfectly clear that what Paul is trying to communicate is a subordination of the sexes. Man is superior to woman. The reason for this instruction from Paul was to show that Adam was formed first and then Eve which shows man as being dominant over woman (Liddon 18). This is what God had intended by creating man first and then woman. The woman is to be subordinate to the man because he not only came first, but because she was created from him.
Therefore, when it comes to the public assembly as Paul is referring to in 1 Timothy it is the man who is to teach not the woman. She is to remain subordinate to him because of her mistake in trying to teach man from the beginning and leading him into sin. Greene says that it is the man’s job to lead in public prayer and speak and the woman is to sit in silence and accept the doctrine being taught. The office of a teacher was that of an authoritative office. These teachers are exercising their God-given authority to proclaim the truth of the gospel message (Acts 13:1; Eph 4:1). But this public proclamation was denied to women (Kent 113). Women are forbidden to teach in any public gathering and are to learn in quiet submission. 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 clearly states that women are not allowed to speak in a public setting. They are to learn from their husband in the home if they wish to learn anything (Greene 95).
The man has a God-given authority to lead and the woman is not to try and take that away from him. It may sound like these are harsh words but they are actually very comforting. They refer to letting a woman be a woman. Let her be what she was created to be. Don’t let her try to be something she is not. Don’t let her dwell in a place that she should not. “Let a fish not live on land. Let a bird not dwell under water. Let not a woman yearn to exercise authority over a man by lecturing in public worship.” For her own sake and the sake of the congregation let not a woman mingle with that which is forbidden (Hendricksen 108). Why let women try to be or do something that they were not created for? It would be like trying to glue something together with Vaseline. They are completely incompatible. The comfort in these terms is being used in a way in which she will be fruitful.
Women find their satisfaction and joy in life when they devote themselves to what they were created for. So what were they created for? They were created to be housewives and give birth and raise children. When God leads a woman to be a housewife she will find no greater joy than fulfilling the work she was called to especially not endeavoring to become a leader within the church (Trentham 35). Tradition has it that aside from the charge in Deut. 31:12 for women to learn, they were not allowed to study the Torah. The reason behind this was that women were viewed to not be as intellectually capable of learning and they were not expected to be able to learn because they were to be a housewife. Rabbi Hisda interprets the book of Turubin from the Talmud as saying “This teaches that the Holy one, blessed be He, built Eve in the shape of a storehouse (Spencer 217).” As a framer makes a storehouse narrow at the top and wide at the bottom, so also did God do with Eve. He made the womb of a woman wide so as to be the storehouse of the embryo. The woman is so clearly described as a housewife that even her body was built in such a way as to make that possible. Because of this it was natural to see that it is the job of the man to study and learn and not the woman (Ibid 218).
However, this does not completely eliminate women from all teaching and learning in every aspect. If there were no godly women in the churches then most churches would be forced to close their doors. Obviously the woman plays a very important role in the rearing of their children and it would be travesty to say they could not teach their children. In this context these verses refer to a woman usurping their authority over men (Greene 93). No where does it say that a woman is not allowed to teach Sunday school or a small group Bible study. Nor does this forbid women in the mission fields so long as they are not the representative authority figure. Women are fully capable of teaching as long as they are not the ultimate authority figure. Paul gives two reasons why. Man was created first and the chronological implications of this are clear. The other is in the fact that it was Eve who was deceived not Adam (Kent 114-115). There are several places one can turn and see that God uses a woman to teach and they are commanded to teach certain people. Acts 18:22 shows a husband and wife in private correcting Apollos in his false teaching (Greene 100). It was not just the man but also the woman who was participating in the correcting. But this was not in a public worship setting. It was in the privacy of the home. That is the integral point of the passage in Timothy. It is dealing with the corporate public worship setting not the privacy of the home or a small group setting.
Every woman has the right to be in the mission field, teach Sunday school, small group Bible studies as long as they are not taking the authority of the man in charge and going over his head. The woman has certain liberties but they are in no capacity to demand the right to fill an office of authority. There are no grounds for a woman to say they have scriptural support for taking a role in leadership in the public worship. No where does it even allude to this in the Bible (Greene 94-95). “No woman has the right to stand up in the public assembly and argue with the pastor, the deacons, or those who are in the seat of authority (Ibid).” She is to sit in quiet submission learning; not trying to take man’s God-given authority. This is the God ordained and instituted hierarchal chain of command.
But is that the true meaning of this text? Is it really so clear in its meaning? Can you boldly say that this is absolutely the meaning Paul intended when he wrote this letter? This is one of the toughest passages to interpret and yet so many say that “it simply means this.” I beg to differ. I don’t see this as being a simple passage to interpret. It is one of the hardest if not the hardest aside from eschatological prophecy. There are several other alternatives to understanding this passage and the danger of following one of those interpretations is being categorized as a complementarian or an egalitarian. The complementarian says that in the eyes of God women are equal to men and hold just as much importance in the family as in the church. The egalitarian says that women are equal to men in all aspects regardless of redemptive status (Enns 624). I consider myself a fundamentalist but with new insight on a very difficult passage to interpret.
The otherside will be posted later. I will also post the bibliography at the end of the second post for both arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
