What a mess!
Something smells fishy somewhere (no offense to fisherpeople).
On the one hand, I don't get the husband. The money's gone, the parents will take care of her, her wishes don't seem to be that clear--why not divorce her and raise your new family and let the parents take care of her. After all, they've got a wad of cash now to tap that would support her with a vengeance!
On the other hand, I have real problems with Randall Terry and others who say Terry tried to speak. I'm not much for conspiracy theories. Ockam's Razor says that the most straightforward explanation is usually the correct one. That means that conspiracy theories by their very nature are from the get go less likely explanations of things.
I guess the husband is going to allow an autopsy, so then we'll know better what was really going on.
But to step back from this specific incidence, what are so many Christians really angry at? Is it
1. that they don't believe Schiavo is really in a persistent vegitative state and that a murder is taking place?
2. that they don't understand what a persistant vegitative state is and think that because her eyes are open and her head is moving that there is really awareness of any kind there?
3. that they don't believe a person whose body is still breathing on its own can be allowed to die, even if the "human" part of the brain is gone?
I know that the first possibility is the majority of what I'm picking up on, and that's fair enough. Surely those who are saying "We should err on the side of life" are correct. As the one dissenting judge said initially, I don't see the harm in taking another brain scan. I don't either. Why not before you make a truly grave error?
I'm also afraid that there's a good deal of number two going around. It's unfortunate in a way that the whole brain doesn't die at the same speed. They tell me the "me" part of the brain dies first. With each passing minute without oxygen after five minutes, I will go from brain damage to a new category, "minimally conscious state." Then from my point of view I'm gone, but my shell goes to a persistent vegitative state to a coma to a coma on life support to a corpse. I would hate it if this situation turned out to be a case of "Christians looking stupid" because of ignorance.
But I have also heard the third option expressed. I have a family member who put it this way: "the Bible says that the life is in the blood, not the life is in the brain." True, but I don't think that was exactly what Leviticus was really talking about. Nevertheless, it seems a coherent position, and I respect it.
So what do you think?
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Sunday, March 27, 2005
At Even
Just after darkness fell at the end of the first day, the disciples were gathered together in one place in Jerusalem. Since morning, both Peter and Mary Magdalene had seen Jesus, risen from the dead. They had gathered to make sense of it. Some of the disciples still didn't believe it was real. They thought Peter and Mary had wanted to see Jesus so badly that their minds had played tricks on them.
Two other followers suddenly rushed in. "We've seen Jesus!" they exclaimed. "We were on our way home to Emmaus when a man joined us. We invited him for supper and when he broke bread, we knew it was him. Then he just disappeared."
As they were talking, Jesus just appeared, out of nowhere, in the room with them."Shalom lechem," he said, Peace to you.
When they were convinced that it was he, he reminded them that he would appear to them again in Galilee. Over the next forty days he appeared to them at different times and places. He appeared to Peter, Thomas, and Nathaniel by the Sea of Galilee. He commissioned the disciples on a nearby mountain. Then forty days after his resurrection, back in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost, over five hundred believers saw him ascend to the skies.
He would appear to others at various times for the next three years. The most notable were James, his own brother, and last of all, the apostle Paul.
No one has ever claimed to find Jesus' body. Indeed, one of the earliest rationalizations about the empty tomb comes from individuals who accused the disciples of stealing his body. But you'd think they would have confessed when they were about to die for their faith. They didn't.
Two other followers suddenly rushed in. "We've seen Jesus!" they exclaimed. "We were on our way home to Emmaus when a man joined us. We invited him for supper and when he broke bread, we knew it was him. Then he just disappeared."
As they were talking, Jesus just appeared, out of nowhere, in the room with them."Shalom lechem," he said, Peace to you.
When they were convinced that it was he, he reminded them that he would appear to them again in Galilee. Over the next forty days he appeared to them at different times and places. He appeared to Peter, Thomas, and Nathaniel by the Sea of Galilee. He commissioned the disciples on a nearby mountain. Then forty days after his resurrection, back in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost, over five hundred believers saw him ascend to the skies.
He would appear to others at various times for the next three years. The most notable were James, his own brother, and last of all, the apostle Paul.
No one has ever claimed to find Jesus' body. Indeed, one of the earliest rationalizations about the empty tomb comes from individuals who accused the disciples of stealing his body. But you'd think they would have confessed when they were about to die for their faith. They didn't.
The First Day of the Week
Early in the morning just after sunrise, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Joses, and Salome took spices they had bought and went to Jesus' tomb to anoint his body.
But when they arrived to the tomb, they found the stone rolled away from the entrance. Jesus' body was nowhere to be found. They encounter a man who startles them.
"Do you, do you know what's happened to the body?"
"He is not here. Tell the disciples to go back to Galilee; he will appear to them there."
Trembling and bewildered they left the tomb.
Where was his body? Who had taken it to Galilee? Should we tell anyone? What if they accuse us of taking the body. They decided they would not tell anyone until they could figure it out.
"Back so soon," Peter asked. He, James, and John were waiting on them, and they would all go to Galilee together.
"You're back awefully soon," Peter said.
"Were you able to get the stone rolled back?" Peter asked. The women remained silent.
Finally Mary got up the courage to say. "It was already rolled back."
"What?" A look of distress came over Peter and John.
"Did you see the body?" John asked.
"No."
Peter and John ran out of the house in Bethany. They both ran all the way to Jerusalem to the tomb. Nothing was there but the linen cloth.
John immediately began to think of resurrection. Peter just couldn't quite get his head around it all. They both hurried back to Bethany.
"Was there anything else that happened, anything else that you remember," Peter asked the women.
"There was a man there. He said that Jesus would appear to you in Galilee."
But when they arrived to the tomb, they found the stone rolled away from the entrance. Jesus' body was nowhere to be found. They encounter a man who startles them.
"Do you, do you know what's happened to the body?"
"He is not here. Tell the disciples to go back to Galilee; he will appear to them there."
Trembling and bewildered they left the tomb.
Where was his body? Who had taken it to Galilee? Should we tell anyone? What if they accuse us of taking the body. They decided they would not tell anyone until they could figure it out.
"Back so soon," Peter asked. He, James, and John were waiting on them, and they would all go to Galilee together.
"You're back awefully soon," Peter said.
"Were you able to get the stone rolled back?" Peter asked. The women remained silent.
Finally Mary got up the courage to say. "It was already rolled back."
"What?" A look of distress came over Peter and John.
"Did you see the body?" John asked.
"No."
Peter and John ran out of the house in Bethany. They both ran all the way to Jerusalem to the tomb. Nothing was there but the linen cloth.
John immediately began to think of resurrection. Peter just couldn't quite get his head around it all. They both hurried back to Bethany.
"Was there anything else that happened, anything else that you remember," Peter asked the women.
"There was a man there. He said that Jesus would appear to you in Galilee."
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Saturday Evening
Back to Galilee, that's what to do, go back to Galilee.
It had been Sabbath. Can't travel that far on the Sabbath. He had to wait till the end of Sabbath. Now it's dark. Now it's the first day of the week. Peter would sleep and leave early in the morning.
Would they want me back in Galilee? Did Herod know who to look for? I'll go back to fishing. I'll go back to my wife and family.
The Marys were going to try to anoint his body in the morning. Not me. I couldn't stand to see his body, not after all that.
I would wait for the women to get back from anointing the body, then we would all leave for Galilee.
It had been Sabbath. Can't travel that far on the Sabbath. He had to wait till the end of Sabbath. Now it's dark. Now it's the first day of the week. Peter would sleep and leave early in the morning.
Would they want me back in Galilee? Did Herod know who to look for? I'll go back to fishing. I'll go back to my wife and family.
The Marys were going to try to anoint his body in the morning. Not me. I couldn't stand to see his body, not after all that.
I would wait for the women to get back from anointing the body, then we would all leave for Galilee.
Sabbath Evening
What had happened?
Less than a week before, they had entered Jerusalem triumphantly. Jesus had authoritatively condemned the temple establishment by overthrowing the tables in the temple.
Just twenty-four hours ago they were eating supper with him. Now he was in the tomb.
Peter had gone back to Bethany. He, James, and John kept looking out the window, half expecting someone to come arrest them.
How could they have been so wrong? He had said he was the Messiah. God was going to restore His kingdom on earth. Peter had been ready to die for Jesus. But he was not ready for Jesus to die. That was completely unexpected. He would have fought to the death, but Jesus simply went with the men from the high priest.
What would he do now? How could God forsake Jesus? How could God let them crucify him?
There had to be something else to do. There had to be something more. What should I do? What should I do?
Less than a week before, they had entered Jerusalem triumphantly. Jesus had authoritatively condemned the temple establishment by overthrowing the tables in the temple.
Just twenty-four hours ago they were eating supper with him. Now he was in the tomb.
Peter had gone back to Bethany. He, James, and John kept looking out the window, half expecting someone to come arrest them.
How could they have been so wrong? He had said he was the Messiah. God was going to restore His kingdom on earth. Peter had been ready to die for Jesus. But he was not ready for Jesus to die. That was completely unexpected. He would have fought to the death, but Jesus simply went with the men from the high priest.
What would he do now? How could God forsake Jesus? How could God let them crucify him?
There had to be something else to do. There had to be something more. What should I do? What should I do?
Friday, March 25, 2005
Almost Evening
It was the day before the Sabbath, and evening was quickly approaching when the Sabbath would begin.
A member of the Sanhedrin called Joseph went to Pilate to ask for the body. He had an unused tomb carved out of the side of a rock face.
Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead. Most people suffered much longer, that was part of the idea.
But after Pilate had verified it, he allowed it.
Joseph wrapped Jesus' body in linen, and placed it in the tomb.
Mary Magdalene and another Mary watched where they laid Jesus' body. Because the sabbath was on them, they would have to wait till Sunday to anoint the body.
A member of the Sanhedrin called Joseph went to Pilate to ask for the body. He had an unused tomb carved out of the side of a rock face.
Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead. Most people suffered much longer, that was part of the idea.
But after Pilate had verified it, he allowed it.
Joseph wrapped Jesus' body in linen, and placed it in the tomb.
Mary Magdalene and another Mary watched where they laid Jesus' body. Because the sabbath was on them, they would have to wait till Sunday to anoint the body.
The Ninth Hour
At the ninth hour, about three in the afternoon, Jesus cried with a loud voice the Aramaic words of Psalm 22:1: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Some around him didn't understand what he was saying. They thought he was calling for Elijah. They had heard him talking about someone coming from heaven. Maybe he was calling for him.
Someone saw his pain and ran for some wine vinegar, and offered it to Jesus.
Then Jesus gave out a long cry, and breathed his last breath.
A centurion was struck by his death. This was not the death of a criminal or an insurgent. This man must be innocent. This man must be righteous.
But Jesus remained hanging on the tree while the others were dying and his followers looked on from a distance.
Some around him didn't understand what he was saying. They thought he was calling for Elijah. They had heard him talking about someone coming from heaven. Maybe he was calling for him.
Someone saw his pain and ran for some wine vinegar, and offered it to Jesus.
Then Jesus gave out a long cry, and breathed his last breath.
A centurion was struck by his death. This was not the death of a criminal or an insurgent. This man must be innocent. This man must be righteous.
But Jesus remained hanging on the tree while the others were dying and his followers looked on from a distance.
The Third Hour
It was about the third hour when they crucified him, nine in the morning.
They had flogged him. The Roman soldiers had mocked him, putting a purple robe on him like he was a king. They fashioned a crown out of thorns and put it on his head.
"Hail, king of the Jews," they said, bowing before him in mockery.
Jesus was in no condition to carry the cross. He was physically exhausted. His body had been beaten to a pulp. But most of all he carried the weight of the world.
A man from Cyrene named Simon had come for the Passover. The Roman soldiers grabbed him from the crowd and forced him to carry the crossbeam for Jesus. They brought Jesus just outside the gate to a place the Jews called "Golgotha," the place of a skull.
Pilate had fashioned the charge carefully: "THE KING OF THE JEWS." He wanted to mock the people.
They offered him wine vinegar to deaden the pain, but he refused it.
Two criminals were crucified with him. They mocked too. One of them was particularly harsh: "You're a disgrace, claiming to be our messiah. Where's the Son of Man now?"
The soldiers threw dice to see who would get Jesus clothes. Meanwhile Jesus hung naked from the cross.
They had flogged him. The Roman soldiers had mocked him, putting a purple robe on him like he was a king. They fashioned a crown out of thorns and put it on his head.
"Hail, king of the Jews," they said, bowing before him in mockery.
Jesus was in no condition to carry the cross. He was physically exhausted. His body had been beaten to a pulp. But most of all he carried the weight of the world.
A man from Cyrene named Simon had come for the Passover. The Roman soldiers grabbed him from the crowd and forced him to carry the crossbeam for Jesus. They brought Jesus just outside the gate to a place the Jews called "Golgotha," the place of a skull.
Pilate had fashioned the charge carefully: "THE KING OF THE JEWS." He wanted to mock the people.
They offered him wine vinegar to deaden the pain, but he refused it.
Two criminals were crucified with him. They mocked too. One of them was particularly harsh: "You're a disgrace, claiming to be our messiah. Where's the Son of Man now?"
The soldiers threw dice to see who would get Jesus clothes. Meanwhile Jesus hung naked from the cross.
The Crowds
A little later Pilate takes Jesus and a murderer to the crowds.
"Because I am such a good man, I will release a Jew to you. Here are two kings. Which one do you want? Barabbas? He has murdered one of your own. He's a thief."
"And then there's Jesus. He's your messiah. Sometimes he turns tables over in the temple. He doesn't talk much."
"GIVE US BARABBAS!"
Pilate looked at his assistants puzzled. "What's with these Judeans?"
"Barrabas or Jesus?"
"GIVE US BARABBAS!"
Pilate looked at Jesus. Why were the crowds so angry with him?
"Then what do you want me to do with Jesus, your king?"
"CRUCIFY HIM!"
Pilate was puzzled.
"Very well, then. Release Barabbas, flog Jesus and crucify everyone in the prison."
"Because I am such a good man, I will release a Jew to you. Here are two kings. Which one do you want? Barabbas? He has murdered one of your own. He's a thief."
"And then there's Jesus. He's your messiah. Sometimes he turns tables over in the temple. He doesn't talk much."
"GIVE US BARABBAS!"
Pilate looked at his assistants puzzled. "What's with these Judeans?"
"Barrabas or Jesus?"
"GIVE US BARABBAS!"
Pilate looked at Jesus. Why were the crowds so angry with him?
"Then what do you want me to do with Jesus, your king?"
"CRUCIFY HIM!"
Pilate was puzzled.
"Very well, then. Release Barabbas, flog Jesus and crucify everyone in the prison."
Pilate
Some Jewish leaders take Jesus to Pilate. Pilate has come down from Caesarea to keep close watch over the city at the Passover.
The Jewish leaders ask Pilate to come out to them. They want to observe the festival that evening, so they do not want to become unclean by entering a Gentile's house and such a place of uncleanness.
Pilate wants to know the charge.
"He's another fake messiah."
Pilate takes a look at Jesus and smiles. "Bring him in."
"So I finally get to meet the king of the Jews." Pilate says. "Are these charges true? Are you the king of the Jews?"
Jesus said nothing.
This intrigued Pilate. Jesus was not like the usual insurgent. He did not seem violent.
"You know I hate these priests. They're suck ups. It's all about themselves and their power. They're paranoid you know. But why do they hate you?"
Jesus remained silent.
"You know you don't help yourself if you don't say anything. And I have better things to do today than stand here talking to you."
Still Jesus said nothing.
"It's a simple question. If you aren't planning on being king just tell me. Maybe I'll set you free. You either think you are and are a lunatic, or you're not. Tell me, are you indeed the king of the Jews."
Jesus looked him straight in the eye and smiled.
"I am."
Rarely did Pilate feel at a loss for words, but this one stumped him. He looked away.
"This guy's crazy but harmless. We'll set him free to the people at the festivities."
The Jewish leaders ask Pilate to come out to them. They want to observe the festival that evening, so they do not want to become unclean by entering a Gentile's house and such a place of uncleanness.
Pilate wants to know the charge.
"He's another fake messiah."
Pilate takes a look at Jesus and smiles. "Bring him in."
"So I finally get to meet the king of the Jews." Pilate says. "Are these charges true? Are you the king of the Jews?"
Jesus said nothing.
This intrigued Pilate. Jesus was not like the usual insurgent. He did not seem violent.
"You know I hate these priests. They're suck ups. It's all about themselves and their power. They're paranoid you know. But why do they hate you?"
Jesus remained silent.
"You know you don't help yourself if you don't say anything. And I have better things to do today than stand here talking to you."
Still Jesus said nothing.
"It's a simple question. If you aren't planning on being king just tell me. Maybe I'll set you free. You either think you are and are a lunatic, or you're not. Tell me, are you indeed the king of the Jews."
Jesus looked him straight in the eye and smiled.
"I am."
Rarely did Pilate feel at a loss for words, but this one stumped him. He looked away.
"This guy's crazy but harmless. We'll set him free to the people at the festivities."
Early Morning
Early in the morning Caiaphas and some elders interrogate Jesus. Witnesses testify that Jesus has said words against the temple, words about its destruction.
"Is this true? Are you an insurrectionist?"
Jesus remains silent.
"Are you going to take over Israel? Do you think we priests have made the temple unclean? Are you going to take it over and purify it? You're not even a priest."
Jesus remains silent.
"Do you really think you can defeat the Romans and us? Where are your supporters? Where is your army? What Judean will follow a Galilean? You're from Galilee. A king of Israel must be from the tribe of David, a Son of David."
Jesus remains silent.
"Tell us now, do you really think you are the coming king? Look at you, beaten up by my guards. Do you really think you are the king of the Jews? How can you think you are God's anointed one? Are you indeed the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?"
Jesus waited. He certainly did not look like a king. But he looked the high priest right in the eye.
"I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God. You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds to visit God's judgment on the earth."
The high priest dismissed him. "Take him to Pilate. I have too much to do today to worry with this guy. Tell Pilate he's another fake messiah. Tell him to crucify him."
"Is this true? Are you an insurrectionist?"
Jesus remains silent.
"Are you going to take over Israel? Do you think we priests have made the temple unclean? Are you going to take it over and purify it? You're not even a priest."
Jesus remains silent.
"Do you really think you can defeat the Romans and us? Where are your supporters? Where is your army? What Judean will follow a Galilean? You're from Galilee. A king of Israel must be from the tribe of David, a Son of David."
Jesus remains silent.
"Tell us now, do you really think you are the coming king? Look at you, beaten up by my guards. Do you really think you are the king of the Jews? How can you think you are God's anointed one? Are you indeed the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?"
Jesus waited. He certainly did not look like a king. But he looked the high priest right in the eye.
"I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God. You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds to visit God's judgment on the earth."
The high priest dismissed him. "Take him to Pilate. I have too much to do today to worry with this guy. Tell Pilate he's another fake messiah. Tell him to crucify him."
Middle Night
Judas comes to the garden with a crowd holding swords and clubs. He greets Jesus with a kiss on the cheek. They don't know which one is Jesus. One of those with Jesus cuts the ear off of one of the high priest's servants.
"Funny that you arrest me this way," Jesus says. "You'd think I was a revolutionary. You always could have arrested me when I was teaching in the temple."
The disciples with Jesus scatter. A young man, maybe a son in the house where they ate the last supper, has come out with only an outer garment. They grab it, and he flees away naked.
They take him to the high priest's house. Peter follows from a distance. As he warms himself outside by a fire, he is accused of following Jesus. He denies it--three times before the night is done.
Annas, the high priest's father-in-law, interrogates him. Jesus is mostly silent. Perhaps he turns Jesus over to the guards for the night. They mock and beat him.
"Funny that you arrest me this way," Jesus says. "You'd think I was a revolutionary. You always could have arrested me when I was teaching in the temple."
The disciples with Jesus scatter. A young man, maybe a son in the house where they ate the last supper, has come out with only an outer garment. They grab it, and he flees away naked.
They take him to the high priest's house. Peter follows from a distance. As he warms himself outside by a fire, he is accused of following Jesus. He denies it--three times before the night is done.
Annas, the high priest's father-in-law, interrogates him. Jesus is mostly silent. Perhaps he turns Jesus over to the guards for the night. They mock and beat him.
Gethsemane
Jesus knows what is coming. They go to the Garden of Gethsemane, a place where Jesus had been meeting with his disciples.
He is troubled. He knows what Judas is doing. He knows they are coming. He knows what is about to transpire.
Pray, he tells Simon, James, and John. You will be tempted to sin. Pray not to give in to temptation. "I will not give in," says Simon.
"Simon, tonight you will deny me thrice."
In his humaness he does not want to die. "Lord, let this cup pass from me if it is at all possible." But he knows. He knows.
Peter is asleep. John is asleep. James is asleep. He is awake.
Let them sleep. The time has come.
He is troubled. He knows what Judas is doing. He knows they are coming. He knows what is about to transpire.
Pray, he tells Simon, James, and John. You will be tempted to sin. Pray not to give in to temptation. "I will not give in," says Simon.
"Simon, tonight you will deny me thrice."
In his humaness he does not want to die. "Lord, let this cup pass from me if it is at all possible." But he knows. He knows.
Peter is asleep. John is asleep. James is asleep. He is awake.
Let them sleep. The time has come.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
The Last Supper
It is now Jewish Friday. The sun has gone down and Jesus eats with his disciples. They are in the upper room of a certain house in the city.
They break bread. Jesus knows what Judas is up to, trying to force his hand, trying to make him reveal who he is to Israel.
"One of you is going to betray me," Jesus says.
"Surely not I," says Judas. Perhaps they have talked. Perhaps Judas has tried to convince Jesus to make his move against the Romans. The action in the temple was a start. Now Jesus must finish the work. Judas is clever. He will force Jesus into it by bringing the Jewish leaders against him. Then God will come and reveal who Jesus is.
Jesus knows that's not how God has it planned. He has already told them--this bread you eat, it is like my body, broken for you.
They eat. Drink up, he says. I will not drink with you again until we drink afresh in the kingdom of God.
It is now after supper. Judas has left.
They drink again. This wine is like my blood. God will make a new covenant with you all through my blood. My life will be like a ransom for God's people. Through my death God's wrath will come to an end.
They break bread. Jesus knows what Judas is up to, trying to force his hand, trying to make him reveal who he is to Israel.
"One of you is going to betray me," Jesus says.
"Surely not I," says Judas. Perhaps they have talked. Perhaps Judas has tried to convince Jesus to make his move against the Romans. The action in the temple was a start. Now Jesus must finish the work. Judas is clever. He will force Jesus into it by bringing the Jewish leaders against him. Then God will come and reveal who Jesus is.
Jesus knows that's not how God has it planned. He has already told them--this bread you eat, it is like my body, broken for you.
They eat. Drink up, he says. I will not drink with you again until we drink afresh in the kingdom of God.
It is now after supper. Judas has left.
They drink again. This wine is like my blood. God will make a new covenant with you all through my blood. My life will be like a ransom for God's people. Through my death God's wrath will come to an end.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
1 Timothy 2 and Women 3: The Verses Themselves
A Close Reading of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
So 1 Timothy 2:11-15 appear in the context of a discussion about the honorable conduct of worship. We notice right off the bat that we are in different territory than we were in at Corinth. We hear about past prophecies, but we are now focusing on "depositing" teaching, order, and structure for the future. Paul spends about half of chapter 2 laying down guidelines for the honorable conduct of women/wives in the worship of his day. Gone are discussions of tongues and prophecy. Instead, the focus is on prayer and instruction.
It seems to me that Paul's comments in these verses are meant to present honorable behavior with a view to the husband-wife relationship in particular. These verses are usually discussed in terms of all women and all men, but it is not clear at all to me that this is the best way to read them. The word for "wife" is of course the same as the word for "woman" in general (gyne), and the word for "husband" is also the word for a male (aner). The context must determine whether a marital relationship is in view.
The presumption would of course be that most men and women are married. Therefore, when Paul says "women dress modestly," we might just as well say "wives dressing modestly." This seems to be the way Paul is thinking here. He is not thinking of women as women, as independent beings the way we would think of them. The underlying thought of the passage is that women are wives. Women are individuals who are subject to a husband.
The explicit mention of subjection in 2:11 confirms that wives are primarily in view, for I can think of no biblical passage that speaks of women being subject to men in general. Genesis 3:16 says that as a consequence of her sin, Eve's desire is to her husband, and he will rule over her. Similarly, the Adam-Eve relationship Paul will mention in 2:13-14 is a husband-wife relationship.
2:11-12: "Let a wife learn in quietness in complete subjection, for I do not permit a wife to teach or have authority over a husband, but to be in quietness."
This sentence begins and ends with "in quietness," confirming that this is a unit of thought. Paul thus details what it might mean to learn in quietness and subjection--it means not teach or take authority over your husband. I would not think that this necessarily means absolute silence, but an attitude of submission to his instruction. It would probably imply not questioning what he is teaching or presuming to correct his teaching. Paul no doubt assumes that the husband's instruction is correct instruction, and the assumption seems to be that the man is better equipped to know true teaching from false teaching than the woman is.
I feel like I should stop for just a second to point out how foreign so much of this line of thought is both to our context and to Paul's writings overall. In our context, women are just as likely to know true teaching as their husbands. Indeed, this is the implication of us both equally having the Spirit. Except in 1 Corinthians 14 if original, we have never seen Paul say things quite like this in any of his other writings. His tone and demeanor are different from earlier. Here we find none of the reciprocity of 1 Corinthians 7 or 11, where even when he is chiding women he takes time to point out that "the husband's body belongs to his wife" and "the man comes out of the woman." Something has changed here, and we do the Bible no service to pretend that it hasn't. We want the full witness of Scripture, not just one moment in the symphony of revelation.
Let me say again that we should see the husband-wife relationship in view in these words, because Paul probably doesn't even consider the possibility that a woman would be talking to a man who wasn't her husband. In other words, Paul assumes a woman wouldn't be talking to a man who isn't her husband. But even in the husband-wife relationship she should listen rather than speak.
2:13-15 : "For"
Before looking at these verses specifically, we notice that Paul is about to defend the charge he has just given in 2:11-12. The following verses are thus a defense of why a wife should be in quietness and not teach or exercise authority over her husband.
Defense 1 (2:13): "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."
This is an argument from "birth order." While in our culture we tend to feel all children should be valued equally, ancient culture clearly favored and valued the firstborn over the later born. In general, the firstborn had authority over all the other children. Paul defends the authority of a husband over a wife by pointing out the order of creation.
A couple comments in terms of bridging the gap between then and now. I want to remind you of my sense that the Bible tends to be more "in general, with exceptions" than "absolutely never." We remember that in the case of Jacob and Esau, the Bible sanctions that the younger would rule over the older.
I also note that this comment is in conflict with the spiritual principle of Galatians 3:28: "In Christ there is not 'male and female.'" I mentioned earlier that Paul words this oddly. After saying "neither-nor" twice, he says "not male and female." A plausible explanation is that Paul is alluding to Genesis 1:27, where God makes them "male and female." In other words, Galatians 3:28 pictures the undoing of the male-female distinction made in creation. Thus in heaven we are like the angels, and we neither marry nor are given in marriage.
Defense 2 (2:14-15): "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman--having been deceived--has come to be in transgression. But she will be saved through childbearing, if they remain in faith and love and holiness with chastity."
These are hard words on more than one level. This seems to be Paul's main argument. Women should not be in the role of teacher because they are easily deceived, like Eve was. The letter's theme of false teaching here comes into view. If the wives teach their husbands, we find ourselves in the same situation that Adam and Eve were in, and we know what happened then. It was not the husband who was deceived by false teaching; it was the wife who led the husband astray.
Notice how easily Paul slips from discussing Eve--"she"--to talking about wives in general--"they." If "in Adam" all die, "in Eve" all women are subjugated to their husbands. The consequences of Eve's sin was 1. increased pain in childbearing and 2. subjugation to the rule of the husband (Gen. 3:16). We see both of these consequences of sin in this passage.
In a sense, Eve is "saved" from her transgression through childbearing. The easy switch from "she" to "they" applies the same to the "Eve's" of Paul's day: wives. They will be saved from the stain of Eve's sin through their childbearing. But even this is conditional on them remaining "in faith and love and holiness with chastity." These attitudes likely relate to being subject to their husbands.
Although I'll deal with the appropriation of these verses at a later time, I can already see a serious problem when it comes to applying these words to today. Paul's argument is primarily based on the consequences of Eve's sin. True, the Lord does not free a woman of painful childbearing when she becomes a Christian. In that sense women continue to experience the consequences of Eve's sin.
On the other hand, the book of Hebrews represents the final word in the Bible on Christ's atonement and probably takes us one step closer to a full understanding than even Paul on this subject. While Paul could offer a sacrifice in the Jerusalem temple even at the end of his ministry (Acts 21:23-26), Hebrews teaches that there can no longer be any sacrificial system now that Christ has died for sins: "With one offering he has forever perfected those who are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14).
In other words, it is blasphemy to suggest that there are sins for which Christ's death did not atone. The idea that Christian women are still held accountable for the sins of Eve in some way thus contradicts one of the most important truths about Christ's death. If in Adam all die, in Christ all are made alive. If in Eve all women are subjugated to their husbands and have painful childbirth, in Christ there is not male and female and eventually women's bodies will be transformed to be like Christ's glorious body (1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21).
Again, our understanding of Scripture is immature if we do not see that some of the arguments biblical authors make have to do with the thinking of their day. Take for example Paul's argument in Galatians that the promise to Abraham was to his seed singular rather than to his seed plural (Gal. 3:16). Paul's point is that the promise of justification only comes through Christ, the singular seed of Abraham. Paul's point is true and inspired. Indeed, I have no problem saying that his argument was inspired.
But Paul was not using the words as they were originally meant, and this argument would not convince any Jew today. Seed here is used collectively, a singular that stands for a plurality. Originally, the promise was indeed about the countless Israelites (plural) who would inherit the promise land. It happened.
My point is that the arguments God might inspire me to use today would not be the same arguments God would inspire someone else to make in a different time and place. The conclusion is the point of the inspiration more than the path to get there.
In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, the point is that the women of Paul's churches, and perhaps Ephesus in particular, should not be usurping authority over their husbands. They should be quiet in the worship. I am quite willing to say that this was indeed what God wanted them to do.
However, I am overwhelmingly certain that God does not have this message for His church today. Indeed, I would be so bold as to say that anyone who would apply these verses directly to today is out of the will of God and is "kicking against the goads" (Acts 26:13), "happily fighting against God" (Acts 5:39), with a "zeal without knowledge" (Rom. 10:2).
Examine your heart, anyone who would take this tact, to see if you are in the faith. God takes His women as seriously as He takes His men. And anyone who would put a stumblingblock in front of any of his children..., well Matthew 18 has some rather scary words involving a millstone.
So 1 Timothy 2:11-15 appear in the context of a discussion about the honorable conduct of worship. We notice right off the bat that we are in different territory than we were in at Corinth. We hear about past prophecies, but we are now focusing on "depositing" teaching, order, and structure for the future. Paul spends about half of chapter 2 laying down guidelines for the honorable conduct of women/wives in the worship of his day. Gone are discussions of tongues and prophecy. Instead, the focus is on prayer and instruction.
It seems to me that Paul's comments in these verses are meant to present honorable behavior with a view to the husband-wife relationship in particular. These verses are usually discussed in terms of all women and all men, but it is not clear at all to me that this is the best way to read them. The word for "wife" is of course the same as the word for "woman" in general (gyne), and the word for "husband" is also the word for a male (aner). The context must determine whether a marital relationship is in view.
The presumption would of course be that most men and women are married. Therefore, when Paul says "women dress modestly," we might just as well say "wives dressing modestly." This seems to be the way Paul is thinking here. He is not thinking of women as women, as independent beings the way we would think of them. The underlying thought of the passage is that women are wives. Women are individuals who are subject to a husband.
The explicit mention of subjection in 2:11 confirms that wives are primarily in view, for I can think of no biblical passage that speaks of women being subject to men in general. Genesis 3:16 says that as a consequence of her sin, Eve's desire is to her husband, and he will rule over her. Similarly, the Adam-Eve relationship Paul will mention in 2:13-14 is a husband-wife relationship.
2:11-12: "Let a wife learn in quietness in complete subjection, for I do not permit a wife to teach or have authority over a husband, but to be in quietness."
This sentence begins and ends with "in quietness," confirming that this is a unit of thought. Paul thus details what it might mean to learn in quietness and subjection--it means not teach or take authority over your husband. I would not think that this necessarily means absolute silence, but an attitude of submission to his instruction. It would probably imply not questioning what he is teaching or presuming to correct his teaching. Paul no doubt assumes that the husband's instruction is correct instruction, and the assumption seems to be that the man is better equipped to know true teaching from false teaching than the woman is.
I feel like I should stop for just a second to point out how foreign so much of this line of thought is both to our context and to Paul's writings overall. In our context, women are just as likely to know true teaching as their husbands. Indeed, this is the implication of us both equally having the Spirit. Except in 1 Corinthians 14 if original, we have never seen Paul say things quite like this in any of his other writings. His tone and demeanor are different from earlier. Here we find none of the reciprocity of 1 Corinthians 7 or 11, where even when he is chiding women he takes time to point out that "the husband's body belongs to his wife" and "the man comes out of the woman." Something has changed here, and we do the Bible no service to pretend that it hasn't. We want the full witness of Scripture, not just one moment in the symphony of revelation.
Let me say again that we should see the husband-wife relationship in view in these words, because Paul probably doesn't even consider the possibility that a woman would be talking to a man who wasn't her husband. In other words, Paul assumes a woman wouldn't be talking to a man who isn't her husband. But even in the husband-wife relationship she should listen rather than speak.
2:13-15 : "For"
Before looking at these verses specifically, we notice that Paul is about to defend the charge he has just given in 2:11-12. The following verses are thus a defense of why a wife should be in quietness and not teach or exercise authority over her husband.
Defense 1 (2:13): "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."
This is an argument from "birth order." While in our culture we tend to feel all children should be valued equally, ancient culture clearly favored and valued the firstborn over the later born. In general, the firstborn had authority over all the other children. Paul defends the authority of a husband over a wife by pointing out the order of creation.
A couple comments in terms of bridging the gap between then and now. I want to remind you of my sense that the Bible tends to be more "in general, with exceptions" than "absolutely never." We remember that in the case of Jacob and Esau, the Bible sanctions that the younger would rule over the older.
I also note that this comment is in conflict with the spiritual principle of Galatians 3:28: "In Christ there is not 'male and female.'" I mentioned earlier that Paul words this oddly. After saying "neither-nor" twice, he says "not male and female." A plausible explanation is that Paul is alluding to Genesis 1:27, where God makes them "male and female." In other words, Galatians 3:28 pictures the undoing of the male-female distinction made in creation. Thus in heaven we are like the angels, and we neither marry nor are given in marriage.
Defense 2 (2:14-15): "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman--having been deceived--has come to be in transgression. But she will be saved through childbearing, if they remain in faith and love and holiness with chastity."
These are hard words on more than one level. This seems to be Paul's main argument. Women should not be in the role of teacher because they are easily deceived, like Eve was. The letter's theme of false teaching here comes into view. If the wives teach their husbands, we find ourselves in the same situation that Adam and Eve were in, and we know what happened then. It was not the husband who was deceived by false teaching; it was the wife who led the husband astray.
Notice how easily Paul slips from discussing Eve--"she"--to talking about wives in general--"they." If "in Adam" all die, "in Eve" all women are subjugated to their husbands. The consequences of Eve's sin was 1. increased pain in childbearing and 2. subjugation to the rule of the husband (Gen. 3:16). We see both of these consequences of sin in this passage.
In a sense, Eve is "saved" from her transgression through childbearing. The easy switch from "she" to "they" applies the same to the "Eve's" of Paul's day: wives. They will be saved from the stain of Eve's sin through their childbearing. But even this is conditional on them remaining "in faith and love and holiness with chastity." These attitudes likely relate to being subject to their husbands.
Although I'll deal with the appropriation of these verses at a later time, I can already see a serious problem when it comes to applying these words to today. Paul's argument is primarily based on the consequences of Eve's sin. True, the Lord does not free a woman of painful childbearing when she becomes a Christian. In that sense women continue to experience the consequences of Eve's sin.
On the other hand, the book of Hebrews represents the final word in the Bible on Christ's atonement and probably takes us one step closer to a full understanding than even Paul on this subject. While Paul could offer a sacrifice in the Jerusalem temple even at the end of his ministry (Acts 21:23-26), Hebrews teaches that there can no longer be any sacrificial system now that Christ has died for sins: "With one offering he has forever perfected those who are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14).
In other words, it is blasphemy to suggest that there are sins for which Christ's death did not atone. The idea that Christian women are still held accountable for the sins of Eve in some way thus contradicts one of the most important truths about Christ's death. If in Adam all die, in Christ all are made alive. If in Eve all women are subjugated to their husbands and have painful childbirth, in Christ there is not male and female and eventually women's bodies will be transformed to be like Christ's glorious body (1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21).
Again, our understanding of Scripture is immature if we do not see that some of the arguments biblical authors make have to do with the thinking of their day. Take for example Paul's argument in Galatians that the promise to Abraham was to his seed singular rather than to his seed plural (Gal. 3:16). Paul's point is that the promise of justification only comes through Christ, the singular seed of Abraham. Paul's point is true and inspired. Indeed, I have no problem saying that his argument was inspired.
But Paul was not using the words as they were originally meant, and this argument would not convince any Jew today. Seed here is used collectively, a singular that stands for a plurality. Originally, the promise was indeed about the countless Israelites (plural) who would inherit the promise land. It happened.
My point is that the arguments God might inspire me to use today would not be the same arguments God would inspire someone else to make in a different time and place. The conclusion is the point of the inspiration more than the path to get there.
In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, the point is that the women of Paul's churches, and perhaps Ephesus in particular, should not be usurping authority over their husbands. They should be quiet in the worship. I am quite willing to say that this was indeed what God wanted them to do.
However, I am overwhelmingly certain that God does not have this message for His church today. Indeed, I would be so bold as to say that anyone who would apply these verses directly to today is out of the will of God and is "kicking against the goads" (Acts 26:13), "happily fighting against God" (Acts 5:39), with a "zeal without knowledge" (Rom. 10:2).
Examine your heart, anyone who would take this tact, to see if you are in the faith. God takes His women as seriously as He takes His men. And anyone who would put a stumblingblock in front of any of his children..., well Matthew 18 has some rather scary words involving a millstone.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
1 Timothy and Women 2: The Broader Context of 1 Timothy
The Place of 1 Timothy 2:12-15 in the Letter
There are two things you should have on your mind after you have finished reading 1 Timothy. The first is false teaching; the second is church order. These two emphases are not unrelated, for sound leadership and orderly structures are some of the best protections against false teaching.
I find the comments directed at Timothy directly in the letter to be very helpful in unfolding the import of this letter:
1 Tim. 1:3: "Just as I urged you to remain in Ephesus when I was going into Macedonia, command certain individuals not to teach false things..."
1 Tim. 1:18: "I am enjoining this command to you [to stop false teaching?], Timothy my child, according to the preceding prophecies about you, so that you might fight the good fight [foretold] in them.
1 Tim. 3:14: "I write these things [about church order] to you hoping to come to you soon. But if I am delayed, I write them so you may know how it is necessary for the house of God to conduct itself, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
1 Tim. 4:6: "If you point out these things to the brothers [about false teaching], you will be a good servant [diakonos] of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and the good teaching that you have followed..."
1 Tim. 6:2: "Teach and urge these things [duties of widows, elders, slaves]..."
1 Tim. 6:11: "But you, O man of God, flee these things [false teaching, love of money]..."
1 Tim. 6:20: "O Timothy, gaurd the deposit [that which Paul is leaving Timothy, particularly in regard to sound teaching]."
A quick glance at these references shows that 1 Timothy looks to a time when Paul will not be there to direct the church at Ephesus, when Timothy will be in charge. Paul is leaving Timothy a "deposit" of sound teaching and practice whereby the church can continue on track "if Paul is delayed." On all reconstructions I know of the time of the letter, it appears that Paul never did return to Ephesus after he wrote these words.
The verses with which we are concerned, 1 Timothy 2:12-15, arguably appear in the middle of a block of teaching about the orderly conduct of the church: 2:1-3:13. This section is immediately preceded by direct comments to Timothy regarding prophecies that apparently foretold that he would fight false teaching one day (1:18-20). Immediately following this section Paul gives the whole purpose of the letter: in case he is delayed, he wants Timothy to know how God's house, the church, should conduct itself.
The section in which these verses appear, therefore, does not directly address false teaching, although it is no doubt a guard against such. Paul presents a picture of the honorable church. False teaching may stand somewhere in the background of what Paul says, but these are general statements about what the ideal church looks like.
So, "first of all," Paul urges that the church of God should pray for secular authorities (2:1-7). Prayer and intercession is something the Ephesian church should do in worship. Then Paul speaks of what men do in worship--they pray with lifted hands rather than raising their hands in anger or arguing (2:8). Paul then says how the women--likely wives are primarily in view--should dress, presumably in worship especially. They should dress modestly and not with great show (2:9-10).
This thought about women continues. Not only should they "adorn" themselves with good deeds (2:10), but women should learn in subjection in quietness (2:11). Again, the worship setting seems primarily in view. It is at this point that the verses in question appear. Paul will not allow wives to teach or exercise authority over their husbands, but to be in quietness (2:12). It is a point of debate whether women in general or wives in particular are in view. But this is a matter for the next entry.
The remainder of the section relates to the appropriate characteristics for overseers and deacons in the church, as well as for their wives (3:1-13).
Our verses thus seem to be about the honorable conduct of wives in the typical church of Paul's day.
Next post, a close reading of these verses in this context.
There are two things you should have on your mind after you have finished reading 1 Timothy. The first is false teaching; the second is church order. These two emphases are not unrelated, for sound leadership and orderly structures are some of the best protections against false teaching.
I find the comments directed at Timothy directly in the letter to be very helpful in unfolding the import of this letter:
1 Tim. 1:3: "Just as I urged you to remain in Ephesus when I was going into Macedonia, command certain individuals not to teach false things..."
1 Tim. 1:18: "I am enjoining this command to you [to stop false teaching?], Timothy my child, according to the preceding prophecies about you, so that you might fight the good fight [foretold] in them.
1 Tim. 3:14: "I write these things [about church order] to you hoping to come to you soon. But if I am delayed, I write them so you may know how it is necessary for the house of God to conduct itself, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
1 Tim. 4:6: "If you point out these things to the brothers [about false teaching], you will be a good servant [diakonos] of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and the good teaching that you have followed..."
1 Tim. 6:2: "Teach and urge these things [duties of widows, elders, slaves]..."
1 Tim. 6:11: "But you, O man of God, flee these things [false teaching, love of money]..."
1 Tim. 6:20: "O Timothy, gaurd the deposit [that which Paul is leaving Timothy, particularly in regard to sound teaching]."
A quick glance at these references shows that 1 Timothy looks to a time when Paul will not be there to direct the church at Ephesus, when Timothy will be in charge. Paul is leaving Timothy a "deposit" of sound teaching and practice whereby the church can continue on track "if Paul is delayed." On all reconstructions I know of the time of the letter, it appears that Paul never did return to Ephesus after he wrote these words.
The verses with which we are concerned, 1 Timothy 2:12-15, arguably appear in the middle of a block of teaching about the orderly conduct of the church: 2:1-3:13. This section is immediately preceded by direct comments to Timothy regarding prophecies that apparently foretold that he would fight false teaching one day (1:18-20). Immediately following this section Paul gives the whole purpose of the letter: in case he is delayed, he wants Timothy to know how God's house, the church, should conduct itself.
The section in which these verses appear, therefore, does not directly address false teaching, although it is no doubt a guard against such. Paul presents a picture of the honorable church. False teaching may stand somewhere in the background of what Paul says, but these are general statements about what the ideal church looks like.
So, "first of all," Paul urges that the church of God should pray for secular authorities (2:1-7). Prayer and intercession is something the Ephesian church should do in worship. Then Paul speaks of what men do in worship--they pray with lifted hands rather than raising their hands in anger or arguing (2:8). Paul then says how the women--likely wives are primarily in view--should dress, presumably in worship especially. They should dress modestly and not with great show (2:9-10).
This thought about women continues. Not only should they "adorn" themselves with good deeds (2:10), but women should learn in subjection in quietness (2:11). Again, the worship setting seems primarily in view. It is at this point that the verses in question appear. Paul will not allow wives to teach or exercise authority over their husbands, but to be in quietness (2:12). It is a point of debate whether women in general or wives in particular are in view. But this is a matter for the next entry.
The remainder of the section relates to the appropriate characteristics for overseers and deacons in the church, as well as for their wives (3:1-13).
Our verses thus seem to be about the honorable conduct of wives in the typical church of Paul's day.
Next post, a close reading of these verses in this context.
Friday, March 18, 2005
1 Timothy 2 and Women in Ministry: Introduction
While I won't be presenting on 1 Timothy 2:12-15, a friend of mine encouraged me to go ahead and discuss this second verse on my blog. This will take several entries.
First, while 1 Corinthians 14 clearly cannot prohibit women from prophesying in the Christian assembly (=church), 1 Timothy 2:12 sure sounds like it does:
"To teach, to a women I do not permit, nor to have authority over a man, but to be in quietness."
Let me say up front, however, that if this means a woman cannot prophesy in church, then Paul has contradicted himself. And prophecy involves teaching, since 1 Cor. 14:31 indicates learning as a consequence of prophecy.
How can we harmonize these two comments--or should we? They do not harmonize easily. Let me brainstorm what the possibilities are:
1. Teaching in 1 Timothy is not the same as the kind of teaching that takes place in prophecy.
2. Paul has becomed hardened as time has passed on this issue, perhaps because of abuses he has seen, or perhaps environmental factors are pushing in this direction.
3. Paul is having a moment of hardness on this issue because of things going on at the time, such as things going on at Ephesus, or perhaps environmental issues are pushing in this direction.
4. 1 Timothy is pseudonymous, and the Pauline churches have become hardened over time for whatever reason, or environmental factors have pushed the church in this direction.
5. The scope of 1 Timothy 2 is different from the scope of 1 Corinthians 11. When Paul says he does not allow women to teach or have authority over men, he means "in general." There are of course exceptional women who rise to the fore from time to time.
In my opinion none of these are very pleasing for one reason or another. Number one is the easy answer, but it has all kinds of theological problems. If men and women both have the same spirit (and we now know their minds are both potentially capable of thinking and leadership), then why would we arbitrarily put certain limitations in what God could do through them?
This fact pushes us toward contextual factors: problems within the church or problems outside the church. As far as problems inside the church, we might mention the possibility that wealthy women sometimes served as conduits for false teaching. There is some evidence for this at Ephesus (e.g., 2 Tim. 3:6).
Certainly the culture did not smile on women taking leadership and this factor might have pushed away from the full exercise of the Spirit in the church. 1 Timothy marks a definite move toward institutionalization in its rules about bishops and deacons, and Paul is looking toward a church that does not have him around to give it direction. All these features might contribute toward an explanation of hardness on Paul's part.
This explanation will be more satisfying than the idea that 1 Timothy is pseudonymous, which means that it was written under the authority of Paul's name as a representation of his voice to the church, but some time after he had died. In other words, some individual with authority would have attempted to present Paul's voice to the next generation, what he thought Paul would say (I presume it would be a he). We have many Jewish and non-Jewish examples of these kinds of writings in the ancient world.
The majority of evangelical scholars do not believe there are any writings of this sort in the New Testament. In contrast, the majority of non-evangelical scholars--since they do not find the practice problematic--almost assume without argument that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul. Most evangelical scholars have difficulty concluding that a pseudonymous writing could be anything but a lie: "It says Paul wrote it; Paul must have written it." The possibility is thus eliminated regardless of what evidence there might be.
What we find is that both sides largely have formed their conclusion before they even read the letter. Non-evangelicals presume Paul didn't write it because that's what they've been taught. Evangelicals presume Paul wrote it because he has to have written it.
I will also take the position that Paul wrote 1 Timothy. I do, however, believe it is possible to argue that a pseudonymous writing could be "honest" in that day though we would consider them wrong today. There are some evangelical scholars who argue that pseudonymity need not be lying. For example, the recent NT introduction coauthored by Joel Green of Asbury Seminary, Paul Achtemeier of Union in Virginia, and Marianne Thompson of Fuller argues that it would have been lying for someone not to put Paul's name on a writing if they thought it represented his teaching (I myself find this particular argument somewhat of a stretch). Nevertheless, I personally submit to the broader evangelical judgment that pseudonymous writings cannot be in the New Testament.
Of course whether 1 Timothy was pseudonymous or not, it is in Scripture, and we must take it seriously. God allowed these words to be in His Word, so we must treat them as an authority over us in an appropriate way.
The scope argument seems another viable possibility in interpretation. This is the idea that statements like 1 Timothy 2:12 were never meant to exclude exceptional women who we immediately recognize have God's hand on them. It's the idea that most biblical comments are meant on the level of "in general this, but there are exceptions."
My postings for the next few entries will go like this:
1. Placing 1 Timothy 2:12-15 in the Letter
2. A Close Reading of 1 Timothy 2:12-15
3. Placing 1 Timothy in Time and Place
4. Placing 1 Timothy in Paul's Ministry
5. Appropriating 1 Timothy 2:12-15
First, while 1 Corinthians 14 clearly cannot prohibit women from prophesying in the Christian assembly (=church), 1 Timothy 2:12 sure sounds like it does:
"To teach, to a women I do not permit, nor to have authority over a man, but to be in quietness."
Let me say up front, however, that if this means a woman cannot prophesy in church, then Paul has contradicted himself. And prophecy involves teaching, since 1 Cor. 14:31 indicates learning as a consequence of prophecy.
How can we harmonize these two comments--or should we? They do not harmonize easily. Let me brainstorm what the possibilities are:
1. Teaching in 1 Timothy is not the same as the kind of teaching that takes place in prophecy.
2. Paul has becomed hardened as time has passed on this issue, perhaps because of abuses he has seen, or perhaps environmental factors are pushing in this direction.
3. Paul is having a moment of hardness on this issue because of things going on at the time, such as things going on at Ephesus, or perhaps environmental issues are pushing in this direction.
4. 1 Timothy is pseudonymous, and the Pauline churches have become hardened over time for whatever reason, or environmental factors have pushed the church in this direction.
5. The scope of 1 Timothy 2 is different from the scope of 1 Corinthians 11. When Paul says he does not allow women to teach or have authority over men, he means "in general." There are of course exceptional women who rise to the fore from time to time.
In my opinion none of these are very pleasing for one reason or another. Number one is the easy answer, but it has all kinds of theological problems. If men and women both have the same spirit (and we now know their minds are both potentially capable of thinking and leadership), then why would we arbitrarily put certain limitations in what God could do through them?
This fact pushes us toward contextual factors: problems within the church or problems outside the church. As far as problems inside the church, we might mention the possibility that wealthy women sometimes served as conduits for false teaching. There is some evidence for this at Ephesus (e.g., 2 Tim. 3:6).
Certainly the culture did not smile on women taking leadership and this factor might have pushed away from the full exercise of the Spirit in the church. 1 Timothy marks a definite move toward institutionalization in its rules about bishops and deacons, and Paul is looking toward a church that does not have him around to give it direction. All these features might contribute toward an explanation of hardness on Paul's part.
This explanation will be more satisfying than the idea that 1 Timothy is pseudonymous, which means that it was written under the authority of Paul's name as a representation of his voice to the church, but some time after he had died. In other words, some individual with authority would have attempted to present Paul's voice to the next generation, what he thought Paul would say (I presume it would be a he). We have many Jewish and non-Jewish examples of these kinds of writings in the ancient world.
The majority of evangelical scholars do not believe there are any writings of this sort in the New Testament. In contrast, the majority of non-evangelical scholars--since they do not find the practice problematic--almost assume without argument that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul. Most evangelical scholars have difficulty concluding that a pseudonymous writing could be anything but a lie: "It says Paul wrote it; Paul must have written it." The possibility is thus eliminated regardless of what evidence there might be.
What we find is that both sides largely have formed their conclusion before they even read the letter. Non-evangelicals presume Paul didn't write it because that's what they've been taught. Evangelicals presume Paul wrote it because he has to have written it.
I will also take the position that Paul wrote 1 Timothy. I do, however, believe it is possible to argue that a pseudonymous writing could be "honest" in that day though we would consider them wrong today. There are some evangelical scholars who argue that pseudonymity need not be lying. For example, the recent NT introduction coauthored by Joel Green of Asbury Seminary, Paul Achtemeier of Union in Virginia, and Marianne Thompson of Fuller argues that it would have been lying for someone not to put Paul's name on a writing if they thought it represented his teaching (I myself find this particular argument somewhat of a stretch). Nevertheless, I personally submit to the broader evangelical judgment that pseudonymous writings cannot be in the New Testament.
Of course whether 1 Timothy was pseudonymous or not, it is in Scripture, and we must take it seriously. God allowed these words to be in His Word, so we must treat them as an authority over us in an appropriate way.
The scope argument seems another viable possibility in interpretation. This is the idea that statements like 1 Timothy 2:12 were never meant to exclude exceptional women who we immediately recognize have God's hand on them. It's the idea that most biblical comments are meant on the level of "in general this, but there are exceptions."
My postings for the next few entries will go like this:
1. Placing 1 Timothy 2:12-15 in the Letter
2. A Close Reading of 1 Timothy 2:12-15
3. Placing 1 Timothy in Time and Place
4. Placing 1 Timothy in Paul's Ministry
5. Appropriating 1 Timothy 2:12-15
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Women 4: Appropriating 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Appropriating 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
In this entry I will assume that these verses are, in fact, a part of the original text of 1 Corinthians. Assuming that they are, how do we appropriate them today?
First, I have shown in an earlier entry that whatever the verses might mean, they cannot prohibit women from a prophetic role or from public prayer. If they did, Paul would contradict himself on a fundamental level within the space of a few chapters. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 deal with worship disruption, particularly from wives in conversation with the worship going on around them, perhaps with prophecies in particular. They must refer to a particular kind of disruption that Paul found particularly irritating in his churches.
Accordingly, our quest is at an end. No matter how you slice it, these verses relate to women causing disruption and specifically do not relate to women God anoints with prophetic messages. The passage does not even address the question of whether women could participate in church leadership. Indeed, it is difficult to say that the church at Corinth even had some fixed leadership structure at all, given its "charimatic" bent.
No doubt the overwhelming majority of leaders in ancient churches were male, given the patriarchal nature of ancient society. The fact that most churches met in homes no doubt led to similar leadership structures to those of the home, which surprisingly must have pushed in more than one way. While men were the heads of their wives in ancient society (e.g., Aristotle says so), the home was the domain of the woman and she directed its activities (e.g., even over male slaves and certainly children). In contrast, Men belonged to the public domain.
Surprising to some, 1 Corinthians on the whole adds credence to the idea of women in ministry. 1 Corinthians 11 sanctions women's involvement in public prayer and prophecy, while 14:34-35 are a tangent to this discussion. But since we are on this topic, let me make some comments on the issue in general. What if 1 Corinthians 14 had seemed to deny women roles of leadership in the church?
First let me note that the "scope" of the current discussion is different from the scope of the biblical discussion. Current evangelical culture has adopted a kind of "absolutist" scope to all its discussions that is, in the end, unbiblical. We tend to apply general principles in an absolute sense, meaning, without exception.
But this is not the way Jesus talked about ethics: "Humanity wasn't made for the Sabbath rule, the Sabbath rule was made for humanity." In other words, there are frequently exceptions to the rules. In general, we should be careful to assume that biblical injunctions are meant to be exceptionless in scope, even when they are worded as "all" statements. Even the Pharisees made room for exceptions, and Jesus gave more exceptions than they did.
The attitude of at least much of the Old Testament, as well as I would say Luke-Acts and most of Paul, is similar in scope when it comes to women. Certainly in the Old Testament, you expected most leaders and prophets to be men. Priests seem to be men exclusively.
However, this general pattern was not an absolute. Even the non-Christian and very "sexist" Aristotle, as he sets out his idea that the husband is the head of the wife and household, indicates that sometimes there are women who "depart from nature." These societies allowed for the exceptional woman like Deborah, who led armies. Similarly, Josiah takes the Book of the Law to Huldah the prophetess to verify its authenticity.
In short, while the general expectation in Bible times was that men would lead, there was a sanctioned place for exceptional women who "departed from nature." My read of Acts 2 is that at least some early Christians believed the frequency of such women would only intensify in the eschatological age. The Spirit is the great leveler. When the Spirit fills women, women become in Christ just as much as men are in Christ, for "in Christ there is not 'male and female'" (Gal. 3:28). Thus when God pours out his Spirit, both sons and daughters would prophecy (Acts 2).
Two things made this prophetic role difficult 1. the husband-wife relationship and 2. the cultural view of females. Let me first make it clear that the husband wife issue is distinct from the women in ministry issue. You can believe that the husband is the head of his wife and yet still approve of women in ministry. What if, for example, a husband wanted his wife to be a minister. How then would husband headship contradict women in ministry? There is also the issue of single women, virgin prophetesses as we see in Acts 21. Of course you can guess my position, I think this is more "earth-think," more concession to ancient culture.
The Corinthian women seem to have wanted to exploit their new found freedom in a way that shamed their husbands. Further, the longer we go into the New Testament, the more "defensive" the church becomes socially. Christianity increasingly conforms to the social values of the day on these issues. Colossians, 1 Timothy, and 1 Peter all represent a move toward the "respectable" in Mediterranean culture, particularly when it comes to the roles of women.
The eschatological, prophetic function of women that seems so striking in some of Paul's earlier letters and in the descriptions of Acts gives way to institutionalization in the later Paul. The "early" Paul who speaks of Christ's return as immanent mentions several women as his fellow workers and says there is no "male and female" in Christ. In contrast, the "later Paul" who fights heresy and strives to pass on sound doctrine has little positive to say about women in the church. Meanwhile, 1 Peter tells women and slaves to "hunker down" and suffer like Christ did, since the judgment was beginning.
In this mix if we are to distinguish heavenly principle from earthly practice, there can be little ambiguity. In Christ there is not "male and female." The wording evokes images of Genesis 1:27: "male and female created He them." In Christ this gender distinction is undone. In heaven they "neither marry nor are given in marriage." Everyone is like the angels without subordination to one another as wife to husband. The heavenly trajectory is set.
The idea "I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man" is not an exception to the heavenly principle. It is in conflict with the heavenly principle. Is not teaching a matter of the Spirit rather than the flesh? And yet it is exactly in the realm of the Spirit that "there is not 'male and female.'" In the light of the heavenly trajectory, we can only view such a rule as a concession to the earthly. And if a woman can receive a prophetic word from God as much as a man, if a woman has the Spirit as much as a man, why would she be silent if God has given her something to teach?
If we wish to fit this statement with the principles of Scripture, indeed with Paul's teaching elsewhere, we must resort to what I have called "cheap harmonizations." We must suggest that Paul is dealing with particular problems at Ephesus or that he is dealing with a widespread problem that leads him to generalize. But what we cannot do is take his words in 1 Timothy 2:12 as absolute. To do so contradicts far more crucial principles about the nature of being in Christ. Indeed, to take the logic of that passage too rigidly leads us into heresy--how can a woman be "saved" from the transgression of Eve by childbearing? Christ died for all sins, including the sin of Eve!
And then there is the fact that there is of course nothing particularly Christian about women being subject to men. Any old non-Christian agreed--Aristotle, for example. It is when Christianity moves toward the equality between men and women that we are moving in the heavenly direction. Anything less--particularly in an age when we don't even have to deal with persecution or disorder--is to submit to earthly principles when the heavenly ones are available. It is to continue the institution of slavery when the possibility exists to abolish it.
Reason and Experience
Let me briefly close by applying two of the prongs in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.
First, does it make sense to, say, pick a less qualified, less gifted, less wise male as a minister over a wiser, more gifted female? Answer: no. Yet this is exactly what the absolutist position of a Southern Baptist would lead us to do.
I'll go ahead and say it--that's stupid. Let's say I'm on plane about to crash. The pilot is unconscious. There is only me and a woman there. I don't know how to fly a plane. But let's say she does, in fact that she has a pilot's license. Should I insist on flying the plane because I have male reproductive organs? I have a hunch that God's just a little smarter than that.
Now remind me again why people argue against the very possibility of a woman in ministry? Oh, that's right, one single verse in 1 Timothy whose context, scope, and meaning is debated.
What then about experience? There are women who feel God calling them into ministry. Are we going to tell them to become nurses because they're mistaken? Isn't that pretty shaky--to tell someone who thinks God's calling them that they're mistaken? Of course both men and women can be mistaken about God's call. But you better pray really hard before you tell someone something like this.
I leave with this question: why would we continue with rules based on bodies and the earthly when we know what the heavenly will be like? When it actually is a positive witness for Christ in America--unlike the way it would have been perceived in Paul's day--why not even promote it? What would a prohibition of women in ministry indicate about God anyway? What's the point God would be trying to make? That He's testing us to see if we'll follow an arbitrary rule that makes no sense and is prone to turn people away from Christ, a rule that was "worldly thinking" even in the days of Paul?
Or just maybe God is expecting us to do what we did with slavery--to seize this opportunity to make the world just a little more glorifying to God than it is when it is under the power of Sin. We can take the Spirit's cue and make the earth look a little more like heaven will.
In this entry I will assume that these verses are, in fact, a part of the original text of 1 Corinthians. Assuming that they are, how do we appropriate them today?
First, I have shown in an earlier entry that whatever the verses might mean, they cannot prohibit women from a prophetic role or from public prayer. If they did, Paul would contradict himself on a fundamental level within the space of a few chapters. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 deal with worship disruption, particularly from wives in conversation with the worship going on around them, perhaps with prophecies in particular. They must refer to a particular kind of disruption that Paul found particularly irritating in his churches.
Accordingly, our quest is at an end. No matter how you slice it, these verses relate to women causing disruption and specifically do not relate to women God anoints with prophetic messages. The passage does not even address the question of whether women could participate in church leadership. Indeed, it is difficult to say that the church at Corinth even had some fixed leadership structure at all, given its "charimatic" bent.
No doubt the overwhelming majority of leaders in ancient churches were male, given the patriarchal nature of ancient society. The fact that most churches met in homes no doubt led to similar leadership structures to those of the home, which surprisingly must have pushed in more than one way. While men were the heads of their wives in ancient society (e.g., Aristotle says so), the home was the domain of the woman and she directed its activities (e.g., even over male slaves and certainly children). In contrast, Men belonged to the public domain.
Surprising to some, 1 Corinthians on the whole adds credence to the idea of women in ministry. 1 Corinthians 11 sanctions women's involvement in public prayer and prophecy, while 14:34-35 are a tangent to this discussion. But since we are on this topic, let me make some comments on the issue in general. What if 1 Corinthians 14 had seemed to deny women roles of leadership in the church?
First let me note that the "scope" of the current discussion is different from the scope of the biblical discussion. Current evangelical culture has adopted a kind of "absolutist" scope to all its discussions that is, in the end, unbiblical. We tend to apply general principles in an absolute sense, meaning, without exception.
But this is not the way Jesus talked about ethics: "Humanity wasn't made for the Sabbath rule, the Sabbath rule was made for humanity." In other words, there are frequently exceptions to the rules. In general, we should be careful to assume that biblical injunctions are meant to be exceptionless in scope, even when they are worded as "all" statements. Even the Pharisees made room for exceptions, and Jesus gave more exceptions than they did.
The attitude of at least much of the Old Testament, as well as I would say Luke-Acts and most of Paul, is similar in scope when it comes to women. Certainly in the Old Testament, you expected most leaders and prophets to be men. Priests seem to be men exclusively.
However, this general pattern was not an absolute. Even the non-Christian and very "sexist" Aristotle, as he sets out his idea that the husband is the head of the wife and household, indicates that sometimes there are women who "depart from nature." These societies allowed for the exceptional woman like Deborah, who led armies. Similarly, Josiah takes the Book of the Law to Huldah the prophetess to verify its authenticity.
In short, while the general expectation in Bible times was that men would lead, there was a sanctioned place for exceptional women who "departed from nature." My read of Acts 2 is that at least some early Christians believed the frequency of such women would only intensify in the eschatological age. The Spirit is the great leveler. When the Spirit fills women, women become in Christ just as much as men are in Christ, for "in Christ there is not 'male and female'" (Gal. 3:28). Thus when God pours out his Spirit, both sons and daughters would prophecy (Acts 2).
Two things made this prophetic role difficult 1. the husband-wife relationship and 2. the cultural view of females. Let me first make it clear that the husband wife issue is distinct from the women in ministry issue. You can believe that the husband is the head of his wife and yet still approve of women in ministry. What if, for example, a husband wanted his wife to be a minister. How then would husband headship contradict women in ministry? There is also the issue of single women, virgin prophetesses as we see in Acts 21. Of course you can guess my position, I think this is more "earth-think," more concession to ancient culture.
The Corinthian women seem to have wanted to exploit their new found freedom in a way that shamed their husbands. Further, the longer we go into the New Testament, the more "defensive" the church becomes socially. Christianity increasingly conforms to the social values of the day on these issues. Colossians, 1 Timothy, and 1 Peter all represent a move toward the "respectable" in Mediterranean culture, particularly when it comes to the roles of women.
The eschatological, prophetic function of women that seems so striking in some of Paul's earlier letters and in the descriptions of Acts gives way to institutionalization in the later Paul. The "early" Paul who speaks of Christ's return as immanent mentions several women as his fellow workers and says there is no "male and female" in Christ. In contrast, the "later Paul" who fights heresy and strives to pass on sound doctrine has little positive to say about women in the church. Meanwhile, 1 Peter tells women and slaves to "hunker down" and suffer like Christ did, since the judgment was beginning.
In this mix if we are to distinguish heavenly principle from earthly practice, there can be little ambiguity. In Christ there is not "male and female." The wording evokes images of Genesis 1:27: "male and female created He them." In Christ this gender distinction is undone. In heaven they "neither marry nor are given in marriage." Everyone is like the angels without subordination to one another as wife to husband. The heavenly trajectory is set.
The idea "I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man" is not an exception to the heavenly principle. It is in conflict with the heavenly principle. Is not teaching a matter of the Spirit rather than the flesh? And yet it is exactly in the realm of the Spirit that "there is not 'male and female.'" In the light of the heavenly trajectory, we can only view such a rule as a concession to the earthly. And if a woman can receive a prophetic word from God as much as a man, if a woman has the Spirit as much as a man, why would she be silent if God has given her something to teach?
If we wish to fit this statement with the principles of Scripture, indeed with Paul's teaching elsewhere, we must resort to what I have called "cheap harmonizations." We must suggest that Paul is dealing with particular problems at Ephesus or that he is dealing with a widespread problem that leads him to generalize. But what we cannot do is take his words in 1 Timothy 2:12 as absolute. To do so contradicts far more crucial principles about the nature of being in Christ. Indeed, to take the logic of that passage too rigidly leads us into heresy--how can a woman be "saved" from the transgression of Eve by childbearing? Christ died for all sins, including the sin of Eve!
And then there is the fact that there is of course nothing particularly Christian about women being subject to men. Any old non-Christian agreed--Aristotle, for example. It is when Christianity moves toward the equality between men and women that we are moving in the heavenly direction. Anything less--particularly in an age when we don't even have to deal with persecution or disorder--is to submit to earthly principles when the heavenly ones are available. It is to continue the institution of slavery when the possibility exists to abolish it.
Reason and Experience
Let me briefly close by applying two of the prongs in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.
First, does it make sense to, say, pick a less qualified, less gifted, less wise male as a minister over a wiser, more gifted female? Answer: no. Yet this is exactly what the absolutist position of a Southern Baptist would lead us to do.
I'll go ahead and say it--that's stupid. Let's say I'm on plane about to crash. The pilot is unconscious. There is only me and a woman there. I don't know how to fly a plane. But let's say she does, in fact that she has a pilot's license. Should I insist on flying the plane because I have male reproductive organs? I have a hunch that God's just a little smarter than that.
Now remind me again why people argue against the very possibility of a woman in ministry? Oh, that's right, one single verse in 1 Timothy whose context, scope, and meaning is debated.
What then about experience? There are women who feel God calling them into ministry. Are we going to tell them to become nurses because they're mistaken? Isn't that pretty shaky--to tell someone who thinks God's calling them that they're mistaken? Of course both men and women can be mistaken about God's call. But you better pray really hard before you tell someone something like this.
I leave with this question: why would we continue with rules based on bodies and the earthly when we know what the heavenly will be like? When it actually is a positive witness for Christ in America--unlike the way it would have been perceived in Paul's day--why not even promote it? What would a prohibition of women in ministry indicate about God anyway? What's the point God would be trying to make? That He's testing us to see if we'll follow an arbitrary rule that makes no sense and is prone to turn people away from Christ, a rule that was "worldly thinking" even in the days of Paul?
Or just maybe God is expecting us to do what we did with slavery--to seize this opportunity to make the world just a little more glorifying to God than it is when it is under the power of Sin. We can take the Spirit's cue and make the earth look a little more like heaven will.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Women 4: Response to Ben
Ben asked some good questions, so here are some quick thoughts:
Ben: Dr. Schenck,If we are to assume that these verses are early interpolations, 1) who may have composed and added them to this epistle? 2) Do you suppose the reason for the addition is the same reason Paul included these verses if they are original? 3) If these verse are not original, was their addition inspired? If not, what sort of paradigm shift must we make from the common evangelical approach to inspiration? 4)Would this sort of early interpolation be found elsewhere in the New Testament?Thoughts floating in my head...interested to hear yours.~Ben
Great questions. I think we must suppose that they were added very early indeed, perhaps even as an addition to the original manuscripts.
And while I don't think they fit very well with the flavor of the 1 Corinthian Paul, they fit very well with the 1 Timothy Paul. In this sense I can pass the buck to David Smith, who's going to discuss the place of 1 Timothy in the women in ministry debate. We have to deal with 1 Timothy whether these words in 1 Corinthians were original or not.
Given the church hermeneutic I advocate, the question of their early inclusion and persistence is an important one. I would place it into the bag of objections to women in ministry raised by those who point out that women have not held pastoral offices in the church from as early as the late first century except in certain off the mainstream groups like the Montanists. If I adopt the kind of church hermeneutic I use with the Trinity, how can I then support women in ministry from this angle?
I think of the words of a friend of mine who ultimately converted from the Anglican Church to the Roman Catholic Church: "I will support women in ministry when it is affirmed by an ecumenical council." I think he was sincere.
And this is partially my position. I will support women in ministry because I believe we are in a period leading up to a consensus on women in ministry. It may not completely look that way now, but I can't imagine even the Roman Catholic Church holding out on this one for very long. The idea of compartmentalizing roles in the church because women don't have certain physical organs is simply incomprehensible in my mind in the light of the truth of the gospel. And when people are only maintaining positions that don't make spiritual sense because it's the "rules," I can't see these ideas lasting for very long.
I see the same thing with the pro-slavery parts of the church 150 years ago. It's "obvious" to us today that they were on the wrong side of the issue and we have a hard time today even believing that the hearts of such individuals were right with God. They were just on the wrong side of history. In reality it's more complicated than this, but I do believe Christians a hundred years from now will view anti-women in ministry people similarly.
I put this in the same category as "Moses said give them a writ of divorce because of the hardness of your hearts." I truly believe God's word to the church today is, "God allowed the New Testament church to conform to the patriarchal values of its day because of the hardness of their hearts. But God did not intend it to be so, as it is written, 'In Christ there is neither male nor female.'"
I'll reiterate many of these thoughts in my final blog on the subject.
There are other places in the Bible where I would suggest that what you see is not what you get. I treat these as fully Scriptural, which may imply some inconsistency on my part in the way I am tempted to dismiss 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
For example, I tend to see 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 as misplaced, although I accept Paul as its author. I have no external evidence for this conclusion, only the fact that it seems so inappropriate to its context.
I suspect that there probably are other very early interpolations or textual problems for which we have no textual evidence, but I consider it highly problematic to go around suggesting such unless you have really, really good internal reasons for the suggestions. I actually can't think of any.
Some thoughts...
Ben: Dr. Schenck,If we are to assume that these verses are early interpolations, 1) who may have composed and added them to this epistle? 2) Do you suppose the reason for the addition is the same reason Paul included these verses if they are original? 3) If these verse are not original, was their addition inspired? If not, what sort of paradigm shift must we make from the common evangelical approach to inspiration? 4)Would this sort of early interpolation be found elsewhere in the New Testament?Thoughts floating in my head...interested to hear yours.~Ben
Great questions. I think we must suppose that they were added very early indeed, perhaps even as an addition to the original manuscripts.
And while I don't think they fit very well with the flavor of the 1 Corinthian Paul, they fit very well with the 1 Timothy Paul. In this sense I can pass the buck to David Smith, who's going to discuss the place of 1 Timothy in the women in ministry debate. We have to deal with 1 Timothy whether these words in 1 Corinthians were original or not.
Given the church hermeneutic I advocate, the question of their early inclusion and persistence is an important one. I would place it into the bag of objections to women in ministry raised by those who point out that women have not held pastoral offices in the church from as early as the late first century except in certain off the mainstream groups like the Montanists. If I adopt the kind of church hermeneutic I use with the Trinity, how can I then support women in ministry from this angle?
I think of the words of a friend of mine who ultimately converted from the Anglican Church to the Roman Catholic Church: "I will support women in ministry when it is affirmed by an ecumenical council." I think he was sincere.
And this is partially my position. I will support women in ministry because I believe we are in a period leading up to a consensus on women in ministry. It may not completely look that way now, but I can't imagine even the Roman Catholic Church holding out on this one for very long. The idea of compartmentalizing roles in the church because women don't have certain physical organs is simply incomprehensible in my mind in the light of the truth of the gospel. And when people are only maintaining positions that don't make spiritual sense because it's the "rules," I can't see these ideas lasting for very long.
I see the same thing with the pro-slavery parts of the church 150 years ago. It's "obvious" to us today that they were on the wrong side of the issue and we have a hard time today even believing that the hearts of such individuals were right with God. They were just on the wrong side of history. In reality it's more complicated than this, but I do believe Christians a hundred years from now will view anti-women in ministry people similarly.
I put this in the same category as "Moses said give them a writ of divorce because of the hardness of your hearts." I truly believe God's word to the church today is, "God allowed the New Testament church to conform to the patriarchal values of its day because of the hardness of their hearts. But God did not intend it to be so, as it is written, 'In Christ there is neither male nor female.'"
I'll reiterate many of these thoughts in my final blog on the subject.
There are other places in the Bible where I would suggest that what you see is not what you get. I treat these as fully Scriptural, which may imply some inconsistency on my part in the way I am tempted to dismiss 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
For example, I tend to see 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 as misplaced, although I accept Paul as its author. I have no external evidence for this conclusion, only the fact that it seems so inappropriate to its context.
I suspect that there probably are other very early interpolations or textual problems for which we have no textual evidence, but I consider it highly problematic to go around suggesting such unless you have really, really good internal reasons for the suggestions. I actually can't think of any.
Some thoughts...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
