“Many interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 rely heavily on the nature of this false teaching at Ephesus in explaining what Paul means in these verses. There is nothing wrong with this in principle; good exegesis always takes into consideration the larger context in which a text appears. However, Paul tells us remarkably little about the specifics of this false teaching, presumably because he knows that Timothy is well acquainted with the problem. This means that WE CANNOT BE AT ALL SURE ABOUT THE PRECISE NATURE OF THIS FALSE TEACHING AND, PARTICULARLY, ABOUT ITS IMPACT ON THE WOMEN IN THE CHURCH…” (Grudem and Piper, “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” 177).
Douglas Moo wrote the above statement in his chapter from “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” entitled “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” Moo attempts in his article to study 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and show through exegesis why it is that women’s ministries are limited in the church. What interests me is the last phrase of the above quote.
Moo states that because we don’t know the nature of the false teaching, what the false teaching was exactly, that we can’t know of its impact on the church at Ephesus. But what is troublesome about this statement is that, according to context, we know a great deal about the impact of the false teaching on the church. Consider the following statements:
1 Timothy 1:6 (ESV)—“Certain persons, by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion…”
1 Tim. 1:19b—“by rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith…”
These verses show us that such false teaching threw those influenced by it out of the faith. In addition, we have a proper context from 1 Timothy 1 that tells us the situation:
“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons NOT TO TEACH ANY DIFFERENT DOCTRINE, NOR TO DEVOTE THEMSELVES TO MYTHS AND ENDLESS GENEALOGIES, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith” (1 Tim. 1:3-4).
In addition, view these few verses:
“Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into VAIN DISCUSSION, DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING EITHER WHAT THEY ARE SAYING OR THE THINGS ABOUT WHICH THEY MAKE CONFIDENT ASSERTIONS. Now we know that the law is good, IF ONE USES IT LAWFULLY…” (1 Tim. 1:6-8, ESV).
It is not a coincidence with that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 discusses teaching (discussed in 1:3). In addition, notice that chapter 2 discusses genealogy (“Adam was first formed, then Eve”), which is also discussed in 1:4) and myth (“and Adam was not deceived”), which is discussed in chapter one, verse 4. Complementarians have made this passage seem more vague and obscure than it really is.
Whenever we seek to study a biblical text, we have to keep in mind that ALL WE HAVE IS THE TEXT! All we have is what the text gives us to make inferences. We have to examine the text in-front of us to discover the setting and background. In my reading of complementarian studies, I have found that many of them seek to make the issue here one of an “overrealized eschatology”; yet and still, the text of 1 Timothy does not discuss an “overrealized eschatology,” but instead, a false doctrine of myths and endless genealogies as we are told from 1 Timothy 1. If they truly seek to examine the text as it is, with its context, they don’t have to look any further than the book of 1 Timothy. To mention an event of 2 Timothy (overrealized eschatology) is to reconstruct the text, to read a later issue back into an earlier situation. It is, in short, bad exegesis!
As if they don’t notice how terrible their response is regarding the false teaching, they turn around and DEMONSTRATE ITS IMPACT!
Look at another excerpt of Moo’s chapter:
“Some of the aspects specifically relevant to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are:
1. The false teachers SOWED DISSENSION AND WERE PREOCCUPIED WITH TRIVIALITIES…
2. The false teachers HAD PERSUADED MANY WOMEN TO FOLLOW THEM IN THEIR DOCTRINES (1 Timothy 5:15; 2 Timothy 3:6-7)” (177).
Here we see that division and a drifting away of believers occurred in this church. These results are no small things to snuff at! The impact of the false teaching was a mass explosion, according to 1 Timothy itself. How then, can complementarians look at this and conclude, as Moo does, that we don’t have any idea of the impact of the false teaching? Not knowing the nature of the teaching doesn’t excuse away its impact.
Moo doesn’t notice the impact of the false teaching on the church at Ephesus in the first century. If false teaching is as prevalent in the book as Moo shows it to be, then how can this be disregarded when considering the purpose of chapter 2?
For those who want to view this argument, go to the following site and scroll through the table of contents: http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw.pdf
For those who desire to read more posts on the blog, please go to the following site:
http://www.womeninthechurch-junia.blogspot.com
Showing posts with label Responses to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Responses to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Presupposition Complicates Everything
In my last post, I wrote about Douglas Moo and how he fails to notice the impact of the false teaching on the church at Ephesus—although he spends quite a lot of time referencing it. Here in this post I will show how Moo’s presupposition—as that of the complementarian mind—will not release them to see clearly how they skew the last few verses of 1 Timothy 2 to fit their personal beliefs.
Let’s look again at Douglas Moo’s article, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?”:
“In order to understand 1 Timothy 2:11-15, we need to back up and begin with verse 8, where Paul requests that ‘men everywhere…lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing’…THIS CAUTION ABOUT ANGER AND QUARRELING DURING PRAYER IS ALMOST SURELY OCCASIONED BY THE IMPACT OF THE FALSE TEACHING ON THE CHURCH, for one of the most obvious results of that false teaching was divisiveness and discord (see 1 Timothy 6:4-5)” (178).
Notice that regarding verse 8, Moo says that false teaching was responsible for this disturbance. But notice that verse 8 mentions NOTHING about the false teachers:“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;”
What about verses 9 and 10? Do they relate to false teaching?
“The exhortation of verses 9-10…might also be directed AGAINST THE IMPACT OF THE FALSE TEACHING IN EPHESUS. For ostentatious dress, in the ancient world, sometimes could signal a woman’s loose morals and independence from her husband” (178, 179).
Verses 9 and 10 don’t mention false teaching at all; yet and still, Moo believes that these verses, too, involve the false teachers. What about verse 11?
“In verse 11, he commands them to ‘learn in quietness and full submission’…THESE WOMEN HAD PROBABLY PICKED UP THE DISPUTATIOUS HABITS OF THE FALSE TEACHERS, and Paul must therefore warn them to accept without criticism the teaching of the properly appointed church leaders” (179).
So in verse 11, the false teachers are to blame for women rising up against their instructors. But look at what Moo writes starting at verse 12:
“Verse 12 is the focus of discussion in this passage, for it is here that Paul prohibits the women at Ephesus FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN MINISTRIES WITH REFERENCE TO MEN” (180).
Here, Moo doesn’t seem to even CONSIDER the possibility that verse 12, regarding teaching and authority have ANYTHING to do with the false teachers! However, he doesn’t seem hesitant to acknowledge verses 8-11 concern false teachers (although there is no direct evidence from the text). The only two things Moo addresses with regard to verse 12 are whether or not Paul is appealing to all women or wives only, and whether or not “epitrepo” (the Greek infinitive) is translated “permit” or “forbid.”
After discussing these two things, Moo goes into what constitutes the nature of teaching that Paul is prohibiting. However, Moo just said earlier in his article that no one knew the nature of the false teaching! Next, he asks a question:
“At this point the QUESTION OF APPLICATION cannot be evaded. WHAT FUNCTIONS IN THE MODERN CHURCH WOULD BE CONSIDERED TEACHING IN THIS SENSE?” (181).
Instead of explaining what this verse means, Moo simply jumps to what “teaching” would have been discussed here. And the answer he gives is totally based on presupposition:“In light of these considerations, we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching…and the teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries. Other activities—leading Bible studies, for instance- may be included, depending on how they are done” (181).
Once again, what “authority” over men is not given in the text—but somehow, complementarians ASSUME it refers to ecclesiastical authority. Adam however, didn’t have ECCLESIASTICAL authority over his wife, but HOME authority—being the head of his household (Genesis 3). The church hadn’t been created yet, so how could Adam receive “headship over the church” from God? Secondly, notice that Ephesians 5 refers to Christ as “head of the church.” Christ, then, NEVER relinquished His title as “Head of the church” to anybody—not even husbands. What other authority did Adam have PRIOR to Genesis 3—authority given to him as THE FIRST HUMAN! This is why he was allowed to name his wife—because he was created first! There is authority that came with being the first human; but we can’t take that and read a much-later created church authority back into a text that is much older. While Paul later wrote in Ephesians 5 that Adam and Eve were concerning Christ and the Church, he doesn’t say that Adam and Eve were a symbol of LEADERSHIP IN THE CHURCH!
Moo simply fails to address his biggest issue—his presupposition. We’ve seen it through his exposition of verses 8-15. When someone can address every other verse as referring to false teachers EXCEPT verse 12, there seems to be something suspicious happening. Presupposition complicates EVERYTHING…
- DMR (http://www.womeninthechurch-junia.blogspot.com)
Let’s look again at Douglas Moo’s article, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?”:
“In order to understand 1 Timothy 2:11-15, we need to back up and begin with verse 8, where Paul requests that ‘men everywhere…lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing’…THIS CAUTION ABOUT ANGER AND QUARRELING DURING PRAYER IS ALMOST SURELY OCCASIONED BY THE IMPACT OF THE FALSE TEACHING ON THE CHURCH, for one of the most obvious results of that false teaching was divisiveness and discord (see 1 Timothy 6:4-5)” (178).
Notice that regarding verse 8, Moo says that false teaching was responsible for this disturbance. But notice that verse 8 mentions NOTHING about the false teachers:“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;”
What about verses 9 and 10? Do they relate to false teaching?
“The exhortation of verses 9-10…might also be directed AGAINST THE IMPACT OF THE FALSE TEACHING IN EPHESUS. For ostentatious dress, in the ancient world, sometimes could signal a woman’s loose morals and independence from her husband” (178, 179).
Verses 9 and 10 don’t mention false teaching at all; yet and still, Moo believes that these verses, too, involve the false teachers. What about verse 11?
“In verse 11, he commands them to ‘learn in quietness and full submission’…THESE WOMEN HAD PROBABLY PICKED UP THE DISPUTATIOUS HABITS OF THE FALSE TEACHERS, and Paul must therefore warn them to accept without criticism the teaching of the properly appointed church leaders” (179).
So in verse 11, the false teachers are to blame for women rising up against their instructors. But look at what Moo writes starting at verse 12:
“Verse 12 is the focus of discussion in this passage, for it is here that Paul prohibits the women at Ephesus FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN MINISTRIES WITH REFERENCE TO MEN” (180).
Here, Moo doesn’t seem to even CONSIDER the possibility that verse 12, regarding teaching and authority have ANYTHING to do with the false teachers! However, he doesn’t seem hesitant to acknowledge verses 8-11 concern false teachers (although there is no direct evidence from the text). The only two things Moo addresses with regard to verse 12 are whether or not Paul is appealing to all women or wives only, and whether or not “epitrepo” (the Greek infinitive) is translated “permit” or “forbid.”
After discussing these two things, Moo goes into what constitutes the nature of teaching that Paul is prohibiting. However, Moo just said earlier in his article that no one knew the nature of the false teaching! Next, he asks a question:
“At this point the QUESTION OF APPLICATION cannot be evaded. WHAT FUNCTIONS IN THE MODERN CHURCH WOULD BE CONSIDERED TEACHING IN THIS SENSE?” (181).
Instead of explaining what this verse means, Moo simply jumps to what “teaching” would have been discussed here. And the answer he gives is totally based on presupposition:“In light of these considerations, we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching…and the teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries. Other activities—leading Bible studies, for instance- may be included, depending on how they are done” (181).
Once again, what “authority” over men is not given in the text—but somehow, complementarians ASSUME it refers to ecclesiastical authority. Adam however, didn’t have ECCLESIASTICAL authority over his wife, but HOME authority—being the head of his household (Genesis 3). The church hadn’t been created yet, so how could Adam receive “headship over the church” from God? Secondly, notice that Ephesians 5 refers to Christ as “head of the church.” Christ, then, NEVER relinquished His title as “Head of the church” to anybody—not even husbands. What other authority did Adam have PRIOR to Genesis 3—authority given to him as THE FIRST HUMAN! This is why he was allowed to name his wife—because he was created first! There is authority that came with being the first human; but we can’t take that and read a much-later created church authority back into a text that is much older. While Paul later wrote in Ephesians 5 that Adam and Eve were concerning Christ and the Church, he doesn’t say that Adam and Eve were a symbol of LEADERSHIP IN THE CHURCH!
Moo simply fails to address his biggest issue—his presupposition. We’ve seen it through his exposition of verses 8-15. When someone can address every other verse as referring to false teachers EXCEPT verse 12, there seems to be something suspicious happening. Presupposition complicates EVERYTHING…
- DMR (http://www.womeninthechurch-junia.blogspot.com)
Spiritual Privileges and Spiritual Gifts
I finally worked up the courage to return to reading material for Wayne Grudem and John Piper’s book called “Rediscovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” Today I read chapter 7, entitled “Role Distinctions in the Church (Galatians 3:28)” by S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. The entire chapter was written to demonstrate that, while Galatians 3:28 allows us all to be on equal footing “in Christ” and “before God,” such status does not eliminate social distinctions (for instance, being male or female).
I want to take time, however, to focus on some key statements Johnson makes and demonstrate where his argument fails.First, on page 151 of Grudem and Piper’s book, Johnson writes (regarding Galatians 3:28),
“The universal privilege of sonship in the present age through union with Christ is Paul’s point, and it sets the tone of the context for interpreting verse twenty-eight. PAUL’S EMPHASIS IS ON SPIRITUAL STATUS IN CHRIST, “THE SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGE OF BEING THE SONS OF GOD” (151). Notice that Johnson calls being a child of God a “spiritual privilege.” But aren’t spiritual gifts “spiritual privileges” as well? I mean, gifts do come from the Spirit:11All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit,(W) who apportions to each one individually(X) as he wills. (1 Corinthians 12:11, ESV).
The Spirit gives the gifts as He sees fit, which means that the Spirit gives gifts to both genders—to each man and woman according to what He decides to do. The Holy Spirit does not consult the “Council of Complementarians” when He chooses to gift His people—He does it without answering to anyone because He is God and is free to do as He pleases. When referring to the context of Galatians 3:28, Johnson writes:“…it must…be remembered that in this context Paul is not speaking of relationships in the family and church, but of STANDING BEFORE GOD IN RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH” (153). Did you notice that? Johnson (and thus, Grudem and Piper) do what Sumner accuses them of—they place women as equals to themselves BEFORE GOD, but not before GOD’S PEOPLE!
“…Piper and Grudem qualify women’s status as ‘fully equal…before God.’ They affirm the status of women in the presence of the Lord BUT NOT IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD’S PEOPLE. It sounds pleasant for every Christian man to feel ‘in his heart’ that God sees Christian women as men’s equals. But it doesn’t strike me as being challenging. It’s easy to give assent to God’s impartiality toward women. The biblical teaching is much harder. The Bible makes it plain that every believer is expected to become impartial too (1 Tim. 5:21)’” (Sumner, “Men and Women in the Church, pp. 280-81).
Now, I want you the reader, to notice something about a former connection I made. In a post I wrote a few days ago, called “Encountering Church Tradition,” I stated that, if we were saved by grace through faith, and are all welcome to be baptized in Christ, then why is it that, after salvation, the gifts (given through grace) suddenly become based on social distinctions? That doesn’t make any sense! Well, believe it or not, I’ve finally found a verse-to-verse connection that will demonstrate the point I was trying to make in that post. Let’s look at Galatians 3:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 12:12-13—
Galatians 3:26-28 (ESV)—“ 26for in Christ Jesus(AV) you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as(AW) were baptized(AX) into Christ have(AY) put on Christ. 28(AZ) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free,(BA) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (ESV)—“ 12For just as(Y) the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body,(Z) so it is with Christ. 13For(AA) in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—(AB) Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and(AC) all were made to drink of one Spirit.”
Do you notice something between these two passages? Galatians 3 tells us that we were baptized into Christ; 1 Corinthians 12 tells us that we were baptized in one Spirit. What these two passages are telling us is that, when we accepted Christ, not only did we put on Christ, but we were also given His Holy Spirit. We “were made to drink of one Spirit,” which means that the Spirit was part of this baptism. If we were given spiritual privileges at the moment of our salvation, then we were also given spiritual gifts at this baptism—which means that the spiritual gifts are SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGES!
This is so important because Johnson, Grudem, and Piper have spent time arguing that we get spiritual privileges as sons of God—but if we get spiritual privileges, and we are baptized into the Spirit as well—then we also receive spiritual gifts, which are PART of the spiritual privileges (or spiritual inheritance)! And how do we know a person receives a spiritual gift? God visibly manifests it in the lives of those whom He gives the gifts to-- and everyone else around them can see it as clear as day. I want to address gifts and offices, but I’ll do it in my next post.
- DMR (http://www.womeninthechurch-junia.blogspot.com/)
I want to take time, however, to focus on some key statements Johnson makes and demonstrate where his argument fails.First, on page 151 of Grudem and Piper’s book, Johnson writes (regarding Galatians 3:28),
“The universal privilege of sonship in the present age through union with Christ is Paul’s point, and it sets the tone of the context for interpreting verse twenty-eight. PAUL’S EMPHASIS IS ON SPIRITUAL STATUS IN CHRIST, “THE SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGE OF BEING THE SONS OF GOD” (151). Notice that Johnson calls being a child of God a “spiritual privilege.” But aren’t spiritual gifts “spiritual privileges” as well? I mean, gifts do come from the Spirit:11All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit,(W) who apportions to each one individually(X) as he wills. (1 Corinthians 12:11, ESV).
The Spirit gives the gifts as He sees fit, which means that the Spirit gives gifts to both genders—to each man and woman according to what He decides to do. The Holy Spirit does not consult the “Council of Complementarians” when He chooses to gift His people—He does it without answering to anyone because He is God and is free to do as He pleases. When referring to the context of Galatians 3:28, Johnson writes:“…it must…be remembered that in this context Paul is not speaking of relationships in the family and church, but of STANDING BEFORE GOD IN RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH” (153). Did you notice that? Johnson (and thus, Grudem and Piper) do what Sumner accuses them of—they place women as equals to themselves BEFORE GOD, but not before GOD’S PEOPLE!
“…Piper and Grudem qualify women’s status as ‘fully equal…before God.’ They affirm the status of women in the presence of the Lord BUT NOT IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD’S PEOPLE. It sounds pleasant for every Christian man to feel ‘in his heart’ that God sees Christian women as men’s equals. But it doesn’t strike me as being challenging. It’s easy to give assent to God’s impartiality toward women. The biblical teaching is much harder. The Bible makes it plain that every believer is expected to become impartial too (1 Tim. 5:21)’” (Sumner, “Men and Women in the Church, pp. 280-81).
Now, I want you the reader, to notice something about a former connection I made. In a post I wrote a few days ago, called “Encountering Church Tradition,” I stated that, if we were saved by grace through faith, and are all welcome to be baptized in Christ, then why is it that, after salvation, the gifts (given through grace) suddenly become based on social distinctions? That doesn’t make any sense! Well, believe it or not, I’ve finally found a verse-to-verse connection that will demonstrate the point I was trying to make in that post. Let’s look at Galatians 3:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 12:12-13—
Galatians 3:26-28 (ESV)—“ 26for in Christ Jesus(AV) you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as(AW) were baptized(AX) into Christ have(AY) put on Christ. 28(AZ) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free,(BA) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (ESV)—“ 12For just as(Y) the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body,(Z) so it is with Christ. 13For(AA) in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—(AB) Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and(AC) all were made to drink of one Spirit.”
Do you notice something between these two passages? Galatians 3 tells us that we were baptized into Christ; 1 Corinthians 12 tells us that we were baptized in one Spirit. What these two passages are telling us is that, when we accepted Christ, not only did we put on Christ, but we were also given His Holy Spirit. We “were made to drink of one Spirit,” which means that the Spirit was part of this baptism. If we were given spiritual privileges at the moment of our salvation, then we were also given spiritual gifts at this baptism—which means that the spiritual gifts are SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGES!
This is so important because Johnson, Grudem, and Piper have spent time arguing that we get spiritual privileges as sons of God—but if we get spiritual privileges, and we are baptized into the Spirit as well—then we also receive spiritual gifts, which are PART of the spiritual privileges (or spiritual inheritance)! And how do we know a person receives a spiritual gift? God visibly manifests it in the lives of those whom He gives the gifts to-- and everyone else around them can see it as clear as day. I want to address gifts and offices, but I’ll do it in my next post.
- DMR (http://www.womeninthechurch-junia.blogspot.com/)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)