Download read (all 4 parts) - Words of a Fether – Audio Files

Christian Relationships, Part 1 (tags:
equality,subordination,relationships,hierarchy,order,chaos,men,women)
Last time I talked about the nature of God, and as part of that podcast I
argued that there cannot be a relationship of hierarchy among the Persons
of the Trinity. So I decided to follow that with a look at relationships among
Christians. This huge topic will have to span several podcasts.
Now it should go without saying that the authoritative text for Christian
teachings is the NT. But some people object on the basis of the whole Bible
being the Word of God. Of course I agree with that, and used the OT quite a
lot in previous podcasts on the bedrock of our faith. Yet to apply every
scripture to every person at any time in history is at least as foolhardy as if
parents were to give toddlers the same rules as teenagers. Christians refer
to the OT to learn about God, to study the roots of sin and death, to study
prophecy, and so on… but NOT to get doctrine for the church.
I interpret the Bible according to what is called the
literal/historical/grammatical approach. That is, I take into consideration the
fact that the Bible was not written in a vacuum. Context is everything in
communication, and because we are so far removed in time and culture and
language from the original writings, we have to pay attention to not only
what words are recorded, but when. Anyone who disagrees would be
hard-pressed to defend their objection in the light of how easily people
misunderstand each other, even when they speak the same language in the
same culture and time.
Most of the NT is about behavior for all believers, but for a more specific
focus on relationships we will turn first to Paul's letter to the Ephesians. And
the first relationship he talks about is between believers and sin.
While most translations render Eph. 2:1-5 as our having been dead IN sin, I
believe the Greek is more accurately and consistently rendered as our now
being dead TO sin. In that culture and time, to be dead to someone or
something was to have a broken relationship, to be out of step. Rom. 6:11
has identical grammar and yet it is always translated that we are to
consider ourselves to be dead to sin. Both passages use the present tense,
not the past, and both use the dative case. I go into more detail about this
at my blog, in the article "Dead Wrong". So we as saved people are no
longer to "walk" in sin or treat it as our natural state, but to consider
ourselves "dead" to it. Paul spends most of Rom. 6 on this point.
But here in Eph. 2 he adds that though the Gentile believers are only dead
to sin, the Jewish believers are also dead to something else: the law of
Moses. That is of course a significant point on the topic of legalism, since if
the Jews have been freed from the law, then it has even less bearing on
Gentiles who were never under it in the first place. All too often we presume
that every scripture in the NT is always about all believers. And if anyone
doesn't believe me, they are invited to explain the letters to the Hebrews or
Romans.
But there is much about Jewish believers specifically, for various reasons.
They needed more instruction about this new relationship to the law because
only they had been under it and would thereby have a harder time letting go
of it. I can't overemphasize the point that unless a believer is also a Jew,
they were never under the Mosaic laws in any way. But more detail on that
will have to wait for a future podcast.
So since the Jews are no longer under the law, it follows that there has also
been a change of relationship between Jews and Gentiles. The wall of
hostility between the two groups was destroyed by Jesus at the cross. Paul
repeats this in Gal. 3:28 by saying that in Christ we are all one; there is no
more distinction on the basis of race, social standing, or biological gender.
Now we're ready to tackle two huge relationship issues: between men and
women, and between an alleged clergy class and laity. Both controverses
stem from a failure to grasp what Jesus did beyond salvation.
In Eph. 3 Paul uses personal examples to explain that this unity between
Jews and Gentiles is the mystery he was given to reveal, but in ch. 4 as well
as Rom. 12 he describes the relationships of all believers to each other as a
body with many members. Yet in spite of how many times we've read those
passages, we ignore this illustration and say to each other, "I have no need
of you". We expect some parts to report to others instead of directly to the
head, which is not any of us but Christ. We practically worship some parts
while suppressing others. We carve up the body of Christ into an
organizational chart, yet we have the gall to wonder why it isn't healthy!
Did Jesus not say that there is to be no "lording over" among his followers?
Did Peter not tell church leaders this same thing? Is the Golden Rule to be
ignored within the body of Christ? Can we brush off the commands to treat
others as better than ourselves, just because we imagine we hold some lofty
position of authority? Can we ignore the example of Jesus himself in Phil.
2:5-11, where he laid down his divine rights to stoop down to our level? Or
can we ignore his example of making himself the lowest of slaves to his
disciples when he washed their feet?
And if Jesus came not to be served but to serve, then we would expect his
followers to exhibit the same humility. Paul, by his example, never
demanded a salary or support, though he had the right. He said it is parents
who store up for their children, not the other way around. And Jesus made it
clear that the shepherd is supposed to support the sheep.
I should also mention two verses in Hebrews 13 that are terribly
mistranslated and give the impression that all of those things can be
ignored. Vs. 7 says we are to remember the leaders who told us the gospel
and imitate their lives; vs. 17 says to be persuaded by our leaders and
defer to them as people who guard our souls. Neither verse has any Greek
word for authority or ruler, nor for obey or submit. What it says is that we
should consider Jesus and the apostles as examples to follow, and to listen
to the wisdom and advice of our current leaders because they are charged
with guarding us from error.
All spiritual gifts are for the purpose of building each other up. That is what
we are supposed to do when we meet together as believers. Instead, we sit
in pews all facing one direction, rarely interacting beyond the "meet and
greet" minute. Even in Sunday School we mostly listen to lectures or share
how we fill in the blanks in our lesson books, and very few have an
oppurtunity to use the various gifts. When do we build each other up? When
do we go beyond always listening but rarely learning, always absorbing but
rarely giving back, always gathering but rarely interacting? What kind of
body is this anyway? It seems to be one that tries to walk on one hand and
see with its ears!
What I'm trying to say, in case you missed it, is that the traditional model of
a corporation with levels of management is nothing at all like the Biblical
model of a healthy body. Yet in spite of all that, in spite of the clear
scriptures to the contrary, some object that unless we retain a chain of
command, there will be chaos. And the technical, theological rebuttal to that
is, "Baloney!"
This is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma, where only two
possibilities are considered when there are actually more. Lack of hierarchy
among believers is NOT a slippery slope to anarchy, and if we've learned
anything from history, the business model is no guarantee of doctrinal purity
or protection from false teachings. In fact, by its top-down nature, it actually
fosters corruption by giving a few control over many.
And what about the Holy Spirit? Is he no longer able to do the job of leading
and protecting? Perhaps if we actually allowed him to exercise the various
gifts freely in the body, we might see just how good a job he can do. And I
personally believe that the reason so many have left the church to find
spirituality elsewhere, or that the practices of mysticism are making such
headway into the church, is because we have squelched the Spirit and
forbidden him to work through anyone we deem unfit or lacking proper
credentials.
Now the church does have human leaders, don't misunderstand me about
that. But they are examples, teachers, and guardians… NOT bosses or gods.
And I challenge anyone claiming to be gifted to lead, to give up all the titles,
salaries, paneled offices, and other perks that are typical of corporate CEOs.
Then we'll see who is really gifted, because the people will know the voice of
the shepherd but run from the hired hand.
I hope that by now you are convinced, as I am, that there is no room--- and
no need--- for hierarchy in the body of Christ. We are all brothers and sisters
of Jesus, and we have one Father. We are all parts of one body, all of one
substance, and all have direct connection to one head.
So tell me…
Why is it that there is still one area that many seem bent on keeping in a
hierarchy, one group of people that are barred from the freedom Jesus
promised, one set of body parts that is allegedly "separate but equal", one
type of person who is forbidden to use certain spiritual gifts, though
scripture never separates such lists into pink and blue?
I speak, of course, of women, and that will be the topic of part 2.
Christian Relationships, Part 2 (tags:
equality,subordination,relationships,hierarchy,order,chaos,men,women)
In part 1 we examined the scriptural teaching against hierarchy in the body
of Christ. But even among those who have abandoned the corporate
organizational model of church, who recognize the qualification of the Holy
Spirit to empower and lead, and who decry any sort of elitism in the church,
many will turn around and deny it all to half the body! Why is it that though
they pray for more workers for the harvest, they call half of those God
sends, rebellious sinners if they go out to do the work?
It's an object lesson in double-mindedness. As an example, even when
people concede that there is no authority in preaching, they deny women the
exercise of this gift on the grounds that it's authoritative! And in an earlier
podcast we already dealt with the failed argument of trying to claim that a
person can be equal to another while being told that because of who they
are, they must play a permanent role of one-way submission.
Speaking of which, let's turn now to Eph. ch. 5. Starting in vs. 18 we have
what is really a list of ways to be filled with the spirit: talking among
yourselves--- singing and playing music--- always giving thanks--- and
supporting one another.
That last one is usually translated submitting to each other but it can go
either way. The Greek word literally refers to documentation that is attached
to a legal claim, adding support for the claim. So we can add "attach" to the
range of meanings for the Greek here. But no matter which English word you
choose, it is mutual; it goes between every believer and every other
believer. And because it's a two-way street, the one thing it cannot mean is
authority, or we'd have the nonsensical situation of people having authority
over each other.
Now Paul takes that last item on the list--- supporting or submitting to one
another--- and elaborates with another list of examples of such mutual
submission. But before I read that off, there's another logical fallacy to
address: that authority is a type of submission. That, once again, is baloney.
Authority and submission are mutually exclusive; they are opposites, not
different flavors of the same thing.
So here's the list of examples of mutual submission: wives to your OWN
husbands, husbands to love their wives, children to obey parents, fathers to
not exasperate their children, slaves to obey masters, and masters to refrain
from threats. All of this points back to "supporting one another", and so no
item on the list can contradict the mutuality of this support.
The first item is actually a sentence fragment which goes with the
preceding statement, not the following as it is usually translated, and this
can significantly alter the meaning. It reads, "supporting one another in
respect for Christ, wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord." The word
"obey" is not there in vs. 22; in fact, there is no primary verb at all. But
many translations split this sentence in half and make Paul give a command
to wives to obey their husbands.
Now we can't ignore another word in that item: to your OWN husbands.
Keep in mind that in the culture of that time, a woman was property, and
she was expected to remain faithful while her husband was encouraged to
have many concubines. What possible point could there be in giving women,
especially Christian women, a command to be faithful? Who really needed
such a command? And what did Paul mean about "her OWN husband"
anyway?
There was a Roman law at the time called "the marriage without hand",
where the wife remained under her father's authority. If he felt that his
son-in-law was not treating her properly, he could take her away from him
and give her to someone else. This was intended to limit abuse, but it
introduced instability in the marriage instead. So by telling Christian women
to attach, support, or submit to their OWN husbands, Paul was not making
wives servants to husbands, but rather telling them to ignore the Roman
law. This fits perfectly with the next statement, "as to the Lord". We are to
give up all other gods when we become Christians, and in like manner, the
wife was to give up her father for her OWN husband.
But by chopping up the sentence, many translations turn "as to the Lord"
from a statement of loyalty and faithfulness, into a club with which to instill
the fear of God into wives, who are told essentially that they must obey a
man as they would God. This is blasphemy on the man's part and idolatry
on the woman's part! How could anyone even think that Paul would suggest
such a thing?
The second item in the list is directed to husbands, and is much longer than
the one to wives. Some people take the command for husbands to love, to
mean that since Paul didn't tell wives to love, then they don't have to, and
likewise, husbands don't have to submit. For the third time I must repeat,
"Baloney!" And very poor logic. Allow me to illustrate.
Suppose children are playing in a playground and they all know the rules:
don't hit, shove, spit, bully, or cut in line. And suppose one child decides to
hit another. Do ALL the children need a lecture? No, only the one that
misbehaved. But if that child is told to stop hitting, does that mean all the
other children are allowed to hit? Of course not! But that's exactly the
argument being made by those who say women only obey and men only
love; it's an argument from silence at best. And remember, this is still part
of a list on mutuality, meaning everybody's on the same level. We'll see
another case of this when we get to 1 Timothy.
After Paul tells husbands to love, the rest of his statements on this item
describe how that love must be expressed. Paul is NOT, as some falsely
teach, saying that a husband has godlike powers over his wife, such that he
cleanses her, presents her flawless to God, or acts as her "prophet, priest,
and king" to quote one organization.
Rather, Paul is saying that Jesus is the example of the perfect husband,
laying down privilege in order to serve his wife and lift her up. A woman was
socially disadvantaged, considered property, and had no hope of
independence or respect. So what Paul is telling Christian men is NOT to
become little gods but to become like the submissive and humble Jesus.
Some actually teach that the man plays "father" to the woman's role of
"son"! And I'm sorry, but I can't tell you the technical theological term for
that. Never in scripture is the marriage relationship mapped to the
father/son relationship. We ALL are to play "son" to the Father! Instead,
what scripture does map the marriage relationship to is the one between
Jesus and the church. And as he himself said, he did not come to be served.
Can a Christian husband refuse to follow Jesus' example?
Now we know why Paul spent so much time on husbands. Since wives were
to remain loyal to them instead of their fathers, the husbands had to be told
of their end of the deal. They were not to abuse their wives but to love
them; they were not to rule over their wives but to serve them; they were
not to treat their wives as perpetual children but to honor them as joint
heirs, as their glory.
Speaking of glory, now let's go over to 1 Cor. 11. Paul is about to respond to
a question the Corinthians had sent him about head coverings, and as was
his custom, he used a play on words, in this case between a literal head and
a figurative one. Now in English the figurative meanings include source (as
the head of a river), aim (as in "head this way"), or boss (as the head of a
corporation). I can't list all the documentation here, but I am convinced that
the Greek word Paul used, kephale, never included the meaning of "boss". In
fact, Paul himself agreed with the prevailing belief that the body grew out of
the head, as he states in Col. 2:19. Head and body were of one substance,
and the head was considered the source or origin of the body.
This is why the order given in verse 3 is not what one would expect from a
hierarchy, but from chronology of sources. The source of the man was
Christ, who as we learned before, was involved in creation. Then along came
the woman, whose source was the man, and much later came Christ, whose
source was God. Note that this is God, not merely the Father; the entire
Trinity was the source of the incarnate Christ. If Paul had wanted to make a
statement here about hierarchy, he couldn't have made it any less clear.
Personally, I believe that vs. 4-6 are a quote from the Corinthians, who are
faced with a dilemma: for a man to cover his head in worship was
dishonoring to his glory, God. But if a woman doesn't cover, she dishonors
her glory, man, because in many societies of that time an uncovered head
meant a woman was immoral. To cover or not to cover, that was the
question. Covering meant dishonor to God, and uncovering meant dishonor
to man. What should Christian women do?
In vs. 7 Paul begins his response by agreeing that a head covered in worship
dishonors God, because it was a sign of sin which Jesus took away. But then
Paul says HOWEVER, and the contrast is that the woman is the glory of
man. What he's saying here is that if being someone's glory means not
covering the head, then how can a woman glorify a man with her head
covered? In other words, Paul is NOT saying that women are below men
because they are merely the glory of man, but that she must not cover
because she is the glory of another. She is to be held up like a champion,
not humiliated like a slave!
But then Paul adds something that is almost universally mistranslated: the
woman is to have authority over her OWN head. The words "a sign of"
aren't even hinted at in the Greek. The word there clearly denotes that this
authority on her head is her own; it is never used to show the authority of
someone else. Since it is literally her head on the line, she alone has the
authority to decide whether or not to cover it. The church is not to dictate a
universal rule, but instead must leave it to individual conscience; the woman
is in charge of her own head.
And the phrase "for this reason" points not backwards to the part about
glory, but forward to the part about the angels. Few scholars have given a
plausible explanation for this curious statement, but many have given
outrageous ones. For example, some say that women must cover because
otherwise the angels in attendance at the meetings might be moved to lust.
Hello?? Good angels being moved to lust?? And only when a woman
worships God?? Another lame attempt is to say that women are to show
their subservience to men for the sake of the angels. But not only isn't there
any sign of authority over her in the first place, we still have to wonder what
the angels care about it.
A third explanation is more reasonable, in that it notes that the word for
angels, which literally means messengers, could also refer to Roman spies
who would infiltrate meetings to report any sedition being taught. Yet no NT
writer ever refers to such people, and if this were true then Paul would
certainly not have left it up to the women.
A fourth explanation, which I accept as being the most reasonable, is that
this is a reference to 1 Cor. 6:3, where Paul said that someday we will all
judge angels. Since women were not excluded from that, then Paul is telling
them that women are perfectly capable of making a judgment about their
own heads.
And after all that, in vs. 11 Paul dispenses with any notion of hierarchy by
saying that in the Lord men and women are interdependent. And can he
say it any more clearly than he did in vs. 12? Quote: "For as woman came
from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."
Did you notice the reference to sources instead of bosses? If I may
paraphrase Paul here: "So you men came first, well so what? Ever since, you
have all come from women! Remember that it is God we all come from;
there is no chain of command because of who came first."
Now vs. 13-16 is where we see yet another poorly translated example,
concerning long hair. Since when does nature teach us that men should have
one length and women another? Paul is NOT saying that it does, but just the
opposite; it is not a question but a statement: nature does not teach this.
Both men and women can grow long hair; it is actually unnatural to cut it!
Finally, Paul states that if anyone wants to make a federal case out of head
coverings, they should know that neither he nor any of the other churches
have such rules. That is in stark contrast to typical translations which turn
Paul's words completely backwards and make him a rule giver instead of a
freedom fighter. Remember, God is no respecter of persons and does not
judge by the flesh. Women are not excluded from the full rights of all
believers.
Now let's turn back to 1 Cor. 7 for a quick look at more detail about
Christian marriage. In vs. 4 Paul states clearly that both husband and wife
have rights to each other's body. That is the ONLY time any kind of
authority is involved in marriage, and it's mutual.
But look at vs. 8-9: Paul holds up singleness as the ideal. This flies in the
face of the recent movement to make marriage and parenthood a necessary
component of the Christian life. Some have gone to the extreme of refusing
birth control, and of making motherhood a requirement for salvation! This is
known as the Quiverfull movement, and it clearly teaches salvation by
works--- and as one commentary puts it, "works of a most unusual nature"!
Now in vs. 12 Paul says "and to the rest", but who is left after the single and
the married? The only way to make sense of this is to realize that up to this
point he has been addressing specific couples, though unnamed. He began in
vs. 1 by saying "Now for the matters you wrote about", so we know he's
answering questions from the people.
But is Paul really telling a "mixed-faith" couple (meaning of course one
believer and one unbeliever) to stay married in the hope that the unbeliever
will be saved? No, since Paul makes clear in vs. 15-16 that the goal is peace.
He is saying the opposite of what is typically taught. The believing spouse is
NOT to demand the unbeliever stay, because they have no idea whether
that person will ever be saved.
Now skip down to vs. 39, and I believe it is another instance of a specific
couple. The law of Moses had said that if a woman was a widow and
childless, she had to marry a relative of her deceased husband in order to
produce heirs for his family line. But what happens when the woman is a
Christian? Paul says she must marry a believer. It's quite possible that a
woman in Corinth was facing this very problem and needed to know what to
do.
Now I say all that to make this point: that Paul is NOT giving timeless laws
to all believers, but giving examples of how he handled various problems
that came up. To take his advice here as strict legalism goes against
everything else he wrote, and especially the context here. The principle he's
giving is that marriage is a concession, but believers should not divorce just
because of an unbelieving spouse, yet neither should they refuse to divorce
for the same reason. But legalists and control freaks through church history
have completely missed this simple fact.
That's it for part 2. In the third part of this topic, we'll begin to examine the
more hotly-contested passages.
Christian Relationships, Part 3
(tags:
equality,subordination,relationships,hierarchy,order,chaos,men,women)
In the first two parts we discussed the issue of hierarchy in the body of
Christ, and then we began to study the issue of women in the church in light
of what we learned. Now at last we arrive at the most famous proof-text of
male privilege: 1 Timothy 2, and we'll also check ch. 3 concerning the
qualifications of leaders, as well as ch. 5 on the meaning of "double honor".
In vs. 8 we see another case of poor logic when people conclude that what
Paul didn't say is more important than what he did say. They presume that
since he only told men to pray without disputing and women to dress
modestly, that means women can dispute and men can be immodest! Now
wait a minute, you say. Nobody makes such an argument.
But in fact they do--- when they get to vs. 11-15. Keep this in mind as we
go over that section.
Vs. 11: a woman should learn in quietness and full submission. Note that
this is A woman, not all women. We can't arbitrarily change singular to
plural, especially when it has a material effect on how the passage is
interpreted. Paul had just used the plural when he talked about modesty, so
the sudden switch to the singular is an important aspect of context.
And this woman is to learn, which is another radical concept for the time.
Most women were given no such opportunity. Then she is told how to learn:
in the quiet and respectful demeanor of a student. The word here for "quiet"
is identical to that used in 1 Peter 3:4, so if we translate it as absolute
silence we have to make it work there as well, which it most certainly
doesn't. And when we consider that the overal context of the letter is the
topic of false teachers, it fits the context to surmise that this woman is one
of them.
Remember the illustration of the kids at the playground? Then why do so
many people think that ALL women need this reprimand? Paul is singling
someone out, someone breaking the rules, and only she needs a lecture.
Now in vs. 12 Paul says that he is not presently permitting THIS woman
to do two things. But before we look at those, we need to stop and take note
of the grammar here in the Greek. Paul is saying that at this time, while the
woman needs to learn, she must therefore not have permission to do the
two things. In my opinion, translations which give the idea of Paul saying "I
never ever permit this", are being dishonest. Technically they can get away
with rendering it "I do not permit", knowing full well how most English
readers will take it, but it is not a faithful translation of the meaning.
The first of the two things is to teach. Some claim that this Greek word is
always to be understood in a positive light, but I consider the argument very
weak and illogical. It is context that determines a word's usage, not the
other way around. And again, the context of the letter is not about stopping
true teaching but false.
The second thing is a rare word, authenteo. It is used only here in all the
NT, and rarely in secular literature of the time. It appears to mean
something like to murder, or to seize control over someone. The KJV
rendering of "usurp authority" is closer than some others, such as "take
authority", as if Paul means any and all authority here. But there are several
much clearer words for authority, and Paul uses one of them in this very
sentence when he says "I am not permitting". All things considered, I
believe it should be translated as something like "oppressively control".
And we see the singular again for "a man", not ALL men. Some will argue
that in English we can say 'a worker will be fired for stealing' and mean any
worker. But does it mean that all the workers will be fired if one of them
steals? Of course not. Yet that is the argument some use here to say that
even though Paul uses the singular, he really means plural. So much for the
vaunted "plain reading of scripture" when it comes to passages about
women. The very people who cry foul if someone argues the need for
context, tend to be the same ones who insist upon reading between the lines
when it comes to keeping women behind men.
Now there is also an idiom here, meaning a figure of speech, and it means
something like "I don't even allow you to walk to the end of the street, let
alone go to the concert tonight!" Now let me give you my rendering of the
whole passage before commenting further:
"That woman must learn, in a respectful and humble way. I am not even
granting her permission to teach, much less to oppressively control the man!
She must quiet down. For Adam was formed first and Eve second, and Adam
was not tricked; but this woman, being completely fooled, has fallen into a
state of error. In spite of that, she will be rescued by means of the proper
spiritual upbringing, as long as they both remain in faith and love and
wisdom. You can count on that."
I am convinced from many years of study that "the woman" refers not to
Eve but to this woman teaching error. The part I rendered "has fallen",
instead of the typical "fell", is the proper grammatical form. Whoever this
woman is, she is still, at the time Paul is writing, in error! So it cannot
be Eve, and it cannot be all Christian women for all time. And if we are to
accept the practice of glossing over these grammatical details under some
kind of poetic license, then we have to be consistent and allow it to be used
on other scriptures as well.
The interpretation I gave is further supported by verse 15. It does not begin
with "women" but with "she", and the only woman mentioned in this
passage besides Eve is the one teaching falsehood. As I rendered it, "she
will be rescued, if they" do something. Again, we cannot change she into
they just because our pet theory about the whole passage wouldn't make
sense without it. Instead, we should recognize when a theory just doesn't
work and chuck it for something that does.
Now the word I rendered "rescued" is one that some insist must always refer
to salvation from eternal wrath. But here again we have a case of circular
reasoning: it is context which interprets the word, not the other way around.
If Paul uses a word 100 times and in 90 of those it clearly means salvation
from eternal wrath, can we just ignore the context of the other 10 instances
and declare the meaning to be as we think it must? No, and especially not
when the context of the other 10 is ambiguous, as is the case here.
In fact, the meaning of salvation from eternal wrath cannot fit here because
salvation is by faith alone. Here, it depends upon what "they" do. And
notice that this condition involves continuing in faith, not beginning it for
the first time. Some say that the "they" refers to the whole congregation,
such that they will lead her to salvation by remaining faithful. But this is
contrary to everything else Paul wrote to the various churches. He never told
any group to remain faithful so the unbelievers among them could be saved;
in fact, he made it clear that fellowship is only for believers. This
interpretation would be unique and thus impossible to verify with a second
witness.
And on top of all that, we have another word used nowhere else in the NT
and very rarely in secular literature. The word I rendered "spiritual
upbringing" is literally "the childbearing". One theory is that it means
Christian women must give birth in order to be saved; I think it should be
obvious why that is yet another package of baloney.
Another is that this refers to the birth of Jesus by which all are saved, but
this creates more problems. Our salvation is never mapped to Jesus' birth
but only to his death and resurrection. And why single out only women as
needing to be saved, and adding a condition that other people have to
meet?
Yet another theory is that it is a figurative reference to women playing their
proper role as a wife and mother. Yet aside from the dubious scriptural
foundation of such an idea, it essentially excludes childless women from
salvation! So the proponents of this theory backpedal and say that it just
means whatever they consider proper female role-playing. Yet we all know
that such vague excuses would never be permitted for those who disagree.
This is a stretch, to say the least, and it still makes salvation dependent
upon works.
Aren't men to play their roles in order to be saved? And where are these
roles spelled out? Shouldn't Paul have given detailed lists, if they are in fact
binding rules upon all generations? We err just as surely by failing to
challenge these theories, as we do to invent them in the first place.
In ch. 3 Paul begins to instruct Timothy on how to select the spiritually
mature for leadership. And remember, these are not bosses or overlords but
servants who can be trusted with the scriptures and with being living
examples to the others.
Verse 1 does NOT say "if any man aspires to the office of overseer", but
only "if anyone aspires oversight". There is no word for "man" or "office" in
that verse. And isn't it curious that Paul calls this a desire on the part of the
prospective leader? Neither here nor in any other NT verse can we find
something like the alleged mystical "calling" of anyone to an alleged office
called "the pastorate". Such terminology presumes the erroneous business
model of the church.
And where does Paul make only this one gift of "pastor" different from all the
others? What makes this gift of the Spirit authoritative? And why is the
equally attested calling of other gifts not put on the same level as this
calling? It's one thing to recognize the moving of the Spirit on your life, but
quite another to say "I've got a special calling, a higher and better one than
yours". The prophet is no less gifted than the pastor, and there is explicit
proof of female prophets.
But immediately the argument is made that Paul means these can only be
men because he speaks of "the husband of one wife". But if this is what it
must mean, then it must also mean that such elders are required to have
obedient children--- which of course, means the elder must be married and
he must have more than one child. Yet those who insist that elders must be
men never seem to insist on the other requirements as well. Why? And if
they can explain the other requirements away, then by what right to they
deny this same privilege to those who interpret it differently?
And we have another idiom here: the husband of one wife. It simply means
to be faithful to one's spouse. Paul is not laying down gender roles but
emphasizing the quality of the person, which should be obvious from all the
things he lists. He is telling Timothy how to recognize the spiritually mature.
This is the same issue as with the list we'll see in the letter to Titus.
Besides, what point would there be in telling wives to stick to one husband,
when not even pagan wives were to do this? So why would we expect Paul
to tell women not to do something they couldn't do anyway?
And I should mention the phrase in vs. 5 about managing the home. The
Greek terminology there speaks of one who provides and protects--identical terminology to that used of Phoebe in Rom. 16. So if one denies
Phoebe any authority, so also must they deny the overseer authority over
his family. But someone does have charge of the family: in 1 Tim. 5:14 Paul
specifies that it is the woman who is truly the ruler of the home. The Greek
word means "master of the house". Never is any man assigned such
authority over the home.
Back in ch. 3 we read about deacons. Now that word is really not a
translation at all, but a transliteration. That is, they simply rendered a
Greek word in Latin or Roman letters. It should be translated "servant" in
every case. And before I go on I should point out that the deacons of Acts 6
are never referred to again in the NT. There is no connection made between
that group of 7 and some office. Otherwise we'd see Paul specifying that
there must always be 7 deacons in a church.
And that, BTW, is related to arguments made about Jesus picking only men
for his inner circle. Not only were they men, but there were exactly 12, and
none of them spoke English or were Gentiles. So why is it that we only cling
to the requirement of men while ignoring all the other attributes of the 12?
And why don't we insist that there must always be 12 apostles, at least for
all of Christianity--- which sounds a lot like some other religions?
So what exactly is a deacon, according to Paul? A person of quality and
faithfulness. The requirements for such servants are almost identical to
those of overseers, so why list them separately? We can only speculate, but
personally I think there is historical evidence that they were something like
patrons or advocates who could represent the believers against outside
opponents such as the government.
And of course Paul explicitly stated that women could be these servants too.
The grammar does not support the interpretation of their being "the wives of
deacons". And note that Paul begins his mention of them with the word
"likewise". They are not excluded from the preceding instructions about
servants.
Now in ch. 5 Paul talks mainly about guidelines for caring for widows, and I'll
just comment that since nobody considers these rules as applying to all
cultures and times, why is this same approach denied on the topic of women
who are not widows? Culture is thrown out the window when passages on
leadership or marriage are concerned, but in cases like this one where it
doesn't threaten male authority, somehow it's suddenly okay to ignore the
"plain reading of scripture".
But in vs. 17-22 Paul gives instructions about elders, saying that they are
worthy of double honor. But what does that mean? Isn't it clear that Paul is
talking about money since he appeals to an OT rule about wages?
No, and here's why. In vs. 19 Paul is giving a principle to follow: do not
listen to an accusation against an elder unless there are two or three
witnesses. His appeal to the OT is to establish the way God cares even about
lowly animals who serve others. Isn't that an accurate description of the
truly humble servant of God? Lowly, not lording. And if God honors the lowly
by seeing to it that they are not neglected, how much more his own
children!
And we can also ask some questions of those who insist this is really about a
pastor's salary. Who is paid "single honor"? And how much is that? Are
preachers supposed to be paid twice as much as deacons--- who aren't paid
at all?? Think about that one!
And then note what follows in vs. 20: the elder who is guilty as charged is to
be reproved publicly as a warning! That is the flipside of double honor; it
takes more evidence to convict an elder of sin, but once that happens, the
elder gets more shame and punishment. Paul then reinforces this point by
adding that Timothy must not show partiality in this, as is typically done
today when sinning pastors are given a pass because they are "God's
anointed". They are to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one! And
he says that because of all this, we must be cautious in who we appoint to
be elders in the first place, and that those who ignore this will share in the
guilt of their sins.
That's it for 1 Timothy; in the next part we'll try and finish up the series.
Christian Relationships, Part 4
(tags:
equality,subordination,relationships,hierarchy,order,chaos,men,women)
In this final part of the series on Christian relationships, we will move on to
Paul's letter to Titus. This is a short letter in which Paul seems to be tying up
some loose ends and giving some last-minute instructions. And because of
that, we can rest assured that Paul isn't going to be "switching horses in
midstream" as the saying goes; he isn't going to do a lot of topic switching.
And I think you can already guess that we're going to see people try to say
otherwise.
In Titus 1:5 Paul expressly states the purpose for Titus being in Crete: to put
the finishing touches on church planting in the region. He is to appoint
elders, and gives qualifications for such. First of all, if these were merely
older people, Paul would hardly speak of appointing them. The Greek word
can mean either, so it depends upon context, and that is fairly clear in this
case. But while that seems obvious now, keep it in mind when we get to ch.
2.
Then Paul lists the qualifications for these appointees, and immediately the
argument is made that Paul means these can only be men because he
speaks of "the husband of one wife". But we took care of that one regarding
1 Tim. 3. And no mention is made of deacons or servants here. If Paul were
laying out a management structure, why would he not say something like
"Elders rule over deacons who rule over the rest"? We would expect to see
at least some mention of deacons here if they were a necessary layer of
managment for all churches.
Now in ch. 2 Paul gives instructions on what to do beyond the appointment
of elders. It begins and ends with Paul telling Titus to be the example in
everything, teaching correct doctrine and living a blameless life. The pattern
between those two points is men, women, men, and slaves. You might
recognize the men/women/men pattern as one we mentioned in our study of
Gen. 3, where an argument builds up to a central point and then retraces
them in reverse order. It's a very short pattern to be sure, but we know
from that order that the instruction to women is being emphasized.
What Titus is to say to the men is to be self-controlled and respectable,
whether old or young. But remember what we said about appointed elders
and how the Greek word can also mean old people in general? And
remember what we said about how short this letter is? Should we expect
Paul to have switched from one meaning to the other so abruptly and
without any indication of the change?
As you read through that chapter, try the meaning both ways. But then ask
yourself this question, esp. regarding the part about female elders: if women
are only allowed to teach women, then isn't Paul also saying that men can
only teach men? And why does he say more to women than to men here?
Also, there is a possible play on words here between "old" and "young",
which is probably better rendered "new". "Young" is not the only opposite of
"old". So it is just as reasonable to take this as Paul contrasting the
experienced with the inexperienced.
He tells us that the people of Crete are of low character and bad reputation,
and surely this included women not having a clue about proper relationships
and childrearing. By what Paul says in vs. 4 we can surmise that they
needed some remedial Home Ec classes, and it would only be appropriate for
the leading Christian women to teach them these things; that was one thing
Titus couldn't do. Paul needs there to be role models for the people of Crete,
and that means women as well as men. He also gives the purpose for this:
so that no one will malign the word of God. He is setting the bar for
behavior, and telling Titus how to choose the needed mentors.
We can further support the interpretation of this being about the appointed
elders instead of just older people by examining the Greek words used.
(Please try not to laugh as I read these Greek words, and note that I'm
using modern Greek pronunciation, not what is taught in seminaries.) The
word Paul used for "appoint" in ch. 1 is from the root word
"kath-is-eee-mee", and the word translated as behavior or demeanor in ch.
2 vs. 3 is "kata-stee-ma". When used with the word "hee-op-prep-eece" as
in this case, the whole phrase should read, "female elders are to live in a
way that is appropriate for their holy appointment". Again, age cannot be
appointed, so Paul is talking about female elders, not simply older women.
One last point from this letter, which can also be made from other writings
of Paul: since he gives instructions for slaves, doesn't that mean he is
supporting slavery? Of course not. Yet somehow this is forgotten when the
topic is women. I have a post on my blog, called "sound familiar", which
details this issue. The arguments used in American history to claim the Bible
condones and approves of it, are identical to those used to claim the Bible
teaches the subordination of women. An old saying about sauce for the
goose being sauce for the gander comes to mind here.
Now let's wrap this up with a survey of the many women Paul mentions in
his letters. We already briefly mentioned Phoebe from Rom. 16. She is both
a deacon or servant and one who provides and protects. But note the scope
of her service, provision, and protection: the church in the city of Cenchreae,
a large city on a busy trade route. Were this a man I have no doubt that he
would be clearly identified as a pastor or at least a deacon, per the
traditional business model.
Further, Paul says that the people of Rome, to whom she was the honored
courier of his letter, were to treat her with proper honor and respect. And
the reason for this was her provision and protection for others, even Paul
himself! This was no secretary or nanny, but a co-worker and champion of
the faith.
Speaking of co-workers as opposed to assistants or underlings, Paul writes
in vs. 3 about another woman named Priscilla, and right after her is a man
named Aquila. That these are a married couple is confirmed by their mention
in Acts 18, where they both teach Apollos the full gospel in their home. That
Priscilla is almost always mentioned first is a clear indication of her being the
more spiritually qualified and prominent. Some translations have actually
changed the order, which is an admission of the significance of this fact. Can
you spell "agenda"?
And note that Paul says the church meets in their house. I can guarantee
you that if the man had been more prominent, he would be quickly labeled
as a pastor leading a church, since all churches met in homes for the first
century of Christianity. Then Paul mentions several other women; in fact,
about half the people he lists here are women.
But by far the most contested woman on the list is Junia. Volumes have
been written about her-- or is it him? And that's the essence of the debate,
along with whether she/he was an apostle, and if so, whether he/she had
authority. But once again I can guarantee you that if she had really been a
man, no questions would be asked about whether he was an apostle with
authority. The ONLY reason there is any debate over this is because some
men have decided that God cannot and will not ever call a woman an
authoritative apostle.
Let me take that last point first. Why is it that some people feel the need to
split apostles into those with authority and those without? This fact alone
tells me quite a lot about their motivation. They do not understand that
Jesus came to turn the world's order of hierarchy on its head. They should
remember his warning that the first will be last in the coming kingdom. If
they were truly humble servants of God, they would not try to keep others
from taking what scripture calls the lowest position of a slave. How can
they call a woman pastor motivated by a desire for authority when it's the
lowest position of all?
Now an apostle is someone commissioned for a purpose. The important
thing is not the apostle but the commissioner; that is where any perceived
authority comes from. If God sends someone, they speak with his authority.
This is the group the original apostles were in, and why they alone could
issue commands. But if a church or person sends someone, they only speak
for fallible humans, and thus are not qualified to speak for God. Yet they are
apostles nonetheless. In this sense, I believe our modern word "missionary"
is equivalent. And that's the only possible way to differentiate between the
original apostles and all others.
So the reason Paul had authority is because he was commissioned directly
by God, as were the inner group of 12 that Jesus chose. But not all that
Jesus commissioned were named, so there were likely many others with the
same authority. These are the foundation of the entire church.
So with that understanding we can say that the matter of authority is not
drawn on the basis of the biology of the apostle or missionary, but only on
the sender. Therefore, any dispute over whether Junia was an authoritative
apostle is based upon a warped foundation. If she was commissioned by God
then she had authority to speak for him, and we simply don't know either
way.
The United Bible Society is supposed to be the faithful guardian of the
original language texts. They are to have the highest academic standards
and demand the most rigorous evidence to support any claim. They are
trusted with examining any archaeological discoveries that have bearing on
the text of the Bible.
Yet they have been caught altering the Greek text to suit them, such as with
the 50-year gender-bender they did on poor Junia. They tried to turn her
into a man, simply because she is called an apostle. They broke their own
rules and made the change without documentation. Then, when they could
no longer hide it, they changed it back--- but again without documentation.
This is unconscionable, even for secular organizations. And it makes me
wonder what else they've been up to.
But the fact that they tried to turn Junia into a man proves that they believe
she is both an apostle and an authoritative one. So the fallback theory is
that she was only well-known to the apostles instead of counted among
them. Yet this is even more easily dismissed than the attempt to make her a
man, because the Greek grammar is very clear that she was in the group.
In vs. 18 Paul warns against those who cause divisions, that we should keep
away from them. Think of the context: what would make Paul write that
here, after his long list of both men and women working for Christ?
I think it's clear that trying to divide the body of Christ either between men
and women or between clergy and laity is the biggest division of all. Other
divisions happen because people disagree, but these two are actually taught
expressly by many. They insist that the Body be divided! Like the pigs in
Orwell's novel Animal Farm, they think that everybody's equal but some are
more equal than others. They take the very scriptures that speak of equality
and grace, to be the very justification for denying both.
Every believer is responsible for studying scripture, but those who lead are,
as we learned, to be held to a stricter standard because others are trusting
them. If you are a leader or teacher of scripture, make sure you're willing to
accept both sides of "double honor". Don't rely on canned arguments and
divisive dogmas; research and question everything, and never stop.
Finally, I'll address the common charge that an egalitarian view of scripture
is a case of "bowing to culture". Haven't I spent ALL my time in scripture in
developing a case for my view? How many times did I appeal to what the
world thinks? The only culture I mentioned at all was the one the NT was
written in, and I explained why that is necessary. And as for the charge that
equality is a slippery slope to acceptance of homosexuality, one only needs
to take a quick look at how common it was in all of history, but even more
so in patriarchal societies. This is still the case in many coutries today,
especially in the most oppressive ones.
The scriptures teach that all of us who are in Christ are one body. If we just
get that one fact straight, all the rest will follow. Be the body.